USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 6
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 PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER
course of the road northward, nearly half a mile, to Namerick Brook is then given as follows:
"And then goeth up by the River to the uper side of that which was Elias Parkmans Land, and there turns a way from the River, turning toward the upland and runs up as has been marked and set out to where the way was ordered to go down the bank and pafs over the brook, and so to pass a way through the uplands and over other brooks, and on till it is paft the bounds of Windfor, and this was to be maintained for a Country way." 1
Having this description of the old road, one can hardly miss it where it goes down the bank to cross the south fork of Namerick Brook. Here it has been preserved from the ravages of time. The road followed the river northward for some distance. Then it turned "toward the upland," in plain view, and traversed an elevated field, Here the owner once ploughed up evidences of an old building. We follow the course to the brow of the wooded ravine. There it goes "down the bank," from west to east, as no way from the meadow would have been made. It is evidently an old cart road. It passes a copious spring, flowing from a shaded nook in the hillside. We may fitly call it the "Pilgrims' Spring," after those who doubtless drank of its waters. Here would have been an ideal camping place. The road crosses the brook at a convenient place for a bridge. Then it climbs again to the upland, which it traverses, and goes down the slope to cross the north fork of the brook. Turning northward, then it passes, on a knoll, the site of John Osborn's early home. Thence it led along the upland hillside toward the northern bound of Windsor, cropping out here and there, two rods wide as in the record, and plainly visible where it goes through a wood- land tract adjoining the river. This is without question the ancient country road that was used in 1662, and the records indicate that it was laid out where the older path had been to Agawam and the Bay. The crossing of Nam-
1 Richard Oldage was the original owner of the lot next north of Parkman's. It passed to his son-in-law, John Osborn, who acquired more land along and north of Namerick Brook. From his grandson, Isaac Osborn, in 1727, John Prior bought the land now owned by Mr. F. A. Hamilton and known as "Namerick Farm," Station 83.
46
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
erick Brook could not be avoided. There it was necessary to turn eastward to escape the low land at the brook's mouth, often flooded now as then. The topography in connection with the description, therefore, does not admit of any wide range of possibility as to the location of the Bay Path which the pilgrims trod, where it goes "down the bank" to cross Namerick Brook.
At Windsor, Thomas Hooker's company were among friends. Crossing the river at the ferry as they could, they straggled along the way southward, then a mere path with scarcely a wheel track. The adventures of the wilderness had altered their appearance into that of hardy pioneers, and, after the delay of greetings, or perhaps a woodsman's feast and a bivouac within a new palisado, they pursued their journey, across the rivulet, along "the head of Pli- mouth meadow," past the trading house, which Captain Holmes had brought thither in his bark, under the threaten- ing guns of the Dutchmen, onward into the North Meadow of Suckiaug, and through it, to find themselves at last, though pilgrims from Newtown, at home in another New- town, on the banks of the Great River.
-
CHAPTER IV ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
THE early organization of the three towns, Hartford, Wind- sor and Wethersfield, is a matter of importance, both in their own annals and in the study of constitutional govern- ment. It is well-known that much has been claimed for the Connecticut town as the unit of the state's political system. That its colonial government, as originally estab- lished under a constitution, was the creation of three towns, already organized as "little republics," has been a tradi- tion, which historians have blindly followed and in which they have educated the towns themselves. The author, who is interested solely in discovering the truth in the town and colonial records, has been forced to adopt an entirely different opinion. The subject is obviously one to be studied - on the one hand, in the records of the towns, and, on the other, in those of the Colony. There will be perfect accord between the facts disclosed in each. Leaving the study of the latter to another chapter, our present inquiries take us back to an examination of the manner in which these early communities were established, organized and governed. The conclusions reached would better be here stated for the reader. They are: that these pioneer Connecticut settle- ments were at first established as plantations; that they were governed by the votes of those who had propriety rights in them, called "inhabitants"; that we have a particular acquaintance with one of them, through the extant records of Agawam; that, in Hartford, there were North-side and South-side plantations; that the early orders of the former were transcribed, in 1639, into the book of town votes; that, in December 1637, their inhabitants chose townsmen to further unity in their own affairs; that Hartford thus anticipated the others in town organization; that such action did not give it participation, as a town, in the adop-
48
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
tion of the Constitution; that the three original plantations were authorized by the General Court, October 10, 1639, to form their town governments, which authority conferred upon them legal standing as such in the Colony; and that there is no evidence in the records of Windsor or Wethers- field that either of them were any other than plantations, until such legal organization was effected.
At the outset, let us give due weight to the fact that the conditions under which these plantations were established were not such as to hasten town organization. They had removed, as elsewhere shown, under an agreement that effectually disposed of the question of government for one year. They were left thereafter to mature their own designs at their leisure. Their principal need for some time was an equitable method of making divisions of land. That was the right of the legal inhabitants in each planta- tion, afterwards formed into bodies of proprietors. It did not demand town organization. If we take account of the conditions and labors of pioneer life, with the extraordinary strain of the Pequot War, it seems quite likely that all their attention was engaged in a struggle for existence.
These settlements were in the beginning, it is claimed, only plantations. They were called "The River Planta- tions." The word "town" was occasionally applied to them, as in the Commission for a provisional government; but it referred to them as inhabited geographical areas. Such a designation did not necessarily imply the existence of town government. In common usage, the term "planta- tion" was applied to an original settlement in a new coun- try, where certain individuals, called "inhabitants," had secured land rights. There was an important distinction between such a settlement and an organized town, es- pecially in the matter of government. Its affairs were ordered in a meeting of these legal inhabitants. They met, elected a moderator, passed votes, and appointed com- mittees to carry them out. When a plantation arrived at such a stage of organization that its inhabitants elected certain of their number to conduct its affairs, and secured legal standing in the colonial government, it became a town. This was afterwards the method of procedure in Connecticut
49
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
settlements. In the records, both of the towns and the Colony, the term "plantation" is generally used before the date of perfected organization. Although it was sometimes used thereafter, through habit of speech, it came gradually to be displaced by the word "town." In the Constitution, the latter term had a proleptic use, as towns were to be the factors in their colonial government. If, therefore, the land records show grants of land by the plantation, and later similar grants by the town, the explanation lies upon the face of the record - the settlement had passed from one estate into the other. The General Court so far recog- nized this distinction in 1640, as to suggest the manner in which plantations might be made through the admission of inhabitants, and to provide that when a plantation had come to "be at chardge to mayntayne Officers wthin theselues then other considerations may be had by the Courte." 1 Thus some of their later settlements passed from the estate of a plantation into that of a town.
The inhabitants of these plantations were termed such in a legal sense. This word then had in all the New Eng- land colonies the meaning given to it in English law. An inhabitant was not merely a resident, but a householder, actual or prospective, who had secured a right in the settle- ment's affairs, either by participation in an original founders' agreement, or by the votes of other inhabitants. To such persons in Newtown, Dorchester and Watertown, the Massachusetts General Court had given permission to re- move.2 As emigrants, they were so named in the Com- mission for a provisional government.3 Throughout the period of their plantation estate, these inhabitants were the constituent units of their political life. No one should in- fer, however, that this right of an inhabitant was something that they jealously reserved to themselves. On the con- trary, they were anxious for its extension, provided the new-comers were men of the proper sort. The inhabitant was the germ of colonization, and all the plantations were desirous of building up their communities. They restricted it only so far as their common welfare demanded. There
1 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 59.
2 Mass. Col. Rec., I: 119, 146, 148. 3 Ibid., I: 170.
50
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
were legal inhabitants, who did not remove to Connecticut, and others, who soon removed thence, elsewhere. Against the retention of this right beyond a reasonable time, the plantations protected themselves by limiting the period for removal or building upon the lots reserved for non- residents. The inhabitants were, therefore, those in whom the people found the expression of their opinions and pur- poses. There was no term current in early colonial times that had a more democratic meaning. Proprietorship was exclusive in property rights, and freemanship in the exercise of the franchise. The standing of an inhabitant was the attainable privilege of every sober-minded and industrious emigrant from over seas, who entered the river plantations. In the author's opinion, it was partly the attachment of these inhabitants to their simple democratic estate that hindered the earlier development of the colonial govern- ment.
We have in print fairly complete records of such a planta- tion - those of Agawam or Springfield. It is singular that this fact has been so generally overlooked by students of Connecticut government. During the first two years of colonial history, Agawam was one of the river plantations. It was then supposed to be within the limits of Connecticut. The other three plantations and the General Court recog- nized it as an equal factor in their government. In the Court that is supposed to have been largely engaged in discussing the Fundamental Orders, Agawam was repre- sented by committees, chosen at a meeting of its plantation inhabitants. The presumption certainly is that the other plantations had ordered their affairs in the same manner. If it shall appcar, moreover, that what is known of early practices in Hartford, and its associated plantations, was in accord with the same in Springfield, we may fairly con- clude that we have, in the latter, an illustration of the proceedings in the three towns whose earliest records are lost.
The plantation records of Springfield begin with May 14, 1636, a month before the arrival of Hooker's company.1 It was then that William Pynchon's company first met. 1 Burt's Hist. of Springfield, I: 153 ff.
51
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
Apparently, their initial act was to make a plantation agreement. It was expressed in thirteen articles, to which two others were added on May 16th. The agreement was then signed by the eight men, who were "al[l] of the first adventurers & subscribers for the plantation." These articles specify the particulars upon which they then agreed, such as procuring a minister, giving to every inhabitant a house-lot and a parcel of pasture and meadow, assessing rates on the lands according to each man's proportion, and rewarding with special grants those who had hitherto prosecuted the plantation. A committee was appointed, May 16th, to grant house-lots as ordered. Their unit of authority for years thereafter was the inhabitant. The franchise clause of their votes is expressed in varied language, such as: "It is ordered wth ye consent of ye Plantation," "by ye consent of the inhabitants," "by ye Plantation at a general meeting," "by ye Joynt consent of ye Inhabitants of ye Plantation," "with the generall consent and vote of the Inhabitants" etc. These expressions meant the same thing - that the inhabitants constituted the body politic of their plantation estate. This body, by vote, granted and distributed lands, passed orders, laid out highways, made rates and fixed wages like a company of property owners. When they bought land from the Indians, they paid for it by a rate assessed upon their land. They had no statedly elected officers. Their authority for the ap- pointment of a constable was apparently derived from the Massachusetts General Court. After they withdrew from participation in Connecticut's government, they seem to have been left entirely to the resources of their plantation meetings, until June 2, 1641. Then, William Pynchon was commissioned magistrate by the Massachusetts General Court, with "full power & authority to governe the inhab- itants at Springfield." With the assistance of this Court, they continued until September 26, 1644. Then, "by general vote of ye Towne," they laid aside their simple democratic methods and elected, for one year, five men of their number, who were given "power to order in all pru- dential affairs of the Towne." These men were first called "the five men." That was precisely the action taken by
52
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
the adjoining Connecticut plantation several years earlier, only Windsor chose "seven men." As the inhabitants were sometimes termed "townsmen," those elected in Springfield soon came to be called the "Five Townsmen," and later simply "townsmen," "select townsmen," or "selectmen." 1 It is fully proved by the records, therefore, that one of the original river plantations, constituted of inhabitants, governed themselves according to the simplest principles of democracy, until the way was open for their organization as a town.
We have seen that the emigrants from Newtown removed to Hartford in several companies. The pioneers of 1635 settled north of the Little River, the land south of it not being then open to them. This became the North-side Plantation. The majority of the settlers who came in 1636, settled south of the river and became the South-side Plantation. Our land records prove that each plantation distributed its lands to its own inhabitants. When.returns of these were made to the Secretary of the Colony, as ordered by the General Court, it was in two lists. One was of North-side inhabitants, and the other of those on "the South fide of the riverrett." 2 Each settler, with a few exceptions, received his proportions on the side of his resi- dence. These plantations held separate meetings. They kept independent records. The town votes mention the North-side book and, by implication, one was also kept by the other. They were, in fact, two settlements, each conducted like Springfield.
To one who is not familiar with the topographical condi- tions, this dual estate may seem to have been unnecessary, or to suggest a disagreement among the settlers. It was not so. There is not the slightest indication of any jealousy or dissension in early years between these two companies of inhabitants. It was a plan into which they came quite naturally, and for which there were good reasons. The uncertainty as to their issue with the Dutch may have influenced them. If they failed to make good their title to the South-side lands, they would still have those of the North-side. Probably, also, they contemplated from the
1 Ibid., I: 8, 23, 175, 187, etc.
2 Original Distribution, pp. xiv-xvi.
53
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
first a final union in town government. Their principal reason, doubtless, was the convenience of a near location of their lands. This was favoured by the topographical con- ditions. The Little River, as a dividing line, offered the same water privileges to both. Along the Great River, northward and southward, were extensive meadows. The land across the river eastward, and the uplands westward, presented equal prospects. The same was true of the tracts at the north and south ends of their main highway. Such being the conditions, a dual system of divisions would give to each inhabitant his proportion of meadow, pasture and woodland nearer the location of his house-lot. A general division might have resulted in each having widely scattered possessions. A farmer living at the north end, might have received his allotment of hay and pasture land a mile or more distant from his barns. This would have hindered develop- ment. Many sales or exchanges would have been neces- sary. Delay and confusion would have ensued.
The extent to which this dual government was carried may be inferred from its persistence after the organization of the town. Each plantation continued to pass orders concerning its own welfare. They held separate meetings, on occasion, at the same time and place as the town meeting. Their acts are sometimes recorded with the town's votes.1 From the beginning of town organization, these plantations were equally represented among the townsmen and other officers, though at first they were not so designated.2 Each had its constable, highway surveyor, hayward, fence viewer and herder. On each side, there was a pound. Soon this custom was so recognized that officers were named as repre- sentatives of one or the other.3 After 1650, the townsmen are usually so designated in the records until 1687, and sometimes later, when the East-side obtained a place among them.4 Nor was this dual representation a mere matter of comity between the plantations. It was carried into the management of the town's business and government. The townsmen exercised a certain special jurisdiction or responsi-
1 "Hartford Town Votes" (Vol. VI, Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll.), I: 34, 61, 74, 111.
2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 4, 8, 41, 58, 64, 79, etc.
3 Ibid., I: 95, 97, etc. 4 Ibid., I: 285.
54
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
bility over the affairs of the "Side" they represented. The town fixed the rate of taxation, but each side collected its own proportion, and kept separate accounts.1 Indeed, it is believed that it was largely this necessity they were under, of doing business with the Colony as one settled community, that led them to an early election of townsmen.
Did the North-side Plantation adopt some form of agree- ment, like the founders of Agawam? The presumption is that they did, and that the conditions of their distributions were a part of it. Probably we have evidence of such an agreement in the record of town votes. It begins with three numbered paragraphs, followed by the statement: "Vppon these Three Condycons all [the] Land that is given in the Towne is given vppon." The heading is "Hartforde 1635." As the town was not so named until February 21, 1636-7, this was written at a later date. The handwriting is that of William Spencer, who did not remove from Newtown until 1638, and died in 1640. The conditions themselves would not have been so worded in 1635, referring to land as return- ing "vnto the hands of the Towne agayne," when it was the property of the inhabitants. In the author's opinion, the explanation is, that late in 1639, they had occasion to enforce the condition allowing title to land only after four years' residence.2 This made it desirable that the original action should be incorporated in the town's records. Wil- liam Spencer, therefore, made this summary from the North- side book and entered it under the true date, "1635." If this was the fact, the lost book of the pioneers' plantation probably contained their original agreement, of which these conditions were a part.
Let us pursue further a critical examination of Hartford's book of town votes. William Spencer had been the efficient and experienced town clerk in Newtown, Massachusetts. Most of the early entries in this book are in his well-known handwriting.3 He was one of the committee appointed by
1 Ibid., I: 70, 92, 101, 112, 113, 116-118, etc.
2 Ibid., I: 13.
3 On the following pages of the printed volume, the added bracketed numbers indicate the pages of the original volume which are in the handwriting of William Spencer: pp. 1 [11], 2 [12], 8 [13], 10 [115], 11 [14], 13 [3], 14 [4], 16 [5], 17 [6], 19[2], 20 [1], 21 [A], 23 [B], 25 [7], 27 [8], 28 [9], 30 [10], 32 [47, Ist half], 36 [50 Agreement
55
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
the General Court to review the laws and orders of the Colony, in 1639. This would naturally suggest a similar service for the town. On December 26th, at an adjourned session of their first legal town meeting, Edward Hopkins, Thomas Welles, John Steele and John Talcott were chosen to assist the townsmen and "to Inquier wt ordrs stand in forse wch are of generall Concernmt wch are not recorded." 1 This was a further reason why William Spencer should transcribe the above-named conditions. He also added all important orders then in force, found in the North-side Plantation book. Following the conditions, are four orders without caption or date. The internal evidence, however, indicates that they belong to the year 1637.2 One provides for a guard during public worship. This was a proper precaution after the Pequot War. Another, orders each inhabitant to have a ladder, to reach the roof of his house, doubtless in case of fire. A third, forbids the taking of stones at the falls, near the home of Thomas Lord. These two orders were timely in 1637, when the settlers were extensively engaged in house building. In that year, also, Thomas Scott, owner of an adjoining adventurer lot, might well have been appointed to keep in repair the bridge across Gully Brook, leading to Allyn's mill. Following these orders, he recorded, under January 1, 1638-9, the articles conferring and limiting the powers of townsmen, and several orders of November 16, 1639. These entries fill pages 11 and 12 of the original volume. On the next page, he began, in proper form, the record of their town meeting, December 23, 1639. This is not the extent of our indebtedness to William Spencer. He continued as townsman to keep the records during the following months, when the inhabi- tants were forming the body of proprietors as hereafter related. His valuable service was then ended by his death.
Our only method of determining the date of the organiza- tion of the town of Hartford, is by a study of these town votes. Let us trace their annual elections backward, from
of April 15, 1640]. Cf. photographed page in Records of the Town and Selectmen of Cambridge, p. 9, and Hartford Town Votes, Vol. I, frontispiece.
1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 10.
2 Ibid., I: 1, 2.
56
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
the "Genrall Meeting of the whole Towne the 23th Decem- ber 1639." At that time William Westwood and William Spencer, inhabitants of the North-side, and Nathaniel Ward and John Moody, inhabitants of the South-side, were elected townsmen. It was also voted: "That the sd Towns- men should haue the same power that those had the year before." There were, then, townsmen the previous year, probably, with powers recently defined. The above town officers served until January 21 [11?] 1640-41.1 On that date, the next meeting was held, and January became the stated month for several years.
The predecessors of these townsmen, we may assume, were elected in December, 1638, and served one year. Gregory Wolterton of the South-side, was one of them, for, under date August 16, 1639, there is an account of money paid to him as "townsman," and he was reckoned with as "last Townsman," March 6, 1639-40.2 William Wads- worth of the North-side, was another. He had been "towns- man," and rendered his account as such "desr this 10th 1640," within the year customarily allowed.3 We have no hint of any others. Perhaps there were only these two, but the last two articles, of January 1, 1638-9, giving them "the power of the whole to order the Comon occations of the Towne," seem to indicate that there were others.4
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.