USA > Connecticut > Litchfield County > Norfolk > History of Norfolk, Litchfield County, Connecticut, 1744-1900 > Part 4
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
The instrument framed at this time by these, the first settlers in Connecticut, has been called, "the first example in history of a written constitution; a distinct, organic law, constituting a government and defining its powers." Bryce, in his "American Commonwealths," says: "The oldest truly political constitution in America is the instrument called the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, framed by the in- habitants of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield in 1639."
As we may later on refer to some of the provisions of this constitution, under which with but little alteration for one hundred and eighty years, the colony and state of Connec- ticut prospered and progressed, it may be permitted to add that under it, "all persons to possess the franchise should be admitted to it by the freemen of the towns, and take an oath of allegiance to the commonwealth." (In the Mas-
35
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
sachusetts settlements at that time the civil franchise was based on church membership.) "There should be two meet- ings of the freemen (elections we call them) in a year. At the one to be holden in April they should elect a Governor, and not fewer than six other Magistrates; that at the same time there should be elections of Deputies,-four to be sent from each of the existing towns, and as many as the Gen- eral Court should determine, from towns subsequently con- stituted. That the General Court, consisting of the Gov- ernor and at least four Magistrates and a majority of Depu- ties, should have power to make laws for the whole juris- diction, to grant levies, admit freemen, dispose of lands undisposed of to the several towns or persons, to call either Court, or Magistrate, or any other person whatsoever into question, for any misdemeanor and to deal in any other matter that concerned the good of the commonwealth. ‘In the absence of special laws, the rule of the word of God was to be followed.' The Governor was not re-eligible for election until a year after the expiration of his term of office," etc.
The first mention we have found of the settlement of any of the towns in Litchfield County, as this county is now constituted, is that of the town of Woodbury, which was settled in 1672, incorporated as a town in 1674, first represented in the General Court 1684. Woodbury orig- inally included the towns of Washington, Bethlehem, Southbury and Roxbury. Of the twenty-eight towns in the entire colony, Woodbury was the only town in Litchfield County that was represented in the General Court at Hart- ford in May, 1700. Litchfield County was organized in Oc- tober, 1751. At the session of the General Court in Octo- ber, 1703, it is recorded that, "This court doe grant to the town of Milford, purchasers of a tract of land of the Indians (which land lieth at Wiantenuck) for a township liberty, ac- cording to their purchase to take out a pattent signed by the Governor and Secretary, under the seal of the Colonie, that they doe make a settlement upon said land within five years. The name of the said town to be New Milford."
36
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
At the May session, 1719 :- Upon the petition of Lieut. John Marsh of Hartford, and Dea. John Buell of Lebanon, with many others, praying liberty under committees ap- pointed by the towns of Hartford and Windsor, to settle a town westward of Farmington at a place called Bantam: "This Assembly doe grant liberty and full power unto the said John Marsh, John Buell and partners, settlers, being in the whole fifty-seven in number, to settle a town at said Bantam; . . . said town to be known by the name of Litchfield." Mention of the tract of land which included Norfolk follows the above: "And forasmuch as there is a large tract of land that lieth eastward, westward and north- wardly of said town, being bounded eastward by Farming- ton and Symsbury, and from thence extending northward unto the Massachusetts line, by which line the tract is bounded north, and westwardly by the colony line, and southwardly by Waterbury, Litchfield and Woodbury, and from Woodbury town line unto the said colony line; to the end that the said tract of land may be improved for the good of the colony and be regularly settled,-be it enacted by the Governor (etc.),-that the whole of said tract of land shall lie for the further dispose of this Assembly." This "large tract of land" comprised what was afterward laid out and settled as the towns of Kent, Cornwall, Canaan, Salisbury, Norfolk, Goshen, Winchester, New Hartford, Torrington, Harwinton, Hartland, Colebrook and Bark- hampsted. A serious controversy regarding this land arose between the General Court on one side and the towns of Hartford and Windsor on the other, caused by a grant of the entire tract to Hartford and Windsor by the General Court, in January, 1686. The occasion for this grant was as follows :-
Sir Edmund Andros had been governor of New York for about eight years from 1678, and his arbitrary and oppres- sive acts had made him very obnoxious in all the colonies. In 1685 Andros was appointed by the British crown, gov- ernor of New England. Fearing that Andros might take possession of this unconveyed tract of land, and by its sale
2
37
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
enrich himself and his friends, the General Court in Jan- uary, 1686, made a conveyance or grant of the entire tract to "the plantations of Hartford and Windsor," doubtless intending that those towns should hold the lands in trust for the further disposal of the colony when the danger from Andros' power should have passed by, but failing (perhaps fearing) so to express it in the conveyance, it was main- tained, at a considerably later period, that it was a valid grant of the entire tract to the two towns.
This "grant" as found in the Colonial Records of Con- necticut, is as follows: "A special General Court, held at Hartford, January 26, 1686: This Court grants the planta- tions of Hartford and Windsor those lands on the north of Woodbury and Mattatuck and on the west of Farmington and Simsbury, to the Massachusetts line north, and to run west to Housatunock or Stratford River (provided it be not, or part of it, formerly granted to any particular per- sons), to make a plantation or villages thereon." In a foot- note in this Colonial Record, transcribed by J. Hammond Trumbull, he says: "The General Court, in anticipation of the loss of the charter by a judgment on the Quo Warranto, or of being compelled to surrender it to Andros, now took such measures as were in their power to secure the colony against the future exactions of an arbitrary governor. . . The grant now recorded to Hartford and Windsor, to make a plantation or villages, was intended to put all the vacant lands west of the Connecticut to the Housatonic beyond the reach of Andros or other similarly commissioned gov- ernor. The expedient was, in its immediate results, effec- tual; but at a later period (1722-1726) this grant was the occasion of long and angry controversy between the towns of Hartford and Windsor, and the colony."
Concerning this controversy, in his "History of Norfolk," Roys says: "They (the towns) had never purchased nor given the least valuable consideration for them (the lands), and had no valid deeds or patents of them." Yet, as ap- pears by the record, and as given in full above, the Gen- eral Court at a special session held January 26, 1686, did
.
38
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
"grant the plantations of Hartford and Windsor those lands, . . . to make a plantation or villages thereon." At the time of the controversy, nearly forty years had passed since the date of the grant, and the active partici- pants in the matter had most of them, perhaps all of them, passed away, and a new generation was upon the stage of action. It is not surprising that this new generation should insist that the grant meant what it plainly said. Self in- terest was doubtless as strong a motive power then as it is in the end of the nineteenth century. Continuing, Roys says: "By virtue of the above grant they laid claim to all the lands within the limits expressed, and in violation of the most explicit laws of the colony they proceeded to lo- cate and vend the lands in controversy.
"The governor and company still claimed the lands as firmly as if no grant had been made to those towns, and some of the principal innovators were arrested and pun- ished by the superior court, and some of them were com- mitted to the common prison at Hartford. The contention finally rose so high that quite a number of persons col- lected in a riotous manner, and even while the assembly were in session they went forward, broke open the jail and set those prisoners at liberty. The sheriff of the county of Hartford was ordered to pursue, apprehend and re-commit them, and was authorized, if necessary, to call out the mili- tia of the county to assist him." At the October session of the General Court in 1724, in the Colonial Records it is recorded that: "Upon consideration of the memorial of Hon. Joseph Talcott, Esq., and others, proposing that the dif- ference in the colony about the ancient grant of the western lands to the towns of Hartford and Windsor may be ami- cably composed, praying the Assembly to appoint a com- mittee to meet with a committee from said towns upon said affairs, this Assembly do appoint and impower James Wadsworth, John Hall, and Hez. Brainerd, Esqrs., to be the committee of the government on the affairs referred to in the petition, and report to this Assembly in May next the propositions which they may receive and make, . . . in
39
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
order to this Assembly settling and quieting that difficulty." The above committee reported at the May session, 1726, as follows: "Proposed to the committee of Hartford and Windsor; that the whole tract of land claimed by said towns be equally divided between the government and said towns, in the following manner to be done: I. That the government have the western side thereof and said towns to have the eastern side thereof. . . . The above proposal this Assembly do accept, and James Wadsworth, John Hall and Hez. Brainerd, Esqrs., are appointed to be a committee to join with such committees as Hartford and Windsor shall appoint, to make a division of said lands."
At the Litchfield County Centennial celebration, held in Litchfield, August, 1851, Hon. Samuel Church, LL.D., Chief Justice of the state, gave the principal address. Referring to this old controversy, Judge Church said: "Previous to the accession of James II. to the throne of England, and before our chartered rights were threatened by the arrival of Sir Edmund Andros, the territory now comprising the County of Litchfield, was very little known to the Colonial Government at Hartford. The town of Woodbury, then large in extent, had been occupied some years earlier than this by Rev. Mr. Walker's congregation from Stratford. The other parts of the County were noticed only as a wil- derness, and denominated the 'Western Lands.' Still it was supposed that at some time they might be to some ex- tent inhabited and worth something. At any rate, they were believed to be worth the pains of keeping out of the way of the new government of Sir Edmund, which was then apprehended to be near. To avoid his authority over these lands, and to preserve them for a future and better time of disposal, they were granted by the Assembly of the Colony, to the towns of Hartford and Windsor, in 1686, at least so much of them as lay east of the Housatonic river.
"I do not stop to examine the moral quality of this grant, which may be reasonably doubted. It was soon after (more than thirty years) followed by the usual consequences of grants denominated by lawyers, constructively fraudulent,
40
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
dispute and contention. Years afterward the Colonial As- sembly attempted to resume this grant, and to reclaim the title of these lands for the Colony. This was resisted by the towns of Hartford and Windsor, which relied upon the inviolability of plighted faith and public grants. The towns not only denied the right, but actually resisted the power of the Assembly, in the resumption of their solemn deed. This produced riots, and attempts to break the jail in Hartford, in which several of the resisting inhabitants of Hartford and Windsor were confined.
"It would be difficult for the Jurists of the present day, educated in the principles of Constitutional Law, to justify the Assembly in the recision of its own grant; and it can- not but excite a little surprise_that the politicians of that day, who had not yet ceased to complain of the mother country for its attempts, by writs of quo warranto, to seize our charter, should so soon be engaged, and without the forms of law, too, in attempts of a kindred character against their own grantees. No wonder that resistance followed, and it was more than half successful, as it resulted in a compromise, which confirmed to the claimants under the towns, the lands in the town of Litchfield and a part of the town of New Milford. The other portions of the territory were intended to be equally divided between the Colony and the claiming towns. Torrington, Barkhamsted, Cole- brook, and a part of Harwinton, were appropriated to Windsor; Hartland, Winchester, New Hartford, and the other part of Harwinton were relinquished to Hartford, and the remaining lands in dispute, now constituting the towns of Norfolk, Goshen, Canaan, Kent, Sharon and Salisbury, were retained by the Colony."
Although the Assembly accepted the report of the com- mittee for an equal division of the lands, between the Colony and the towns, and appointed a committee to make the division, about twelve years passed before the matter was finally adjusted. At the October session, 1738, the As- sembly ratified and confirmed the doings of the committees that had made the division, and directed the Governor or
41
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
Deputy Governor to execute a patent of the lands, called "Waramaug's Reserve," to the proprietors of the towns of Hartford and Windsor; and so the long controversy was "amicably composed."
Trumbull, in his "Memorial History of Hartford County," says: "On the division of the 'Western Lands' in 1726, the township of Litchfield, and seven other townships in the eastern part of the territory which now constitutes Litch- field County, were conceded to the towns of Hartford and Windsor; and by mutual agreement between those towns in 1732, the inhabitants of Hartford became sole owners of Hartland, Winchester, New Hartford, and half of Harwin- ton; and the inhabitants of Windsor had Colebrook, Bark- hamsted, Torrington, and the west half of Harwinton. Each tax-payer in Hartford and Windsor became the pro- prietor of a share in one or other of the seven new town- ships. Winchester was first surveyed and laid out in 1758, and the owners of the wild territory belonged in Hartford, whence many of the settlers came. It was incorporated in 1771. New Hartford was settled about 1733, and as its name would signify, its early inhabitants were from Hart- ford. .. . The first settlement of Norfolk, which began in 1744, was by men from Hartford and Windsor."
The laying out of the College land in this town is of interest. At the October session, 1732, "upon the memorial of Rev. Mr. Samuel Andrew and others, trustees of Yale College, this Assembly do grant and order, that in each of the five new townships lately laid out East of the Ousa- tunnuck river, there shall be laid out in one entire piece, three hundred acres of land, to be laid out at a distance from the several town platts; which tracts of land, con- taining in the whole fifteen hundred acres, shall, when laid out, be by a patent under the seal of this Colony, granted and confirmed to the trustees of said College, to have and to hold to them and their successors, trustees of said Col- lege, for the only and sole use benefit and behoof of said school forever, and to no other use." This College land was accordingly laid out in the north-western part of the town, near or toward the Canaan town line.
42
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
After the long controversy over these lands had been settled, their attention was turned to dividing into "rights," as they termed it, making sale of and settling these new towns. At the October session, 1737, it was enacted: "That all the townships in the western lands, on both sides the Ousatunnuck river, be disposed of and settled, and that each town on the east side of said river shall be divided into fifty-three rights, exclusive, of the lands granted to the College, . . . of which fifty-three rights, one shall be for the use of the ministry forever that shall be settled in the town according to the constitution and order of the churches established by the laws of the government: one for the first gospel minister settled as aforsaid; and one right for the support of the school in said town. . . . And the remaining fifty rights in said towns shall be sold at public vendue to the highest bidders, being of his Majestie's subjects, inhabitants of this colony, that will settle and inhabit at least three years in such towns, and to no other persons. .. It is further enacted that . . . every purchaser shall be obliged within three years next after their purchase to build and finish an house of eighteen feet square, and seven feet stud; and to subdue and fence at least six acres of land in such town where he is settled or hath fixed his agent. . . . Agreeable to which it is further enacted that the northeastern township . . . be sold at Hartford, at the court house to the highest bidders
. . on the second Tuesday of April next, . . and that a committee be appointed to sell and assign the rights, . . and take bonds with surety of the purchasers for the money bidden, and give deeds, in manner and form as hereafter in this act directed."
At the May session, 1738, it was enacted, "That the town- ship at Hartford, by order of this Assembly upon the sec- ond Tuesday of April last, shall be called and known by the name of Norfolk" (possibly from the name of Norfolk County, England). It was further enacted that "the pur- chasers shall have liberty to assemble themselves, notice being first given, to choose their clerk (who shall take a
43
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
prescribed oath), . . . to make partition of said land, and to lay out the three public lots in said township, to choose committees, levy taxes, etc., .. . as the proprietors of common and undivided lands in any town in this Colony may do."
At the same session it was further enacted: "That the five townships lying on the east side of Ousatunnuck river, namely, Goshen, Canaan, Cornwall, Kent and Norfolk, are hereby annexed to the county of Hartford."
At the October session, 1738, the committee who sold the town of Norfolk in April previous reported that, "Ac- cording to your direction we sold the town on the west of Colebrook for about £180 per lot, and not having time that day to finish the writings, . . . the next day . . . they all but one (Timothy Horsford), who had taken a deed be- fore, declined taking their deeds."
"Upon the above report, resolved by this Assembly, that the sale of the above mentioned township be deferred till this Assembly shall give further order in that affair."
For twelve years nothing seems to have been done toward selling the town. Roys says: "There were so many townships offered for sale which were considered far pref- erable, both as to soil and situation, that when it was first set up at vendue, one bidder only appeared and bid off a small part of it."
At the May session, 1750, an order for the sale of the town was made, for the third Wednesday of December next, but the sale was postponed by order of the session in Oc- tober of the same year. At the same (October) session Capt. Roger Wolcott and Mr. Thomas Seymour were appointed a committee, "to take effectual care of the township of Nor- folk, and that no trespasses be committed upon the lands or timber growing thereon, and to prosecute to final judg- ment and execution every person who shall in anywise trespass thereupon."
At the October session, 1751, it was enacted that: "The townships of Litchfield, Woodbury, New Milford, Harwin- ton, New Hartford, Barkhampsted, Hartland, Colebrook,
44
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
Norfolk, Canaan, Salisbury, Kent, Sharon, Cornwall, Goshen, Torrington and Winchester, lying in the north- westerly part of this colony, shall be and remain one entire county, and be called the County of Litchfield, . . . and to include the towns above mentioned." At both the May and October sessions of 1754, orders of sale of the town of Norfolk were made and some rights were sold in that year, and at the May session, 1755, "Seventeen pounds, eight shillings and five pence, lawful money, was granted to the committee, for their service in said affair."
After a struggle to settle and form a town, which had lasted about twenty years, at the October session, 1758, "On the memorial of John Turner, Jedediah Richards, Ebenezer Burr, and others, all of Norfolk in the county of Litchfield, showing to this Assembly that there are settled in said township forty-three families; praying that said inhabitants may have town privileges as other towns in this colony have, and also have power to procure the Gospel to be preached among them, as by their memorial on file appears, Resolved by this Assembly, that the said memorialists and others, inhabitants of said Norfolk, be, and they are hereby made and created an entire town, by the name of the town of Norfolk in the County of Litchfield. And this Assembly do also grant to said town of Norfolk all such rights, powers, privileges and immunities as each or any of the towns in this Colony by law already have. And that Mr. George Palmer and Mr. Ezra Knap, both of said town, be, and they are hereby appointed and impowered, to give due warning and notice to all the inhabitants of said town, to meet at some suitable place in said town, on the second Tuesday of December next, and when met, to choose all such town officers as the other towns in this Colony by law have right to choose and appoint."
The following petitions, copied from the original docu- ments in the archives of the state, are of interest, and al- though in some instances involving a repetition to some extent of matter found elsewhere, are inserted, giving, as they do, a correct list of the original settlers of the town, eto .:
45
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
Petition of Timothy Horsford for extension of time of payment of bonds.
"To ye Honorable General Assembly of his Majesties Collony of Connecticut, Convened in New Haven October 18, 1739.
"The memorial of Timothy Horsford of the northern Township in this Government sold at Arford by an act of Assembly holden in New Haven October 13, 1737, humbly showeth: That whereas ye memorialist having purchased one 53d part of s'd township and taken a deed thereof from the Gov. and Company of this Collony at £170, and given bonds with sureties for payment thereof and also for settling the same according to s'd act of Assembly; but for as much as the other parts of s'd township are not sold and conveyed, ye memorialist is wholly deprived of the benefit of his purchase, and the time of payment drawing near, and ye memorialist being the only proprietor that took a deed, &c.,
Prayes that this Honorable Assembly would consider the loan- some and disapointed circumstances of ye memorialist being obliged to dwell there alone, and nott knowing where to pitch or to improve, nor who will have the benefit of his labours, when the s'd township shall be divided ;- and grant relief, either by granting libertie for ye memorialist to lay out to himself on his own right 200 acres of land in order to settle himself with one neighbour, or defer the time of payments for s'd land until those that shall purchase the other of s'd rights may be obliged to make their payments, and abate the interest that the land will draw to that time, and nott make ye me- morialist alone suffer for the neglect of others who were fellow pur- chasers, and have hitherto refused or neglected to take deeds and give security, or in some other way grant ye memorialist some re- lief; and ye memorialist as in duty bound, &c."
TIMOTHY HORSFORD.
New Haven October 18, 1739.
"In ye Lower House, on ye within memorial granted yt. the time of payment be deferred for ye term of four years, and that ye interest thereof be abated for sd time, provided sd memorialist find sufficient security &c to ye acceptance of ye committee that sold &c and all at ye cost of ye memorialist, and that a bill be drawn in form."
Test ANDREW BURR Clerk.
Concurred in the Upper House.
Test GEORGE WYLLYS Sect.
From the original petition in the State archives at Hartford.
4
46
HISTORY OF NORFOLK.
"Petition to set up the order of the Gospel amongst us."
"To the Honorable the General Assembly to be held at New Haven on the 12th day of October next; a memorial of us the sub- scribers, inhabitants of Norfolk in Litchfield county, humbly showeth &c this honorable Assembly that we are settled here about 43 fami- lies, agreeable to the act of Assembly, and we are destitute of town privileges, and therefore we pray if your honors would be pleased to grant unto us town privileges so as the rest of the towns of the colony have, and so set up the order of the Gospel amongst us; and your memorialists bound in duty forever pray.
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.