USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 7
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
We interpret the above action as to the powers of towns- men, as showing that the town had been recently organized. Still there had been two townsmen before those last named. On August 16, 1639, John Talcott, of the North-side, and Samuel Wakeman, of the South-side, discharged their accounts, each for the period "when he was townesman." 5 As their terms had then expired, they must have served during the year ending in December 1638. The natural inference is that they had been in office the full term of one year, and nothing appears to the contrary. If such was the fact, they were elected in December, 1637. To that year, it is believed, the above-named orders, recorded without caption, belonged, and, if so, they are doubtless a fragment- ary record of Hartford's first election of townsmen.
1 Ibid., I: 39-41. 2 Ibid., I: 4, 30.
3 Ibid., I: 7.
4 Ibid., I: 2, 3. 5 Ibid., I: 4.
-
57
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
It was not until the autumn of 1637, after the Indians had been conquered, that the colonists felt secure of the future. Then they found themselves burdened with a war debt. In November, the General Court voted wages to the soldiers for their service. Each plantation had its share of this burden. Soon afterwards, it was apportioned. A colonial treasurer was chosen, and collectors were named in each settlement. In all its dealings with the Colony, Hartford had been treated as one plantation. Nor could this dual settlement have acted as it did, without some concerted action among its inhabitants. We conjecture, therefore, that, as they had such common interests, and were in fact one people, they chose townsmen in December 1637, to express this unity, adjust their taxes on an equitable basis, and, perhaps, also to further such town organization as they had already determined. Unlike any of the other original settlements, Hartford could have such organization without abandoning the plantation estate, which was most advan- tageous for their unfinished distributions of land. That there was early indifference among some to this action, may be indicated by the town's vote, January 7, 1639-40, requir- ing every inhabitant to attend the "general meeting," and remain through its session under penalty of six pence. The only responsibility these early townsmen actually assumed, as disclosed in the records, was a financial one for their respective plantations. Such officers were very different in authority from those afterwards elected by vote of the General Court to order the affairs of the town.
We come thus to consider what may be characterized as the most sensational disclosure of these town votes. The inhabitants of Hartford, having chosen townsmen for their own purposes without authority from the General Court, took further action, which can be best stated by placing the original entries of their town votes and the colonial records relating to it in chronological order. "September 1639:
"It is ordered that Jo steele shall be Regester of euery mans lands in this towne."
Hartford Town Votes, I. 5, 7.
58
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
"Octobr the 10th, 1639:
"The Townes aforesayd shall each of them prvide a Ledger Booke, with an Index or alphabett vnto the same: Also shall choose one who shall be a Towne Clerke or Regis- ter, who shall before the Generall Court in Aprill next, record every man's house and land already graunted and measured out to him, with the bounds & quantity of the same. ." Connecticut Colonial Records, I: 37.
"The 16th off Novembr 1639:
"Itis ordrd that John Steele shalbe Register or Towne Clarke to record all [lands] in the Register booke according to [the order of the] genrall Court [ ] is [ ] ... "
Hartford Town Votes, I: 4. "Aprell XI. 1640:
"Mr. Steele is returned Recorder for the Towne of Hart- ford, and hath brought into the Courte 114 coppyes of the severall prcells of land belonging to & conserneing 114 přsons."
Connecticut Colonial Records, I: 48.
These entries in the records, taken in connection with other facts, seem to the author to speak for themselves. The election of a town clerk was, perhaps, the proper step in the progress of Hartford's affairs, but, in September 1639, their premature town organization had no legal stand- ing with the General Court of the Colony. In adopting the Constitution, the inhabitants had made over to the Com- monwealth all their rights. The General Court must first authorize them "to choose their owne officers" and provide for the election of such a clerk, which it did October 10, 1639. Then, and then only, did the town have legal stand- ing and could proceed to such an election. Therefore, on November 16, 1639, John Steele was reelected town clerk, according to the order of the General Court. On April 11, 1640, that election was returned to that body with those of Windsor and Wethersfield. The town of Hartford, like a forward pupil, hastened to make its bow to the good dame, who is supposed to preside over Connecticut's councils.
59
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
It was "too previous," and was sent back to reenter her royal presence as one of the three original towns.
The order of the General Court, October 10th, as to town organization, was merely an authorization of such action. It conferred the necessary power. No particulars of local government were prescribed. The only officer each town was ordered to choose was a town clerk. It was assumed that they would appoint men "to order the affayres of the Towne," and some of their duties as to the estates of dece- dents were specified, but the details of such an election were left to local judgment, in view of the conditions. The General Court did, indeed, give power to each town to choose three, five or seven of its chief inhabitants and con- stitute them a town court for the trial of minor offences. This, however, was optional. There is no evidence that Hartford ever had such a court. This was clearly a plan to provide communities that were inconveniently remote, with the authority of a court. Hartford had no such necessity. There were no reasons why a plantation could not proceed under this act to choose three, five or seven men to order the affairs of the town and, at the same time, constitute them a town court. It is evident, therefore, that Hartford was in a position, when the General Court acted, to proceed at once with town organization. The claim is made that it is the oldest organized town in Connecticut.
When did the other river plantations of Connecticut organ- ize as towns? There are few original records to assist us in answering this important question, but there are more than has been generally supposed. Having now some ac- quaintance with plantation government, we can better understand familiar records. All the settlements were plantations, but the conditions in Windsor and Wethersfield were altogether different from those in Hartford. No dual plantation life urged town government upon either of them. They had been settled by different companies of inhabit- ants. As owners of the land, each had full liberty to con- duct its local affairs according to the prevailing opinions of the voters.
In early records, we do not find any other terms used con- cerning Windsor than such as were applicable to a planta-
60
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
tion. On May 15, 1637, the agreement as to the purchase of the Plymouth Company's lands names as the grantees the "inhabitants of Windsor."1 They were the owners, and the subsequent division was made among them. The committee appointed to settle the differences between Mathew Allyn and Windsor, concerning the reserved por- tion of these lands, in its report dated January 4, 1638-9, ten days only before the adoption of the Constitution, de- clared that Mr. Allyn should be subject to the orders of the "Plantation of Wyndsor." That report was signed by John Haynes, Roger Ludlow, Edward Hopkins and William Phelps.2 Windsor's principal divisions of land had not long been completed when the General Court ordered the election of a Town Clerk or Register. The choice of Bray Rosseter was returned to the Court April 11, 1640. He began apparently to record those lands in the town's book October 10th, perhaps making use of earlier plantation records. On January 27, 1640-41, his first return was made to the Secretary of the Colony. The formula used in both instances was that a grant was made "fro the Plantation." 3 Some later grants are recorded in the town's book as "from the towne."
There is not the slightest documentary evidence that Windsor had chosen townsmen, or effected any town organi- zation before the authorization of the General Court. It had no good reason for such action. In the General Court, it was represented by committees of the inhabitants, like the other plantations. There are grounds to suspect that this was altogether satisfactory to Windsor people. Their sentiments were strongly democratic, probably because of the influence of Roger Ludlow and other leaders among them. They could not interrupt their plantation divisions of land by town organization, without the prior formation of a body of proprietors. This they were in no haste to do, or Roger Ludlow would have been expeditious in ripening certain court orders upon which such action depended. He was a member of the committee appointed for this
1 Windsor Land Records, I: 227; Stiles's Hist. of Windsor, I: 34, 35, 41.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 53, 54.
8 See Windsor Land Records, Vol. I., and Col. Land Records, Vol. I, 1640-1653.
61
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
service, and naturally depended on by the others to perform it.
That Windsor's town organization was based upon the General Court's action in 1639, is proved by its own records. A single leaf of its original town votes is extant in the collec- tions of the Connecticut Historical Society. On its two pages, twelve votes are recorded in the handwriting of Bray Rosseter, elected town clerk between October 10, 1639 and April 11, 1640. The votes are numbered from 28 to 39. The date of the first is unknown, as it belonged to an earlier meeting. Ten votes were passed at four meetings, held October 4, 1641, November 5, 1641, February 21, 1641-2 and April 4, 1642. There is a single vote of another meeting, held June 3, 1642. It is evident that twenty-eight votes were recorded before October 4, 1641. Assuming that this book was begun when the plantation changed. to town estate, more votes were probably passed at its first meeting than the later average. By any reasonable estimate, it does not seem that the first meeting could have been held before the winter of 1639-40. The dates indicate that the inhabitants intended to have bi-monthly meetings as pro- vided in the Court's action. The last vote, dated June 3, 1642, is as follows:
"Mr Hill, Mr Gaylard, Tho: Fford, Bray Rofseter, Tho: Thorneton, Henry Woolcott & John Moore ar chofen to agitate the affayres of the towne [?] to the order and power giuen by the Court, for the yeare enfuing. Mr Hill is chofen Moderator."
It is evident that Windsor, in organizing its town govern- ment, proceeded under the Court's act empowering it "by a generall consent" to constitute a town court, choosing the same body to order the affairs of the town. It thus had "seven men," a moderator and bi-monthly meetings. Since these are so named in the earlier votes, there had been at least one earlier election. The obsolete word "agi- tate" meant that these men were to "act as agents for" the town. In the preceding votes they had considered such matters as were usually performed by townsmen. The sequel is found in Windsor's town votes, ten years later. They were then choosing seven men named "townsmen"
62
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
"to order the afayers of the town," but this body was at the same time holding court for the trial of minor cases. In- deed, three of the seven men were the same persons, and, in place of Bray Rosseter, was Mathew Grant their town clerk.1 Such a form of local government was well suited to the conditions, Windsor being an inconvenient distance from the courts held at Hartford. The same General Court that gave authority for it appointed a committee to urge the planters at Pequannock, whither Roger Ludlow had gone, to adopt a similar government.2 We may infer that he was the father of this expedient.
We have fewer records to assist us in fathoming the mystery of early organization in Wethersfield. An interpre- tation of those we have, justifies an opinion. Three of the four river settlements were first established as plantations. There is no reason to believe that Wethersfield was an excep- tion. The same terms were applied to its early estate throughout the records. Their town clerk, Mathew Mitchell, dated his first return of lands to the Colony February 24, 1640-41. It was of lands "belonging to ye Inhabitants" of Wethersfield. About the same time, he began his entries in the town's land records. This action had certainly been preceded by a period of turmoil in Wethersfield, extending back for more than a year. It had concerned the respec- tive rights of certain parties in the land. In the autumn of 1639, Mathew Mitchell came under the Court's displeasure, for words spoken to or concerning Clement Chaplin, the ruling elder of the church.3 A difference also arose "about the measure of some ground" between some of the inhab- itants and Rev. Henry Smith, their pastor, whose fault is later said to have been his "acting in the ciuell occations of the Towne." 4 Two Hartford magistrates were sent thither to adjust the matter. During this period, Mathew Mitchell had been chosen town clerk. He was returned as such April 11, 1640, on the same day as Bray Rosseter of Windsor and John Steele of Hartford. Being under the Court's censure, he was "found vncapable of the place." Nor
1 Windsor's Book of Town Acts, I: 4-11.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 36; II: 108; Orcutt's Hist. of Stratford, I: 79-81.
3 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 40, 48, 51, 52, 55.
4 Ibid., I: 44, 45, 86, 87, 90, 97, 98.
63
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN
was he accepted until July 2nd, after he had made his ac- knowledgment to Mr. Chaplin. On that day, John Evans was fined "for his contempte agt the Townsmen." 1 A month earlier, Richard Gildersleve had been before the Court "for casteing out prnitious speeches, tending to the detri- ment & dishonor" of the Commonwealth.2 It is evident that there had been intense feeling. One party seems to have represented the Church, and another the Town. We are not surprised, therefore, at the disclosures of a record dated April 10, 1640.3 Then the Court had before it, for interpretation, a certain agreement, between "The Thirty- four Men," the Town and the Church in Wethersfield. There are indications that it had been recently made. The Thirty-four Men were the proprietors. The Church was probably a party to it, because of certain tracts that had been given to be used as glebe land for its maintenance. The Town was concerned for its future interests. Subse- quently, grants were made both by the Church and the Town. The proprietors also conducted their own divisions of new tracts.
There seems to the author to be only one explanation of these conditions. The inhabitants of Wethersfield's planta- tion, soon after the General Court authorized town organiza- tion, formed their body of proprietors, as Hartford did, to determine who were the rightful owners of the undivided lands. These Thirty-four Men then made an agreement with the Church, for the adjustment of certain prior rights, and with the Town, that more recent inhabitants might have a share in the lands. In effecting this agreement, dissensions arose that were not easily settled. Indeed, some of the town's best families removed elsewhere. The town's earliest choice seems to have been of five men to order its affairs. It subsequently varied the number. These early townsmen may have exercised their right to sit as a town court; but Wethersfield was nearer Hartford and appears to have been in sympathy with its ideas of court procedure. We know enough of the early discord in its church to justify the inference that it made more difficult the transition from plantation to town estate.
1 Ibid., I: 55. 2 Ibid., I: 51. 3 Ibid., I: 63.
CHAPTER V CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT
THE avenue through which one should approach the adop- tion of the Constitution of 1639, under which Connecticut government was established, is that which was followed by the founders of the Colony. It is marked by merestones all the way. Of their own free will, they travelled it, seek- ing to realize an ideal, the fundamental principle of which they had definitely conceived, but which they had not wrought into form in some of its features. Historians have usually assumed that the democracy of this government was without any logical antecedents, and due solely to the inspiration of Thomas Hooker's sermon on constitutional government, preached on May 31, 1638. This belief sug- gests the query whether that eminent divine had only then arrived at such opinions. It is here claimed that he and some of his associates had adopted the fundamental princi- ple of democracy before their emigration, that the Colonial Records reveal its practice in Connecticut from the begin- ning, and that his famous sermon commemorates the ex- pected realization of their hopes in the adoption of a written constitution. Connecticut government was a natural de- velopment among a free people. It inherited no little vigor from the Mother Colony. Massachusetts people had them- selves deprecated some of those features in which it was a new departure. The emigration movement to Connecti- cut was due, far more than has been recognized, to the legitimate causes of colonization. An inviting gateway was opened westward, and the current of emigration flowed through it. This being the case, however, a new oppor- tunity was offered to establish a government in which the dissent of some could find relief without division. Inde- pendent opinions here found a field. Such as shared them naturally removed thither. Thus the democratic principles
65
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT
that were strong in the leaders were furnished with a con- genial environment. The truth, which we can hardly say they went into the wilderness to establish, increased in popularity. At last they gave their ideal being.
The manner in which the agreement between the emigrants to Connecticut and the agents of the Warwick patentees came about has been already discussed. To state the fact boldly - as a consideration for the former's settlement under the patent, the latter made over to them the govern- ment. This agreement was embodied in the so-called "Commission for a Provisional Government" - a docu- ment often neglected by historians, but very important in tracing the course of Connecticut government. It is as follows:
"A Comission graunted to seuall Prsons to governe the People att Conecticott for the Space of a Yeare nowe nexte comeing, an Exemplificacon whereof ensueth:
"Whereas, vpon some reason & grounds, there are to remove from this or comonwealth & body of the Mattachu- setts in America dyv[ s] of or loveing ffriends, neighb's ffreemen & members of Newe Towne, Dorchestr, Waterton, & other places, whoe are resolved to transplant themselues & their estates vnto the Ryver of Conecticott, there to reside & inhabite, & to that end dyvrs are there already, & dyvrs others shortly to goe, wee, in this present Court assembled, on the behalfe of or said membrs, & John Win- throp, Jun", Esq, Goun', appoyncted by certaine noble personages & men of quallitie interesed in the said ryvr, wch are yet in England, on their behalfe, have had a serious consideracon there[on], & thinke it meete that where there are a people to sitt down & cohabite, there will followe, vpon occacon, some cause of difference, as also dyvers mis- deameanrs, wch will require a speedy redresse; & in regard of the distance of place, this state and goumt cannot take notice of the same as to apply timely remedy, or to dispence equall iustice to them & their affaires, as may be desired; & in regard the said noble psonages and men of quallitie have something ingaged themselues & their estates in the planting of the said ryver, & by vertue of a pattent, doe require jurisdiccon of the said place & people, & neither the
66
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
mindes of the said psonages (they being writ vnto) are as yet knowen, nor any manner of goumt is yet agreed on, & there being a necessitie, as aforesaid, that some present goûmt may be observed, wee therefore thinke mee[te], & soe order, that Roger Ludlowe, Esq, Willm Pinchon, Esq, John Steele, Willm Swaine, Henry Smyth, Willm Phe[lpes], Willm Westwood, & Andrewe Ward, or the greater pte of them, shall have full power & aucthoritie to hear & determine in a iudiciall way, by witnesses vpon oathe examine, wt[hin] the said plantacon, all those differ- ences wch may arise betweene ptie & ptie, as also, vpon misdemean", to inflicte corporall punishmt or imprisonmt, to ffine & levy the same if occacon soe require, to make & decree such orders, for the present, that may be for the peaceable & quiett ordering the affaires of the said planta- con, both in tradeing, planting, building, lotts, millitarie dissipline, defensiue warr, (if neede soe require,) as shall best conduce to the publique good of the same, & that the said Roger Ludlowe, Willm Pinchon, John Steele, Willm Swaine, Henry Smyth, Willm Phelpes, Willm Westwood, Andrewe Warner, or the greatr pte of them, shall haue power, vnder the greatr pte of their ha[nds], att a day or dayes by them appoyncted, vpon convenient not[ice], to convent the said inhabitants of the said townes to any convenient place that they shall thinke meete, in a legall & open manner, by way of Court, to pceede in execute[ing] the power & aucthoritie aforesaide, & in case of psent necessitie, two of them ioyneing togeather, to inflict corpall punishmt vpon any offender if they see good & warrantable ground soe to doe; provided, alwayes, that this comission shall not extende any longer time then one whole yeare from the date thereof, & in the meane time it shalbe lawful for this Court to recall the said psents if they see cause, and if soe be there may be a mutuall and setled goûmt condis- cended vnto by & with the good likeing & consent of the saide noble psonages, or their agent, the inhabitants, & this comonwealthe; provided, also, that this may not be any preiudice to the interst of those noble psonages in the sd ryver & confines thereof within their seuall lymitts."
This document was recorded at the conclusion of the
67
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT
proceedings of the Massachusetts General Court that met at Newtown, March 3, 1635-6.1 John Haynes was then the Governor. William Pynchon was an Assistant. Mathew Allyn, William Spencer and John Talcott were present as deputies from Newtown. This document is, obviously, not fully described as a "Commission of Massachusetts." It was such only in so far as the legal authority of its General Court was used to constitute a Court of Magistrates for the river plantations. In doing so, it acted in behalf of the emigrants. The grantor, if such he may be termed, was John Winthrop, Jun., "Governor," the regent appointed by the Warwick patentees. By his own commission, he held the right of jurisdiction in Connecticut. He thus made over the government to the men named, for the period of one year, subject to the approval of his superiors, who had been consulted by correspondence. No government was imposed upon the emigrants by Massachusetts; nor did it claim any such jurisdiction for itself. "The Com- ission of Go'mt Mencioned tacken from the Masachusets was taken Salua Jury of the enterest of the Gentlemen whoe had the patent of conectacut, that Comission takeinge rise from the desier of the people whoe Remoued whoe judged it in Conveniencie to goe away, wthout any frame of Gourmt; not from any Clayme of the Masachusets Juridictio or them by vertew of patent." 2 Of this Commission, Dr. J. Ham- mond Trumbull has truly said: "It was, in fact, an agree- ment, ratified in the presence of the Massachusetts General Court, between the founders of Connecticut and the repre- sentatives of the Earl of Warwick's grantees." 3 The government provided in this Commission was the creation of the parties who were to assume it. It took its rise from their desires. They would naturally nominate the eight magistrates. There were two from each plantation. Pyn- chon and Smyth were of Springfield; Ludlow and Phelps of Windsor; Steele and Westwood of Hartford, and Swaine and Ward of Wethersfield. The unit of representation, however, was not the plantation, but the inhabitant. No
1 Mass. Col. Rec., I: 170, 171.
2 Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 131; Mass. Col. Rec., I: 320, 321.
3 Historical Notes on the Constitution of Connecticut, 1901 edn. p. 7 ..
68
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
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.