USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Waterbury > The history of Waterbury, Connecticut; the original township embracing present Watertown and Plymouth, and parts of Oxford, Wolcott, Middlebury, Prospect and Naugatuck. With an appendix of biography, genealogy and statistics > Part 24
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
It is impossible to ascertain who were the early schoolmas- ters and "school dames" of Waterbury. There is reason, however, to believe that Thomas Judd, Jr., taught a school before he removed to Farmington, (early in 1709,) as has al- ready been suggested.
For more than forty years after Waterbury was settled, there seems to have been no school in the town except at the center,
--
237
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
and no school house except the small one sixteen feet by four- teen, first occupied, probably, in 1710. There a school was taught by a schoolmaster for three or four months during the cold season of each year, and by a "school dame," "if need be," and one was to be had, in the summer. Thus our fathers got the little schooling they possessed. Thus are accounted for their literary infirmities. They were rough farmers living in a rough country and in a rough age. They were skillful in chopping, grubbing, hoeing and " moin," but had little leisure or taste for letters. They had not, for a long time, what may be called an educated man among them, except their minis- ters. They furnished no graduate of college for the first forty years, and no graduate settled in the town for the first sixty- three years.
After the population of the town had extended from the een- ter in different directions, each neighborhood that would keep up a school, and had a sufficient number of scholars, was allow- ed a proportion of the school money. The first notice of these outside schools is in 1730 :
[Dec. 14, 1730] It was Agreed by Vote that at Judds Meadow According to their families they Shall have their School Money According to their list-And Woster Swamp and Bueks Hill Shall have the same privillidge provided Each party Keep and Maintain A school according to the Intent of the Law In that Case.
[Then follow lists of families at these several places. It will be noticed that Isaac Bronson is placed with the Judd's Meadow people. ]
Families at Judd's Meadow :- Serg. Joseph Lewis, Saml. Scott, John Andruss, Jos. Lewis, Jr., Edmund Scott, Jr., John Barnes, Saml. Barnes, John Johnson, James Brown, Ebenezer Hickox, Saml. Warner, Sen., Saml. Warner, Jr., Isaac Bronson. At Woster Swamp :- Jonathan Scott, Sen., Jonathan Scott, Jr., Ger- shom Seott, David Scott, Samuel Thomas, Ebenezer Warner, Ebenezer Richason, Doct. John Warner, Geo. Welton, Jas. Williams, Jos. Nichols, Jona. Kelsey, Abra- ham Utter, John Sutliff, Isaac Castle, Jos. Hurlbut, Henry Cook. At Bucks- hill :- Serg. Richard Welton, Richard Welton, Jr., Benj. Worner, John Worner, Obadiah Worner, Joseph Judd, Wm. Scott.
Dec. 10, 1734 Voted that A School be keep by A School Master the Whole year Following As the Law Directs beginning In January Next and to Be Keep Seven Months In the Town spot And Nine Weeks In the North west farms [ Wooster Swamp] And Seven Weeks in the South farms [Judd's Meadow] provi- ded that there be not less than Seven Schiolers In the School And If they fail In Any part of the Town the Money to Go to those parts of the Town that Maintain the School With Scholars.
In 1717, an amended school law was passed, requiring each
238
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
town in the Colony having seventy families to maintain a school at least eleven months in a year. The above vote is the first indication that the families in Waterbury had reached that number, bringing them within the provisions of the law.
Deeem" 12th 1737 It was voted that [the School for the year ensuing shall be keept twenty one weeks in the town spott and twelve weeks at Woster Society and six weeks up the river and six weeks att Judd's Meadow and also three weeks att Bueks Hill on such Conditions that said schools shall maintain seven Seholers at each School.
It seems intended in this vote to proportion the number of weeks which the school was to be maintained, in these several places, to the number of scholars to be accommodated in each. The same schoolmaster usually taught all the schools, going from place to place.
After a new meeting house had been erected, it was ascer- tained that the old school house was not in keeping with the other improvements on the green. A movement was made in Feb. 1730-31, designed to secure a new school house of increased dimensions and improved style. But the pro- ject was promptly voted down in town meeting. The people were not disposed to enter into new enterprises involving ex- pense. In December following, however, they changed their minds, " and voted to build a school house of twenty foot square on the meeting house green." They changed again on the twelfth of December, 1732, and "concluded that they would not build a school house." At the same time they "al- lowed the charge of five pounds 9 shillings and sixpence, for geting and drawing timber for the school house, the timber to be the towns." We hear nothing more of the enterprise till December, 1743, when the town " granted liberty to set a school house where the old house stood." Each school dis- trict or society built its own house.
In December, 1738, a vote was passed to divide the school moneys among the different societies " according to their lists of estate." In December, 1749, the first society of Waterbury 1 was divided into four districts for school purposes, to wit, Town Plot, (town center,) Buckshill, Judd's Meadow and + Breakneck, each (provided fifteen scholars were furnished) to have its proportion of schooling and school money.
239
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
The school lands which came from the half of the £150 propriety were at first rented. The rents were considered as at the disposal of the town. They were appropriated, for a time, to various public objects, besides the maintenance of schools, without apparently any show of right. I observe, however, no instance of such misappropriation after 1714.
The renting of the school lands, the repair of the fences, and the care of them generally, occasioned much trouble and some loss. A committee was therefore appointed, in 1734, to devise a plan for the legal and proper disposal of these lands. They reported Dec. 10th, and recommended
That a Committee be appointed to make Sale of All the School Land and pro- priety belonging to the Same And that sd Committee make Sale of all the Meadow Lotts to the Highest Bider att Some publie time and that sd Committee be Impow- ered to Give Deeds to Such persons as Shall Give most for sd Lotts and out Lands which Deeds Shall be held Good to the Grantee for the term of Nine Hundred Ninety Nine years and that the buyer Shall pay the Money Down or mortgage Lands for the Security of the principle and Give bonds yearly for the Interest of such Sums as he Shall Give for Such pertieular Lands as he Shall So buy and that the sd Committee Shall Have A Seasonable time to [dispose of] the propriety and the Lands that are to be Laid out on Sd Right and it is to be understood that the out Lands Is not to be Sold att a vandue but to be Sold to the best Chap that Said Committee Can find and that the uses of the money which the Above Sd Lands Shall Fetch Shall be Converted to the use of the School in Sd Town for the Said Term of Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine years.
[Signed] Joseph Lewis, William Judd, Sam11 Hikcox, Committee. The Above Written Bill was past into a Vote.
The sales commenced almost immediately. John Bronson, Jr., bought the school and in Bucks Meadow for 40s. and one penny per acre. Three and a half acres at Long Meadow brought £14, 13s., Nathan Beard being the purchaser. Many parcels of divided lands not taken up were sold, at different times, for ten shillings an acre. The money obtained from the sale of these lands was to be managed by the school commit- tee, who were to put it out at interest, " taking mortgage se- curity from time to time." Dec. 11, 1738, a vote was passed to associate "the town clerk for the time being " with the committee in the management of these moneys. At the same time the town by vote directed that the receipts from the fund should be distributed annually among the different societies. according to their several lists of estate.
240
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
In settling the claims of the Hartford and Windsor proprie- tors to the lands in Litchfield County, the Colony obtained the quiet possession of seven townships in the western part of the County-Norfolk, Goshen, Canaan, Cornwall, Kent, Salis- bury and Sharon. By the act of 1733, the lands in these town- ships were to be sold and the money distributed for the sup- port of the schools in the Colony :
Viz, those schools that ought to be kept in those towns that are now settled, and that did make and compute lists of their polls and ratable estate in the year last past, and such towns shall receive said money, every town according to the proportion of said list, and each parish to receive in proportion according to their own list given in as aforesaid the last year ; all which money shall be let out, and the interest thereof improved for the support of the respective schools aforesaid forever, and to no other use. [Old Statutes.]
The money received by Waterbury from the sale of these " Western lands," so called, remained, after Westbury and Northbury were set off, in the hands of the old society. The latter claimed, with some plausibility, that the new parishes were not entitled to any part of it, and declined to pay over any portion. The other parties contended for a share, the proportion to be determined by lists of estate. The contro- versy waxed warm, and the town meetings were agitated by it. In December, 1741,
There having been considerable discourse about the money coming to the town for which the western lands was sold and granted for the use of the school, and not agreeing in what method it should be disposed of, [the town] did by vote agree that they would refer it to some indifferent gentlemen to be decided by them where the said money shall be disposed for the use above said, whether it belongs to the first parish, or should be divided among the several parishes, ae- eording to what their lists show in 1732.
The "indifferent gentlemen" (who were named by vote) were Col. James Wadsworth and Col. Benjamin Hall. A com- mittee was appointed to wait on them, consisting of Capt. Hopkins and Serg. Thomas Porter, (of the old society,) Capt. Hickox, (of Westbury,) and Dea. Blakeslee, (of North- bury.) This plan of settling the difficulty, it is presumed, was not satisfactory to the discontented parishes ; for, it will be observed, their lists were, in 1732, comparatively small.
Ahnon Havel
241
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Nor is it probable that such a settlement, though mutually agreed on, would have been final.
In 1751, the outside societies, now comprehending West- bury, Northbury and the part of Oxford belonging to Water- bury, secured by some means a majority of votes, in town meeting, and in December of that year, the following vote was passed :
It was voted that all the monies giuen to the sd town for the use of the school in said town that said town drew by their list in 1732, upon account of the sale of the new townships, or western lands, shall, for the future, be divided by the annu- al list of each parish, for the use of [the] school in each parish-and that A, B and C be a committee to take care of said monies, and see that the same be made use of according to the law in that case made and provided. And if either of said parishes shall neglect to keep a school according to law, then said committee shall have full power to divide the said monies to and between those parishes that shall keep their school as aforesaid, according to law ; that is to say by their respective lists as aforesaid.
The committee afterwards named to stand in the place of A., B. and C. were Capt. Samuel Hickox, Daniel Potter and Joseph Bronson. At the same time, certain individuals belong- ing to the first society, to wit, Dea. Thomas Clark, Doct. Ben- jamin Warner, Isaac Bronson, Robert Johnson, James Nichols, Lieut. John Scovill, Samuel Scott, James Porter, Thomas Bron- son, Jr. and Lient. Thomas Porter, protested against the vote, and desired that their protest might be entered on the records.
But it was necessary that the town's committee should first get control of the money in dispute which was now in the possession of the school committee of the first society. A vote was therefore passed, which is as follows:
Whereas the first society in sd town have by their committee taken all the monies and bonds that was given to sd town for the use of a school in sd town as aforesaid into their possession, and used the same for the school of said society only, for some years past-It is therefore at this same meeting voted that A, B and C be a committee in the behalf of said town to make a lawful demand of sd monies and bonds of the said school committees of the said first society, and upon receiving of the same, they, the said A, B & C, are hereby impowered to change the same when they become changeable by taking said bonds and notes unto themselves and successors, as a committee for said town for the time being, and for want of said committee, to the select men of said town for the time being, so as said monies may be disposed of for the use of the school[s] of said town as afore- said, and in no other way.
C
16
242
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
The subject, however, does not appear to have been finally disposed of by the preceding action, and in March, 1770, it was again brought before a town meeting. A vote was passed declaring that thence forward the moneys derived from the sale of the western lands should be forever divided among the several societies and parts of societies of the town, whether then in ex- istence or which might be brought into existence, according to their several " claims."
This vote gave, of course, great dissatisfaction to the first society, and the school committee solemnly protested against it, as follows :
Whereas the Hon. General Assembly [&c.] granted certain moneys [&c. ] to the first society in Waterbury for the use of the schools in said first society forever* -And whereas the inhabitants, [&c. ] convened in town meeting, have voted [&c.] contrary to the laws of the colony-
Therefore, we the subscribers, school committee in sd first society, do enter this our protest against sd vote as being unlawful, inequitable and injurious to posterity -and request that the same may be recorded .- Dated this 12th day of March A. D. 1770.
[Signed] Jonathan Baldwin, Isaac Bronson, Jr., Ezra Bronson, Reuben Blakes- lee, committee of the first society of Waterbury.
Also Mr. Isaac Bronson protested against the sd vote and desired the same might be recorded.
When the new societies came to be made independent towns, the disputes concerning the school and ministerial moneys were renewed, the old town setting up an exclusive claim. Controversy, law-suits, derangements of the currency and bad management finally settled all questions by dissipating all the moneys.
* This, it will be noticed, is not the language of the law that made the grant.
0
243
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
CHAPTER XVI.
POPULATION INCREASES : IMMIGRATION.
PREVIOUS to 1710, but a single addition had been made to the population of Waterbury from foreign sources-that of Joseph Lewis. About 1710, or soon after, Thomas Clark join- ed the settlement. In 1711, Zachariah Baldwin from Milford, made his appearance, and was accepted as a £40 proprietor. In about two years, however, his courage had all oozed out. He sold everything, including " building and other timber," and slipped away quietly. With these three exceptions, there were no accessions of settlers, or intended settlers, from other towns, till after 1720. The peace of 1713, however, had brought comparative quietness and security, and was followed by brighter prospects. \ Removals became less frequent. The young men who had given so much trouble were with less difficulty constrained to settle around the family homestead. Some of those who had quit in the darker days of the settle- ment, returned. Such was the fact with Dr. Ephraim Warner, William Judd, Moses Bronson, Dr. John Warner and a few others. There was a moderate accession to the population from natural increase. Previous to 1720, much the greatest proportion of the inhabitants lived in or near the town center. A few families, considerably less than a dozen in all, probably, had settled at Buckshill, Judd's Meadow and Breakneck. The remainder of the town was still a wilderness. From 1690 to 1713, the taxable list in the town varied from £1,554 in 1694 to £2,415 in 1712. In 1713 it was £2,154 and in 1720 £2,757. Probably the population had not increased in proportion, at the last date.
The first new name that appears on the town records, after 1720, was that of Gershom Fulford, son of Abraham, of Woodbury. He was admitted an inhabitant, Feb. 28, 1721-2, and received a grant of "eight acres of land in the seques- tered land." IIe entered into covenant with the town, as follows :
·
244
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
We the subscribers do covenant to and with Gershom Fulford that if the above sd Fulford do come and cohabit in the above said town as our blacksmith and prac- tice his trade among us for the term of seven years next after the date above said and perform articles as our bachelors have done, that then the land given by sub- scription and by vote to be his own and his heirs forever-And if the sd Fulford do fail of this obligation, then the land given to him by subscription to return to the subseribers-We say this land to be taken up in the undivided land.
Daniel Porter, Samuel Hickox. S Gershom Fulford.
Fulford succeeded Dea. Judd, (now somewhat advanced in life,) and was the second blacksmith of the town. In process of time, he was raised to the dignity of town brander. He had a large family and died in Watertown in 1790, aged 90.
James Brown was one of the patentees named in the town patent of 1720 ; but he was not then a resident of the place. He was, however, "of Waterbury" in Sept. 1722, and was, so far as can be ascertained, the fourth addition to the permanent population of the town, from outside sources, after 1700. He was the second individual (Fulford being the first) from abroad not a proprietor by grant, who became a settler. His wife was Elizabeth Kirby, by whom he had eight children born in New Haven and two born in Waterbury. He settled on the New Haven road east of Judd's Meadow and was licensed by the County Court as a tavern keeper ; but sold out in 1737 to Josiah Terrel of Milford, removed to Westbury, and resided on what is now known as the " Buckingham place." He is memorable as being the first Churchman of Waterbury, and was in deris- ion called Bishop Brown. IIis death took place in 1760, at the age of seventy-five. In 1722 he wrote by proxy.
The next permanent settler of Waterbury* appears to have been Nathaniel Arnold, Sen., of Hartford. He was appointed grand juror in Dec. 1723, and at the same time received a grant from the town of ten aeres of land on David's Brook, on condition that he should abide in the town four years. He married the widow (and his son Nathaniel, born in 1704, the daughter) of John Richason, deceased. He lived on the north side of West Main street, near where William R. Hitch-
* Samuel Chidester (so written) appears to have settled in the south part of the town in 1722, but he disappeared about 1726, after having sold land to James Brown.
-
245
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
cock now resides. He afterwards removed to Westbury, where he died Sept. 13, 1753. His son, Capt. Nathaniel Ar- nold, settled at Wooster Swamp, had a farm there, and died May 12, 1777.
William Ludington, of East Haven, and John Williams, a clothier, had grants of sequestered land about the same time as Arnold, and on similar conditions. I suppose Ludington became a resident of the town, and thus secured his grant of "eight aeres in the sequestered land ;" but I have yet discov- ered no traces of him after the grant, till 1738, when he, or one bearing his name, was living in Northbury, (afterwards so called.) I find no proof that John Williams, a clothier, accepted the offer of the town, or became an inhabitant at all.
After this, it does not seem to have been necessary to en- courage immigration by land grants or other rewards. Popu- lation flowed in spontaneously and with considerable rapidity. Names yet unheard of multiply upon the records. A large proportion of the new comers "located" themselves in the northwest and north parts of the town, (Watertown and Plym- outh,) these sections, till now having been entirely neglected. They came from various towns in the State, Milford, New Haven, (including North Haven and West Haven,) Derby, Woodbury, Wallingford, Branford, Wethersfield, &c., but more were from Milford than from any other place. James Blakeslee (at first written Blachly) came from West Haven, (then a parish of New Haven,) in 1723 .* He lived on the corner of East and North Main streets, but in 1733 sold out to Stephen Sanford of Milford, and bought of the heirs of David Scott, a house and three aeres of land on the south side of "Centre Square," next west of Dea. Clark's. Isaac Castle, Joseph Hurlbut and Samuel Thomas came from Woodbury, and settled at Wooster Swamp in 1725. Jonathan Prindle, "son of Eleazer of Milford,"t settled in the same neighbor- hood in 1727. Nathan Prindle, from Newton, a clothier,
* This date and those which follow, refer to the time when the individuals named are first met with as inhabitants of Waterbury.
t So says the Waterbury marriage record. Rev. A. B. Chapin, in his Sermon on the early Churchmen of Connecticut, 1839, says that Jonathan Prindle of Waterbury was of West Ha- ven. He may have been originally so.
246
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
had a grant of two acres of land up Great Brook, in Jan. 1727-8, provided he would build a fulling mill in four years. He was a resident of the town at that date. He sold out his house and mill in 1737, to Nathaniel Arnold.
Jonathan, Stephen and Ebenezer Kelsey were sons of Stephen Kelsey of Wethersfield and grandsons of John Bron- son 1st of Waterbury. Jonathan came as early as 1725; Stephen in 1727 and Ebenezer before 1732. Jonathan moved to Bethlehem, then a part of Woodbury, about 1735 or 1736, where he became a deacon.
James Baldwin, from Newark, N. J., settled at Judd's Meadow in 1727. He lived on Fulling Mill Brook in 1740, where he owned a grist mill, and died in Derby. John John- son of Derby settled at Judd's Meadow about the same time as Baldwin. His son Silence is first mentioned seven years later. James Johnson was in Waterbury as early as 1727. Joseph Smith of Derby came in 1727. Nathan Beard of Stratford set- tled in Waterbury about 1728, and lived on the west side of Willow street, a few rods above Grove. Henry Cook was ad- mitted an inhabitant in Jan. 1728-9. James Williams of Hart- ford and Wallingford became a resident of the town in 1729 ; bought a house and some land in that year near the road to Scott's Mountain on Steel's Brook; built a corn mill and saw mill near where the factory of the Oakville Co. stands, the corn mill being in the boundary line which was afterwards drawn between Westbury and Waterbury. In 1739, he sold his house and half the mills to Stephen Welton, son of George. Robert Johnson, a shoemaker and tanner, came in 1729 and settled on Burnt Hill. Ephraim Bissell of Tolland first ap- peared in Jan. 1728-9, when he was admitted an inhabitant. John Sutliff settled in the northwest quarter near the river, in 1730. Nathaniel Merrel of Hartford became a settler in 1730. Abraham Utter came from New Haven in 1730, and was liv- ing near Scott's Mountain in 1735. Jonathan Garnsey of Mil- ford bought Stephen Hopkins' place, in Dec. 1729, which he exchanged with Thomas Barnes in 1735. IIe finally removed to Westbury and settled in the part called Garnseytown. He became a deacon of the Westbury Church and died June 14, 1776. John Garnsey, also of Milford, came several years
247
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
later, appearing first at Wooster and then in Northbury. Caleb Thomson of New Haven settled in the southwest part of the town. He was admitted an inhabitant" in Dec. 1730. Ebenezer Hopkins, Stephen Hopkins and Isaac Hopkins, brothers, came from Hartford. They were nephews of John Hopkins, 1st, of Waterbury, and sons probably of Ebenezer. They all settled in Waterbury about 1730. Isaac died in Wol- cott in 1805, aged 96. Joseph Nichols had lived on Long Island, but came to Waterbury from Derby. He settled at Wooster as early as 1730, and died 1733. Samuel Towner, Dea. Samuel Brown and Elnathan Taylor (the last from North Haven) settled in the northwest quarter about 1731. James Hull and John Alcock from New Haven, Ebenezer Blakeslee of North Haven, and Joseph Gillet were admitted inhabitants in Dec. 1731. Thomas Blakeslee of New Haven settled in the northwest quarter, near the river, with a family, in 1731 or 1732. Moses and Jacob Blakeslee appeared several years later. Ebenezer Elwell of Branford settled in Northbury about 1732 and died in 1757. Joseph Lathrop of Norwich settled in West- bury (?) about 1732, had five children born in Waterbury, and returned to Norwich after 1745. Jonathan Baldwin came from Milford in 1733. He and his son Jonathan were both leading men of our town. James Prichard from Milford settled in Waterbury in 1733, and died in 1749. Daniel Curtis from Wallingford came to Waterbury about 1733 and settled in Northbury. Samuel, James, Ebenezer and Jesse Curtis ap- peared at later dates. Nathaniel Gunn of Derby settled in the southwest quarter (Guntown) in 1734, and had ten chil- dren, seven of them born in Waterbury.
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.