History of the colony of New Haven to its absorption into Connecticut, Part 8

Author: Atwater, Edward Elias, 1816-1887
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: New Haven, Printed for the author
Number of Pages: 1255


USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > New Haven > History of the colony of New Haven to its absorption into Connecticut > Part 8
USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > New Haven > History of the colony of New Haven to its absorption into Connecticut > Part 8


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


' Although the name of the " one man " who dissented is not given in the record, there can be no doubt that it was Samuel Eaton. Mather records the tradition that it was he; and the treatise of Davenport bears internal evidence that it was addressed to one of his clerical friends in the plantation, that is to Eaton or Prudden. But Prudden could not have been the dissentient speaker to the assembly in Mr. Newman's barn; for he and his company, having resolved to remove, took no part in laying the foundations of civil order in Quinnipiac.


100


HISTORY OF NEW HAVEN COLONY.


were most approved might be chosen ; for the town being cast into several private meetings, wherein they that dwelt nearest together gave their accounts one to another of God's gracious work upon them, and prayed together and conferred to their mutual edifica- tion, sundry of them had knowledge one of another, and in every meeting some one was more approved of all than any other. For this reason and to avoid scandals, the whole company was entreated to consider whom they found fittest to nominate for this work."


The sixth query was then read in these words, viz. :-


"Whether are you all willing and do agree in this, that twelve men be chosen that their fitness for the foundation work may be tried; however there may be more named, yet it may be in their power who are chosen to reduce them to twelve, and it be in the power of those twelve to choose out of themselves seven that shall be most approved of the major part to begin the church.


" This was agreed upon by consent of all, as was expressed by holding up of hands, and that so many as should be thought fit for the foundation work of the church shall be propounded by the plantation and written down and pass without exception unless they had given public scandal or offence ; yet so as in case of pub- lic scandal or offence, every one should have liberty to propound their exceptions at that time publicly against any man that should be nominated when all. their names should be written down; but if the offence were private, that men's names might be tendered, so many as were offended were entreated to deal with the offender privately, and if he gave not satisfaction, to bring the matter to the twelve that they might consider of it impartially and in the fear of God. The names of the persons nominated and agreed upon were Mr. Theophilus Eaton, Mr. John Davenport, Mr. Robert Newman, Mr. Matthew Gilbert, Mr. Richard Malbon, Mr. Nathanael Turner, Ezekiel Cheever, Thomas Fugill, Jolın Punderson. William Andrews and Jeremiah Dixon.1 No exception was brought against any of those in public, except one about taking an excessive rate for meal


' The registrar omitted one of the twelve names. Was the name of the penitent extortioner designedly dropped, or was the omission acci- dental ?


طبعد مكالجسدية + ستحاكى


-


FOUNDATIONS LAID IN CIIURCH AND STATE. IOI


which he sold to one of Pequonock in his need, which he confessed with grief, and declared that having been smitten in heart and troubled in his conscience, he restored such a part of the price back again with confession of his sin to the party as he thought him- self bound to do. And it being feared that the report of the sin was heard farther than the report of his satisfaction, a course was con- cluded on to make the satisfaction known to as many as heard of the sin. It was also agreed upon at the said meeting that if the persons above named did find themselves straitened in the number of fit men for the seven, that it should be free for them to take into trial of fitness such other as they should think meet, provided that it should be signified to the town, upon the Lord's day, whom they so take in, that every man may be satisfied of them according to the course formerly taken."


In due time the twelve thus appointed chose out of their own number the following seven, as "most ap- proved of the major part, to begin the church," namely, Theophilus Eaton, John Davenport, Robert Newman, Matthew Gilbert, Thomas Fugill, John Punderson, and · Jeremiah Dixon. "By these seven persons, covenant- ing together, and then receiving others into their fel- lowship, the first church of Christ in New Haven was gathered and constituted on the 22d of August, 1639." I


On the 25th of October these seven proceeded to organize themselves as a civil court, proceeding as follows, "after solemn prayer unto God :" -


" First : All former power or trust for managing any public affairs in this plantation, into whose hands soever formerly committed, was now abrogated and from henceforward utterly to cease.


" Bacon's Hist. Dis., p. 24. Dr. Bacon ascertains the date from the records of the First Church in Milford, which was gathered in New Haven, where its members still resided, and, as the local tradition says, on the same day with the New Haven church. Mather (Mag., Book III., ch. 6) records the tradition somewhat differently, giving to each church one of two consecutive days employed in the formalities of institution.


THE NEWBERRY LIBRARY HA


102


HISTORY OF NEW HAVEN COLONY.


".Secondly : All those that have been received into the fellow- ship of this church since the gathering of it, or who, being members of other approved churches, offered themselves, were admitted as members of this court: namely, Mr. Nathanael Turner, William Andrews and Mr. Cheever, members of this church; Mr. Samuel Eaton, John Clark, Lieutenant Seeley, John Chapman, Thomas Jeffrey, and Richard Hull, members of other approved churches."


The court then proceeded to choose Theophilus Eaton "magistrate for the term of one whole year;" and Robert Newman, Matthew Gilbert, Nathanael Turner, and Thomas Fugill, "deputies to assist the magistrate in all courts called by him for the occa- sions of the plantation for the same term of one whole year."


Thomas Fugill was chosen clerk, and Robert Seeley marshal.


" It was further agreed that there should be a renewing of the choice of all officers every year at a general court to be held for this plantation the last week in October yearly; and that the word of God shall be the only rule to be attended unto in ordering the affairs of government in this plantation."


The formal institution of civil authority may have been hastened by foresight of an event which imme- diately followed ; for, the next day after the magistrate had been clothed with power, an Indian named Nepau- puck was brought before him upon his warrant, charged with the murder of an Englishman at Wethersfield. A few days afterward a general court was assembled, and the prisoner was brought before it for trial. Being found guilty upon evidence so clear that he confessed his guilt, he was condemned to death. "Accordingly his head was cut off the next day, and pitched upon a pole in the market-place."


B


CHAPTER VII.


DIVISION OF LAND.


W TE have already seen that immediately after the town-plot was laid out, a house-lot was assigned to every free planter ; by which appellation a person who had invested in the common property of the plan- tation was distinguished from other inhabitants. These house-lots were so large as to require, in most cases, all the labor their owners could give to husbandry during the first two summers. The few who needed more land for cultivation were allowed to plant in "the neck " be- tween Mill River and Quinnipiac River. So desirable did the proprietors regard the increase of population, that they not only made the quantity of land thus as- signed to a free planter to depend partly on the num- ber of persons in his family, but also freely assigned a small lot on the outside of the town-plot to every house- holder in the plantation who desired to become a perma- nent resident, but was unable to purchase a share in the common property. The number of householders thus gratuitously supplied with house-lots was in the begin- ning thirty-two. Others were afterward added.


In January, 1640, arrangements were made for the division of the neck, the salt meadows, and a tract which, extending in every direction about a mile from


103


104


HISTORY OF NEW HAVEN COLONY.


the town, was called the two-miles-square. The divis- ion was so arranged that every free planter should have some land in the neck, some in the meadows, and some in the upland of the two-miles-square.


Out of the last-mentioned tract certain reservations were made; and the remainder was divided into nine parts, one for each of the nine quarters into which the town was divided, each quarter in the town having its out-lands as nearly as possible contiguous to itself. In consequence of this arrangement, these sections of out- lands were also called quarters ; and, there being more occasion for using the term in connection with the out-lands than the home-lots, it came by degrees to be applied almost exclusively to them in later records.


Commencing with the east-centre, or Mr. Davenport's quarter, let us connect the nine quarters with out-lands assigned to them respectively in the first division. The out-lands of Mr. Davenport's quarter were bounded by Chapel Street, Grand Street, a line about three hundred feet east of State Street, and Mill River. Mr. Eaton's quarter was bounded by Grand Street, State Street (or, as it was called, Neck Lane), a line in continuation of that just mentioned, described as three hundred feet east of State Street, and the meadows bordering on Mill River. Mr. Newman's quarter was bounded by Neck Lane, Mill Lane (as Orange Street was called), Grove Street, and the meadows bordering on Mill River. Mr. Tench's quarter, lying between Mill Lane and Prospect Street, extended outward from Grove Street so far as was necessary to furnish every planter in the quarter with his proportionate allotment.


It will be seen, that, while Mr. Davenport's quarter


105


DIVISION OF LAND.


had their out-lands near their home-lots, Mr. Tench's out-land quarter only touched his town quarter, and that, if the out-lands of the next quarter had been assigned so as to be contiguous to those of Mr. Tench's quarter, they would have been far distant from the home-lots to which they belonged. This difficulty was solved by the sequestration of land lying west of Prospect Street, for common use. This tract included the cow-pasture, the ox-pasture, the Beaver-pond meadows, and a field far- ther west than these, which remained unfenced, and was called the Common.


By means of this sequestration, the out-lands of the Yorkshire quarter were so assigned that they were im- mediately contiguous to the house-lots to which they belonged, lying between the common land on the north and Chapel Street on the south, and extending from York Street westward to or beyond West River. The Herefordshire quarter, lying between Chapel Street and Oak Street, extended from York Street to or beyond the river. Mr. Gregson's out-land quarter lay south of the Herefordshire quarter, and was bounded on the east by the road to Milford, which passed through Broad Street and Davenport Avenue, as they are now named. Next was the suburbs quarter, between Milford Road and Washington Street. Last in our enumeration, Mr. Lamberton's quarter covered all the land between Wash- ington Street and the harbor.


There still remained within the two-miles-square four reservations besides those which have been mentioned : viz., one called the market-place ; another containing so much of the land bordering on the West Creek as had not been allotted to persons who were not proprietors ;


106


HISTORY OF NEW HAVEN COLONY.


a third containing the land bordering on the East Creek ; a fourth called Oyster-shell Field, east of the East Creek reservation, and comprehended between Chapel Street and a line about three hundred feet north of East Water Street. The last-named tract was leased from year to year to persons who desired to cultivate more land than they owned. The reserved land on . both sides of the two creeks was either allotted in small parcels to persons who were not proprietors, or was reserved to be so disposed of when there should be occasion.


In the first division of out-lands, no provision was made for those who had been gratuitously supplied with house-lots ; but in the second division the rule was adopted to allot "six acres for a single person, eight acres for a man and his wife, with an acre added for every child they have at present." If they accepted these out-lands, they were to pay taxes on them as other planters did, at the rate of twopence per acre ; and "if any of them, satisfied with their trades, or not liking the place of their allotment, shall refuse or neglect to take up the land, yet every one admitted to be a planter shall pay twelvepence a year to the treasurer toward public charges."


The out-lands thus assigned to each of the nine quar- ters were subdivided according to the same rule of division which had obtained in the division of the town quarters ; every planter having "a proportion of land according to the proportion of estate which he hath given in, and number of heads in his family." Five acres were allowed for every hundred pounds of estate, and an equal quantity for every two heads. These sub-


-


107


'DIVISION OF LAND.


divisions, however, were not separated one from another by division fences ; but each quarter was enclosed by a common fence, for his proportion of which every pro- prietor was responsible. As might be expected, much legislation and frequent fines were necessary to keep these fences sufficient for the protection of the enclos- ures from the forays of hungry cattle.


The meadows were sufficient to afford five acres for every hundred pounds of estate and half an acre for every head, and an addition in quantity to some allot- ments where the quality was inferior. The neck was divided so as to give one acre for every hundred pounds, and half an acre for every head.


Some months after this division was ordered, and, as it would seem, before it was consummated, a second allotment was made, disposing of those portions of the common property which lay outside of the two-miles- square. At a general court held the 23d of October, 1640, it was "ordered that in the second division every planter in the town shall have for every hundred pounds of estate given in, twenty acres of upland, and for every head two acres and a half."


The sequestered lands were held as common property for many years, but were ultimately divided, one portion after another, till, with some unimportant exceptions, only the market-place was held in common. After the second division of lands, and probably in fulfilment of an order passed at the general court mentioned above, that "all the upland in the first division, with all the meadows in the plantation, shall pay fourpence an acre yearly ; and all the land in the second division shall pay twopence an acre yearly, at two several days of payment,


108


HISTORY OF NEW HAVEN COLONY.


viz., the one in April, and the other in October, to raise a common stock or public treasury," the following sched- ule was prepared, exhibiting the name of every proprie- tor, the number of persons in his family, the amount of his estate, and the number of acres belonging to him in each of four classes of land ; viz., the first division of upland, the neck, the meadows, and the second divis- ion of upland. The eighth and last column shows the amount of his annual tax. The schedule, though pre- pared before April, 1641, is found in the record-book amid the records of 1643. It is not easy to determine whether it was copied into the record-book in 1643, after some changes had been made corresponding with changes of title ; or was recorded when first prepared, the secretary reserving for his report of the court's proceedings the thirty pages which precede it.I


This schedule furnishes important aid in determining who were proprietors of the town in the first years of its history, the social importance of each so far as the measure of his wealth determined it, and, when studied in connection with the land-records of the town, the location of his house-lot. The schedule disposes the proprietors into eleven groups ; eight of which occu- pied the eight squares surrounding the market-place ; another group, consisting of only four, had their dwell- ings on East Water Street, fronting the harbor; the remaining two inhabited the two blocks of land of irreg- ular shape, called suburbs.


" "Mr. Crane resigned Mr. Hickock's lot into the town's hand," Sept. 30, 1641 ; yet the lot stands in Mr. Hickock's name. There is so much probability that the schedule was recorded before the collection of the rate due in April, 1641, that it will be designated as the schedule of 1641.


109


DIVISION OF LAND.


Persons Numbered.


Estates.


Land in the First


In the Neck.


Meadow.


Land in the Second


Division.


Rates yearly paid for Land.


Mr. Theophilus Eaton


6: 3,000


165


33


153


612


£10 13 00


Mr. Samuel Eaton .


2 800


45


9


41


164


2 19 00


Mrs. Eaton


I


150


IO


2


8


32


o 12 00


David Yale


I


300


1712


335


1512


62


I


02


06


William Tuttle


7


450


3712


1/2,,32


212


IO


O


5


II


Capt. Turner


7


800


5716


43/2


174


3


06


06


Richard Perry


3


260


2012


4/2 ,, 16


1412


58


I 02


08


Mr. Davenport


3 1,000


5732


Richard Malbon


7


500


42/2


812


5132 2814


206 114


2 05


Thomas Nash


7


IIO


23


432,,16


9 6


24


0 12 040b.


Thomas Kimberley


7


12


18,,16


3/2,,19


4,, 16


1612,,24 64


I


04


00


Matthew Gilbert


2


600


35


7


31


124


2 05 00


Jasper Crane.


3


480


1612


334 ,,8


2512 53 27


108


2 01


00


George Lamberton .


6 1,000


65 1212


13


53 812


34


O 13


06


Thomas Jeffries .


2


100


IO


2


6


24


0 10


Robert Seeley


4


179


1824,,32 612


14 ,,8


21%


IO


O


5 01


John Budd


6


450


3132


712


25/2


102


2


00 06


Richard Hull


4


19


II


2 ,,30


3


1134,,4 28


o


17 99


Benjamin Fenn .


2


80


9


134 ,, 8


5


20


0


8


07


William Jeanes


5


150


20


IO


40


0 18 00


John Brockett


I


15


I


40


416


216


IO


O


4


03 0b.


Mr. Hickock .


6 1,000


65


13 6


53


212


3 19


00


Mr. Mansfield


4


400


30


22


88


-


Thomas Gregson


6 600


45 7212


9 141%


33 54%


133 218


9 19 02


William Hawkins


2 1,000


55


II


51


204


Jeremiah Whitnell .


2


50


I


250


15


3


13


52


O


19 00


Thomas Buckingham


4


13


212,,16


5


20


O


IO 02


Richard Miles


7


400


37%


23/2


94


I


18 c6


Thomas Welch


I


250


15


3 6


25/2


TOI


I


16


07


Henry Stonell


1


300


171%


312


15/2


62


I 02


06


William Fowler .


800


47


912


411%


166


3


06


06


Peter Prudden


4


500


35


7


27


108


2


OI


00


James Prudden


3


IO


OOU


132,,16


2


8


O 5 02


2


300


20


4


16


120


I


15


OI


Mr. Rowe.


6 1,000


65


13


212


-


An Elder


4


500


35


7


212


3 19


00


William Wilkes .


2


150


216


324 ,,8


104,,32


43


0 18


05


Nicholas Elsey


2


30


William Preston


IO


40


27


514 ,, 24


7


5


O


2 060b.


Roger Alling .


5


70


16


3 ,,32


26


107


2


06


Ezekiel Cheever .


3


20


812


36


o 18


02


John Benham


0 II


02


-


Stephen Goodyear


9:1,000


312


14


0


6 06


Samuel Bailey


O 19 8


Nathanael Axtell


I


500


2715


13


25


o


7


04


4 32,, 24 34,,24



3


Division.


NAMES OF THE PLANTERS.


John Chapinan .


Ông


IIO


HISTORY OF NEW HAVEN COLONY.


NAMES OF THE PLANTERS.


Persons Numbered.


Estates.


Land in the First


In the Neck.


Meadow.


Land in the Second Division.


Rates yearly paid for Land.


Edmund Tapp


7


800


15212


Widow Baldwin.


5


800


52/2


An Elder


6


500


40


8


28


II2


48


I


00


Zachariah Whitman


2


800


45


9


41


164


2 19


00


Thomas Osborne


6


300


30


6


18


72


I


10 00


Henry Rutherford


2


100


IO


2 712


6 2712


24


O IO


00


Widow Potter


2


30


6'


N


IO


5


OI


John Potter


4


25


8


1912


334,,24


1312


54


I


11 000b.


Luke Atkinson


4


50


IO


2 ,, 16


475


18


o


9 об


Arthur Halbidge


4


20


II


2 ,,32


3


12


O


7 04


Edward Bannister


IO


8


132,,16


2


8


O


5


6


IO


John Moss


3


IO


8


1}2,, 16


2


8


O


5 02


John Charles .


4


50


1222


216


412


18


O


9 06


Richard Beach


I


20


3/2


72,,32


1,2


6


0


2 IO


Timothy Ford


2


IO


30


9


13%,, S


3


12


O


6


07


Daniel Paul


I


100


H


5/2


22


8 06


John Livermore.


4


100


15


3


7


28


0


13 00


Anthony Thompson


4


1732 150


316 2/1 ,,24


912


38


O 16 06


John Reeder .


2


140


12


S


32


0 12 10


Robert Cogswell


4


60


13


1/2,,16


5


20


O 10 02


Matthias Hitchcock


3


50


IO


2


4


16


O 8 00


Francis Hall .


3


IO


8


1-2,,16


2


8


O 5


02


Richard Osborne


3


IO


S


1 2,,16


2


8


O


5


02


William Potter


4


40


12


24 ,, 24


16


0


8


09 ob.


Edward Patteson


I


40


41/2


74 , 24


212


IO


0


4 03 0b.


Andrew Hull .


+


40


12


24 ,,24


4


16


0


8


og ob.


William Ives .


2


25


634


H


211


9


0


4


09


George Smith


I


50


5


I


3


12


0


5 00


Widow Sherman


2


50


H


316


14


0


6


06


Matthew Moulthrop


1


-


1


Thomas James, sen.


5


200


22%


5


50


-


Widow Greene


3


80


7%


1 ;2


22


8 06


Thomas Fugill


100


IO


2


6


24


0 10 08


John Punderson


2


180


14


27%,,32


IO


40


O


15 06


John Johnson


5


150


20


4


IO


40


o


18 00


Abraham Bell


I


IO


3


12. 12,,16


I


416


0


2 02 06.


John Evance .


I


500


2716


2516


IO2


I


16 06


Mr. Mayres


2


800


15


9


41


164


2 19


00


Mrs. Constable


3


150


15


3


9


36


0 15 00


5


500


373%


2 1


I3


O


7


09


Samuel Whitehead .


2


60


16


0


6 06


John Clark


3


4


12


1032 ,, 16|


2 ,,16


112,, 16


112


6


O


3


08


Peter Brown .


3


12.5


21%


4 416


IS


O


9


06


James Clark .


4 50


4V 2'4 ,, 24


51;


22


O IO 02


Thomas Yale.


I


100


.


4372 42 %


174 170


3 O3


06


Richard Platt


4


200


20


4


12


IIO


2 02


06


Thomas Trowbridge


3


O


02


William Peck


I ,,16


4


240


Division.


06


3 06


III


DIVISION OF LAND.


Persons Numbered.


Estates.


Land in the First


Division.


In the Neck.


Meadow.


Land in the Second


Division.


Rates yearly paid for Land.


Joshua Atwater .


2


300


20


4


I6


64


Thomas Fugill


I


400


22 12


41%


1613


66


II I OHHH 898E


6 6 8888


Henry Browning


8


340


37


732 ,, 24


21


84


I 15


09


Mrs. Higginson.


8


250


32 16


611


1615


66


I 08 06


Edward Tench


3


400


27/2


21 15


86


I 12


IO


Jeremiah Dixon .


I


300


II


212


15/2


62


I 01 04


William Thorp


3


IO


8


22,,16


2


8


O


5 02


Robert Hill .


IO


3


22,,16


I


4


O


2


02


Widow Williams


60


8


22,,16


4


I6


O


7


02


Andrew Low .


IO


8


112 ,, 16


2


8


O


5


02


Francis Newman


2 160


13


2/2 ,, 16


9


36


O


14


02


John Caffinch


500


6712


1316


2974


73


2


08


06


David Atwater


500


1


24/4


141


I II


04


Lucas


6


400


35


7


23


92


I


- Dearmer


I


300


1712


312


1536


62


-


Benjamin Ling .


320


21


4,,32


17


68


I


05 04


Robert Newman


2 700


40+


8


36.


144


2 I2 00


William Andrews


8


150


2732


516


46


I 02 06


John Cooper


3


30


9


134,,8


3


12


O


6 07


Richard Beckley


4


20


II


2,32


3


12


O


7 04


Mr. Marshall


5|1,000


6212


7


541%


263


3


15


IO


Mark Pearce .


2


150


1212


21%


815


34


o 13 06


Jarvis Boykin


40


7


124,,24


3


12


O


5 09


James Russell


20


6


I


",32


2


8


o


4


George Ward


6


IO


15


13


",16


3 16


14


O


9


Lawrence Ward .


2:


30


632 115


,, 8


212


IO


Moses Wheeler


2


50


7/2| 115


312


14


3


300


Thomas Powell


I


100


712


4/2


5/2


22


o 08


06


Commencing with this distribution of the proprietors into groups, and studying the land-records of the town, one may assign to almost every proprietor his house-lot in respect of location and, approximately, of measure. The map opposite the title-page was drawn with these


.


6232 1212


5232


210


3


17 06


Mrs. Eldred .


5 1,000


5211


210


3


17


об


Francis Brewster


9 1,000


35


2


2


1


12


I


2


3


2


I


2


8.8 88


Edward Wigglesworth


2215


2013


82


NAMES OF THE PLANTERS.


II2


HISTORY OF NEW HAVEN COLONY.


aids.I It locates the house-lots of all the proprietors ex- cept eleven. Of the thirty-two non-proprietors, seven had " small lots " given them on East Water Street, east of the lots of the four proprietors who lived on that street, and twenty-five were accommodated between George Street and the West Creek.


While the division of lands was in progress, the name "of the plantation was changed, by order of a general court held on the first day of September, 1640, from Quin- nipiac to New Haven. There is no reason for believing that any of the planters came from the port of that name on the southern shore of England, and the record gives no clew to the reasons which influenced the court in


" The author of this history is alone responsible for the map; but he thankfully acknowledges his obligation to Henry White, Esq., for the use of manuscript volumes which trace the land-titles from the original to the present proprietors, and for assistance in the solution of difficult problems. He feels some degree of confidence in regard to all the eleven groups, except that occupying the suburb on the west side of West Creek. Several transfers of title occurred in this group before the recording of alienations was imperative, and the shape of the quarter has been so changed that its original boundaries have not been ascertained. Only three, therefore, of the proprietors in this quarter have been located on the map ; namely, William Ives, George Smith, and Widow Sherman.


The dotted lines on the map represent fences of uncertain location. A street, cut from the corner of George and York Streets through to Oak Street, would be in line with Oak Street, and I am credibly informed that there was such a street; but how Mr. Gregson's quarter was bounded on the side toward the town, I cannot determine. The dotted lines on one side of the suburb lying west of West Creek are nearly coincident with the lines of Lafayette Street; but I am told that Lafayette is a modern street. There must have been an ancient lane nearly coincident with it, since one of the lots is described in 1679 as bounded east by the street (Hill Street), and " west by the way that goeth down to Jonathan Lamson's lot on the bankside."


II3


DIVISION OF LAND.


naming their plantation. In dropping the aboriginal designation, and adopting one familiar to Englishmen, ' they followed the custom of their time. They did it perhaps partly for their own pleasure, but more for the gratification of friends ; for in the course of two years, use must have greatly diminished the uncouthness, to English ears, of the Indian name. A letter of Daven- port to his early friend and patron, Lady Vere, is extant, in which he speaks of the arrival, in the summer of 1639, of the first ship from England ; and in it he says, "The sight of the harbor did so please the captain of the ship, and all the passengers, that he called it the Fair Haven." Perhaps this attempt of the English captain to give an English name occasioned the formal action of the court a twelvemonth afterward, which is thus recorded, "This town now called New Haven." Perhaps, also, this ship which first cast anchor in the harbor of New Haven, bringing passengers from Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, had weighed anchor in the port of that name on the coast of Sussex.




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.