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 5
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
Besides the method by division, the lands were disposed of by grant. I have already referred to the home lots, the three acre lots and the eight acre lots, bestowed by the committee in the beginning. These grants were continued for the purpose of securing some common good, (as in the case of the grants to the mill and for the use of the ministry ;) or with the design of correcting inequalities and furthering the ends of impartial justice.
One would suppose that our fathers need not have com- plained for want of land, considering their possessions. Some of them, however, considered themselves " straitened" as in- dividuals, and applied to the committee for relief. Relief was vouchsafed, as, for instance :
And wharas steuen upson macks complaint that he is much straitened in his presant posesion of lands we grant ane adition acording to what the town se caus [&c] to be layd out by Tho Judd John Stanly and the present townsmen* febey 5 1680
And wharas Daniell Porter [and] Thomas richason mack complaint that they are in want of Land to improue we grant liberty to the towne to add to what they haue acording to their good diserestion and what shall be alowed by the towne shall be layd out [to] them by Benjamin Judd and John stanly and also to lay out what belongs to the mille and miler febey 5 1680
Joh Stanley, it seems, was unfortunate in his allotments, and prayed for more land in the way of compensation. The committee consented and advised the grant.
* Selectmen.
42
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Upon the petion [petition of] sergent Jo stanly that he may be acomadated with four or fiue acrs of medow land up the river allthoug itt be four or fiue miles off from the towne in considaration of the meannes of his Alotments we the comity doe aduis the inhabitants to a complyance tharunto: The forgoinge con- clution signed feb 7th 1682
John Talcott John wadsworth Nicho Olmsted
After the committee had withdrawn from an active parti- cipation in the affairs of the plantation, the proprietors con- tinued to make special grants of land whenever occasion call- ed for them. At first, these grants were somewhat sparingly made, but they gradually became common, till at length the lands were given away with a profuse liberality. Often the object was to encourage some undertaking, or business, or trade, calculated to be beneficial to the people; such as the erection of a saw mill, or fulling mill, or tan yard. When there was no purpose but to distribute the land as fast as it could be improved, among those to whom it belonged, there was an endeavor to preserve a sort of equality-to regard the different and just claims of the recipiants. Land, however, was abundant and not sufficiently valuable or in demand, to make generosity a difficult virtue. A main design was to en- courage the settlement of the town, and extend the borders of agriculture. A wilderness was to be subdued, and workers' were wanted. If a man proposed to take up a tract of land and cultivate it, he was considered as offering a fair equivalent for it. All were benefited by his labor. If a person follow- ed some trade, considered as of first importance in the new plantation, as that of a blacksmith or clothier, he was regard- ed with special favor, and a grant to him was allowed to be a good investment. If an individual, not an inhabitant, who would make a good citizen, could be induced by a few acres for pasture, or a tract of boggy meadow, to settle in the town, the proprietors thought they made a profitable bargain.
Jan. 21st, 1689-90, there were grants of land to many of the proprietors, seven acres to each, the lots to be improved as "hogfields" or hog enclosures. Into these the swine ap-
43
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
pear to have been turned, in the summer season, to root the ground, to pick up the nuts and thus obtain their living. These " fields " seem to have been east of the town, on and near Farm- ington road, in the neighborhood of the long wigwam, Hog Pound, or Beaver Pond Brook, and Turkey Hill. I quote a passage from the record:
At the same meeting the proprietors granted to samuell hickox sr seauen a cers of land on the hill on the west side of hoog pound broke on the same condition richard porter had his jan 21 1689
One would naturally suppose that this use of land for keeping swine was the origin of the name Hog Pound, by which the district was known till a very recent period. But it will be observed that some of the tracts are located on Hog Pound Brook, showing that the name was in existence at an earlier period. Most likely, however, the lands had been em- ployed, in some instances, for a similar purpose, previous to the date of the grants named. The district is now known by the more decorous name of East Farms.
At first it was not usual for the proprietors to attach any conditions to the grants of land, except they were "not to pre- judice highways and former grants." At length, however, in- dividuals who had resided long enough in the town to se- cure their estates, began to show a disposition to leave. Jo- seph Hickox removed in 1685, Thomes Hancox in 1687, and many others soon after. The course was then, to a considerable extent, changed. Those who were not proprietors, but the sons of those who were, no longer received unconditional grants. Sometimes they were to build a portion of the common fence as a consideration. Usually they were required to reside in town, not off and on, but "in a steady way," four years, often five, and occasionally even six years. Sometimes, particu- larly if they received house-lots, they were "to build a tenant- able house according to articles."
Sometimes the proprietors themselves were subjected to conditions. For instance, Jan. 3d, 1686-7. Abraham An- druss, Sen., had five acres of land given him on Little Brook, which were to be forfeited if he went away in four years.
44
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Isaac Bronson and John Welton had grants in 1694-5, which were to hold good only on condition they remained in the town four years. Similar restrictions were imposed in other cases. There was a distrust even of the fathers of the settle- ment. Many were gone away, and others were preparing to follow. These, taken in connection with other things to be noticed hereafter, occasioned, very naturally, the greatest dis- couragement.
The frequent refusal of those who had signed the articles to comply with the conditions which they prescribed, and the laggard movements and long delays of those who intended ultimate compliance, were the cause of much dissatisfaction and early complaint on the part of the planters, and of strin- gent action by the committee. I quote :-
Att a metting of the comite for mattatuck: on the 26 of nouember 1679: whereas we have received information by some of the inhabitants belonging to that place that [some] of the propriators to whom alotments ware granted haue hitherto neglected the settlement of them selues and families there to the great discouragment and weakening of the hands of those: that are Alredy upon the place with their famelys
We haue thought meet to determine and resolue that all such propriators as shall not be personally with their famelies inhabiting att mattatuck by the last of may next: enseuing and ther to abide shall forfitt all their title property and interest in any alotments granted to them att mattatuck to be disposed by the comity to such other as they shall aproue off
Also we doe further determine that all such inhabitants as shall not erect a ' mantion hous by the last of may come twelue month Acording to a former article to that purpose shall forfit all their right and title in lands att mattatucke aforsaid.
Soon after, an order was passed designed to secure prompt action and faithfulness to engagements on the part of new subscribers.
Further itt is agred by vs that in case any doe apere desiring alotments ther [they] shall subscribe to original articles and ingag allso to erect a dwelling hous acording to dementions [required by ] said articles within one year after sub- scription and settle with his or their famelies vpon the place within that time oth. erwis to forfit all their grant of land and right therin: to be disposed to such others as the comity shall Judg meet feb 5 1680
Still there were hesitation and procrastination on the part of many proprietors. Some neglected to build, others to reside
45
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
in the place, and others to bring their families. The com- plaints became louder and more frequent. The committee, for a long time reluctant to act, were finally obliged to take decisive measures. They passed the act known as the " Act of Feb. 6th, 1682." It declared the allotments of several de- linquent proprietors, Benjamin Judd, Samuel Judd and Thomas Hancox, "to be condemned as forfeited," uncondi- tionally. The same sentence was passed upon the allotments of Timothy Stanley, Joseph Gaylord, John Carrington, Abra- ham Andruss, cooper, Thomas Newell, Daniel Porter, Thomas Warner, Thomas Richason, Obadiah Richards and John Scovill ; but upon condition of "their submition and ref- ormation with their cohabitation upon the place one complete yere as a dision all [additional] to the four yers Injoined " by the articles, their rights were to be restored. It also required new subscribers to reside in the place "the full term of four yers in a stedy way and manor with their famelies," and all persons accepted as proprietors, after its date, were to sign the act. Thomas Hancox signed it as a new subscriber. A few others, afterwards admitted, did the same.
We whose [names] are under writen doe subscribe to a faithfull submition and obseruation of the act of the comity one the other side of this leafe febuary 6 1682:
subscribed this 4 of June 83 Thomas haneox genuary 10: 83 May 26 84 Thomas Judd Jun" Robert porter June 13 87 philip Judd
Timothy Stanley and the nine others whose names are men- tioned in the same connection, "submitted and reformed," and thus regained possession of their land.
The act of removal to a new settlement in the time of which I am writing was a solemn thing. It was undertaken only after certain formalities and much prayer. The Bible was consulted, and the aid of the church sought. There was much and earnest endeavor to ascertain the indications of Providence. Then, as now, however, it was generally found, at last, that the finger of Providence pointed in the same di-
46
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
rection as the inclinations of those who sought guidance. By this remark, however, I do not mean to impugn the motives or question the sincerity of our forefathers, or the good men of our day.
The extract given below, is from the Farmington church record. It is an answer to an application for advice. The paper is very shrewdly written, and contains much wordly wisdom, to say nothing of its strong religious sentiment. We can see why the church was so reluctant to part with William Judd, though the very man the new settlement stood in need of. The record bears no date, but there are indica- tions that the time was as early as the spring of 1677-8.
The Church having considered the desires of their brethren William, Thomas, John and Benjamin Judd, as also John Standly, Jun. touching their removal from us to Mattatuck, agreed as followeth :
1 In general, that considering the diverse difficulty and inconueniency which attend the plan toward which they are looking, and how hazardable it may be, for ought that appeareth, that the house and ordinances of Christ may not, for a long time at least, be settled among them-
The Church doth advise the brethren, to be wary of engaging far until some comfortable hopes appears of being suited for the inward man, in the great things fore mentioned.
2. Particularly to our brother William Judd, that it having pleased God to deal so bountifully with him-that not many of the brethren with us have so large accommodations as himself, they see not his call to remove, on the account of straitness for outward subsistance, & therefore counsel him, if it may be with sat- isfaction to his spirit, to continue his abode with us, hoping God [will] bless him in so doing.
3. To the rest, though we know [not how] much they will be bettered as to land, all things considered, by there removal, especially John and Benjamin Judd, and therefore cannot much encourage, yet if the bent of their Spirits be strong for going, and the advice fore given, touching the worship of God be taken, we shall not trouble, but say the will of the Lord be done.
Of the above mentioned persons, only two, Thomas Judd and John Stanley, Jr., lived up to the articles and became proprietors ; though the others, particularly William and Ben- jamin Judd, found "the bent of their spirits to be strong for going," and apparently tried hard to like the enterprise, but finally gave it up, finding perhaps that they had misread the teachings of duty.
47
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
CHAPTER V.
THE COMMON FENCE AND COMMON FIELD.
ONE of the first things to be attended to in the new settle- ment, was the building of fences for the protection of the crops and the meadow lands. The committee gave this sub- ject their early attention. I quote from their acts under date Jan. 15, 1677, (1677-8) :-
We order the comon fenc one the este sid the riuer for securing the medows shall be made sufitiently by the last of may acording to the number of acrs of medow land ecth propriator is seized of and we desire and apoint willum Judd, Thomas Judd and John Stanly to proportion the said fenc and lay out ecth person his just dues and being soe layed out: ecth person that shall neglect macking his just proportion shall be finable acording to the law of this colony.
There was another order made regarding the "common fence," bearing date Marchi 11th, 1678-9. By this, a new and additional division, it would seem, was to be erected, and the proprietors were required to make their respective proportions by the first of May, then ensuing.
Wharas there is a mile of fence tharabouts yet to be erected: for securing thos lands that are under improvement from spoill of catle and swine wee doe aduise and order that willum Judd Thomas Judd and John Stanly Jun shall proportion and stacke out to ecth propriator his proportion with all sped conueni[ent]
We further order that ecth propriator doe erect a sufisent fence vpon thoss re- spective places apointed [to him] for defenc of that land that no damage to either corne or gras by cattle or swine [be done] which fence shall be done betwixt this and the first of May next:
Late in the spring of the next year, or May 22d, 1680, there was an order issued, signed by John Talcott and John Wads- worth, for the building of three hundred and fifty rods of ad- ditional fence "forthwith ;" and each proprietor who neglect- ed his work till the first of June was to pay sixpence per rod, and for longer delay, sixpence per week. Further action upon the same subject was taken the succeeding year. Un-
48
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
der date of Feb. 8, 1680, (1680-1,) the committee directed a portion of fence to be constructed by the first of April.
The meadow lands up and down the river, on which the carly settlers mainly depended for tillage and fodder, were regard- ed as particularly valuable. They were distributed in the be- ginning, but the lots lay in common ; that is, they were not separated by division fences. Fences were expensive and could not be afforded; besides, on the low grounds they were liable to be swept away by the frequent floods. For the pro- tection of the meadows (as may be gathered from the preced- ing extracts and remarks) a "common fence" was erect- ed running along on the high ground, east of the river and west of the village, and extending a distance north and south. It was called " common," because it was for the equal benefit of all and was built and maintained by all. At this period, as no inhabitants dwelt upon the west side of the river, and no cattle were kept there, this single line of fence was deemed sufficient for the protection of the meadows. It was erected, in the first instance, and supported afterwards, by the propri- etors in proportion to the land each had to be inclosed-a given number of rods and feet to each acre. A man's partic- ular portion of fence was determined by lot. Beginning at the Mill River (Mad River) and running north, each man's position in the line was decided by the number drawn, num- ber one standing first, number two second, and so on. This being done, each person's portion of the work was measured and "staked out."
In the first Proprietors' Book, so called, in the beginning of the volume, is the following entry :
The first division [of fence] begins at the made riuer and soe runs northwards: till itt butts on the banke of the riuer: against stells [Steels'] meadow as itt falls by lott :-
Then follow the names of the proprietors, beginning with Thomas Richason, in the order apparently in which the num- bers were drawn, with the length of fence, in "rods," " fete" and "inches," assigned to each, the amount of fence being, in every instance, proportioned to proprietorship. There are
Mark Leavenworth
49
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
twenty-six names in this list, including three "grate lotes," the latter having thirty-three rods and fifteen feet each-the proportion for £150 propriety. The entire length of this divis- ion of fence appears to have been two hundred and eighty- four rods, nine feet and ten inches, or seven-eighths of a mile. It was doubtless that portion which was first built, (in the spring of 1677-S,) it being more immediately necessary than other portions.
This catalogue of names, on the record, is followed by a second division of fence, beginning at the north end of the last division and running northward. Then come thirty names, including the three great lots, and a line of fence amounting to two hundred and fifty-eight rods, one foot and three inches, or over three quarters of a mile. It was probably erected in the spring of 1678-9. The third division began at the Mill River and ran south three hundred and four rods, twelve feet and nine inches, or nearly one mile, and was par- celed out to twenty-seven proprietors, inclusive of the great lots, and seems to have been built in the spring of 1679-80. The fourth division continued the line south two hundred and seven rods, twelve feet, seven inches, or over three-eighths of a mile, and was distributed among thirty-seven proprietors, counting the great lots. It appears to have been made in the spring of 1680-81.
The four divisions of common fence spoken of, (erected in the early parts of the four first years after the settlement,) two north and two south of the Mad River, in their whole length, measured a little over three and a quarter miles, the two northern divisions making somewhat more than half of the whole. A fifth division is spoken of in 1686-7. At any rate, additions were made to the fence from time to time, either way, as circumstances required. At an early period (before 1700) it seems to have reached Long Meadow Falls, about two and a half miles below the village, on the south ; and on the north, to have extended as far as Mount Taylor, four miles from the center. Before 1685-6, it had crossed Hancox Brook, as appears from the record which follows:
4
50
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Mattatock march ye last 1685-6 ye town by uoat detrmined yt thos men yt haue fenc ouer hancox brook and northward from ye town be brought ouer to ye east sd ye brook and set in ye rang on as good ground as they now stand for fencing yt is on ye rang yt is determined furder to fenc for ye securing of ye meadows.
This removal of fence seems to have been in pursuance of a plan for protecting the lands farther up the brook, and so crossing perhaps at a higher point. The lands to be thus se- cured were about to be divided among the proprietors, and brought under cultivation. It seemed to be the design to in- clude within the common fence all the lands which were most valuable for meadow and tillage. A lot at "Pine Hole," so late as 1733, is described in a deed as within the "common field," and as bounded east on the common fence.
Near the village the common fence ran as follows : Be- ginning at Mill River a little above the manufactory of the Hotchkiss and Merriman Manufacturing Company, at a point (where "it was agreed," March 31st, 1709, "by a mager uott to cal the fens cros the mad riuer in the comon line seauen rod") at the southeast corner of Abraham Andruss, Sen's house lot of three and a half acres, it ran northwesterly along the brow of the hill between said Andruss' land and the Mill Plain fifteen acre lot, (sometimes called Hopkins' Plain,) till it reached Union street, at "Union square." Thence it continued along the south side of Union street and the north side of the Plain above mentioned to the hill just west of Elm street, where there were bars and an entrance to the common field. Thence I can find no early traces of it till we come to the south meadow gate at the southwest corner of Bank and Grand streets. Probably, at the bars in Union street, it con- tinued westerly, in the line of that street, to the point named in Bank street, thus including within the common field the house lots of Stephen Upson, Samuel Scott and Richard Porter. Here it ran, at so late a period as 1790 .*
* This appears from a deed, dated Feb. 10th, of that year, from Thomas Porter to his son Phineas Porter, conveying, for £78 15s. lawful money, a tract of land in the " common field," estimated at seventeen aeres, lying between Union street and the old roads running, one south- westerly from the Plain bars, the other southeasterly from Bank street. The boundary line is described in the weed as follows : "Beginning about two rods east of David Pritchard's
51
IHISTORY OF WATERBURY.
From the corner of Bank street the fence extended west in the south line of Grand street and in front of Stephen Upson's and John Welton's land and the burying yard to the Little Pasture (parsonage lot) and Willow street. Thence it passed up Willow street, on the westerly side, (leaving Benjamin Jones' and Dea. Judd's houses on the left) to West Main street and the "common gate." Thence it continued past John Scovill's in the west line of Willow street, up the hill and into the woods above. Afterwards, it appears to have borne off more to the west till it reached the river's bank, opposite Steel's meadow, seven-eighths of a mile from the starting place at Mad River. A little farther on, it left the Naugatuck and extended in a more easterly direction, so as to include the better lands east and south of Hancock's Brook.
In the above description, I have considered the home lots of Benjamin Jones, Dea. Judd and John Scovill as lying within the common field. This was undoubtedly the fact, although I do not find the circumstance alluded to in any con- veyance, or by any direct or incidental remark.
The fence spoken of above was removed from time to time, farther westward, till it came to inclose the meadows, proper- ly so called, only. A portion of it, in the form of an old, broken stone-wall, may still be seen, standing where it was placed, after this process of removal was begun, up Willow street, north of the village, a little west of the road.
East of the Mad River the common fence ran south and southwesterly, keeping on the west side of the mill lot of eight acres, and below occupying the high ground at some distance from the river.
Soon after 1700, when people began to settle on the west side of the river, more frequent complaints were made of dam- age done to the common fields by cattle. In 1701, the town resolved that all horses, cattle or swine found running at large
dwelling house, [on the southwest corner of Bank and Grand,] extending eastward to the highway that goeth into the common field at the mill plain bars, then southward by the high- way till it comes to the highway that goeth to Salem, then by said highway to the first corner, butting all sides on highway." At the date of this deed, and afterwards, the land on the borders of the Great Brook, lying within this tract, and for a considerable distance above, was an alder swamp.
52
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
west of the river might be impounded. The following vote has relation to this subject :-
April 6, 1702, ye propriators by uoate agree that who soeuer shall haue liberty to liue on ye west sd ye fence or great riuer within our bounds shall submit to ye order of ye propriators as if they lived ye east sd ye common fenc as to our agreement of fencing or [our] meadows yt by reson of them we be not under nesesity of fencing on ye west sd our meadows but yt theyr creators be pound fesent in any of our meadows, and they oblidged to keep theyr creators out of our feild, as if they were fenced round and he yt gos to live on ye west sid to subscrib this act in testimony of his submiting to it and he yt refuses to submit to this order not to be alowed to liue on ye west sd
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.