USA > Connecticut > New London County > New London > History of New London, Connecticut, From the First Survey of the Coast in 1612 to 1852 > Part 16
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
1 The payment of this gratuity was assumed by James Avery, Daniel Wetherell and Joshua Raymond, who were indemnified by the town with each two hundred acres of land.
-
166
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
and freely scattered their grants in that direction. The people of Saybrook, after a time, advancing with their claims toward the east, asserted that the Bride Brook boundary included a mile or more of their territory, and they also disposed of lands in the disputed tract. A new township was about to be formed out of that part of Saybrook which lay east of the river, (to be called Lyme,) and the bounds be- ing considered narrow, they were eager to extend it east as far as possible, and would gladly have had it reach Nahantick Bay. Com- mittees were appointed by the two parties from year to year, but without any approach toward a settlement of the question. New London sustained the contest with warmth and energy. i
" At a towne meeting Nov. 21. 1664.
" Will you join as one man to beare all charges in seeking our right of that land that lyes in suspense betwixt us and Seabrooke.
" Agreed upon and voated yt they would. -
" James Morgan, Ralph Parker and James Bemas are desired to make a lyne for tryall of what land lyes betwixt us and Seabrooke boundes.
" James Rogers and Ensigne Averye are desired to manage the business be- twixt us and Seabrooke."
" Jan. 9, 1664-5.
" Captin Winthrop1 and Mr. Edward Palmes are chosen by the Towne to manage the business betwixt us and Seabrook about the land in suspense-al- lowing them liberty to make choyce of one Atturnaye or more to assist them and to take such of the inhabitants also along with them as they shall see most needful to assist."
In 1667, the town authorized Mr. John Allyn of Hartford, Mr. Palmes, Mr. Wetherell, and the partners, Hill and Christophers, of New London, to recover the rights of the town and settle the bound- ary "according to ancient grants of the court," at their own charge ; engaging, in case of success, to remunerate them with three hundred acres each, at Black Point. They also pledged two hundred acres for the use of the ministry, and two hundred as a personal gift to Mr. Bradstreet.
This commission led to no result ; and the town subsequently in- trusted the business to their deputies, who were to obtain the assist- ance of an attorney. Sergeant Thomas Minor was also requested "to be helpful to them." These agents entered into an agreement
1 This was Fitz-John Winthrop, eldest son of the governor. He had spent some time in England, and was there captain of a troop of horse. About this time Wait- Still Winthrop was chosen captain of the train-band in New London, so that both brothers had the title of captain.
167
HISTORY NEW LONDON.
with those of Lyme at Hartford, in which they not only relinquished all claim to the disputed mile, but gave up also a certain portion of Black Point, which had always been regarded as legitimately within the bounds of New London. This document, interchangeably signed and attested, was presented to the Legislature, and sanctioned by that body, before it was exhibited to the town of New London. When the deputies came home and reported what they had done, a storm ensued. The inhabitants indignantly refused to ratify the agreement.
" In towne meeting June 26. 1668.
" The towne by voat have protested against the agreement made by our dep- uties Leftenant Avery and Cary Latham with the men of lime, Mathew Gris- well and Wiliam Waller about the land at our west bounds as being wholly un- satisfied with that agreement that they made which was in a paper read to the towne or any other agreement by them made or yt they shall make for the towne to abridge theire former bounds, as granted by the Court formerly as apears by record."
After this period, the town intrusted the management of the busi- ness to Mr. Palmes, Mr. Condy and Mr. Prentis ; prohibting them however from any settlement of the boundary line, that did not conform to " the ancient grant of the court," and particularly directing them to recover Black Point, of which, they say, "we have been wrong- fully deprived by the inhabitants of Seabrooke."
In May, 1671, the town annulled all former grants made by them of land at Black Point, except a farm to Mr. Bradstreet, a farm to Mr. John Allyn and three hundred and twenty-five acres to the min- istry of the town. This last tract, which they declared to be seques- tered for the use of the ministry forever, is said to lie at "our west ยท bounds at Black Point." It was in fact the same land that in the agreement of 1668, had been reserved for the use of the ministry in Lyme. A committee of eight resolute men, two of them officers of the train-bands, were appointed to survey and lay out this farm. These measures intimate that the agitation on both sides was advan- cing toward a crisis. Accordingly, an explosion took place in Au- gust, ludicrous and grotesque in its features, but in its consequences salutary. It cooled the air, and satisfied those on both sides who were disposed to resort to force, leaving the way clear for a more ra- tional issue of the dispute. This outbreak calls for especial notice, since it came about as near to a civil war as the inhabitants of the steady-habited land have ever been known to advance.
The people of New London and Lyme were both determined to
168
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
mow the grass on a portion of the debatable land-the twenty-five acres of meadow belonging to the ministry farm. Large parties went out from both towns for the purpose, and having probably some secret intimation of each other's design, they met on the ground at the same time. The conflict that ensued of tongues, rakes, scythes, clubs, and fisticuffs, though the actors were in good earnest, and thor- oughly enraged, appears to have been more clownish and comic, than fearful or sublime. The account we have of it is taken from the tes- timony of witnesses on the trial of the rioters in March, 1661-2. No evidence appears to have been more dispassionate than that of Mr. Palmes. He was then living on his farm at Nahantick Bar, and when the New London party came along on their way to mow the marsh, he joined them, for no other purpose, he said, than to act as a pacificator if any struggle should take place. The Lyme men, under their usual leaders, Matthew Griswold and William Waller, were in possession of the ground when the other party advanced, led on by Clement Minor and supported by Mr. Palmes, the peace-maker. Constables were in attendance on either side, and Messrs. Griswold and Palmes were in the commission of the peace and could authorize warrants of apprehension on the spot. As the New London men ap- proached, and swinging their sythes began to mow, the Lyme con- stable drew nigh, with a warrant for the apprehension of Ensign Minor, which, beginning to read, Sergeant Beeby interrupted him, crying out, " We care not a straw for your paper." Others of the company added contemptuous expressions and mockeries, on which the constable, shouting to his party, demanded their aid in arresting Clement Minor. The Lyme men on the instant came rushing for- ward, waving their weapons, while the New London party brandish- ing theirs, threatened to mow down any one that should touch their leader. The constable, however, had grasped his man, and a general tumult of shouts, revilings, wrestlings, kicks and blows followed. The weapons seem to have been pretty generally abandoned ; though one of the Lyme company, Richard Smith, was knocked down with a pitchfork, and John Baldwin, of New London, was accused of bruising another person with a cudgel. Major Palmes, in retaliation of the arrest of Minor, furnished a warrant for the apprehension of Griswold, but he was not captured. The noisy encounter was ter- minated, without any serious injury on either side. The cooler heads among them succeeded in pacifying the rest. Ensign Minor, the only captive taken, was released on the spot. Messrs. Palmes, Gris- wold and Waller, having agreed to let the law decide the controversy,
169
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
" drank a dram of seeming friendship together," and all retired qui- etly from the field.
Each party subsequently indicted the other for assault, violence and riotous practices, and on account of the difficulty of finding an im- partial and uninterested court and jury in New London county, they were tried-twenty-one men of New London and fifteen of Lyme- at Hartford. A penalty of nine pounds was imposed upon New London, and five pounds upon Lyme, but both fines were afterward remitted by the clemency of the General Court.1
It was at the trial of this case, March 12th, 1671-2, that Governor Winthrop's deposition was produced, in which he referred to the ro- mantic nuptials at Bride Brook, in the infancy of the plantation, as heretofore related. With respect to the original western boundary, he makes, in substance, the following statement :
" When we began a plantation in the Pequot country, now called New Lon- don, I had a commission from the Massachusetts, and the ordering of matters was left to myself. Not finding meadow sufficient for even a small plantation, unless the meadows and marshes west of Nayantick river were adjoined, I de- termined the bounds of the plantation should be to the brook, now called Bride brook, which was looked upon as certainly without Saybrook bounds. This was an encouragement to proceed with the plantation which otherwise could not have gone on, there being no suitable accommodation near the place."
The tract of land so long controverted, was about two miles in width, and now forms a part of East Lyme. The General Court or- dered five miles to be measured east from Connecticut River, and four miles west from Pequot River, and the space between to be di- vided between the rival towns. This brought Black Point within the bounds of New London. An order on the town book, April 8th, 1672, directs the ministry farm at Black Point to be immediately laid out, " the rights of the town being recovered." This is the first allu- sion to the difficulty on the town books since May, 1671, no mention being there made of the mowing riot. The grantees of New London, whose lands fell within the bounds assigned to Lyme, were indemni- fied elsewhere.
A great part of the tract thus freed from claims and suits had been occupied by the Indians. Some of these were now accommodated with lands by Lyme in the northern part of their plantation on Eight Mile River. Those residing on Black Point were allowed by New
1 This affair at Black Point has been called a riot; it was rather a fracas, or hub- bub.
15
170
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
London to remain, and to occupy, on lease, 240 acres of upland, at an annual rent of three bushels of Indian corn per acre. For a number of years afterward, this little Indian community, contrary to most others when overshadowed by a higher degree of civilization, prospered and increased in numbers. About the year 1740 they were estimated at forty families. They have since been constantly diminishing, and are now tottering on the verge of extinction.
The difficulties with Lyme continued several years longer in the form of a series of vexatious lawsuits. In 1685, the town granted to Major Palmes 350 acres of land in remuneration " for the charges and disbursements of many years, particularly in sustaining a course of law with the town of Lyme concerning the west bounds." John Prentis had 200 acres for similar services. Among individual claim- ants to the debatable land the longest and most energetic contest was maintained between Christopher Christophers and Thomas Lee. Both towns became partizans in this protracted suit. The rival claimants came to an agreement June 3d, 1686, by which Lee relin- quished his claim to "the land on Black Point possessed by the Nahanticks, Hammonassetts and Mejuarnes," which is said to lie "next to the Giant's land."
The Hammonassetts were a clan of eight families who had ex- changed their lands in the neighborhood of Guilford for a settlement on Black Point. The Giant's land was a lot on the point laid out several years before by Matthew Griswold and Thomas Bliss, agents of the town of Saybrook, to an Indian surnamed the Giant, and hon- ored with the gigantic name of Mamaraka-gurgana. It is probable that Mejuarnes was another name for this formidable personage. He is supposed to have resided originally at. Giant's Neck, and to have exchanged this place for the land on the point. The two sons of the Giant were Paguran and Tatto-bitton. The latter, after the decease of his brother, sold what was left of the Giant's land to Christopher Christophers, July 1st, 1687.1
North of Black Point, on Nahantick Bay, was the soldier grant. This was a tract given to five of Capt. Mason's companions in the Pequot War, in lieu of a grant made to them in 1642, of "500 acres in the Pequot country ;" by which vague phrase, the vicinity of Pequot Harbor appears to have been understood. The grant being
1 The Christophers land on Black Point was sufficient for two or three moderate farms. A considerable part of it fell by inheritance to the children of Thomas Man- waring, whose wife was a Christophers.
171
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
neglected and the land otherwise occupied, the General Court in 1650, transferred the gratuity of the soldiers to Niantecutt. The town record says :
" The land granted to Lieutenant Thomas Bull and other well deserving soldiers lyeth at a place called Sargent's Head."
Sergeant's Head, called by the Indians Pataquonk, was a hill of moderate elevation above the sand-bar, on the bay. From thence the soldier land extended west to a fresh pond, to which the name of Soldier's Reward was given. On the south-west of this, a tract of 100 acres had been secured to the Hammonassetts, and was called, from the name of their chief, Obed land. The soldier grant, having been laid out so as to include the Obed land, an exchange was effected by the General Court, and 200 acres added to the grant on the north side as a compensation for the 100 relinquished on the south. The Hammonassetts, however, sold their reservation to the proprietors of the grant, March 9th, 1691-2.1 Three days later, (March 12th, 1692,) Joseph and Jonathan Bull of Hartford, who appear at this time to have been the sole proprietors of the tract, conveyed the Obed land and 700 acres north of it to Nehemiah Smith, of New London.2
Before leaving the subject of these border difficulties it may be well to notice the manner in which, according to time-honored legends, the question was settled. Tradition asserts that the issue was brought about, not by committees, courts, or legislative enactments, but by a trial of skill and strength between champions selected for the pur- pose, which was regarded as leaving it to the Lord to decide.
The account given by Dr. Dwight in his travels, who regards it as authentic history, is as follows :
" The inhabitants of both townships agreed to settle their respective titles to the land in controversy, by a combat between two champions to be chosen by each for that purpose. New London selected two men of the names of Picket and Latimer : Lyme committed its cause to two others, named Griswold and Ely. On a day mutually appointed, the champions appeared in the field, and fought with their fists, till victory declared in favor of each of the Lyme combatants. Lyme then quietly took possession of the controverted tract, and has held it undisputed, to the present day. This it is presumed, is the only instance, in which a public controversy has been decided in New England by pugilism."
1 It is probable that the Hammonassetts emigrated elsewhere, but their subsequent history has not been traced.
2 Thomas Bradford, the brother-in-law of Mr. Smith, was his partner in the purchase.
172
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Another version of the story is, that the line was settled by a race instead of a pugilistic contest. The champions are said to have started at the same moment from either side of the disputed tract, and the line was run north and south from the point where they met. The Lyme men being the swiftest of foot obtained the largest portion.
It ought to be observed that all written accounts of this judicial combat, are of comparatively recent origin, and there is no allusion to any such contest on the records of either town. It can not there- fore have any weight as historic truth. As a matter of curiosity or superstition, among individuals, some such ordeal may have been tried, but it is quite improbable that the two towns decided their boundary question in this manner. New London always insisted that it should be determined "according to ancient grants of the court," referring to Bride Brook, where the god Terminus had been set up.
A short digression respecting the early inhabitants of Lyme may not be inappropriate in this connection. Lyme was originally a part of Saybrook ; the first grantees were the inhabitants of Saybrook town plot, and among the earliest proprietors names are found be- longing to that company from Saybrook, which removed in 1659 and 1660, to Norwich : viz., Thomas Adgate ; Thomas Bliss, (whose Lyme land was sold to Richard Smith ;) Morgan Bowers; Francis Griswold, (an early proprietor on " Bride Plaine ;") John Holmsted ; Simon and Christopher Huntington, (the latter sold to John Borden ;) Captain John Mason ; John Reynolds, (who sold Dec. 3d, 1659, to Wolston Brockway,) and Richard Wallis. These original proprie- tors of Lyme were all afterward of Norwich.1 Their places in Lyme were mostly filled by settlers of a later generation.
According to tradition the first actual occupant in Lyme was Matthew Griswold. His title must have emanated from Col. George Fenwick, but the grant can not now be found on record. It consisted of a fine segment of land, washed by the Sound and the river, at the south-west extremity of the present town, and is said to have been a fief or feudal grant, held upon the tenure of keeping the monument of Lady Fenwick,2 the deceased wife of the colonel, in good repair.
1 President Styles in his Itinerary mentions a curious tradition respecting the pro- prietors of Norwich-that they were driven from their ancient habitations in Lyme and Saybrook by black-birds.
2 Lady Alice Fenwick was the daughter of Sir Edward Apsley Knight; her first husband was Sir John Botler, (or Butler,) and as a matter of courtesy she retained her title, after her marriage to Col. Fenwick.
173
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Of this there is no proof. Yet certain it is that the Griswold home- stead was favorably situated for the pious office of keeping watch over the Fenwick tomb. No calamity could happen to it, which might not be observed from various parts of the Black-Hall domain.
Lady Fenwick died in Saybrook about the year 1648. The pre- cise date has not been ascertained; nor is there any cotemporary record, that speaks directly of her death. She was buried on the brow of the river bank, in a spot supposed to have been within the inclosure of the old wooden fort constructed by Lion Gardiner in 1635, and destroyed by fire in 1647. The fort was rebuilt of earth and stone, on another knoll of the bank, but time has reduced this also to a level with the surface, and nothing remains of it but some slight traces of a ditch and embankments. The monument of Lady Fenwick is constructed of a greyish red sandstone-the color of the Portland quarries. The scroll or table-piece is entire, but the sup- porters are dilapidated, and the inscription, if it ever had any, is effaced.
This tomb is supposed to have been the workmanship of Matthew Griswold, to whose skill other monumental tablets of that day have been attributed. It may have been bespoken by Col. Fenwick, be- fore he returned to England, but not completed at the time of his decease in 1657. A receipt is registered at Saybrook, dated April 1st, 1679, wherein Matthew Griswold, Senior, acknowledges having received
" The full and just sum of seven pounds sterling, from the agent of Benja- min Batten, Esq., of London, in payment for the tomb-stone of the Lady Alice Botler, late of Saybrook."
Had this monument been completed before the death of Col. Fen- wick, his wealth, his high and honorable character, and the large estate he had in Connecticut, forbid. the supposition that payment would have been so long delayed. Was it, in point of fact, ever completed ? Is there any proof that it ever contained any inscrip- tion ? Mr. Griswold perhaps expected an inscription to be sent from England, which never arrived.1 The general opinion has in-
1 In the ancient burial place at New London, some of the stones were set before the inscription was cut, as is ascertained from notes made by the graver at the time, in his journal or diary. There are two sandstone tables which it is presumed he left unfinished at the time of his death. On one the inscription is just commenced, and the other is left like the Fenwick tomb, entirely void of a record.
15*
174
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
deed been, that the tomb once exhibited a record, but that time has effaced the letters. Dr. Dwight said of it in 1810 :
" The sandstone of which it is built, is of so perishable a nature, that the inscription has been obliterated, beyond the remembrance of the oldest exist- ing inhabitants."
If this statement be correct, the letters were entirely worn out with- in seventy or eighty years from the time they were cut. Yet the red sandstone of the country, instead of perishing so readily, is found in other cases to grow harder by exposure, and to preserve inscriptions with tenacity. To the handiwork of Matthew Griswold, is also at- tributed the monument which covers the remains of his father-in-law, Henry Wolcot, in the burial ground at Windsor, which is of similar stone with the Fenwick table, and probably quite as old-Wolcot died in 1655-but the inscription is entirely legible. If the Fen- wick epitaph was worn out in eighty years, would this be entire at the end of two centuries ?
One would indeed wish to believe that something commemorative and appropriate, had been inscribed on the tomb of Lady Alice. It is adding sorrow to desolation, when we assume that it was left un- finished, uninscribed, erected by stranger hands on a distant shore.
The solitude, the stern and dreary simplicity of the monument, . present a vivid contrast to the history of the gentle lady it was de- signed to commemorate-nobly born and delicately nurtured in the bosom of English refinement, and under the shadow of English oaks. A dark stone tablet, with a heavy scroll half-broken down ; without ornament, without inclosure ; nothing over, or around, but the hill, the vaulted heavens, and the waters murmuring along the shore ; lying bleak and lonely on the river's brink, looking out toward the melancholy sea, and suggesting the thought that the fair exile had died longing to behold once more her island home-such is the Fen- wick tomb.
When a town is to be organized, the preliminary step is the choice of a constable. It is the first act of self-government-an unfurling of the banner of independence by a subordinate district. Accord- ingly, when Saybrook was to be divided, and the east side prepared to set up for itself, an order authorizing them to choose and qualify such an officer, was issued by a court of assistants held at New Lon- don May 31st, 1664-Deputy Governor Mason, and Messrs. Tal- cott, Bruen and Avery on the bench.
175
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
" This Court apprehending a necessity of government on the east side of the river of Seabrooke do order that the inhabitants of Seabrooke meet forthwith and make choice of a Constable for the use of the Country and the inhabitants on the said east side, and the oath to be administered by Mr. Chapman.
" Also that the people at such times and seasons as they cannot go to the pub- lic ordinance in the town on the other side, that they agree to meet together at one place every Lord's day at a house agreed upon by them, for the sanctifica- tion of the Sabbath in a public way, according to [the command of] God.
" And this Court desires the selectmen of Seabrook to see that children and servants through these limits be catechised and instructed according to order of Court."
On the 13th of Feb., 1665-6, articles of agreement were entered into between the two divisions of Saybrook, preparatory to what they style " a loving parting." The preamble states that-
" The inhabitants east of the river desiring to be a plantation by themselves do declare that they have a competency of lands to entertain thirty families."
The Lyme committee that signed the parting covenant were :
" Matthew Griswold, William Waller,
Reinold Marvin, John Lay Senr.,
Richard Smith, John Comstock."
The new township was called Lyme, a name derived from Lyme Regis on the coast of Dorsetshire, a small port, from whence prob- ably Mr. Griswold, if not others of the planters, took his departure from England. This name was sanctioned by the Legislature in May, 1667. The first land records, after the town was organized, are attested by Matthew Griswold and Reinold Marvin. The latter died in 1676 at the early age of forty-two, and the name of Thomas Lee succeeds as the land comissioner.
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.