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 8
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | 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
In witness whereof, we have caused the seal of the said Colony to be hereunto affixed, this twenty eighth day of October anno Domo. one thousand, seven hun- dred and twenty, in the 7th year of the reign of our sovereign lord George of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King.
HEZ. WYLLYS. Secretary.
G. SALTONSTALL GOVE.
It is manifestly the intention of the above deed to enumer- ate, as grantees, either individually or as the heirs of certain persons, all those who, at the time, were owners of land, (or who had titles of land,) divided and undivided, in the town of Waterbury. Viewed in this light, the catalogue is full of in- terest. The five patentees of 1686 are mentioned in the begin- ning. Three of them were deceased. With the exception of these and of those persons whose "heirs " are referred to, the individuals named were living at the time. Several of them (most of those bearing unfamiliar names) were non-resident landholders. The following persons were not (and never had been) residents of the town :
Silvanus Baldwin of Milford, Joseph Birdsey, James Blachly of New Haven, afterwards of Litchfield and Waterbury, Moses Blachly of New Haven, afterwards of Waterbury, Richard Bronson of Woodbury, James Brown of New Haven, after- wards of Waterbury, James Fenn of Milford, Samuel Howard (heirs,) Samuel Mix of New Haven, Israel Moss of Derby, Joseph Moss of Derby, Josiah Platt of Milford, James Poisson, Joseph Prime of Milford, (Capt.) John Prout of New Haven, John Reed of "Lonetown," Fairfield County, Hezekiah Rew of Milford, Daniel Shelton of Stratford and Ripton, Thomas Turney of New Haven, Elizabeth Wilson of Hartford, (who held a mortgage on land of John Welton, Jr.)
The patents, it will be observed, make Waterbury thirteen miles in length. As for breadth, that of 1686 describes it as nine miles at the northern part, and somewhat less at the south ; while that of 1720 speaks of it as eight miles broad at the north, and five and a half at the south end. These deserip- tions very essentially curtail the limits of the town, as they
73
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
are set forth by the Indian deeds. Probably it was the inten- tion of the grantors, in thus describing the boundaries of the town, to avoid the possibility of encroaching on adjoining grants. It bordered on neighboring towns the limits of which had not yet been certainly determined. In truth, nobody knew, at the early dates of which I am speaking, how much territory there was that lay north of the Derby line and be- tween the Farmington and Wallingford bounds on the east and the Woodbury bounds on the west. As the limits of Wa- terbury were finally settled, the town extended from north to south, on a meridian line, seventeen miles, and from east to west, at its broadest part, nine miles. Towards the southern extremity its sides approached, so that on the Derby and Mil- ford border it was but about five and a quarter miles across. Its average length may have been sixteen miles, and its aver- age breadth, eight and one third miles. It could not have contained less than one hundred and thirty-three square miles, or eighty-five thousand acres. These, divided equally among the thirty-six original proprietors, would have given twenty- three hundred and seventy acres of land to each-a pretty fair landed estate.
The limits of the old town, as above defined, comprehend the present towns of Waterbury, Watertown and Plymouth, half of Wolcott, a small part of Oxford, the greater por- tion of Middlebury, more than a third of Prospeet, and nearly the whole of Naugatuck. This tract of territory, which a com- mittee of the colonial government estimated as sufficient to maintain thirty families, now contains a population of (say) fourteen thousand souls.
In consequence of the lack of fixed landmarks, in the original deeds and patents of the township, Waterbury was involved in frequent, protracted and expensive controversies, (which were sometimes carried to the Assembly or the courts,) with the bordering towns. Throughout its entire boundaries, in fact, there seem to have been but three points which were fixed, and assented to from an early period. These were the "three sisters," (the southeast corner,) the mouth of Beacon Hill Brook, and a point " four score rods from the eastermost part of Quassepaug Pond," on the Woodbury road. The length of
74
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
but a single line, (and that a short one,) was given, till after the patent of 1720. This line ran " westerly " (that is, in some direction, towards the west) one mile and six score rods. It began at the " three sisters," a point which had been settled as the Waterbury southeast corner before 1720.
The following extracts from the colonial and town records show (in part) what was done, from time to time, in way of settling the boundaries between Waterbury and other towns :
May ye: 18: 1680: thes presents may srtefy ye gen11 Court or whom it may con- sern yt we ye agents of derby being desired and appointed by ye inhabitants of our town ye 30d of aprill (1680) hauing full pour to conclude a loyn place or pla" ces of bounds: depending betwixt mattatock and derby and make a final issue of ye matter before it eoms to ye generall court and we ye agents of mattatock Wil- liam iudd Thomas Judd and iohn standly iur: being appointed by our committy to gain a complyance with our freinds joseph haukins and able gun according to ye tenor of ye premises so fare as it concerns these two plantations we do agree yt so ye generall court may giue their sanction upon it, do by theis presents determine betwein us as follows, yt ye south bounds of mattatock do begin at a stack at derbe twelue miles end and from yt stack to extend a west loyn where derby and mattatock shall meet Woodbury bounds and from yt stake aforesd att the end of derbe twelue miles to go with a straight loyn to a ston mareked with: m: on ye north sid and: d: on ye south sid lying on ye west sd nagatock or mattatock riuer and from y' ston to ye mouth of becon hill brook where it falls into nagatock or mattatock riuer and y' brook to be ye deuident loyn east ward between mattatoek and derby and this agreement is a finall issue or a full settell ment of ye sd bounds of mattatock and derby which is to all intents and purposes binding to them their heirs assigns and sucsesors as witness our hands ye day and date aboue men- tioned.
derby agents Joseph hawkins Able gun:
Mattatock agents William iudd
Thomas iudd John standly iur
To all whom it may concern be it known yt we herevnto subscribing as agents in ye behalf of ye Plantations of woodbury and mattatock by ye motion of hon- ourable freinds and weighty arguments as hereunto inducing have had a meeting upon ye 29th of iune 1680: in order to ye setling of boundarys betwein ye sd two plantations and do fully and unanimosly agree and consent as foloweth uiz that there be a loyn run du east from ye westermost part of ye bounds agreed and concluded between mattatock and derby to mattatock riuer and so yt loyne to be run from ye sd riuer too miles and twelue scor rods due west and then a loyn from ye eastermost part of ye great pond commonly called or known by ye name of quassapaug from such a part of ye pond as by us already agreed on four score rods due east and then a straight loyn from ye four score rod to ye a fore sd west corner betwein derby and mattatock and from ye afore sd coner or four scor rod due east from ye forsd pond ye bounds is agreed and concluded to run due north
75 .
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
to ye extent northward of each plantations bounds and yt this our mutall agree- ment and firm settellment of ye deuident bounds betwein our plantations as aforesd is signified by our subscribing hereunto this twenty ninth day of iune in ye yeir of our lord sixteen hundred and eyghty.
Thomas Jndd Isriell Curtis
John Minor
William Judd
John Standly iur
Joseph Judson
May 1681. This Court haue granted that the bounds for the plantation of mat- tatuck shall runn eight miles north from the town plott, as their stated bounds and doe confirme and rattify the boundaryes agreed upon by Mattatuck and Wood- bury plantations and the boundaries agred upon between Mattatuck and Derby inhabitants, which more at large is sett down in their subscribed papers by the hands of the committees appoynted by each plantation and Mattatock bounds on the east shall be upon Farmington bounds .*
Aprill=6th=1703. Wee agree as followeth for boundrys betwein derby and Waterbury to run west ward from ye marked ston or ye west sd ye riuer to a stone or roek on ye straight mountain with stones layd on it and to run a straight loyn to ye twelve mile stake and then run west from sd stake by marked trees and sta- tions T a red oak with stones layd at ye botom 2 ly a white oake 3 ly a red oake at ye noreast sd of to antiek pond @ ly a white oake on a long redg of rocks south west from toantiek pond
for Waterbury
for derby
Timothy Stanly
Ebenezer Johnson
John hopkins
henery Woster
obadiah Richards
Edward Rigs
We hereunto subscribing agents for Woodbury and Waterbury met together March 26th, 1744, and began at the known boundary east of Quassepang pond and ran a line north two degrees west a straight line up to a stake with a heap of stones about it the north east corner of Woodbury bounds, and the north west corner of Waterbury bounds, and hane erected monuments in about eighty rods distance on sd line, which monuments are described by marking trees near to them with 44
Ephraim Minor Agents for
Samuel Hickox ¿ Agents for
Thomas Knowls
William Judd S Waterbury
Timothy Hinman Woodbury
April the 23ª, 1765. We whose names are hereunto subscribed, being by the towns of Milford and Waterbury appointed to settle the north and west lines be- tween the towns of Milford and Waterbury, with the assistance of two county surveyors for the County of New Haven-we began at the three sisters New Haven north west corner, Milford north east corner, Waterbury south east [corner] with Milford and from said corner we ran a due west line one mile and six score rods and made monuments once in eighty rods and at the end of said line we made a heap of stones by a white oak staddle, then southward forty eight rods to Derby north east corner, the south side of Beacon Hill River, which lines we do agree
* Copied from Cothren's Woodbury, Vol. I, p. 53.
76
IIISTORY OF WATERBURY.
and establish to be the lines between the towns of Milford and Waterbury. Sign- ed in Waterbury, upon the above date, by us
John Lewis
David Baldwin
Stephen Upson, Jr.
Waterbury
Nath1 Farrand Milford
George Nichols
Committtee
Phinehas Peck Committee
March 27, 1768, the selectmen of Derby and Waterbury met at the twelve mile stake, and measured easterly to Beacon Hill Brook and westerly across Toantick Pond to the Wood- bury line, giving distances and points of compass.
It was customary with the old towns, in obedience to the statutes provided in such cases, to appoint a committee of two or more persons, annually, whose duty it was, in concert with adjoining towns, " to perambulate the bounds," in the month of March or April, and " to renew the monuments," or bound- marks, which were usually heaps of stones at the corners, and once in eighty rods in the lines. It was usual also to mark the trees and sometimes the stones, as guides to those who might follow. The penalty for neglect to perambulate was five pounds. During the controversy with Farmington, about the dividing line, Waterbury passed a vote that it would not perambulate with her, but preferred to pay the fine. This was in April, 1748.
Previous to February, 1680-81, all legitimate authority in the affairs of the settlement centered in, and emanated from, the grand committee. At this time, however, they relieved themselves of some of their responsibilities, and conferred certain powers and privileges, relating to local administration, upon the people themselves.
A meeting of the comity for mattatuck febey 5 1680 att farmington itt was then determined by vs that thos towne ofesers that are chosen by the in habitants of sd mattatuck shall execut their respectiue ofeses and that for the futur the inhabit- ants of the place being orderly called and conuened by their maje voat shall haue liberty to chus their Tounsmen Constables surmayors fence viewers and haywards or any other siuel ofesers from time to time without any further order from the Comity.
In 1682, the committee farther determined that the inhab- itants should have power to make regulations concerning the impounding of cattle.
After these dates, the committee, having got the infant town upon its legs, as they conceived, gradually withdrew from the
77
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
management of its affairs. They now " advised," in cases in which they formerly " ordered." They continued, however, to make proprietors, to regulate the conditions of preprietor- ship, to determine questions of forfeiture, and to make special grants of land for the common good, &c. The acts of the proprietors relating to these matters had no force until approv- ed by them. Their powers did not terminate, nor were their duties entirely at an end, till the incorporation of the town. In October, 1685, their number had been reduced by death to two, a minority of the original committee. The General Court authorized the survivors to continue their functions, as follows :
Oct. 1685. This Court appoint Major Talcott and Mr. Wadsworth to continue their powers as Committee for Mattatuck, notwithstanding the death of some of their number.
The last official act of the committee which I have met with on our records is one relating to " the way of raising rates for defraying of the public charges," dated Dec. 26, 1685. It is an " order," signed only by Major Talcott, though it runs in the name of "we." There is, however, a " request and desire," signed by the " friend and servant [of the proprietors] John Wadsworth," dated Sept. 9, 1687, which asks that an oversight in laying out land may be corrected.
At an early period, the proprietors, noticing that their lands, which were most valuable and conveniently situated, were gradually passing into the hands of individuals and beyond the control of the people at large, determined to provide against the possible evils which might result. They reserved certain large tracts for future occasions and the common good.
Geneu: 3d 86 ye Town by uoate granted yt all ye bogey meadows east from ye town fence too miles north and southward from ye town shall be sequestered for common lands and too miles east from ye afore sd fene.
Another vote appears afterwards to have been passed, on the same day, which sequestered all the lands in the limits mentioned, making them common lands.
Gen: 3: 86 ye town detrmined yt all ye land on ye east sid ye fenc Round to ye Mill Riuer so to ye east mountain we say to dauids brook and to ye east mountain all ye land in yt compas to be and belong as common land
Several years afterwards, still another vote was passed, de- signed apparently to extend and explain the preceding.
78
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Genuory ye 6th=1702 ye propriators sequestered for ye use of ye town too miles from ye going down of ye hill beyond Thomas hikcox* hous east and then from it too miles north and too miles south and then to run at each end west to ye common fence.
These votes gave origin to the terms sequester and seques- tered lands, on our records. The territory described lay east of the village, being two miles broad from east to west and four long. It was not regularly surveyed till April, 1716, when Lieut. Timothy Stanley and William Hiekox were appointed to lay it out. It was set aside, irrevocably, for publie uses, its benefits to be enjoyed by the inhabitants in common, without any reference to proprietory ownership. In the divisions and grants that were made, from time to time, no one had a right to locate his lands within its boundaries. It furnished pastur- age, fire-wood, timber, stone, &c., for all, as they stood in need. In several instances, when the public interest was likely to be promoted, grants of it were made to individuals on conditions.
In process of time, it was found that lands layed out, on the supposed sequester line, overlapped and encroached upon the sequestered territory, thus giving origin to conflicting elaims. To settle the difficulty, the proprietors voted, in 1763, that all lands laid out near the reputed line of sequester, should remain good.
The sequester lands were kept sacred for many years, or were granted in small parcels for a common good. At length, however, they acquired value, and it was not so easy to keep the hands off them. Eight acres were distributed to each proprietor in 1715. In 1733, a vote was passed to have a reg- ular division ; but at a subsequent meeting, it was thought " likely to be very prejudicial to the town " and " very imprac- tieable;" so the former vote was reconsidered. In January, 1738-9, however, it was again coneluded by the proprietors, to have a division of the sequestered land. One quarter of an acre on each pound propriety was distributed. This operation was repeated in 1759 and afterwards, till the reserved lands were exhausted. I have not succeeded in finding the evidence that these acts of the proprietors were in conformity to the
* Thomas Hickox's house stood on East Main street, near the house of the late Dr. Joseph Porter.
79
IHISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Assembly's confirming act of 1703, and to the town patent of 1720. By the confirming act "the lands sequestered and given to public and pious uses [were to] remain forever for the same ;" while the patent declared that the sequestered lands, so called, should " never be impropriated, granted, divided, or taken up in severalty, until three quarters of the proprietors shall agree thereunto." In the recorded votes ordering the divisions which have been referred to, nothing is said about " three quarters of the proprietors " being in the major vote.
Other tracts of land were sequestered at different times, to prevent a too rapid appropriation by individuals. There was a large tract in the northwest quarter, next the Woodbury line, at a place which became known as "the Village," and after- wards as " Garnsey Town," which was thus reserved, (I know not when.) It embraced some of the more valuable lands of the town. It was finally divided among the proprietors, the first division being in Nov. 1722.
March 13th, 1733, a tract of land in the northwest quarter, " one mile and a half each way from the centre," was seques- tered for the town's use. The tract embraced the present vil- lage of Watertown. Soon, however, the restriction was taken off this territory.
CHAPTER VII.
MILLS.
IN all new settlements, mills for grinding grain and sawing logs are considered as things of the first necessity. They are a part of the labor-saving machinery which civilization in- vented at an early period. They perform the work of many men, and do it more perfectly than it can be done by hand.
80
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Food and shelter are the first things to be provided for in a new country, and these mills are almost essential in the pre- paration of the materials. Corn can be pounded in a mortar, or crushed between stones; but it is a severe task, and none but a primitive people will long submit to it. Dwellings can be made mainly of logs prepared by an axe, with the assistance of clay and straw for the roof; but boards and other "sawed stuff" are almost essential for floors, doors, &c. Our fathers, when they first came to this place, must needs go to Farming- ton for all their mill-work. They must travel a distance of twenty miles through a pathless wilderness, or waste their la- bor in imperfect attempts to supply their wants at home. The only way to escape from this alternative was to provide mills of their own.
The State's committee, at an early period, took this matter into consideration, and under date of Nov. 27th, 1679, advised as follows :
We doe advise the inhabitants to build a sufficient corn mill for the vse of the towne and keepe the same in good reparation for the same for the worek and servis of grinding corne and for incoragment we grant such persons shall haue thirty [acres] of land layd out and shall be and remain to them and their heirs and Asigns for euer he or they maintaining the said grist mille as aforsaid for ever.
Soon after, Stephen Hopkins of Hartford, erected a mill on Mill River (so called from this use of it) "for grinding corne." It stood where the Scovill Manufacturing Company's rolling mill now is, where a grain mill has ever since remained until within the last twenty-five years or so. The mill being built, the committee awarded to Hopkins the grant which he had become entitled to, and added to it a house lot of two acres, a three acre lot and a £100 allotment. I quote from the record, under date of Feb. 5th, 1680, (1681, N. S.)
It is further concluded that steuen Hopkins who hath builte a mile att that plantation [mattatuck ] shall haue that thirty acrs apointed and intailed in a former order to such as shall erect a mille theare and so much more land aded to the sayd thirty aers as may aduanee the same to be in value of one hundred pound alotment
There is allso a house lott containing in estimation to acrs granted steuen Hopkins as conuenantly as may be to suit the mile and the for said Thomas Judd and John Stanly and the present townsmen to lay itt out to him and allso a thre acre lott: acording as the other inhabitants haue granted to be layed out by these same persons for him
Scovill
81
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Aferwards, (Aug. 8, 1682,) the town, in order to carry out the intentions of the committee in relation to the "hundred pound allotment,"
Granted to Stephen Hopkins that alotment which was Decon Langton's with the prouision that one half of the said alotment shall be intailed to the mill as the thirty acres is, in case the committy grant the same, causing the said Hopkins to subscribe as other inhabytants haue don : prouid [ed] also this grant fre us from all former iniagments respecting the millars Lott
This action of the proprietors was ratified by the committee, February 6th, 1682, (1683 N. S .; ) but John Hopkins, "the present miller," who was the son of Stephen, was named as the grantee. This is the record :
In referance to what lands are granted by the inhabitants of mattatuck to John Hopkins the present miller we do well aprove of and in case they shall see cause to case the intaile of any part the £100 Alotment we shall not object: against itt
The result of all this action was, John Hopkins, " his heirs and assigns," became entitled to the original grant of thirty acres, the sole condition being that "he or they maintain a grist mill for ever." He also became the owner, by grant, of Dea. Lankton's propriety and allotments, without conditions, except that a two acre lot and a three acre lot were entailed to the mill in like manner " as the thirty acres are." To remove all doubt and misapprehension in relation to the tenure by which the Lankton allotments were held, a vote was passed, after the town was incorporated, of which the following is a copy :
Att a town meeting at waterbury december : 30d : 1687: ye town granted John hopkins yt alotment now in his possesion which was formerly deac langtons freely and absolutely to him and his heirs foreuer exsepting y' allotment in Isaacs meadow containing three acers and yt too acer alotment in haneox meadow, which still abids intayld to ye mill as appears by ye town act febeur 13: 1682: we say theis too lots are intayled to ye mill as ye 30 acers was intayld by ye com- mity. [Pro. Book. Vol. I, p. 13.]
Several years later, a misunderstanding or difficulty appears to have arisen between the miller and the town, possibly in consequence of the dam being carried away by the floods, and a claim made upon the town to rebuild it. The result was a compromise and an agreement signed by Hopkins on the town book, " in ye presents of ye town."
6
S2
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Att a town meeting in waterbury genuary 30ª 1699 or 700 ye town by uoat ingaged to make and maintain ye mill dam from ye east sd of ye cornmill to ye hill on ye east sid ye Riuer for teen yeirs on theis conditions yt ye miler make and keep ye corn mill in good Repayer to do ye towns worck in grinding for them fifteen yeirs and maintain ye dam from ye east sid ye mill to ye hill on ye west sid of ye mill extriordinarys exsepted.
Boath on ye towns part and millers in ye presents of ye town I acsept theyr act and they doing what they promis I ingage to do min in makeing and main- taining the mill as witness my hand John Hopkins
But the causes of misunderstanding were not yet all remov- ed. In less than three years a new compromise became ne- cessary, and John Hopkins signed another agreement on the town book "in presents of the town." This relates to the mill- place.
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.