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 4
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58
John Root was the son of the John " Roote senr.," who sub- scribed and was accepted " in behalf of one of his sons," Jan. 15, 1677-S. The father, called "goodman Rote," was one of the committee, in 1677, to take into consideration the expe-
30
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
diency of changing the village site. As to the son, his name is among those who had a division of fence in 1680, but he is spoken of no more. He removed to Westfield, (Mass.,) and died in 1687.
There were then eighteen persons (including the two who died) who signed the articles-thirteen in 1674, and five in 1677 and subsequently- who failed to make good their pro- prietary rights.
The following passage shows the way in which vacancies happening among the proprietors were filled by the com- mittee :
Att a meeting of the Comity for mattatuck January 15, 1677 Itt was agread and concluded: that we doc accept of John Roote senor subscribing to the arti- cles for Settling of mattatuck in the behalf of one of his sons and we accept of John Scouall on the Acct of Abraham Bronson and benjamin barnes on account of Richard Seymour and of John Stanly Junior Joseph Gaylor on the account of Thomas Gridley [they ] subscribing to submit to the articles aforsaid dated may 30th 1674 and in soo doing are excepted as inhabitants of the place dauid Carpenter subscribing in behalf of John Porter is excepted upon the same terms
Below will be found what purports to have been copied from "the back side of the leaf where the original articles were filed." The new proprietors, of course, were required to take upon themselves the obligations of the old. The names of some of them are here met with.
We whose names are here under written do ingage to stand by and fullfill the Articls within written acording to the tru intent and meaning in all Respects as witness our hands
Thomas newil Senor on the account of Sam Gridly
Benjamin Barnes John Scoval John Stanly Junor for Joseph gaylor Benjamin Joans on the acount of John Andrus
Thomas newill Ser his T mark
Edmund Scott Junor his mark for william higason
Benjamin Joans
Abraham Andruss in rome of John Judd 3
William Judd has his allotment granted to him by the comitee according to their act feby 5 1680
William Judd
Steven upson subscribes on the account of a new lott this 29 of December 1679.
The mark of Steven / upson
31
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
CHAPTER IV.
SUBSCRIBERS WHO FINALLY SECURED THEIR RIGHTS.
THE number of persons who signed the articles subsequently to 1674, and who ultimately became proprietors, is nineteen, making with the seventeen on the list of 1674 who made good their rights, thirty-six. I give below a complete cata- logue of their names, throwing them into several groups, placing the groups in the order in which the individuals are known (or are supposed) to have subscribed the articles and complied with the conditions they imposed. Those of the two first groups signed in 1674; those of the third in 1677-8; those of the fourth about 1679; those of the fifth between 1682 and 1705. The persons who have a star prefixed to their names had not made good their claims as proprietors, in Feb. 1682-3.
Thomas Judd,
£100
*Thomas Warner,
£100
Edmund Scott,
100
Widow Warner,
60
John Welton,
80
*Thomas Newell, 90
Abraham Andruss,
80
Edmund Scott, Jr., 70
Isaac Bronson,
90
Stephen Upson, 50
John Stanley,
100
Benjamin Jones, 100
Samuel Hikcox,
85
* Abraham Andruss, 2d, 100
John Hopkins, 100
John Warner,
90
[Robert Porter,
100]
Samuel Scott,
50
*Thomas Hancox,
100
Richard Porter,
50
*Thomas Richason,
50
Thomas Judd (smith,)
100
*John Carrington,
60
Philip Judd,
80
*Obadiah Richards,
80
John Richards,
80
*Timothy Stanley,
95
Jeremiah Peck, 150
*Daniel Porter,
90
John Southmayd,
150
Benjamin Barnes,
100
£3,130
*Joseph Gaylord,
80
*John Scovill,
80
Joseph Hikcox,
60
John Bronson,
80
Thomas Judd, Jr.,
100
John Newell,
100
32
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
The name of Timothy Stanley, in the above catalogue, oc- cupies the place of "Sergt. John Stanley for son," in the ori- ginal subscription list, he appearing to take possession of the al- lotment thus subscribed for by his father. In the same way, Daniel Porter (the son) and John Newell (the son) stand in the places of " Daniel Porter for son," and of "Thomas Newell for son." Thomas Judd, John Stanley, John Bronson, and John Warner, all signers of 1674, have, in each case, Jr. at- tached to their names in the original list, they having fathers bearing the same name. After they became inhabitants of Mattatuck the Jr. was omitted, and at length, when their sons had grown up, they were called Sen., in each instance, except that of Stanley. Robert Porter's name is omitted (for what reason I know not) from all the lists of proprietors made out after 1688. But as he is on that list, owned a house and lived, and finally died, in Waterbury, in 1689, he would seem to have complied with the conditions of a proprietor. Besides, after his death, his son Thomas sold his lands, and in 1700, his £100 propriety, to John Richards, proving his rights had not been forfeited. We might suppose that Richards name, which appears not till after the death of Porter, was intended to occupy the place of the latter, were it not for the fact that the proprieties of the two are different, that of Richards being but £80.
The following passage relates to the acceptance of Thomas Judd, Jr., as a proprietor :
Hartford Jan 10th 1683 [1683-4] Thomas Judd Jun' is acepted as an inhab- itant att Mattatuck his father thomas Judd having signified his desires of the same he the sayd Thomas Judd Junor subscribing to the act and order of the comity feb the 6 1682 * *
itt being determined by us the com- * * * ittee in case any grant or any grants be made by the inhabitants of mattatuck to thomas Judd Junor in refarence too posesion of Any parsols or tracts of land it is hereby made void: and of none effect not with standing anything to the contrary
Samuel Scott was made a proprietor soon after, receiving probably a part of a grant to Thomas Judd, Jr., "made void " by the preceding act of the committee.
Matatuck Decembe ye 30 1684 ye town granted to Samuel Scott half ye alot- ment formerly granted to thomas Judd junr with yt exception of four acres to be
SamuelHopkins
33
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
taken out of yt a lotment [for a?] great lot-and a deuition of meadow with ye Rest of ye propriators in ye next deuition of meadow land according to a fifty pownd a lot[ment] with ye hous lot an ye south sd of stephen ubson with thes prouisals yt he build a hous according to articles within four yeirs and liue here after his hous be build and pay ye purchas of a fifty pound lot
Samuel Scott's name disappears from the list of proprietors after 1688, that of Jonathan Scott ocenpying its place, the lat- ter having bought, April 28th, 1691, the house and all the lands divided and undivided, of his brother, in Waterbury.
It seems there was some doubt about the proprietary rights of Stephen Upson, Richard Porter and Jonathan Scott. This doubt was finally the origin of a declaratory aet in 1702-3, which seems to have settled the question :
At a meeting of ye propriators in waterbury february 22th 1702 ye propriators de- clare yt ye propriators for ye first purchasing of ye place and such as stand pos- sesed of alotments according to ye gran comitys aet with stephen ubson Richard porter and jonathan scott whos alotments ware excepted of ye commity as a fifty pownds a lot ment apcie shall be acknowledged propriatory inhabitants and to act in giuing a way lands in sd propriatory ship and for ye futor no more to act in ye propriators meeting then one for a singell alotment
Several of the signers had the amount of propriety for which they at first subscribed (given above) increased, on applica- tion, by the committee. Here are extracts from the record re- lating to Isaac Bronson's and Samuel Hikcox's rights. (Ben- jamin Judd, it will be remembered, forfeited his claim.)
Upon further consideration we haue hereby granted benjamin Judd and Isaac brownson shall haue so much uplands aded to their alottments as shall mack their medow alotments in valew of one hundred pounds and that adition to be aded to their respectiue eight acre lotts already granted feb. 6 1680
Att a town meeting in mattatock deeem 29th 1682: there was granted to sam11 hickox an adition to his alotment so much land as shall make up his lot to be a hundred pound alotment and this addition to be aded to his eyght acer deuition ye eom te [committee] granting ye same
The rights of Daniel Porter and Timothy Stanley seem also to have been augmented, each, £5; but I am unable to say when. Doubtless it was done by grant of the committee. The whole increase, in this way, was £35.
3
34
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
It will be recollected that, in the articles of settlement, the committee reserved to themselves the right "to lay out two or three allotments at their best discretion." This they exer- cised by setting apart, in the beginning, three proprieties of £150 each, for the common benefit-"for public and pious uses,"-particularly for the maintenance of religion, and the promotion of education. These were called "great lots," (" greate lotes," on the record.) Two of them were given to Mr. Peck and Mr. Southmayd as they were settled suc- cessively in the ministry.
A declaratory act was passed in 1715, relative to Jeremiah Peck's right, as follows :
The Proprietors did conclude that Mr. Jeremiah Peck our former Minister in his life time was Invested with one hundred & fifty Pound propriety.
The sum of all the subscriptions of the thirty-six persons in the above list, was £3,130. There were additions made after subscription to the rights of certain individuals, as already stated, in all of £35, which sum added to the other, makes a total of £3,165. Of this amount there was subscribed in 1674, by thirty persons, and afterwards represented by them, or by those who were accepted in equal numbers, in their places, the sum of - - - -
£2,580 - There was added to this "a new lot " for Stephen
Upson, Dec. 29, 1679, the sum of 50
For Isaac Bronson's addition, 10
For Samuel Hickox's addition, 15
For Daniel Porter's addition, 5
5 For Timothy Stanley's addition, -
For Samuel Scott's "half an allotment," - 50
For Richard Porter the other half, probably, of the same, 50
For Thomas Judd, Jr., probably a new allotment, 100
For Mr. Peck and Mr. Southmayd, £150 each, 300
£3,165
As a general rule, a propriety once subscribed for, and se- cured by a compliance with the articles, went in the name of the original signer. If a person sold out a part, or the whole
35
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
of his right, or if he died and his interest was distributed among his heirs, the propriety was kept together on the record and stood in the name of the first owner. If a man had a claim, derived from others, he must show that he obtained his title by regular conveyance from the original owner. Rights in the undivided lands were transferred like other real estate by deeds, warrantee, or quit claim. A man, for instance, sold a £5 or £10 right or propriety, and the deed was recorded, the record being evidence of title.
There are a few instances, however, in which the name was changed on a change of ownership. When Thomas Judd, Sen., died in 1702-3, his £100 right went into the possession of his son John, and John Judd's name, ever after, is entered in the place of his father's. Benjamin Jones died in 1689, and Capt. Thomas Judd, in 1715, purchased his right. From that date, Thomas Judd appears twice in the successive lists of proprietors, once as "Thomas Judd," and again as "Thomas Judd Jones," while Benjamin Jones is heard of no more. Again, the original Thomas Judd, Jr., conveyed, in 1721, to Samuel Hall of Wallingford, his propriety. After that, the right goes in the name not of Samuel Hall Judd, (according to the rule in the preceding case,) nor of Sanmel Hall, but of "Thomas Judd, Jr. Halls."
The above, three in number, are all the alterations of names which resulted from a change of ownership, (unless John Richards' name was substituted for Robert Porter in conse- quence of such a change.) And in adopting these, it will be observed, no uniform rule was followed.
The subscribers to the articles were, in the beginning, the joint owners of all the lands of the town, each having as many shares or " rights," so to speak, as he subscribed pounds. A person in the first instance, might subscribe for any sum, not exceeding a £100 allotment, according to article II, thus securing, within certain limits, such proportional interest as he pleased. This limitation was designed to prevent specula- tion, and to restrain individuals from obtaining too much land. The committee wished to secure actual settlers, and as far as consistent, equality of condition and possessions. The
36
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
sum of all the subscriptions, as they at first stood, was £2,580, or twenty-five hundred and eighty shares. Each person, then, who had a £100 propriety, had a title to one-twenty-sixth part (within a fraction) of all the undivided lands in the township. The admission of new proprietors, or additions to the rights or shares of the old signers, of course diminished the propor- tion of each one whose propriety had remained unaltered. By augmenting the number of proprietors one-fifth, or rather by increasing the number of shares nearly one-third, a pound right came to have a greatly reduced land value. The cost of the original purchases of the Indians was borne by share- holders, according to each man's interest. Expenses incurred for the common benefit, were defrayed by the same rule. Roads and fences to inclose the common field, were built by a tax on shares. Article III required that all publie charges, in the first years of the settlement, should "be paid proportiona- bly to meadow allotments," and "meadow allotments " were proportioned to propriety.
Each settler was to have, in the commencement, according to the articles, eight acres for a home lot. These eight acre lots, as has already been stated, were at first " located " on the old town plot; but as the town center was changed, there was at that time no occasion to do more, and they were not regularly laid out and surveyed, till 1730. As there were . not lots enough for all, a few of the original subscribers, and all the most recent ones, had to take their lots somewhere else .*
* " Nov. 29, 1726. It was by vote agreed that if the Committee for the Old Town platt Lotts Cant find all the Old Town platt Lotts for all the Original Proprietors, those that are Wanting may have Liberty to take them up in the Undivided Lands." Pro. Book, p. 80.
The record of the laying out and distribution of these lots is particularly interesting, because it furnishes the first authentic list, as far as it goes, of the original proprietors of Waterbury. There are thirty names, it will be noticed, corresponding with the number who first signed the articles. If a signer had forfeited his right, his name is omitted, and that of a substitute, who had complied with the conditions, is inserted. There is one exception, however. David Car- penter's name is here, though he did not "fulfill." I don't know why it is found, and am unable to say who took his place. Tea. Judd's name is entered twice, once, I suppose, for Benjamin Jones, whose propriety he bought in 1715. Lieut. Timothy Stanley's name is also inserted twice, once doubtless for that of somebody whose right he had purchased. Of the two "great lots," one was for schools and the other for the minister. The latter went to Mr. Peck. These last lots swell the whole number to thirty-two.
"A list of the House Lotts on the Old Town Platt Set out by a Committee Lieut. Timothy Stan-
37
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
The new house lots were distributed in the same way, each proprietor being entitled to one, the choice being determined by lot. "A three acre lot for pasture," seems also to have been granted by the committee, in the beginning, to each set- tler. This appears not from direct evidence, but from allu- sions like the following, under date of March 11th, 1678-9.
And itt is ordered that Lieut samuel Steele Willum Judd and John Stanly Junr Lay out to the proprietors their thre aere lotts that are granted to them accord- ing to former agreement.
It appears that in addition to the above, cach proprietor had eight acres (called his " eight acre lot ") granted him by a vote of the committee, Feb. 6th, 1682-3 :-
ly, Doctr Daniel Porter Senr & Deacon Thos Hickcox. We began on the West Teer, at the south End and found as follows :-
1. John Brounsons Lott
2. Edmund Scotts, Lott
8. Isaac Brounsons Lott
4. Samuel Hickcox senr. Lott
5. Doctr Porters
6. A Great Lott
7. A Great Lott
8. John Warner Then an Eight Road highway South of Warners Lott that Runs East and West as the Lotts lye,
9. Thomas Richardsons Lott
10. Joseph Hickcox
11. Lieut. Timo Stanleys
12. John Newells -
13. Benjm Jones -
14. Lieut. John Stanleys -
15. Deacon Judds
16. John Hopkins
Then we begun at the South End of the East Teer & found
1. Deacon Judds Lott
2. David Carpenters
3. Abraham Andrus
4. Lieut. Judds
5. Edmund Scotts Senr
6. Lieut. Timo Stanleys
7. Abraham Andruss, Cooper
8. Benjm Barnes
9. Thomas Newel's
Then Eight Rods highway to Run East & West or as the Lotts lie
10. Obadiah Richards Lott
11. Thomas Warners -
12. John Scovils -
13. John Carringtons
14. John Weltons -
15. Daniel Warners -
16. Thomas Juds - The several Lotts In the East Teer Butt west on highway.
The several Lotts in the West Teer Butt East on highway. found by the Committee
DANIEL PORTER THOMAS HICKCOX TIMOTHY STANLEY."
The old, famillar names which we do not find in this catalogue, are those of Thomas Hancox, who signed in 1674, (but who afterwards forfeited his rights and was obliged to take his chance as a new subscriber,) and of Joseph Gaylord, who signed in 1677-8, and of several others who became proprietors at a later period-Stephen Upson, Richard Porter, Philip Judd, Jonathan Scott, John Richards, John Southmayd and John Judd, the last, however, being represented in the list by Lieut. Judd. All these, I suppose, omitting the last, had to go to the undivided lands for their eight acre lots.
38
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Itt is Granted that ecth propriator as addisonal to ther former grants shall ecth inhabitant haue eight acrs pr man layed out to them in such places within their towne bounds as the inhabitants shall agre to be layed out by persons chosen by the inhabitants of the place.
These several parcels of land, then-the town plot eight acre lots, the new home lots, the three acre lots for pasture, and the eight acre lots of 1682-3-were distributed, at the outset, without reference to propriety. With these exceptions, and also with the exception of certain special grants hereafter to be referred to, the lands of Waterbury were, from time to time, as there was need of them for improvement, distributed among the proprietors in the way of division. The land thus obtained was called an allotment, and the same term was ap- plied to the proprietory right, or the right of allotment. These divisions were nothing more than dividends on shares, usually so many acres, or so many parts of an acre, on each pound propriety. There was occasionally, particularly in the early years of the settlement, a modification of the rule which commonly gave some advantage to the small stockholders, or proprietors. The divisions were repeated at intervals, till there was nothing more to divide, or till the entire township passed into the hands of individuals. The first one was made at the time the settlement was commenced, under the direc- tion of the committee, when the meadows were distributed, or the "meadow allotments" taken up. The first made by authority of the proprietors themselves, was in 1688, and the last in 1801.
The proprietors, as has already been mentioned, disposed of their lands by division, except in the cases in which reasons were supposed to exist for special grants. That the division might be equitably made, it was the practice to draw lots for a choice of lands. He who drew number one, was to have the first choice, having liberty to select from any of the lands proposed to be distributed. IIe who drew number two, had the second choice, and so on. A person's chance was his lot, and the thing acquired (the land) was also his lot. After the order of choice had been determined, a certain day, distant enough to allow time for examining the lands and making a
39
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
selection, was specified, on which the laying out was to com- mence. Running on from this fixed time, each proprietor was to have a day determined by his lot drawn, (sometimes two were to have two days,) on which he might take up his lands and have them surveyed by the town measurers. It he neglected to do this, in the time allowed, he must wait till all the others had had their turns. In some instances, in order to equalize the chances, or compensate for good or ill luck, the land to be drawn for was divided into two equal parcels, with a distinct lot for each, (two draughts, the record says.) The first was drawn in the way described. In the second lot, he who had the first chance in the first drawing, now had the last, and he who before had the last now had the first, the order of choice being reversed. Certain regulations and re- strictions were established, at different times, designed to govern ation in taking up the lands, and to secure the com- mon weal, by preventing an abuse of privileges.
The following extracts indicate the steps that were taken preparatory to the proprietors' first land division of 1688 :
Att a town meeting in mattatuck decem 30 (1684) the town determined that there should be adiuition of all ye undeuided meadow to each propriator accord- ing to his meadow allotment former grants exsepted
Dec 31 1684 ye town mad choys of serg Judd sam11 hikcox and John standly a commity to uew and prepare al ye undeuided meadow for allotment * * it was determined yt each man should haue ye charg of laying out hys lot
Geneuary: 3ª 1686 ye town declare ye worck of ye commity chosn deem 30d (1694) [1684] namely srg judd sr standly & sam11 hickox was to uew and pre- pare all ye undeuided meadow up ye great Riuer and up Steels brook and hancox brook and all ye branches up ye Riuer.
I have been unable to ascertain how much land there was distributed in this division. At any rate, there was not enough to be found in the places indicated up the river and up Hancox's and Steel's Brook, to give a full proportion to all the proprietors, so that several had to take a part of their al- lotments somewhere else.
This division bears date April 17th, 1688. I transcribe the record which gives a list of the proprietors who were concern- ed in this land distribution. It is the earliest formal list now
40
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
extant, made out after the town was incorporated, and under circumstances which give it authority. It is interesting and important. The amount of propriety is not stated.
Timothy Standly
Robard porter
Stephen ubson
thomas Judd jun"
Samuell Scott
Richard porter
daniel porter
Mr fraysr
thomas warner
smith judd
John brunson
obadiah richards
isaac brunson
daniell warner
John welton
John standly
edman scott juner
John wornor
Tho nuell
john nuell
jn hopkins
john scouell
ben barns
john carrinton
ben joanes
thomas hancox
Thomas Richason
philip judd
Joseph gaylard
abraham andrus senor
Sam11 hikcox
Ensign Judd
edman Scott senor
abraham andruss junr
Here are thirty-four names, two less than the full number, at a subsequent period. Who Mr. Frayser was, I know not. His name is not found, in any other instance, upon the record. It may, temporarily, have been substituted for that of Joseph Hickox, who had removed and recently died. Possibly Frayser was Hickox's executor or administrator. We miss in this catalogue, Joseph Hickox and John Richards. Doubt- less Richards had not yet become a proprietor. I have al- ready stated that he purchased Robert Porter's right, and that we ought to suppose that he afterwards stood in his place, were it not for a discrepancy in the amount of their propri- eties.
If we deduct two from this list, and add two, and then again add Mr. Peck and Mr. Southmayd, afterwards made proprietors, we complete the catalogue, having thirty-six in number.
The next land division, so far as can be gathered from the records, was in 1691-2. The following passage is all I can find relating to it. It is taken from the old, unbound Propri-
41
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
etors' Book, page 20th, and it is in the hand of John Stan- ley :-
Att a meeting of the propriators in Watterbury: march the 15 1692 there was granted : to eeth propriator : inhabetant a deuition of outlands of ten acres to a hundred pound alotment and fiue acres to a fifty pounde alotmente and so propor- sonable acording to mens alotments granted by the comity for the plas that is to say to thos that hould the poseson of the medow alotments by their own righte : ecth man to taeke itt up by suekseson after the lots are drawn the first too men to haue two days liberty to tack his land : and bringe in his report to ensign Judd who is to lay it out two them : and so to haue on day to two men.
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.