USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > New Haven > Families of ancient New Haven, Vol. III > Part 40
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 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44
William Ruscoe was the jail-keeper in Hartford, and Nathaniel Rus- coe, who took the ehild, was his son. When Nathaniel died in 1673, he left a horse and a pig to Benjamin Newton, his apprentieed servant. This, together with the fact that Nathaniel had with the boy ten pounds out of Newton's estate, indicates that the child born in prison was a bastard, and that the reputed father of the child was named Newton.
Thomas Newton of Fairfield, a man hitherto of good standing, was charged with a eapital erime in 1650, but with the help of friends escaped from prison and took refuge on Long Island. Savage (Gen. Dict. Il1, 278) suggests that witchcraft was the charge against him, and also (ib. II. 556) that Elizabeth Johnson was eonfined for insanity. Witchcraft was not the only capital offense in Connecticut under the statute of 1642; adultery was another (Conn. Col. Rec. I. 77), and Newton was a married man.
Those historians who have asked us to shed tears for the poor eon- victed witeh who had a child born while awaiting execution, are obvious- ly in error. The erime for which Mrs. Elizabeth Johnson served a sen- tence was not witchcraft. It need only be added that she was not ex- ecuted, for when her son John Johnson died in 1659, the Fairfield Probate Records state that he left surviving, two brothers under age (Moses and Ebenezer), and a mother; and in 1661 Elizabeth was still living, the wife of John Fossecar.
II. GOODWIFE BASSETT.
Connecticut Colonial Records, volume 1, page 220: Court held 15 May 1651 :
The Governor, Mr. Cullick and Mr. Clarke are desired to go down to Stratford to keep Court upon the trial of Goody Bassett for her life, and if the Governor cannot go, then Mr Wells is to go in his room.
New Haven Colonial Records, volume 2, pages 81 and 85 :*
. Goodwife Basset, when she was condemned, said there was another witch in Fairfield that held her head full high, and then the said Good wife Knapp stepped a little aside and told her (this deponent) Good- wife Bassett meant not her; she asked her whom she meant, and she nam- ed Goodwife Staples .. . . . .
Elizabeth bid her do as the witch at the other town did, that is, dis- cover all she knew to be witehes.
*The following extracts are from the Staples suit (1653), the records of which we hope to give in a subsequent issue.
954
CONNECTICUT WITCHES
Rev. John Hale's "A Modest Inquiry," published 1 702, Chapter 1, Section 8:
I have also heard of a Girl at New Haven or Stratford, that confessed her guilt.
Comment:
The records of this early case are meagre. The Magistrates who were appointed to conduct the trial at Stratford were Gov. John Haynes, Capt. John Cullick, and Mr. Henry Clarke. The references to the witch in the New Haven Staples trial two years later prove that Mrs. Bassett confessed, and that she was condemned. Hale's brief sentence undoubtedly refers to her, for there is no record of any witch at New Haven ever confessing, and she is the only Stratford witch of whom we have any account. Confession was of rare occurrence among Connecticut witches, and this helps to make the identification more certain.
No reasonable doubt of her execution can exist. In "Historical Sketches," prepared by Major W. B. Hinks and Rev. B. L. Swan and printed in 1871 (quoted in Orcutt's "History of Stratford," I. 147), we find the following tradition preserved:
"The place of her execution is pointed by tradition to this day, and would seem to be determined by the names "Gallows Brook" and "Gal- lows Swamp" in the first volume of Stratford town records. The former was a small stream, long since dried up or diverted into another channel, emptying into the swamp, a portion of which yet remains, a little south of the present railroad depot. A rude bridge, stoned up at the sides, crossed this brook, just where the Old Mill and the railway intersect ...... At that bridge, uniform tradition states the execution of the witch by hanging to have taken place. Near by where the street from the village turns off to- ward the depot, was, until quite recently, a small quartz boulder, with hornblende streaks like finger marks upon it, which was connected with the fate of Goody Bassett, by an ancient and superstitious tradition. The story was, that on her way to the place of execution, while struggling against the officers of the law, the witch grasped this stone and left these finger marks upon it. The stone, with its legend, came down to our day, but a few years since an unromantic individual used it in building a cellar wall, not far from the place where it had been lying."
The identity of this witch is not positively known. Some have sup- posed that she was the wife of John Bassett of New Haven; but in Novem- ber 1653 we read "that before Margery Basset, the widow of the said John, went from New Haven to Stamford, she testified upon oath that this is a full inventory of her huaband's estate." John died in 1653, his widow Margery survived and soon moved to Stamford, and she was of Stamford when her own will, dated in June 1653, was proved in May 1656 .* Obvi- ously, she was not the witch who was executed in 1651. Their only son, Robert Bassett, was of New Haven in 1649, but appears on Stanford rec- ords as early as 1651, and was a prominent citizen of Stamford in 1653 and 1654. It is therefore inost unlikely that Robert's wife was the witch, for both New Haven and Stamford were then under New Haven jurisdiction,
*New Haven Col. Rec. Il. 159; New Haven Town Rec. 1. 190.
955
CONNECTICUT WITCHES
whereas Stratford, where the witchi certainly lived, belonged to Connecti- cut, and it was the latter Colony which tried the case. Robert afterwards removed to Hempstead, L. I., bat his son, Robert, Jr., later came to Strat- ford and was the ancestor of the Bassetts of that place; a circumstance, donbtless, which misled some investigators to identify the witch with the mother or grandmother of the younger Robert.
Hale's reference to the witch as a girl might lead to the inference that she was an unmarried woman, were it not for the contemporary and official records which designate her "Goodwife." This makes it certain that she was married. Hale wrote long after the event, but some mention of her youth may have reached him to justify his description of her as a girl. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we may assume that she was a young married woman.
Thomas Bassett came over on the ship Christian in 1635, aged 37; is said to have been a soldier in the Pequot War, 1637; was a citizen of Wind- sor as early as April, 1640, when he was made a freeman of Connecticut; received a homelot of 212 acres in Fairfield in August 1653; and was of Fairfield in 1659, when he was freed from training .* His inventory was pre- sented in Fairfield, 14 Jan. 1669/70; and he left a widow and children. It is quite possible that he lived in Stratford for a short time before receiving the homelot in the adjacent town of Fairfield in 1653. The witch may have been his wife; she could scarcely have been a daughter-in-law unless he had a wife and children before coming to this country, and of that there is no evidence. It is usually supposed that a younger Thomas, of Milford, was his son. There is no reason to doubt it, but in that case the wife of the older Thomas must have been considerably his junior in years; and the younger Thomas, who did not marry until about 1686, as well as the other children, were probably by a second wife.
Dr. Thomas Pell of Fairfield, in his will dated 21 Sept. 1669, forgave four "poor men" their debts to him. One of these was Thomas Basset, and another was Roger Knapp, and Knapp's wife is known to have been hanged as a witch. Perhaps the good doctor's compassion was especially directed to men who had lost their wives in this way.i
Unless the witch belonged to the family of Thomas, no suggestion as to her identity can be offered. It is the writer's belief that he married, af- ter settling in Windsor, a woman considerably younger than himself. Af- ter leaving Windsor, the family may have lived in Fairfield and Stratford without a settled home until the grant of 1653. The statement of Mrs. Pell in the Staples trial, that Goodwife Bassett said "there was another witch in Fairfield," implies that the Bassetts already had Fairfield affiliations, al- though then living in Stratford.
This witch confessed, and was probably of weak mentality.
*Orcutt's "History of Stratford," II. 1122, 1123; Conn. Col. Rec., I. 46, 336; Schenck's "History of Fairfield," 1. 68.
+Dr. Pell was more charitable than his wife and stepdaughters, judging by their affidavits in the Staples case. Pell, like Bassett, was a Pequot War veteran.
956
CONNECTICUT WITCHES
III. WINIFRED BENHAM, MOTHER AND DAUGHTER
New Haven County Court Records, volume I, page 202; Court held in Noo. 1692:
Winfred Benham of Wallingford being summoned to appear at this Court for Examination upon suspicion of witchcraft, was now present, and the witnesses were called to testify what they had to say in the case, and accordingly gave in their testimonies in writing which were read in the hearing of the said Winfred. And she being called to say what she had to say for herself, her general answer was, that she knew nothing of the mat- ters testified, and was not concerned therein. She also gave in some testi- monies for herself which were read.
The Court having heard and considered all the evidence against the said Winfred Benham and not finding sufficient grounds of conviction for further prosecution (at present) of the said Winfred, do therefore at this time dismiss the business, yet advising the said Winfred Benham solemnly to reflect upon the ease, and grounds of suspicion given in and alleged against her, and told her if further grounds of suspicion of witchcraft, or fuller evidences should appear against her by reason of mischief done to the bodies or estate of any by any preternatural acts proved against her she might justly fear and expect to be brought to her trial for it.
New Haven County Court Records, volume I, page 213; Court held in June 1693:
Winfred Benham of Wallingford, her husband Joseph Benham being bound in a bond of 20 pounds for her appearance at this Court for further examination about Witcheraft, he was now called and appeared, and the Court adjourned the case to their next session, and then upon notice given them the parties to appear, and the said bond to continue for said appear- ance, which said Benham consented to.
New Haven County Court Records, volume I, page 252:
A Special County Court by Order of the Governor held at New Haven the 31st of August 1697. Present: Robert Treat, Esq., Governor: William Jones, Esq., Deputy Governor; Major Moses Mansfield, Assistant.
Complaint being made to the Authority by Ebenezer Clark, Joseph Royce, and John Moss, Jr., all of Wallingford, against Winfred Benham, Sr., and Winfred Benham, Jr., her daughter, that Sarah Clark daughter of said Ebenezer Clark, Elizabeth Lathrop, and John Moss, son of the said John Moss, Jr., were frequently and sorely afflicted in their bodies by the said Benhams, mother and daughter, or their apparitions, and as they strongly suspect by their means or procurement by the Devil in their shapes, and therefore desire the Authority as God's Ordinance for their re- lief strictly to examine the said suspected persons in order to a due trial of them, that a stop may be put to their suffering and prevention of such mis- chiefs among them for the future.
The Court having seriously considered the accusations and informa- tions on good testimony given in against Winfred Benham, Sr., and Win- fred Benham, Jr., upon suspicion of them for witchcraft, they, or the devil
957
CONNECTICUT WITCHES
in their shapes, afflicting sundry young persons above named, as formerly accused and suspected in the year 1692; and finding clear and sufficient grounds of suspicion against them after strict examination of the said per- sons apart and severally, see just cause to bind over the said Benhams mother and daughter to appear at the next Court of Assistants in Octo- ber next at Hartford in order to their further examination and trial per- sonally. And the husband of said Winfred Senior gave 40 pounds recog- nizance for their appearance accordingly, or that they be secured in pris- on for their said trial. And said Benham to pay the charge of this Court. Court charges, 21 shillings. Execution granted for said 21 shillings.
Memorandum. The death of said [blank] young child to be inquired into, with what appeared of spots on said child and the like spots on said Benham quickly vanishing.
Robert Calef's "More Wonders," published 1700:
In August 1697. The Superior Court at Hartford, in the Colony of Connecticut, where one Mistress Benom was tried for Witchcraft, she had been accused by some Children that pretended to the Spectral sight; they searched her several times for Tets; they tried the Experiment of cast- ing her into the Water, and after this she was Excommunicated by the minister of Wallinsford. Upon her Tryal nothing material appearing against her, save Spectre Evidence, she was acquitted, as also her Daught- er, a Girl of Twelve or Thirteen Years old, who had been likewise Accus- ed; but upon renewed Complaints against them, they both fled into New- York Government.
Comment:
The youthful accusers belonged to respectable families of Wallingford. Jolın Moss (in his 15th year) was son of John and Martha (Lathrop) Moss, grandson of John Moss, for many years a deputy to the General Court and Commissioner for Wallingford, and of Samuel Lathrop, Judge of the New London Court, and great-grandson of Rev. John Lathrop. Eliza- beth Lathrop (aged 19) was first cousin of John Moss, being daughter of John and Ruth (Royce) Lathrop; her father was dead and her cousin Jo- seph Royce may have joined in the complaint'on her behalf. Sarah Clark was aged 16. She had a brother born in 1694 who did not survive, but the date of his death is not recorded. The child who had spots and died was more probably a son of Joseph Royce, who died in December 1695 aged a few months.
The accused was Winifred King of Boston who married Joseph Ben- ham of New Haven in 1657. They were among the first settlers in Wal- lingford in 1670. She was probably about 57 or 58 years old at the time of the 1697 accusation. Her daughter Winifred, the youngest of her 14 chil- dren, was then aged but 13.
Calef's assertion that continued suspicions drove mother and daught- er to seek refuge in New York State is doubtless true. Two of the Ben- ham children, Joseph and James, remained in Wallingford, where the
958
CONNECTICUT WITCHES
younger Joseph died in 1702. The elder Joseph appears to have died the following year, but the probate entries are meagre* and it is not certain whether his wife Winifred survived him. There is some reason to believe that the elder Joseph and his wife died on Staten Island. The Walling- ford realty was divided by agreements made between the heirs in 1727 and 1728 (Wallingford Deeds, V. 453, 454). These show that the son John Benham was then resident in Kings County, N. Y., and that the three Benham daughters, Anna, Sarah, and Winifred, with their respective hus- bands, Lambert Johnson, Jacob Johnson, and Evert Van Namen, were then living in Richmond, N. Y. The records of the Dutch church on Stat- en Island contain mention of their families, and show that Lambert and Anna (Benham) Johnson had a daughter Winifred baptized in 1696. This was a year before the witchcraft accusation, and since the elder Winifred then had a married daughter living on Staten Island, it was probably to this daughter's home that she fled; and some of the younger children ei- ther accompanied or followed her thither.
Calef's account of the case seems to be trustworthy so far as it can be verified, and we need not hesitate to accept his statement that Mrs. Ben- ham was searched for witch marks, probably at the New Haven trial. His assertion that the water test was applied is perhaps questionable. Mr. Jones, one of the examining Magistrates, is known to have held the water test in slight esteem. However, it may have been applied at Mrs. Benham's own request. Accused witches were no less superstitious than their accusers, and feeling confident of their own innocence, sometimes volunteered to undergo the water test, in the belief that it would prove them innocent.
Nothing is known against the character of Mrs. Benham, and the family was of good repute, save for the suspicions of witchcraft. Two at least of her daughters named a child fortheirmother, which tendsto show that they were fond of her. It is pleasing to learn that the young daught- er, Winifred Junior, after passing through such terrifying experiences, was married to Evert Van Namen and reared a family in Richmond, N. Y.
*The probate records perhaps all relate to the estate of the younger Joseph.
At Ye Editor's Desk
At the end of Volume III, I explained the need of a moderate endow- ment for the magazine. In response, contributions toan Endowment Fund were received from the following subscribers: Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Andrei- ni, Miss Lucy Peck Bush, Mrs. John C. Kerr, Mrs. William Maluge, Mr. E. V. D. Selden, and Mr. Henry H. Townshend. I wish to express my gratitude to those who have contributed to this undertaking. The amounts received have been deposited to the credit of the Magazine in a special ac- count and will remain untouched until it attains an amount sufficient to carry a part of the annual deficit and to provide an index. The total is still far too small, and unless large contributions are received within the the next few months I shall be forced to abandon this publication to which I am contributing more time than I can afford and which I have carried on for four years at my personal risk and loss. If this decision is reached, I shall return the amounts which the above-named subscribers so kindly fur- nished; the present volume will be completed, and I shall issue a fifth vol- ume devoted to those families whose records are now in shape for publica- tion. The Magazine will thien pass out of existence. I hope this decision need not be made, but under present conditions it is impossible for me to continue bearing the burden alone.
The need of an index is not immediate, as it can wait until the family records have all appeared. One subscriber wrote that an index was un- necessary, because the families appear in alphabetical sequence. There is some truth in this, but so many marriages bring in the names of individu- als who did not belong to New Haven families that a cross index at least would prove very useful.
If the Magazine survives until the Pardee family is reached, this fam- ily will have to be omitted, because I was employed as compiler and editor of the Pardee Genealogy which has just been issued, and as I was paid for this work it would not be ethical for me to publish the same data in the magazine.
My preoccupation with the Pardee Genealogy and other research on which I have been employed, and the lack of funds for clerical assistance, have made it impossible for me to prepare the family records rapidly enough for the printer. In order not to delay the completion of the pres- ent volume unreasonably, the next issue (the fourth and last of the vol- umne) will consist of "List of Officials Military and Civil who served from 1636 to 1665 in the Colonies of Connecticut and New Haven." This list, which took weeks of the closest application to compile, will be usefultogen- ealogists, historians, and to all who are interested in their Connecticut an- cestors. The list is alphabetical in arrangement. There is nothing like it in print and it should satisfy a long-felt want. By publishing this work, the manuscript of which was prepared some time ago, as the next issue of the Magazine, I shall gain the time to prepare more family statistics for the printer, and they will be resumed in Volume V.
THE EDITOR
960
AT YE EDITOR'S DESK
POSTSCRIPT. The printer says that while I am writing to Santa Claus I might as well include a request for a linotype machine for him. Few of our subscribers realize that to the present date all issues of the Magazine have been set in type by the old hand method. More artistic, perhaps, but-more laborious!
1:
LIST OF OFFICIALS MILITARY AND CIVIL
Who served from March 1636 to December 1665 in the
COLONIES OF CONNECTICUT AND NEW HAVEN
Compiled by DONALD L. JACOBUS
1
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1927
THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE & TAYLOR COMPANY, NEW HAVEN, CONN.
INTRODUCTION.
All persons holding office, civil or military, by colonial authority, in Connecticut and New Haven Colonies prior to January 1, 1666, are alphabetically listed in the following pages. Non-commissioned military officers are also included, where reference to them has been found, although generally their rank was not conferred by colonial authority.
The index to the first volume of Connecticut Colonial Records does not cover the lists of Assistants and Deputies, and the index to the second volume refers only to the page where the name of each such official first occurs. The index to the New Haven Colonial Records, though it covers the lists of officials, has been proved a trifle defective. The present compilation should therefore be of use both to the historian and to those who wish to ascertain the services performed by their ancestors.
Considerable confusion has been caused by unfamiliarity with official titles as employed in colonial days, and by the fact that some titles were employed in more than a single sense. To avoid this confusion, the following terms have been adopted for use in this work:
Legislature is used for what was first called the General Court, and later the General Assembly.
Assistant designates a member of the Upper House of the General Court (Legislature). The term Magistrate was usual during this period, but the title Assistant came early into use and was employed until 1818, when the title Senator was sub- stituted for it.
Deputy designates a member of the Lower House of the General Court (Legislature). In Connecticut, the towns origin- ally sent "Committees" to sit with the "Magistrates," but the term "Deputy" was early substituted.
Judge designates a person appointed by colonial authority to try minor cases. In Connecticut at this period they were called Commissioners, and sometimes Magistrates or Assistants. In New Haven they were usually called Deputies, but occasion- ally Magistrates or Constables. Since the County Courts were not established until 1666 (following the union of the two
964
List of Officials 1636-1665
Colonies ), all Judges mentioned in this work were of plantation (town) courts, except in a very few cases where they were given wider jurisdiction. Their duties were somewhat similar to those which later devolved upon Justices of the Peace.
By adopting this terminology, the ambiguity of the titles Magistrate and Deputy is avoided, and the clarity resulting from the use of standardized terms should compensate for the anachronisms involved.
Several persons who were early admitted as members of New Haven Court have been viewed erroneously as Deputies. They were merely made freemen of New Haven Court (the planta- tion), and were not Deputies to the Jurisdiction (Colony ) Court. Hence they are omitted in the present work.
During this period there was great carelessness in recording the commissions of military officers, and the early Secretaries of Connecticut Colony were worse offenders in this respect than those of New Haven. The date of commission is stated herein when known; otherwise, the date when the title was first applied to a man in the colonial records. Since it was the General Court of the Colony which confirmed the choice of officers of com- missioned rank, the use of the title in the colonial records should be considered positive proof of the legality of the commission, even though record of the appointment was not made.
In both Colonies, as soon as a regular system was adopted, Assistants served for a full year. Deputies were elected as a rule for each session, there being one in the Spring and one in the Autumn. Yet some towns in some instances elected their Deputies to serve for the entire year, and instances have been found where Deputies were elected to serve only at a special session. There was also a custom of electing a third man as an alternate to serve in case of the disability of either of the regular Deputies, and since special or adjourned sessions were frequent during the period covered by this compilation, cases may be found of three men actually representing the same town within the same half-year. In listing the services of Deputies herein, the dates of the two regular sessions are given, and those of interim sessions are omitted except for names which did not appear at the regular sessions. These names are those of alter- nates or of men elected for the special session. It should also
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.