USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Stamford > History of Stamford, Connecticut : from its settlement in 1641, to the present time, including Darien, which was one of its parishes until 1820 > Part 6
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
THEALE, NICHOLAS, was here in 1650, as appears from land records. He was in Watertown, in 1638. He was a landholder, and died here Aug. 19, 1658. His will, witnessed by Nicholas Knapp and Joseph Theale, makes bequests to his son Joseph; his daughter Elizabeth, who married, Oct. 27, 1769, William Rat- cliff; and his wife. The inventory of his estate, taken Nov. 29, 1658, was proved in court Dec. 16, 1658, by widow Thell. He must have been somewhat prominent. His name still remains attached to the bridge on Broad Street, over Mill river. Joseph Theale son of the above, made freeman in 1669, represented the town five years, between 1670 and 1677, and removed to Bed- ford, N. Y., in 1687.
UFFIT, THOMAS, had lived here before 1660. His widow and her three children in that year agree to use their portion of his estate, which was in their custody, to pay any debts against
.
64
HISTORY OF STAMFORD.
him in Stamford, provided Thomas Uffit, of Stamford, and his two brothers, should agree to it, and engage to pay any debts against him, out of Stamford; that is, any debts due from him before his marriage to the present widow Uffit, late widow Theale. The widow, however, hopes the brothers may allow her and her children something, in view of the many debts she assumes. The witnesses to this agreement are: Joseph Theale, William Ratcliff, John Archer, Thomas Uffit, John Uffit, Roger Ferril, and one whose name is unreadable. In a subsequent record, Thomas Uffit, Roger Ferril, and John Uffit, refuse to make any further allowance for debts to the widow.
USHER, ROBERT, had land here in 1650. He took the oath of allegiance at New Haven in 1644, and came to Stamford. He married May 12, 1659, Elizabeth, widow of Jeremy Jagger. Ile was a man of some note, as his appointment by the Connec- ticut government, as constable, and his appointment as repre- sentative will show. He died in 1669, leaving his estate to his two children, Robert and Elizabeth.
WATERBURY, JOHN, came here soon after the settlement, and had land recorded to him in 1650. He died in 1658. He had lands here as early as 1650, as appears from assignment of lands of that date. His inventory bears date in April 1659, amount- ing to £185 12s. His sons were John, Jonathan and David, and possibly still others. Those three make over to their father- in-law Joseph Garnsey, in 1674, a parcel of land then in posses- sion of John Miller. His widow had married Joseph Garnsey, in May 1661, when she attested his will. This is one of the most numerous as well as respectable of the Stamford names, down to the present day.
John Waterbury, jr., married Mary -, and died here, Nov., 28, 1688. His will was entered on the record, on the testimony of Jonathan Bell, Dec. 11, 1688. It had been witnessed by Jonathan Bell and Joseph Bishop. In this will he makes be. quests to his wife, of his "now dwelling house and orchard,"
65
THE SETTLERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
&e., for her use while she remains his widow, after which they were to return to his eldest son John, and to his sons John, David and Thomas; and to his daughter Mary. IIe also makes his loving brothers Jonathan and David, the overseers of the children till they should come of age.
WEBB, RICHARD, probably came to Stamford from Norwalk, about 1654. The "Mill" in Norwalk was that year abandoned as worthless, and we find Mr. Webb here, soon after, engaged in the Stamford " Mill." He was probably a son of Richard of Norwalk, though he is not mentioned in his father's will, of date 1655. Mr. Webb was a man of some estate and note, rep- resenting the town in the Connecticut general court as early as 1667. The will of Richard Webb, sen., of Stamford, is on record in Fairfield, having date 7, 1, 1675-6; and the death of Richard Webb is on our town records as occuring Mar. 15, 1675-6, eight days after the will. The inventory of his estate bears date Apr. 29, 1676. His legatees were : his wife Margery; Joseph, who took the mill in Stamford, but who was to run it jointly with the widow; Richard, who had the uplands at Wescott's; Joshua, who took lands in Newfield, and the tools, which were in Huntington, L. I .; Caleb and Samuel, whose legacy was to be in the care of their mother; and Sarah. In a deposition of Richard Webb, made Nov. 22, 1667, he is said to be "aged 44 years or there about." Joseph Webb died here in 1684, leaving children Joseph, Mary, Hannah, Sarah and Mar- gery. Ilis inventory, dated Mar. 8, 1684, makes his wife's name Hannah. This name is among the most numerous and reputable names on the Stamford list.
WEBSTER, NICHOLAS, was carly here. He married Sarah, daughter of John Waterbury, who had been divorced from Zachariah Dibble. He died Aug. 12, 1687. His will, dated July 19, 1687, makes bequests to his wife Sarah, and his chil- dren John, David, and Rachel; and to Zachariah Dibble "if he settle here." IIe makes his brother Jonathan Waterbury trustee for his cstate. David Webster appears later on the land
9
66
HISTORY OF STAMFORD.
records, and had children born here. A John Webster, 1696, buys a saw mill and land here; and Rachel Webster married Henry Atwood, Aug. 18, 1708.
.
A
CHAPTER V.
-
STAMFORD UNDER THE NEW HAVEN JURISDICTION.
We have now found who the men were to whom mainly was entrusted the settlement of Stamford. Let us follow them through their experimental process of organizing a government, until they are at length safely and permanently at rest, under the jurisdiction which to this day their descendants do not fail to honor.
From the tenor of their title to the soil, they were at first a part of the New Haven confederacy. Their allegiance had been pledged in their acceptance of the territory. Their partners in the confederacy were New Haven, Milford, Guilford, Branford, and Sonthold. New Haven, the oldest and largest of these new towns was the capital. Here a general court was held at least twice a year, to which were admitted from each settlement two classes of members, magistrates and deputies. The magistrate held what would now be called senatorial rank, and the deputies were mere representatives. To this extemporised legislature, called in the expressive language of the times, the general court of New Haven, Andrew Ward and Francis Bell were admitted members, Oct. 27, 1641. Their title made them the honorable members from Rippowam ; and to them was entrusted the re- sponsibility of legislating for the Rippowam colony. The only business done in the court at that first session in which Rippowam was represented, having reference to the Stamford colony, was the appointment of Thurston Rayner as constable at Rippowam. His office was a very different one, from that which is now discharged under that name. It was one of high dignity and of solemn responsibility. In the original commis
68
HISTORY OF STAMFORD.
sion given our townsman by the August court, we learn their impression of its solemn and responsible trust. We will preserve that commission as a permanent witness to the style of legisla- tion which prevailed in that early day in the colony. It is in these terms: "to order such business as may fall in the town, according to God, for the next ensning year, butt is nott to be established in his office till he has received his charge from this court and testified his acceptance to this court."
On the sixth of the next April, 1642, Mr. Mitchell and John Whitmore are accepted from Rippowam, as members of the New IIaven Court, and "accepted the charge of freemen." At this session of the court Rippowam is by legal authority changed to "Stamforde." Whether this was done at the request of the deputies or not, does not appear from the record of the transac- tion.
During the spring session of the court of this year, Stamford engages their attention. The deputies had reported the sus- picions appearance of the Indians residing in the vicinity, and called for the advice of the court. The following conclusion is found on their minutes :
" Whereas, the deputies of Stamford, complain that their plantation are at some difference with the Indians, and therefore require the help of advice from the court how to carry towards them ; it is therefore ordered that the magistrates and deputies for this plantation shall advise with the aforesaid deputies of Stamforde what course may best conduce to their peace and safety."
In the October session of the court, "Goodman Warde" is chosen constable for Stamford, with powers similar to those of his predecessor.
In April, 1643, a formal letter from constable Ward gives official notice of the choice by the townsmen of John Underhill and Richard Gildersleeve as the deputies from Stamford. The . same letter makes a plea for a magistrate to be appointed by the general court, with senatorial rank in the legislative body.
69
THE NEW HAVEN JURISDICTION.
It also proposes the names of two approved citizens, who were nominated by the townsmen, as those who were suitable to be entrusted with this authority. These were Matthew Mitchell and Thurston Rayner. After carefully weighing the merits of these men, the court made choice of Rayner, and appointed him to the high office.
The first business which they introduced, pertaining to the colony which they represented, was the organization of a plan- tation court at Stamford. By a formal resolution this court was to be composed of Thurston Rayner for chief judge, and Capt. Underhill, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Ward and Robert Coe, as his associates. To them were entrusted all judicial questions which should arise in the colony, excepting such as were reserved for the adjudication of the general court at New Haven. These exceptions were in all those civil cases in which the property in question exceeded "in valew twenty pounds," and every crim- inal cause " when the punishment by scripture light, exceeds stocking and whipping, and if the fine be pecuniary, when the fine exceeds five pounds." This court was held here from time to time as occasion called for it for several years. When busi- ness of special interest or difficulty came up for adjudication, the governor and one of his assistants came down from New Haven to sit with the court.
In addition to the organization of this court, provision was made for appointing two of the officers of a military company for Stamford. This ordinance is still more illustrative of the spirit of the times than the appointment of the constable. We will give it entire : " Ordered, that the trayned band may chuse or confirm inferior officers, sergeant and corporal, or both, to ex- ercise them in a military way, provided that such officers be ' both members of the church and presented to and approved by the magistrate and deputies from Stamford, the fundamental agreement for votes and elections being still preserved intyre and inviolable."
In this ordinance we have reference to the peculiarity of the
70
IIISTORY OF STAMFORD.
New Haven policy as differing from that of the Connectient government. Church membership was the test of citizenship. No man conld vote or be eligible to any civil or military office, who did not first qualify himself by a credible profession of re- ligion. For twenty years, therefore, all the freemen and offi- cers of the town were taken from the church.
That such a policy would give satisfaction in a community in which but a minority of the adult population were church mem- bers could not rationally have been expected. And the evidence that it was here an impracticable theory of government, is found in the fact that it did not long succeed. That it greatly re- tarded the growth of the Stamford colony will be made appa- rent as we proceed.
We have now reached a period of severe trial to the new col- onists. The mere advice of the general court at New Haven, given in conformity with their decision of April 1641, did not relieve the dangers of the colony from Indian hostility. The Dutch had excited the intensest hatred of the surrounding Indians, and nothing but blood would henceforth appease it. The steps taken by the colonists to meet this peril, will be given in our chapter on Indian History. Those were days and nights of peril and of fear. Our colonists could never intermit their watch. Every day had its minute men, with arms at hand, all primed for sudden use. And for weeks, no day passed with- out a formal review of those capable of bearing arms. Not even the Sabbath was a relief to their fears or their military preparations. Their first sanctuary often witnessed, on the Lord's day, the gathering of musketed worshipers-at least four guns, well conditioned, being a legally appointed defense for that place of worship. The meeting house itself became the fortress of the town. A strong barricade around it, made it a safe refuge for the people, should a sudden irruption of the Indians render their dwellings insecure. The faithful sentinel, by day and by night, was to give no wneertain signal of approaching danger.
71
THE NEW HAVEN JURISDICTION.
In the midst of these constant and pressing dangers, it was most fortunate for the colony that John Underhill was here. In October of this year, he makes an appeal to the New Haven court for help to cheek and destroy the Indians, who were threatening the very existence of the town. He had appealed in vain to the Dutch to raise for him a hundred men to prose- cute the war. In the name of the Stamford settlers he now asks for a loan of twenty pounds. The loan was to be repaid out of the salary which Stamford had engaged to give him "yearly." So that it is evident that the handful of settlers at Stamford had been obliged to enter on this defensive war, at their own cost. The reception which this appeal met, is a marked tribute to the character of our military leader.
It appears that the Dutch had now become so much alarmed that they were anxious to seeure the services of Underhill. To retain the captain within their own jurisdiction, the New Haven colonists vote the loan, giving as the reason for it, their wish "to prevent the success of larger offers for his remove."
The Stamford deputies of this year made, it would seem, a very earnest plea in court for a vigorous prosecution of the war. They set forth the imminent dangers hanging over their exposed town. Their wives and children were every hour in fear of the stealthy and relentless foe. The Indians of the vicinity greatly outnumbered them, and were now laying their plans for the sudden extermination of the last pale face who should stand in their way. Without some speedy and terrible blow inflicted upon them, they would inevitably overrun and destroy the en- tire settlement. And as a final appeal, they warn the court that if they fail of furnishing the means now ealled for, they should bear the responsibility of whatever harm should come to the exposed town.
Meantime the extreme peril of the Dutch settlement, to the West of Stamford, had led to the movements which will be mentioned in our Indian narrative, and comparative peace was soon assured the settlement.
72
HISTORY OF STAMFORD.
The only incidents which appear on record, for some years after the peace are very few, and of but little importance. The attack upon Mrs. Phelps will be hereafter given. In the June session of the court in New Haven, Mr. Rayner calls for an efficient force to find and bring the offender to trial. The court ordered the search to no purpose. In August. of the same year, Wachebrough, a Potatuck Indian, succeeded in capturing Busheag, the fugitive assassin, and delivered him over to the Stamford authorities. The charge against him was made good, the testimony of the woman who had been so nearly killed by him being positive as to his indentity. His death was ordered. Decapitation was executed upon him, as he sat firmly erect, defiantly gazing into the eye of his unskillful executioner.
In 1643 an incident occurred in the town, which shows so clearly the manner in which justice was dispensed, that it will justify our notice. One of the planters, Richard Crab, had a servant, probably an Indian boy, who had been guilty of a pub- lic misdemeanor, such as was an offense to the community in those days when morals were strictly cared for. Mr. Rayner, the appointed magistrate, in the undoubted right of his sacred office, ordered the public chastisement of the boy.
Mr. Crab took offense at the exercise of such power, and claimed that the punishment was excessive and unjust. IIc claimed that he had already punished the boy at home, and that one punishment was sufficient. He went still further, and in- sisted that as the boy was his servant, and responsible to his administration, no authority existed which could rightly inter- fere in the case. This was, therefore, a case of rebellion against the legally constituted authorities. An appeal is made by Mr. Crab to the court. The case is heard. The court brought in their decision. It was designed to settle all similar questions which might subsequently arise. They fully justify the magis- trate as having done only his duty in the case. The ground they took was that the "family correction," though sufficient for all the purposes of correction at home, being there a timely
73
THE NEW HAVEN JURISDICTION.
and suitable expression of righteons abhorrence of such an offense, and a sufficient warning to all who witnessed it against the commission of a similar crime; yet it could never answer the demands of public justice which had been outraged, or appease the public indignation which was justly aroused. As the community had been insulted and harmed, a public ex- piation should be made, The court, therefore, would sustain and honor the magistrate. And since the charges made by Mr. Crabb, if not rebuked, would serve to bring the authority of the public minister into contempt, and so undermine all authority, the court proceeded to make Mr. Crabb himself a public example. They order him bound over to appear at the next meeting of the court in Hew Haven.
At the appointed time, Mr. Crabb appeared and was fined five pounds sterling money, for his presumptuous npbraiding of a public minister for the performance of his public duty.
From the first there seems to have been a degree of restive- ness among the settlers in regard to the limited franchise they enjoyed under the jurisdiction of the New Haven colony. As carly as 1644, but a little more than three years after the settle- ment, this impatience, under such restrictions, was shown by the secession of quite a portion of the colony. Mr. Denton and those who agreed with him, decided to try their fortunes under the Dutch government on Long Island, and accordingly removed and located at Hempstead. This removal took away from Stamford the following list of the settlers: Richard Denton, father and son, Robert Coe, John Karman, Jeremy Wood, Richard Gildersleeve, Wm. Rayner, Benjamin Coe, John Ogden, Jonas Wood, John Fordham, Edmund Wood, Thomas Armitage, Simon Seiring, Henry Pierson, John Coe, Robert Jackson, Tho mas Sherman, Francis Yates, and John Ellison.
And while this local rupture was taking place, and endanger- ing the continued existence of the settlement, a sudden enemy appeared on the stage, adding to the confusion and danger. The Dutch, now for some years established in New Amsterdam,
10
74
HISTORY OF STAMFORD.
at Manhattan, thought their opportunity had come for ex- tending their boundaries permanently to the Eastward, and sent out an expedition to demand the surrender of the settlement, at Stamford and Greenwich, to their authority. But the timely division of the settlers had left those disposed to be loyal to New Haven, free to assert their preference and maintain their choice. The Dutch found themselves powerless against such loyalty, and soon gave up their attempt. Twenty years later, when Sir George Downing, their English minister at the Hague, wished to recapitulate the provocations given by the Dutch to his government, we find him referring to this same invasion of the English territory in Connectient. In his own impassioned style, he asks the Dutch council :
"Did not the Dutch about 20 years agone come to an English town called Stamford, where none but English lived, and sum- moned them to come under obedience and pay them contribu- tion, and set up the Dutch arms there? Did they not send armed men to an English town called Greenwich ?"
But no Dutch temptation or threat could seduce the English colonists at Stamford to forswear their allegiance to the New Haven, English jurisdiction, even though so many of them dis- liked the tenor of their franchise and the character of much of their legislation.
But even the large removal, from the young colony to which we have referred, did not put an end to the disaffection. So positive had this dislike of the New Haven administration be- come in 1653, that a formal protest seems to have been sent from Stamford, with complaints of their rates and other grier- ances. At the same time, the commission appointed by the New Haven general court, to settle the controversy between the town and one John Chapman, reported an alarming degree of disloyalty, if not of open and avowed treason. The commis- sioners, Mr. Goodyear and Newman, had been sent to quiet what was thought to be a slight disaffection, on the part of the principal actor, in opposition to the New Haven jurisdiction. But they found their authority stoutly denied. Mr. Chapman
·
75
THE NEW HAVEN JURISDICTION.
claimed the right of being heard in full court. Whereupon the commissioners "caused the town to be called together, and being met they found them, for the most part, full of discontent with the present government they are under, pleading that they might have their free votes in the choice of civil offieers; making objections against their rates ; and propounded to have their charges of watching and warding the summer past, with some other work made about their meeting house for their de- fense, borne by the jurisdiction; and that they might have twelve men sent them at the jurisdiction charge to lye there all winter for their defense."
The principal speakers for the town before the commissioners were Robert Basset and John Chapman. The commissioners debate! the question, asserting the authority of the general court, but without allaying the mutinous disposition of the town. They then read the order of the parliament committee, requiring their submission to the government they were under, " which did somewhat allay their spirits for the present." On receiving this report from their commissioners, the general court ordered that the governor, if he see cause, shall issue a warrant "requiring John Chapman and Robert Basset to appear here at New Haven, at such time as the governor shall appoint, to answer such things as shall be laid to their charge."
In the following March, the marshall of the Connecticut colony with a posse, had been sent down to Fairfield to arrest Thomas Baxter, a sort of border desperado of that town, whose high handed measures had outraged the government and imper- iled the peace of both the Connecticut and New Haven juris- dictions. On the way they call at New Haven, to get aid from the government there. Two men are here added to their num- ber, with instructions for Richard Law, the constable at Stam- ford, to take men at Stamford and proceed to Greenwich if Baxter should have escaped from Fairfield, and "if Baxter's strength be not too great for them to seize him and bring him to New Haven." Thus commissioned the arresting party proceeded.
76
IHISTORY OF STAMFORD.
They found the offender and arrested him, when Robert Basset who seemed to have been a confederate with the offender, attempted by force to release him. They disarm him, and the marshall orders him to assist in guarding the prisoner. He seemed to consent to do so, but soon stole away. Soon, as if under his instigation, the party were attacked by a gang of the citizens, who made a desperate effort to liberate their prisoner. In the skirmish one of the Baxter party was killed and one of the arresting party wounded. Soon after, Basset again appeared, and began to expostulate with the marshall for arresting Bax- ter, when the marshall took him into eustody. Arresting two other of Baxter's aecomplices, the marshall takes them safely to New Haven. Baxter and the Fairfield accompliees are dismissed to their trial before the Connectieut court in Hartford; but Bas- set is arraigned before the court ot his jurisdiction at New IIaven.
In this trial it was made clear that Basset had been guilty of seditions conduet ; he had expressed himself against the gov- ernment of the jurisdiction ; he had been active to raise and carry on an insurrection in both the colonies ; he had, without any commission sought to raise volunteers against the Dutch; and had "been a ringleader in these ways of disturbance, and undermining the government of this jurisdiction ; and all this, contrary to his oath of fidelity."
How much of a disturber, and how far an exeiter of sedition Basset had been, appears in the testimony of both the Stamford deputies of this year, those eminently loyal men, sergeant Bell and goodman Law.
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.