USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > New Haven > New Haven, a book recording the varied activities of the author in his efforts over many years to promote the welfare of the city of his adoption since 1883, together with some researches into its storied past and many illustrations > 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
"A friendship made in Oxford between Whitfield and George Fenwick was continued through life and was fraught with important consequences to both. They both entered the University in 1610 and were most intimate throughout their stay there. They both died in England in 1657. The helpful disposition of Fenwick and his wife, the Lady Alice Boteler, had much to do with Whitfield's coming to America, and settling in Menunca- tuck, which lay in part upon land originally purchased of the Indians by Fenwick and by him given to the settlers of Guilford, as he himself wrote to William Leete, for the 'love he bore to Mr. Whitfield and his children.' So do early friendships shape a man's destiny." Ibid.
"The accepted spelling of the name Ockley, O-C-K-L-E-Y, deprives it of its ancient meaning, which was Oak-lea, the land of oaks. 'Here,' says an ancient chronicler, 'is a certain custom observed, time out of mind. of planting rose-trees upon the graves, so that this church yard is now full of them." Whether these roses became thornless, like those of St. Francis, we know not, but it is pleasant to associate our English saint. with oaks and roses. His life at Ockley was presumably for many years one of the greatest peace and comfort. His wife was Dorothy Sheaffe, daughter of Thomas Sheaffe, a clergyman of Kent, and cousin to Joanna Sheaffe, whose mother was a Jordan and who married William Chitten- den. Other cousins there were, Giles and Phineas Fletcher, sons of an ambassador to Russia from Queen Elizabeth, and themselves poets, writing under James I and Charles I. So here we find again poetry and culture and high position." Ibid.
The Heavy Expenditures of the Planters.
I have spoken on page 158 of the heavy outlays made by the leading settlers in clearing the land and building homes. We get a glimpse of this in the following letter written in 1675.
"His son, General Hezekiah Haynes, wrote June 27, 1675: 'it is suf- ficiently knowne how chargeable the government was to the magistrates in that first planting wherein my father bore a considerable part to the almost ruine of his family in England, for by a clear acct it may be made evident that he had transmitted him into these parts out of his estate in England between 7 & 8000 £, besides what he had of my Mother-in-Law's · portion, which was a thousand pounds, & by reason thereof we that were the children by his first wife suffered exceedingly.'" (P. 243, Vol. I, Memorial History of Hartford County.)
,
164
NEW HAVEN :
NOTE: In the summer of 1911, when traveling in England, I visited Guildford and Ockley. The purpose of my visits is explained in the following letter :
R. M. S. "Mauretania," Sept. 4th, 1911.
Dear Sir :-
Failing to see you last Wednesday when I had the pleasure of visiting Ockley, I venture to write you something of my errand to the place in which I am interested as an antiquarian, and as one of the Trustees of The Henry Whitfield House Museum at Guilford, Connecticut, in New England, Whitfield having been an early predecessor of yours in the living of your church at Ockley. His house at Guilford, Connecticut, built in 1639, is said to be the oldest house now standing in any of the original thirteen colonies of the United States of America. It has been recently acquired by the State of Connecticut and is to be used hence- forth as a museum. The house stands in a field (home-lot) of about IO acres near the shore of Long Island Sound. At a meeting of the Trustees last Spring, shortly before I was to sail for a summer in Europe, I was desired by them to visit Guildford and Ockley in the hope that I might thus find some way of more closely uniting Whitfield's home in Old England with his home in New England. My plan was, and is, to secure from Guildford and Ockley specimens of native flowers, fruits, shrubs and trees to plant about our Old Stone House and thus create such a garden as Whitfield may have originally planted, since our old records contain ample evidence that the first settlers gave much attention to "orcharding," and seemed very anxious to reproduce in New England the gardens and orchards left behind them in their English homes. If Whitfield had any such garden at Guilford, Connecticut, no trace of it now remains. But this is no reason why we should not plant one to-day to represent what other early settlers of his time undoubtedly had. In this garden I should like to plant roses from the churchyard at Ockley and about the place, oaks from Ockley, i. e., oak-lea. If we can depend on your good offices in this matter, you will place us under many obligations to you. I saw many fine trees at Ockley and I daresay that in the near neighborhood of the village oak saplings could be found suit- able for sending over to us. Before I sailed for Europe, I was also authorized by one of the Trustees, to buy at Guildford or Ockley for the house at Guilford, Connecticut, any piece or pieces of oak furniture such as Whitfield might have had, but I found nothing that I was satisfied to purchase. The furniture offered for sale at Guildford, England, comes from all over the Kingdom apparently and is for that reason disqualified, if not for the additional reason of being rendered dubious by being too much "done up." Could you let me know at any time if any pieces of old oak from Ockley are to be sold? The contingency is a remote one, I am aware, and also that it is much to ask. I only venture the suggestion in case such information comes your way. It has occurred to me that it might be a good plan to have copies made of any old oak pieces that
165
THE WHITFIELD HOUSE MUSEUM
may to-day belong to your church or have association with it. Whitfield left Guilford in 1650 and returned to England, dying at Winchester, but our associations with him connect us with Ockley and Guildford rather than with Winchester as you will see. At Ockley I found in what is called the old school house, a copy of Johnson's Dictionary-of no special interest or value, but a souvenir of my visit. I am wondering if the old school house, so called, goes back to Whitfield's time? My purpose is to suggest to our Trustees to erect in your church a simple brass tablet to Whitfield, if that course should have your approval. On reaching home I will send you a pamphlet giving some account of our Museum if that has not already been done.
I forgot to mention that in Guildford I visited the Hardy Plant Nursery where I was assured that they could send out for us a collection of plants, fruit trees and shrubs native to Guildford. With your kind assistance rose bushes and oak saplings from Ockley might be added to this shipment.
In the hope that you will be interested in this project of ours in New England, and regretting that I did not have the pleasure of seeing you in person, I am,
Very truly yours, GEORGE DUDLEY SEYMOUR.
The Rev. Frederick Marshall,
The Rectory, Ockley, Surrey, England.
THE SILVER OF THE FIRST CHURCH IN GUILFORD AND THE WIND THAT BLEW IT INTO THE WHITFIELD MUSEUM
On page 157 I referred to the subject of Colonial silver but never dreamed that any examples of it would ever grace the collection in the Whitfield House Museum. But it's an ill wind that blows no one good. One morning in January, 1917, Governor Woodruff, one of my co-trustees, burst into my office with the announcement that an agent of a New York millionaire collector of early American silver had been to Guilford and offered so great a price for the sacramental silver of the First Church that the deacons were in a quandary as to their duty. The said silver had been displaced by indi- vidual cups, with no likelihood that it would ever be used again and was now stored at some expense in the vault of the local bank where it could not be seen. What end, then, was served in keeping it? I promptly told the Governor to advise
166
NEW HAVEN :
the deacons that in five years, or ten at the outside, the silver would be worth twice the offer made for it. We also agreed on the spot, to formally make an offer to the authorities of the First Church to have a fireproof safe in which the silver could be displayed behind glass, especially constructed for it, provided the church would deposit it in the Whitfield House Museum. The offer was accepted, the safe constructed, and the silver installed in the Museum, where it may now be seen. On February 25th, 1917, the minister of the church, the Reverend Frederic E. Snow, preached an admirable sermon on "The Symbolism of the Ancient Communion Silver," from I Chron. 29 : 17-18.
The silver consists of nine pieces: a baptismal basin and eight beakers. These pieces are briefly described as follows :
A beaker given to the church in 1668 by Henry Kingsnorth, one of the original settlers of Guilford in 1639. This piece was made by William Rouse of Boston, a contemporary of Captain John Hull, the mint master, coiner of the pine tree shillings. This piece is claimed to be the oldest piece of church silver in Connecticut, but how about the silver cup given to Center Church in 1648 by Jno. Potter? The beakers next in age are three given by Henry Yatts. One of them is dated 17II. Yatts was a shoemaker, without family, who died in Guilford, January 16, 1704. The beakers were bought with a bequest he made to the church. They are the work of John Dixwell of Boston, son of John Dixwell of England, one of the judges of Charles the First. Dixwell paid the penalty of attaching his name to the death warrant of Charles the First by spending his last years in hiding in New Haven under the assumed name of James Davids. He was buried back of Center Church, New Haven, where his tombstone, marked only I. D., is to be seen to this day. Mr. Curtis attributes these beakers to John Dixwell, but Mrs. Florence Paull Berger attributes them to Jeremiah Dummer, another famous Boston silversmith of the same initials. The silver basin was the gift by will of Mrs. Deborah Spinning, who died February, 1766. It is the work of Samuel Parmelee of
167
THE WHITFIELD HOUSE MUSEUM
Guilford. Examples of his craftsmanship are exceedingly rare and this is perhaps the most important piece of it known to exist. Samuel Parmelee also made the silver beaker given by Madam Ruth Naughty in 1773 by her will of 1771. The three beakers of 1825 are the latest additions to the collec- tion. They were made by Barzillai Benjamin, 1774-1844, a native of Bridgeport, but later in business in New Haven.
And so it happened that through the foiled ambition of a New York collector, one of the choicest collections of early American silver came to find a place in the Whitfield Museum.
I am constrained to add that the alarm was soon sounded that a New York millionaire, through his agent, was combing the State of Connecticut for its ancient church silver. Inspired editorials were published in several of our most prominent newspapers. It is believed that very little of the church silver was sold. A year ago, through the efforts of the Connecticut Society of Colonial Dames, a great collection of it from all parts of the state were exhibited for some weeks in the Morgan Memorial in Hartford. General interest in the sub- ject has been aroused and the old silver now enjoys the pro- tection of sentiment, pride and, to speak bluntly, an intelligent understanding of its market value.
Note of April, 1921 :- It seems to have been conceded at the time the "Old Stone House" was restored in 1903-4, that the restoration was far from supported by reliable traditional and evidential authority and was dictated more by supposed museum-expediency than by any other stronger reason.
In any view of it, it must be regarded as unfortunate, since the house as restored is unconvincing to students of early work and grievously dis- appointing to visitors and more than that, unadapted, as becomes more and more apparent, to the housing and display of household furnishings and other objects of interest. In my opinion it was a grave mistake not to restore the house in accordance with the plans made about 1859 by the Hon. Ralph D. Smith, of Guilford, for Palfrey's "History of New England." Mr. Smith's plans were based upon material gathered prior to the rebuilding of the house in 1868 and speak with higher authority than any plans that can now be made. I strongly favor the re-restoration of the house in substantial accordance with Mr. Smith's plans. The sooner this is done the better, as a considerable amount of old building material is available for the purpose, having, it is true, no association with the present house, but associated with Guilford and participating therefore in the Guilford architectural tradition.
IX
PROTEST AGAINST THE APPROPRIATION OF STATE FUNDS FOR THE ERECTION OF PUBLIC MONUMENTS EXCEPT AS AP- PROVED AS TO "DESIGN, MATERIAL AND LOCATION" BY A STATE COMMISSION ON SCULPTURE.74
"The members of said commission shall be chosen from such citizens as are especially qualified, by travel, training, and taste, to exercise an intelli- gent judgment in respect to the matters to be submitted to them. After this act shall take effect all projects for the erection of any public statue, monument or other memorial on the outside of any city building, or upon any public grounds in or belonging to said city, shall be referred to said commission, and no such memorial shall be erected until its style, design, and material shall have been approved by said commission," From "An Act Establishing a Commission on Public Memorials"; approved June 13, 1905. Charter and Ordinances of the City of New Haven. 1905. '
Gentlemen of the Committee on Appropriations:
I am here to protest against the appropriation of any funds of the State of Connecticut for the so-called "Defenders' " monument at New Haven, and for the proposed Compo Beach monument at Westport. First, because I am opposed in prin- ciple to the appropriation of state funds for the erection of memorials anywhere except in the Capitol grounds at Hart- ford or in the Capitol building; and second, because I believe that in the absence of a competent state commission on memorials, money so appropriated will not be expended in the erection of memorials of worthy artistic character. I was not
74 Text of an address prepared for delivery before the Committee on Appropriations, at Hartford, February 19, 1907. The meeting of the Committee was adjourned before the arrival of the writer, who therefore sent the manuscript of the address to the Chairman of the Committee. The address was printed in full in the Hartford Daily Courant and the New Haven Union, of February 20, 1907.
169
ON PUBLIC MONUMENTS
sent here to-day, nor did anyone ask me to come and appear before you. I am here as a citizen of the State to protest against these appropriations.
The proposed "Defenders'" monument has been before the New Haven public for several years; if that public is not sufficiently interested to subscribe the amount required, I do not believe that the State should be called upon to do it. I know nothing whatever of the details of the plan to erect a monument upon the site of the battle at Compo Beach, but I am opposed in principle to the appropriation of public money in any amount for the erection of such memorials. I think the precedent a bad one to establish. If the State appropriates $10,000 for the "Defenders' " monument and $4,000 for a battle monument at Compo Beach, I predict that next year there will be a large crop of bills of the same character. Another self-appointed committee of New Haven citizens may appeal to the Legislature for funds to erect a monument 10 John Davenport, the founder of New Haven Colony; a com- mittee of Hartford citizens may ask the State for an appro- priation for the erection of a suitable monument to Thomas Hooker; another New Haven committee may ask for funds to erect a memorial to General Terry, and another, a memo- rial to Theodore Winthrop; Saybrook may well apply for funds for the erection of a memorial to Lieutenant Lyon Gardner; Coventry may appeal for funds for a memorial to Nathan Hale, and so on. There will be no end to it.
I myself should like to have money appropriated, if state funds are to be made available for such purposes, to secure for the city of Hartford a replica of French's superb monument to Dr. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet at Kendall Green, near Washington, one of the most beautiful works of sculpture ever produced in this country. No one will gainsay Dr. Gallaudet's great service to mankind, and yet Hartford con- tains no fitting memorial to him. Every committee will want more money than the last, and a rivalry, mischievous and expensive, will be engendered.
I come now to my second objection. What we want is not
170
NEW HAVEN :
more monuments-but better monuments-monuments of enduring beauty which posterity may not be ashamed of.
Bad monuments are the easiest things in the world to get, and the hardest things in the world to get rid of. The city of Boston, for instance, has some monuments which she is ashamed of and does not know where to hide. I am unwilling to go into this matter to the extent of criticizing any particular monument which has been put up with state funds wholly or in part, or to criticize any particular committee, but it stands to reason that a local self-appointed committee has not the qualifications required for securing suitable designs and getting them properly executed. Aghast at the multipli- cation of bad statues, the city of New York not long ago appointed an art commission to pass upon every monument and every building erected with public funds and every mon- ument by private funds within the Borough of Manhattan. This committee has passed upon a very large number of designs, and I believe about a quarter of the designs submitted have been thrown out or modified.75
A local committee from any section of the State may, with the best intentions in the world, secure a bad design and put up a memorial which posterity is certain to laugh at. Anyone who has visited any of the great battlefields of the late Civil War and examined the memorials placed on them by different committees may see the kind of monuments the average committee gets. If state funds are to be used for the erection of memorials, I submit that a state commission should be appointed to supervise each and every memorial as to the selection of an appropriate design-a commission to be relied upon to secure the services of competent architects and sculp-
75 "Now in regard to your other question as to what percentage of the submissions our Commission disapproves. The percentage has been approximately as follows, beginning in 1902, which we might call the first really active year of the Commission :-
1902-24%; 1903-48%; 1904-331/3%; 1905-23%; 1906-23%; 1907-24%; 1908-12%; 1909-15%."
-Letter of Oct. 21, 1910, addressed to the writer by John Quincy Adams, Asst. Secy. of the Art Commission of the City of New York.
I7I
ON PUBLIC MONUMENTS
tors. Money enough should be appropriated at least to pro- vide this committee with a clerk and with funds to secure expert assistance when desired. Perhaps the powers conferred upon the committee who have the adornment of the Capitol building in hand might be enlarged sufficiently to enable them to control and oversee the erection of all memorials of what- ever character for which any state funds may be appro- priated; but, as I said in the first place, I believe, on prin- ciple, that no state money should be appropriated for local memorials.
A tax of ten dollars each on every member of the Connecti- cut Society of the Sons of the American Revolution would comme very near to making up the amounts called for by the two bills before you. I am myself a member of that society and believe that it is the largest and most prosperous of all our patriotic societies.
It claims that the marking of historic places is one of its chief functions. Heretofore it has relied in large part, at least, upon private subscription to carry on its work, and I cannot believe that the society as a society has endorsed any change of policy in that regard. If so, I for one should greatly regret it. If the State is ready to commit itself to the policy of the appropriation of funds of the taxpayers for the erection of local memorials, such appropriations should at least be limited to the relief of country towns where money cannot be raised in suitable amount. Hartford and New Haven and other cities should not expect the taxpayers of the State to help them honor local heroes.
Why, for instance, should the farmers who are trying to wrench a living from the barren hills of Scotland be compelled to assist the rich citizens of New Haven in putting up an $18,000 monument for the defenders of the Allingtown bridge? Why, on the other hand, should the taxpayers of New Haven be compelled to assist the citizens of the city of Norwich in erecting an equestrian statue not likely to prove an ornament to their beautiful city? And are our heroes truly honored by monuments put up with money appropriated
172
NEW HAVEN :
as the result of "log-rolling" at Hartford? I cannot think so. It seems to me that everyone must admit that heroes are thrice honored when the tributes paid to them are voluntary and not wrested from the taxpayers. I do not wish to be misunderstood in making this point. I mean to except cases where it is perfectly clear that a memorial of some sort should in justice be put up in a place where the community absolutely cannot afford to do it, and where appeal to the public for sub- scriptions and to the patriotic societies for assistance has failed. But all this should be clear. The chances are that where all appeals fail it will be plain before the Legislature is petitioned that a memorial is not called for.
If the State of Connecticut has funds in its treasury for such purposes, it should repair existing historic monuments before it puts up new ones. The State is unlikely by the appropriation of any amount of money to put up any monu- ment of artistic merit equal to the old State House in Hartford.
That building, unsurpassed I venture to say in point of archi- tectural merit by any public building in the Commonwealth, and the work of.Bulfinch, one of the foremost American archi- tects of any time, has been suffered by the State and by the city of Hartford to be mutilated and to fall into such decay that it is an eyesore and a reproach. Consecrated by manv historic associations, they have not saved it from neglect and indignity. If the State has any duty to perform in the direc- tion of monuments, it may well create a commission and provide the money for restoring that building as far as may be to its original beauty, unless the city of Hartford can be aroused to a proper sense of its responsibility and restore the building and guard it hereafter as the most precious of all the relics that have been handed down to it from the past.76
Now to conclude, I protest on principle against taxing the public for the erection of local memorials, except where it
16 A movement is now (1910) under way to restore the building to its original form and appearance and is likely to succeed though opposed by a party who wishes to tear the structure and use the site for a municipal building for the City of Hartford.
I73
ON PUBLIC MONUMENTS
appears that it is absolutely impossible to raise the money otherwise and that the memorial is really needed to mark an historic spot or commemorate an action in which the entire State shares in equal interest; second, I submit that if the State is to commit itself to the policy of appropriating funds for the erection of local memorials, the State Capitol Com- mission on Sculpture shall be given enlarged powers so as to pass upon the artistic merits and otherwise direct the erec- tion of any memorials for which the State shall defray a part of the cost or the entire cost. I have before referred to the State Capitol Commission on Sculpture. This Commis- sion has done excellent work already, and its plan to write the history of the State sculpturally upon the Capitol building is an admirable one. To assist in the execution of this plan the commission has secured the services of Mr. Paul Wayland Bartlett, a native of the State of Connecticut, and by con- census of opinion one of the foremost living sculptors.
If this Committee on Appropriations is constrained to favorably report to the Legislature upon the appropriation of any moneys for local memorials, I respectfully submit that your report should in each instance contain the proviso that any moneys so appropriated shall be spent only in the erection of memorials approved as to design, material and location by the State Capitol Commission on Sculpture.
New Haven, Conn., February, 1907.
The Rehearing: Letter from Saint Gaudens.
The address as printed was so well received by the public as to measurably confirm the writer's position. For that or some other reason, the Defenders' Monument Committee secured a rehearing before the Committee on Appropriations, on May 9th, 1907. The Committee-room was packed-not, however, by the writer who was supported only by his "cause." Several spoke for the petition. When the writer's "turn" came there was a disposition even to unduly limit his time, but a fairer spirit prevailed and he was allowed to state his
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.