USA > Connecticut > New London County > New London > History of New London, Connecticut, From the First Survey of the Coast in 1612 to 1852 > Part 15
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 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64
Mrs. Lake, as well as the Winthrops, was also connected with the two families of Epes and Symonds, of Ipswich, but the degree of relationship between these several families has not been positively ascertained.
The farm at Lake's Pond and other lands of Mrs. Lake in New London were inherited by her daughter Gallop. The signature to several documents of hers, recorded in New London, consists of her initials only, in printed form, M L., which are attested as her mark. She died in Ipswich in 1672,1 leaving two children-Hannah, wife of John Gallop, of New London, and Martha, wife of Thomas Harris, of Ipswich.
1 Felt's History of Ipswich, p. 160.
3
155
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Obadiah Bruen. During the sixteen years in which Mr. Bruen dwelt in the young plantation, he was perhaps more intimately iden- tified with its public concerns than any other man. He was chosen a townsman for fifteen years in succession, and except the first year, uniformly first townsman and moderator. He was usually on all committees for granting lands, building meeting-houses and accom- modating differences. He was clerk or recorder of the town all the time he was an inhabitant; and in 1661, on the first organization of the County Court, he was chosen clerk of that body. In the char- ter of Connecticut granted by Charles II., his name appears as one of the patentees of the colony, and the only one from the town, which is proof that he was then considered its most prominent inhab- itant. He appears to have been a persevering, plodding, able and discreet man, who accomplished a large amount of business, was help- ful to every body, and left every thing which he undertook, the bet- ter for his management.
Mr. Bruen was entered a freeman of Plymouth colony, March 2d, 1640-41, being then a resident at Green Harbor, (Marshfield.) In May, 1642, he was of Gloucester, and the first town-clerk of that place who has left any records. Before 1650, he was chosen seven times deputy to the General Court.1 The births of two children are entered at Gloucester in his own hand :
" Hannah, daughter of Obadiah Bruen by Sarae, his wife, was born 9th day of January, 1643.
" John, son of do. 2. June 1646."
Only two other children, Mary and Rebecca, both probably older than these, have been traced.
Mr. Bruen's emigration from Cape Ann to Pequot Harbor, and his usefulness here, have been noticed in the preceding pages. He bade farewell to New London in 1667, having joined a company of planters from several towns on the Sound, who had formed an asso- ciation to purchase and settle a township on the Passaic River in New Jersey. The settlement had been commenced by a portion of the company the year before. The deed of purchase from the In- dians is dated July 11th, 1667, and signed by Obadiah Bruen, Michael Tompkins, Samuel Ketchell, John Browne, and Robert Denison, in behalf of their associates, amounting to about forty persons.2 An ad- ditional party of twenty-three joined them the same year, and all uni-
1 Babson, of Gloucester, (MS.)
2 Whitehead's East Jersey under the Proprietors.
1
156
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
ted in forming one township, which received the name of Newark, in compliment, it is said, to their pastor, the Rev. Abraham Pierson, who had preached at Newark in Nottinghamshire, England.
Of the sixty-three persons whose names are given as the first set- tlers of Newark, two certainly were from New London, Obadiah Bruen and Hugh Roberts, the son-in-law of Hugh Caulkins. Mr. Roberts was living at Newark in 1670, but our records furnish no later reference to him.1 Two others on the list of settlers, though not from New London, were intimately connected with Mr. Bruen, and doubtless main links in the chain which drew him away from New London. These were John Baldwin, Sen., and John Baldwin, Jun., of Milford, father and son, who married sisters, the daughters of Mr. Bruen : the elder Baldwin married the elder sister, Mary, in 1653; and the younger Baldwin, son by a former wife, and born in 1640, married the younger sister, Hannah Bruen, in 1663. Mr. Bruen's other daughter married Thomas Post, of Norwich.
Mr. Bruen does not appear on the records of Newark, as an office holder. The period of his death is uncertain, and his grave unknown. The latest information respecting him is derived from a letter written by him in 1680, to his son-in-law, Thomas Post of Norwich, which is recorded at New London as voucher to a sale of land, which it au- thorized. In that letter he refers to himself and wife, his son John and daughter Hannah, with their respective partners, as all in health. " It hath pleased God," he observes, "hitherto to continue our lives and liberties, though it hath pleased him to embitter our comforts by taking to himself our Reverend pastor, Mr. Pierson, Aug. 9th, 1679." He proceeds to state that the loss had been in some measure sup- plied. They had called and ordained Mr. Abraham Pierson, the son of their former pastor, " who follows the steps of his ancient father in godliness, praise to our God."
Peter Blatchford. Mr. Blatchford had been for eighteen years an inhabitant of New London, and always a servant of the town, as drummer, tax-gatherer, committee man, constable, list and rate maker, or town's attorney. In 1668, John Elderkin transferred to him a contract that he had made to build a grist-mill at Thirty-mile Island, in Connecticut River. To this settlement, which, in October of that year, the General Court made a plantation by the name of
1 Samuel, son of Hugh Roberts, was afterward of Norwich.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 157
Haddam, he removed. His homestead in New London, he aliena- ted, June 15th, 1668, to Charles Hill, for £2 in hand, and £90 to be paid the fall ensuing. This proviso is added :
" If P. B. is not able to despatch his affairs so as to carry away his family, he is to have the liberty of the house and barn till the spring of '69."1
It is probable that he effected his removal before the next spring, as in May, 1669, he was chosen deputy to the General Court from Haddam, and again in May, 1670. He died in 1671, aged forty-six. His wife was Hannah, daughter of Isaac Willey, and their children, Peter, Hannah and Joanna. No dates of marriage or of births have been found. The relict married Samuel Spencer, of Haddam, whoso former wife was the widow of Thomas Hungerford, of New London.
Daniel Lane. Mr. Lane removed from New London in 1662 : he had been ten years an inhabitant, having married in 1652, Catha- rine, relict of Thomas Doxey. In 1666, he was one of the patentees to whom Governor Nicholls confirmed the grant of the town of Brookhaven, Long Island. Of his family there is no account in New London. The Doxey or Lane homestead was sold to Christopher Christophers, 1665.2
Robert Allyn, before coming to New London, had resided at least twelve years in Salem: he was there in 1637, a member of the church in 1642, and had three children baptized there, John, Sarah and Mary. After the settlement of Norwich, he had a house-lot in that plantation, was constable in 1669, and in deeds is styled "for- merly of New London, but now of New Norridge." After a time, relinquishing his house-lot to his son John, he returned to his farm, and at the time of his death was once more an inhabitant of New London. He died in 1683, being probably about seventy-five years of age. He was freed from training in 1668, an immunity not usually granted to men under sixty. The heirs to his estate were five chil- dren, viz., John ; Sarah, wife of George Geer ; Mary, wife of Thomas
.
1 Blatchford's house-lot, afterward the Hill lot, and still later the Erving lot, fronted on State Street, and extended from the present Union to Huntington Street, including the site of the First Soc. Cong. Church.
2 The house stood on the site of the old Wheat house, in Main street, taken down in 1851, and was perhaps a part of the same house.
14
158
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Parke ; Hannah, wife of Thomas Rose; and Deborah, then unmar- ried.
John, the only son of Robert Allyn, married, Dec. 24th, 1668, Elizabeth, daughter of John Gager. After the death of his father, he left Norwich and returned to the paternal farm, where he built a house and warehouse near the river, at a place since known as Allyn's Point.
Hugh Caulkins' was one of the party that came with Mr. Blin- man, in 1640, from Monmouthshire, on the borders of Wales. He brought with him wife Ann and several children, and settled with others of the party, first at Marshfield, and then at Gloucester. At the latter place he was one of the selectmen from 1643 to 1648 in clusive, a commissioner for the trial of small causes in 1645, and deputy to the General Court in 1650 and 1651.2
In an account extant at Gloucester, reference is made to the time " when Hugh Caulkin went with the cattle to Pequot." This was doubtless in 1651, and it seems to intimate that in his removal he took the land route through the wilderness, and had charge of the stock belonging to the emigrant company. He dwelt at New Lon- don about ten years, and during that period was twelve times chosen deputy to the General Court, the elections being semi-annual. He was one of the townsmen from 1652 to 1661 inclusive. In 1660 he united with a company of proprietors associated to settle Norwich, and a church being organized at Saybrook previous to the removal, he was chosen one of its deacons. In 1663 and 1664, he was deputy to the court from Norwich. He died in 1690, aged ninety years. He is supposed to be the progenitor of most, if not of all, who bear the name in the United States.
He left two sons, John and David ; ages unknown. John was one of the proprietors of Norwich; David, the youngest, remained at New London, and inherited his father's farm, at Nahantick, which is now owned by his descendants in a right line of the sixth generation.
John Elderkin was a mill-wright, ship-wright, and house-carpen- ter, and the general contractor for the building of mills, bridges and
1 This name on the early records is most frequently written Calkin, but sometimes Caulkin : the s is never used. The latter mode of spelling the name is preferable, as indicating better the pronunciation.
2 Babson, of Gloucester, MS.
159
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
meeting-houses, in New London, Norwich and the settlements in their vicinity, for a period of thirty-five years. He had been enga- ged in the same line in Massachusetts, before he came to Pequot ; and can be traced as a resident in various places, pursuing these oc- cupations. In a deposition of 1672, he states his age to be fifty-six, and that he came to New London the same year that Mr. Blinman's company came. This was early in 1651, when the town mill was built. Mr. Winthrop had solicited his services two years before, and had engaged Roger Williams to mediate in his favor, from which it may be inferred that Elderkin was then at Providence.1 He built not only the first meeting-house in New London, but the second, which was erected in Mr. Bradstreet's time.
Mr. Elderkin was apparently a married man when he came to New London : he was at least a householder, and this supposes a family. But of this wife or of children by her there is no account on record. He married, after 1657, Widow Elizabeth Gaylord, of Windsor, and by her had several children. She had also two children by her first husband. Mr. Elderkin died at Norwich, June 23d, 1687; Eliza- beth, his relict, June 8th, 1716, aged ninety-five.2
John Gager. At the time of Mr. Gager's death in 1703, he had been more than forty years an inhabitant of Norwich. His oldest son, John, born September, 1647, died in 1690, without issue. He was then of New London, as an occupant of the farm given by the town to his father. This farm lay on the river, south of Allyn's land, and was sold in 1696, to Ralph Stoddard, and has ever since been Stoddard land. John Gager, senior, left one son, Samuel, and six daughters, the wives of John Allyn, Daniel Brewster, Jeremiah Rip- ley, Simon Huntington, Joshua Abell, and Caleb Forbes.
Samuel Lothrop. Though Mr. Lothrop removed to Norwich about the year 1668, his farm "at Namucksuck, on the west side of the Great River," remained in the family until 1735, when his grandson, Nathaniel, having cleared the land of other claims, sold out to Joseph Powers,3 (260 acres, with house and barn, for £2,300, old tenor.)
1 Mass. Hist. Coll., 3d series, vol. 10, p. 280.
2 In Hist. of Norwich, p. 117, the age and death of Elderkin's wife are given as his age and date of death. The error appears to have been caused by the omission of a line in printing.
3 Now Browning farm.
160
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
The two oldest children of Samuel Lothrop intermarried with the family of Robert Royce. John Lothrop (born December, 1646) married Ruth Royce; Isaac Royce married Elizabeth Lothrop, (born March, 1648,) December 15th, 1669 ; the double ceremony being performed by Daniel Wetherell, commissioner. Both couple re- moved to Wallingford, Conn. Samuel Lothrop died at Norwich, February 19th, 1700.
" Mrs. Abigail Lathrop died at Norwich, Jan. 23d, 1735, in her 104th year. Her father, John Done, and his wife, came to Plymouth, in 1630, and there she was born the next year. She lived single till sixty years old, and then mar- ried Mr. John Lathrop, of Norwich, [mistake for Samuel] who lived ten years and then died. Mr. Lathrop's descendants at her decease were 365."1
2 New England Weekly Journal: Boston, 1735.
D
CHAPTER XII.
Commissions and reports on the northern and western boundary .- Claims of Uncas long contested .- Indian deed of New London, 1669 .- Prolonged con- test with Lyme .- Contention at Black Point .- Bride Brook boundary .- Sold- ier grant .- Black Point Indians .- Traditions of a combat and a race .- Digression in regard to Lyme, Lady Fenwick's tomb and the graves of the fathers.
THE court grant of territory to Pequot, in May, 1650, fixed the extent on the north, at eight miles from the sea. This northern line, on the east side of the river, was determined by a town committee, in 1652. They began at a point on the Sound, four miles east of the river, and struck a line eight miles north, which ended at the head of the great pond a mile and a half north of Lantern Hill,1 leaving the pond wholly within the bounds : from thence a west line crossed the head of Poquetannuck Cove, and came upon Mohegan River, opposite Fort Hill, at Trading Cove, a quarter of a mile above Brewster's trading-house.
In May, 1661, the General Court appointed a committee of three, Matthew Griswold, Thomas Tracy, and James Morgan, to try, that is, rectify the bounds of New London. "New London people," says the order, "have liberty to procure the ablest person they can to assist in this matter." The town appointed Daniel Lane and Ralph Par- ker. This committee reported October 28th.
" We began at the broad bay at Naihantik and soe upon a northerly lyne 8 miles up into the country, and then upon a due east lyne, and fell in upon the Mohegan country above, upon the side of the great plaine, where we marked a white oake tree on a hill, and another on the east side of the path that goes to New Norwige."2
1 This, instead of eight miles, must have been ten, from the southern shore.
2 This was at least eleven miles from the Sound. The north-west corner bound was in the present town of Salem.
14*
162
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Upon the boundary line east of the river, no report was made ; and the amplitude of the measurement on the other side, offended the court. A note was sent to the town authorities, (Dec. 8th, 1661,) censuring them for not attending to their order in regard to the east- ern line, adding :
" And you may hereby take notice that what hath been done in extending the bounds on the west side is directly cross to the expressed direction in the said order, respecting the bounds of the plantation."
The committee was hereupon sent to ascertain once more the northern line east of the river, which reported January 22d, 1661-2, declaring that they had measured "according to the best art of 8 myles by the chaine upon the ground as the land laye," and had fixed upon a bound-mark tree, at the cove near Mr. Brewster's, which stood upon an east and west line, from the north end of the hill on which Uncas had his fort. This varied but little from the measure- ment of 1652.
In October, 1663, the court issued a new commission on the west- ern boundary, which was contested by Saybrook.
" Matthew Griswold, William Waller and Thomas Miner, are appointed to state the west bounds of New London, and Ensign Tracy and James Morgan or any other whom the two towns of New London and Norwich do appoint, are to see it done. They are to begin at some suitable place as they shall judge in- different, that they may have as much land without as there is sea within."1
The same committee or any two of them were empowered to settle with Uncas, and determine what compensation he should have for so much of his land as fell within the bounds of New London, and issue the case fully " Monday come 4 weeks, or as soon as may be." This order was obeyed without delay. The report says:
" We find that the end of the 8 miles into the Country falls right with the south side of the Trading Cove's Mouth upon New London river, by a direct east line from the corner tree of the west bounds.
" Secondly, Unkus his planting lands cometh on the south side, bounded with Cokichiwoke river,2 from the footpath that leads to Mr. Brewster's eastward. And from the footpath west it goes away W. N. W. to the west bounds of N. L.
" Thirdly, we do determine that for Unkus his right from Cokichiwoke river south and so as the W. N. W. line runs, as also his whole right on the east side
1 New London Records, book 6. It is to be hoped that the order was better under- stood then than it is now.
2 Saw-mill Brook; Pequotice, Cochickuwock.
163
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
of the Great river within the bounds of New London, he the said Unkus or his assigns shall receive the full and just sum of fifteen pounds in some current pay."
The claim of Uncas is obscurely expressed in the above report. The sachem had been encouraged to look up his ancient rights, and now brought forward claims that had been heretofore both tacitly and expressly relinquished. He maintained that the land between the bound-mark tree on Cochikuwock brook, south to Mamacock, "was his father's land and so his," and that on the east side the town had taken in three miles of his land for which he had received no com- pensation ; for all which his demand was now £20 in current pay, which the committee reduced to.£15.
This report, assenting to these claims, exasperated the town. The inhabitants rose as one man against it. They had repeatedly satis- fied Uncas for his lands west of the river, and to the Pequot country on the east side, they would not allow that he had any right whatever. A town meeting was called October 26th, which passed the following vote :
" Cary Latham and Hugh Roberts are chosen by the towne to meet the men chosen by Court order to settle our towne boundes (Oct. 8. 62) whoe are from the towne to disalow any proceedings in laying out of any boundes for us by them."
Dec. 14th, a meeting was held in which more pacific counsels pre- vailed. It was agreed that the £15 should be raised by a town rate and paid to Uncas, on condition that he would give a quit-claim deed for all land within the bounds of New London. But public opinion in the town would not sustain this vote, and the rate could not be levied. The inhabitants refused also to pay the expenses of the court committee, Messrs. Griswold, Waller and Minor, until enforced by an order of the court.1
In May, 1666, the complaint of Uncas was carried before a com- mittee of the Legislature, which sanctioned his claims, and approved of his demand of twenty pounds.
" And [we] do advise the towne to pay him the said sum for the establish- ment of a clearer title, preservation of peace and preventing further trouble and charge to themselves or the country."
The town however would not immediately yield the point, and the
1 Colonial Records, vol. 1, p. 419.
164 ·
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
case was brought before the Particular Court, held at New London in June. Mr. Winthrop, the governor of the colony appears to have favored one party, and Major Mason, the deputy governor, the other. To the town agents, Cary Latham and James Rogers, Gov- ernor Winthrop forwarded from Hartford a copy of the agreement with Uncas in 1654, and also gave his testimony in respect to the covenant made with the Indians on the first laying out of the town. In writing to Cary Latham, he says :
" You know that at the first beginning when we had all the Indians together, and challenged the Pequot bounds to Mohegan, Uncas then had no pretence to any lying on this side the Great Cove, and much less to any of the Pequot coun- try on the east side the Great River."1
Governor Winthrop's Letter to Mr. James Rogers.
" Loving friend
"Since you went home I found a writeing which I tould the Court I was sure there was such a writing which I could not then finde which doth clearly show that the business which now Uncas doth again contend for was with his owne consent issued 12 years since, and that then Uncas did not so much as challenge anything towards New London farther than the brooke called Co- chichuack which is at the Great Coave between the Saw Mill and Monhegan. I send herewith a coppie of that writeing. I have the original of the Majors owne hand and Uncas his hand is also to it, as you will see. I keepe the orig- inal writeing and this is certain that at that time Uncas had not the least pre- tence to any part of the east side of the river, within New London bounds. For if he had he would then have challenged when we agreed about the bounds at Cochiehuack that Uncas was contented should be as far as he could chal- lenge for Mohegan lands. Neither did that take away the boundes of the towne further towards Monhegan if they should agree with Uncas for any part or the whole of it, to the full extent of the bounde, but there was not the least claime to any parte of the east side of the river within the Pequot country where the boundes do goe of N L. I hope it will not be possible to be seen that Uncas should againe have cause to make a new claime within the towne boundes after such an issue, under his owne hand mark in testimony of his satisfaction therein. Not else at present but my loving remembrance to yourself and all yours and rest your loving friend
Join winthrop
" Hartford, June 4th, 1666.
" I sent this copy by my sonn Palmes and desired him to leave it if he went into the Bay."
1 Records of County Court.
165
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
The document forwarded was an agreement made with Uncas, June 10th, 1654, by John Winthrop, John Mason and Matthew Gris- wold, fixing the northern boundary of Nameug at Cochickuwock Brook, " where the foot path to Monhegon now goeth over the brook or cove," and from thence it was to run upon a west-north-west line indefinitely into the wilderness.
These papers were exhibited in court and recorded, but the diffi- culty with Uncas was left unsettled. In June, 1668, James Avery and Cary Latham were appointed by the town to treat with the sa- chem, and make a final settlement of the boundary line. This re- . sulted in the payment to Uncas of fifteen pounds,1 and in procuring from him a formal deed, which confirmed the bounds of the town as already laid out both east and west of the river.
We learn from tradition, that at the signing of this deed, the whole Mohegan tribe was assembled ; that Uncas and his son Owaneco ap- peared in barbaric splendor, arrayed in a motley garb of native cos- tume and English regimentals ; that the whites flocked in from the neighborhood, either as curious witnesses of the sport, or sharers in it, and two or three days were spent in feasting, frolicking and games.
On the east side of the river, Poquetannuck Cove was the com- mencing point of the northern boundary line. The General Court subsequently ordered that the land near this boundary line which had not been granted to particular persons, should for the present lie com- mon to the towns of New London and Norwich. Mr. Benjamin Brewster, then the principal resident on this tract, was left at liberty to connect himself with either of the two that suited his convenience. He preferred to belong to Norwich.
The town was agitated by a controversy still more unhappy in re- gard to its western boundary. Winthrop had originally fixed upon Bride Brook as the limit of his plantation, and the General Court had allowed of this extent, provided it did not come within the territory of Saybrook ; that is, within five miles east of Connecticut River. The inhabitants were, perhaps, too ready to assume that this bound- ary did not entrench upon their neighbors. Relying upon the court grant, they regarded the land between Nahantick Bay and Bride Brook, which included Black Point and Giant's Neck, as their own,
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.