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 9
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
Att a town meeting sept: 14: 1702: where as there has bin sum dificulty a bout ye mill place for a finall issue on ye same ye town and miller agree ye ye property of ye mill place be and remain to him and his heirs foreuer as ye mill land is he maintayning a mill to do ye towns worek for euer but if ye miller fayl to maintayn a mill to do ye towns work in grinding theyr corn well corn being sutable to grind then ye property of ye mill place to return to ye town and priuiledges of it only they are to giue ye miller a resonable price for what is his own on ye mill place and if ye town and miller cannot agree to be prised by indefrent men in tes_ timony of my complyance with ye town i have in presents of ye town set to my hand John Hopkins
The matter of the mill place being settled, as a part of the compromise, probably, the following vote was passed :
Att the same meting the town agree by uoat to tak of [off] the remainder of in- tail ment layd one John hopkins medow lot [s ?] a [and] gife him lefe to re[cord] it to him self as his one [own]. [Town Book, p. 103.]
The word "lot," in the preceding vote, must, I think, have been intended for lots. If so, it is fair to conclude that the pieces referred to are the meadow tracts, one of three acres in Isaac's Meadow and one of two acres in Handcox's Meadow, which were a part of Dea. Lankton's allotments. This view is strengthened, if not proved to be the correct one, by the fact that soon afterwards, under date of April 8, 1703, the two lots in question were recorded, as though without any conditions, among the lands belonging to John Hopkins. [L. R. Vol. I, p, 17.] The mill lands, proper, are recorded by themselves.
Genuary: 25th: 1703 ye town gaue ye miller leaue to remoue ye 8 acers of ye mill lot from ye pin hool and take it where it suts ouer ye mill riuer
83
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
For aught that appears, after this, for a considerable time, matters went on harmoniously between the miller and the town, the one " grinding corn," and the other bringing "corn suitable to grind," each party thus contributing to the best good of the other. In process of time, however, Jolın Hop- kins died and was gathered to his fathers, having been town miller for fifty years. His executors and sons, Stephen and Timothy Hopkins, January 17th, 1732-3, in consideration of £350, conveyed to Jonathan Baldwin, Jr., of Milford, all their right and title in the grist mill and mill place, with the thirty acres thereto belonging, lying in several pieces, viz, fifteen acres on the mill plain, eight acres on the Mad River by the common fence, two acres over against the mill, one acre on this side the river by the mill, two acres in Isaac's Meadow on the east side the brook, and two acres towards the upper end of Hancox Meadow .*
For many years, there is nothing to show how "Jonathan Balwin, Jr." acquitted himself as the new miller ; but at a town meeting held Dec. 10th, 1753, it was voted to raise a committee "to search Into the scircumstances of the mill Land and see what Tittle Mr. Baldwin has to said Land," &c. At another meeting, held Feb. 4, 1754, the following action was taken :
After some considerable Discourse about the old corn mill that was Mr. Hopkins the Question was put to the Town wheither they were Easie with Mr. Jonathan Baldwins tending of the mill It appearing to them that the most of the customers had not their Corn Ground Well-Voted that they were uneasie and at the same meeting made Choise of Capt Sam1. Hickcox Lieut John Scovill Liut Tho' porter a Committe to treat with Mr. Jonathan Baldwin and his son Jonathan and Learn what agreement they can come to.
Quite recently, since the grist mill was discontinued, and the site and water privilege devoted to other uses, questions arose, on the part of certain persons, as to the conditions at- tached to the old mill grants, and the effect which a neglect of these would have on the titles of the present owners. Some came to the conclusion, after searching the records, that the mill grants had been forfeited and that the lands reverted back to the grantors, the original proprietors of the town, their heirs and assigns. This conclusion, if established, would put
* Land Records, Vol. IV, p. 13.
84
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
into the possession of the latter a large amount of property within the present city limits, including mills, factories, water privileges and dwellings, and dispossessing a large population of their estate. As the inquiry proceeded, it became a matter of interest to know what the mill grants were and what lands were included, and subjected to the conditions.
The "mill lands," so called, were the following :
1. The "thirty acres." These were granted by the com- mittee of the General Court, in 1679, on condition that the mill be maintained forever, as we have seen. It does not appear that this land was "located" by the committee. Doubtless, the proprietors and the miller were left to settle among them- selves the location, and thus accommodate their mutual con- venience. Nor is there anything to show that the land was taken up, or at any rate, surveyed, immediately; indeed the contrary appears in regard to a part of it ; for on the eighteenth of March, 1701-2, Stephen Upson and Benjamin Barnes with the town measurer were appointed a committee " to lay out the mill lot at the mill, and what highways are needful for the mill." The mill lot here alluded to is, probably, the one re- ferred to in the following extracts:
March ye == 25 == 1704 ye town granted ye too acers of ye mill land to be layd out to gether betwein ye highway yt leads to ye mill and ye highway yt is next to abraham andruss snr lot if it be there to be had not pregedising ye highway but takeing yt highway betwein where yong abraham set up a hous and ye riner
Oct. 26. 1713, the town by uot agre the too aers of mill land laid out by Leften- ant Timothy Standly buting on the mill riuer est and so to run west betwen the hig way that gose from the town to the mil and the highway that gose from the town to the mad river a long by the est sid of Abraham Andrus hous lot it buting also west on a high way that gose from the corner of Thomas warners to said Andruss is aesepted and determined to be and remain part of the thirty aeurs of land intaile by the grand comity. [Town Book, p. 117.]
The piece of land above is recorded, Dec. 14th, 1713, among the mill lands, by John Hopkins, then clerk, as "two acres on Mad River, below the mill dam, south on highway, that goes to said river, north on highway that goes from the town to the mill, west on highway." It seems to have been the land immediately below the old mill extending down the river to the present bridge and to the road which leads to it, reaching west to Union square and north to the "mill path,"
85
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
or the road coming from the town, (Cole street.) In the sale, however, to Jonathan Baldwin, in 1732-3, this piece is called one acre. Perhaps a part of it had been exchanged for other land.
The " Mill Plain" lot is recorded by John Hopkins, in 1713, and described as " within the common fence sonthward from part of Abraham Andruss, his house lot," butted north on common fence, west on Dr. Porter, John Richards, Timothy Stanley and common land, south on highway, east on Abra- ham Andruss and the " brow of the hill."
This tract of land lay down the river from the mill, below the bridge and south of Union street. Abraham Andruss' lot of three and a half acres lay between it and the river and the road going to the river. It extended south as far as Liberty street,* or some other east and west road, and west to the lands of the individuals named. It appears to have embraced the entire plain at the north end.
The "eight acre lot" before alluded to as removed, by consent, from Pine Hole, was situated on the east side the Mad River, opposite Mill Plain, lying between the New Haven road, (as it was then called,-Balwin street, on the map,) the common fence and the river. It appears, however, not to have extended as far west as the river, but to have been four rods from it at the nearest point, on the lower side, where it met the common fence. It is described on the same page of the record as the other pieces as lying " over Mill River southward from the town, butted west on common fence, southerly on common land, easterly and westerly on highway."
Another piece still, of two acres, lay on the east side of the river, north of the crossing, " over against the mill."
These four pieces, containing in all twenty-seven acres, are recorded by John Hopkins, for the first time, apparently, in 1713, and are described as the mill lands, belonging to the thirty acres. The remaining two acres are not recorded. But
* Liberty street is recorded as having been laid out, Sep. 23d, 1803, through Col. Wm. Leav- enworth's land, called the Mill Plain, to the grist mill at the place of the Hotchkiss & Merriman Manufacturing Co., two and a half rods wide and thirty-two rods in length. There is no men- tion of a previous road. At that time, the high level ground, down as far as the bridge on the present New Haven road, was called Mill Plain, though the mill land could not have extend- ed so far south or west.
.
86
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
in the conveyance to Jonathan Baldwin, two other pieces are enumerated, each of two acres, one in Isaac's Meadow, (at Isaac's Meadow bars,) and the other in Hancox's Meadow, while the two aere piece " below the mill dam " is called one acre, making in all thirty aeres quit claimed to Baldwin.
The two pieces of land in Isaac's Meadow and in Hancox's Meadow, I suppose to be the same as those which came from Dea. Lankton's propriety, and which were at first " entailed to the mill," and then (Sep. 1702) the "entailment taken off" by the town. And yet, previous to Baldwin's purchase, the lot in Isaae's Meadow ("easterly on the brook [Steel's] west- erly on the hill") had been called three acres, instead of two, as mentioned in the deed to Baldwin. Nor do I know why the two tracts in question should be named as a part of the thirty aeres. The act of 1687 would seem to imply that they were distinet from, and additional to, the latter.
2. The mill place. There is no record to show who were the grantors of the mill site and mill privilege ; but as the title, or rather the right to grant, was in the committee at the time the mill was erected, it is fair to conelude that they were the grantors. Nor does it appear what conditions, if any, were originally attached to the grant. The action of the town, how- ever, in 1702, taken in connection with the agreement signed by Hopkins, proves that there were conditions. This agree- ment between the parties, it will be remembered, put the mill place on the same (or similar) footing as the other mill lands. The mill place was "to remain to the miller and his heirs for- ever, he maintaining a mill to do the town's work forever ; but if the miller fail to maintain a mill, the mill place to re- turn to the town and privileges of it, only they are to give ye miller a reasonable price for what is his own on the mill place." It is not clear that the town or proprietors had any right, either inherent or conferred by the town patent, to change, or consent to a change, of the conditions of an original grant of the committee ; but perhaps no change was designed, but only a declaration of what was the original intention. It will be noticed that the kind of mill to be maintained, whether a corn mill, a saw mill, or a rolling mill is not mentioned. "Town meeting " and "town " are employed, according to the custom
87
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
of the time, for proprietors' meeting and proprietors of the town ; but these mistakes, in common with others of the same sort, were corrected by the statute of 1723.
There is no sufficient evidence to show that the conditions of any of the mill grants, even those attached to the mill place itself, required that the mill should be maintained where it was first erected. For aught that appears, Hopkins, his heirs and assigns, would not have forfeited the grants, had he or they suffered the old mill to go to decay, and erected a new one somewhere else, up or down the river, or in any other place not inconveniently remote, running it by such power as was at hand-water, wind, steam or horse power. If any one of those who subsequently held a part of the entailed property, however small, had chosen to do this, the old mill being neg- lected, that aet, it appears to me, would have fulfilled the con- ditions and kept alive all the grants.
The question has been asked-and it seemed at one time to be a question of some importance-to whom would the mill lands revert in case of a forfeiture ? Undoubtedly, to the State, unless the State has in some way parted with its rights. The title to all the territory of the colony of Connecticut, at the time of the grants, was in the "Governor and Company," de- rived by "letters patent" from the king of England. The com- mittee for the settlement of Mattatuck represented the Gov- ernor and Company-the colonial government-and acted by their authority. Grants, conditions and reservations made by them, who were mere agents, were as if made by the princi- pal-the government. All the benefits of forfeiture, there- fore, would accrue to the Colony or State.
But was there no change wrought in the rights of the gov- ernment by the town patents, or acts of incorporation ? That of 1686 may be equivocal in its phraseology ; but that of 1720 seems to me clear and explicit. The latter instrument declares that "we the Governor and Company " " have granted remised, released and quit claimed" to the inhabitants, proprietors of Waterbury, "all the abovesaid tract of land," (having de- scribed the boundaries,) "with all the buildings, fences, woods, stones," &c., "with the rights, members, appurtenances, here- ditaments and the reversion and reversions, remainder and re-
88
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
mainders, to them their heirs and assigns forever, according to their several grants, proportions, shares, rights and interests in of and unto the lands above described, to be distinguished ac- cording to their several descents, devises, grants, divisions, agreements and purchases, as of record appeareth, and by the records of said town of Waterbury may be seen," &c., &c.
Thus, it seems to me that the State has divested itself of all its rights, reversionary and other, in the lands of ancient Waterbury, and has made over its whole title, of whatever kind, to the proprietors. All original grants, therefore, incum- bered with conditions which have been disregarded, till a for- feiture has been wrought, would seem to be the property of the proprietors. This is the apparent condition of the mill lands. Before the " mill place and privileges" however, can go into new hands, their present owners must be paid a "reasonable price for what is their own on the place," according to the agreement of 1702, and if the parties cannot "agree [the property is] to be appraised by indifferent men."
Such are the views of the writer, but as he is no lawyer and no expert in such matters, he may labor under some funda- mental error.
I have said that questions arose as to the effect which a discontinuance of the mill must have on the old mill grants. Several meetings were held in 1849 and 1850, and committees . appointed, at different times, to investigate the subject. April 2d, 1850, Edmund E. Davis, Isaiah Dunbar, David Chatfield and Josiah Culver were chosen "a committee to examine into the right the proprietors have to Scovill's mill seat which was formerly granted to Stephen Hopkins." These meetings, how- ever, and some subsequent ones, seem to have been informal; when some of those opposed to the farther agitation of the sub- ject thought it worth while to move. A special meeting, purporting to be legally warned, was held Jan. 4th, 1851, when it was voted "to bargain, sell and convey all the right, title and interest that the proprietors of the ancient town of Waterbury have to any of the undivided lands holden or pos- sessed by individuals given or granted on condition," &c. Samuel H. Nettleton, Silas Hoadley and Josiah Hine were chosen a committee " to release and convey," &c.
89
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
At an adjourned meeting held the 25th day of January, 1851, the committee appointed at the last meeting made a re- port, the result of their investigations. They recapitulate some of the facts which have already been mentioned con- cerning the old mill grants, at the same time overlooking others of material importance. They then go on to say :
And we further find that from that date said lands have been regularlarly con- veyed from one person to another down to the present occupants, some by deeds of quit claim and some by deeds of warranty, without any reservations in the same and warranting against all claims whatsoever and free from all conditions, and that in some of the deeds of the mill lands as then called, the mill and privilege are named as a separate part of the property and distinct from the same.
And we further find that from the long lapse of time and the course of con- veyanees of said property and the impossibility of now determining the precise location of the said lands-we recommend that the subject is not deserving of fur- ther attention, and for the purpose of quieting all further agitation on the subject- we recommend the appointment of a committee of two, in lieu of the one appoint- ed at the last meeting, to release to any of the present owners of said property or [of] any other property, any rights that the ancient proprietors may have to lands heretofore granted upon condition as aforesaid-
We also find that the grant of said lands was from the State [Colony ] of Connec- tient instead of the ancient proprietors, and if there is any reversionary interest as to said lands, the title is in the State of Connectient instead of the ancient propri- etors of Waterbury.
This report was accepted by a vote of twenty-one to ten. In the affirmative were Daniel Upson, Thomas Welton, Wil- liam II. Scovill, James M. L. Scovill, E. F. Merrill, Aaron Ben- edict, John Thomson, John S. Kingsbury, Garry Merrill, S. W. Hall, William Hickox, John Buckingham, S. M. Bucking- ham, Edward S. Clark, Charles D. Kingsbury, Miles Newton, Willard Spencer, Eldad Bradley, Anson Bronson, P. W. Car- ter, Sherman Hickox.
In the negative were Isaiah Dunbar, George N. Pritchard, Horace Foot, David Chatfield, Thomas B. Davis, Alonzo Allen, David C. Adams, Enos Chatfield, Josiah Culver, David M. Pritchard.
In pursuance of the recommendation of the report, a com- mittee, consisting of Willard Spencer and John P. Elton, were appointed "for, and in the name and behalf of the proprietors of the common and undivided lands of the ancient town of Waterbury, to release and convey by proper deeds of convey- ance to the present owner or owners of any lands known as
90
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
the mill lands and all others heretofore given or granted on conditions by a committee appointed by the State [Colony] of Connecticut, or by any subsequent committee or committees of the ancient town [or proprietors ?] of Waterbury all the rights, titles and interests that the said proprietors may or ought to have thereto, also to release and discharge said lands from said conditions."
This is the important vote. The record says it passed, but the number of voters or votes, (or the names of those who voted,) is not given. It does not appear whether all the per- sons whose names appear in the first vote, and who may have been in the last, were proprietors. It does not appear that the votes were counted according to each man's propriety, or in- terest in the common lands, as the old statute directed, and as was the ancient custom. Nor does it appear that those deriving their rights from bachelor proprietors, who (by the ex- press terms of the grant which made them such, were denied a voice in " giving away lands ") were excluded from the vote. But the question on the acceptance of the report was not a material one.
It is clear that the proprietors have no power to "release and discharge lands" from conditions that were imposed by the Colony or its committee; though they may undoubtedly " release and convey," or quit claim, lands to which they have acquired a title in consequence of a forfeiture of, or a non compliance with, the conditions imposed by said Colony or committee.
The minority of course were not pleased with the course which had been pursued at this meeting, and particularly with the powers given to the "deeding committee." They ques- tioned the rights of certain persons who had been permitted to act and vote, and disputed the legality of the whole pro- ceeding, &c.
Grist mills in a new settlement are soon followed by saw mills. I am unable to say when or where the first saw mill in Waterbury was erected. There was one existing in 1686, for the " path that leads to the saw mill " is spoken of Jan. 3d, 1686, (1686-7.) I suspect, but I do not certainly know, that the mill thus referred to stood where the Waterbury Knitting
91
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Company now carry on business, where one was in being at the time the factory was erected, and where the writer, in early life, sawed logs. I find as early as 1704, that a lot, at this point, of four acres, owned by Jeremiah and Joshua Peck, and fronting on Cherry street, (now so called,) was bounded west on a " passage," which I suppose to have been the same as that which still exists, coming down from the north, along which logs were drawn to the mill. This lot was called in 1746, " Lieut. Bronson's saw mill lot." Whether this mill was referred to in the following grant, April 6th, 1702, I am unable with certainty to say.
Stephen Upson had a grant of land between Bronson's path that goes to his boggy meadow and the path that goes over the meadow to the saw mill.
A meadow called " Bronson's Meadow, in 1724, was on the east side of the brook, in the neighborhood of the supposed saw mill.
There was a saw mill on Mad River, near the Farmington road, which is referred to March 28, 1695, which I suppose not to be the same as that alluded to in 1686, or in 1702.
After grist mills and saw mills have been provided for a new township, fulling mills are thought of for the purpose of fulling and dressing cloth for wearing apparel. Cloth is more easily transported to distant mills than grain or logs ; still, as the farmers of new countries expect to pay for what they buy by the products of their farms, which are, for the most part, too heavy for convenient transport, it is very desirable to have mills for this as well as for other machine-work, near at hand. The people of Waterbury gave this matter their early consid- eration.
[Jan 20, 1692.] Thare was sequesterd the great brook from edmun scots lot down to samuell hickox jr lot for to build a fulling mill.
It was thus sequestered, or set apart, that it might not be taken up by those in search of desirable places where they might "locate " their grants or divisions, thus becoming indi- vidual property. The design was to reserve it to be given, or disposed of, to some person who would erect and maintain a fulling mill. Whether the portion of the brook thus set apart was above or below the Knitting Company's factory, I cannot
92
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
say. I am not aware that a fulling mill existed upon this stream early, though there may have been one. The earliest mention of such a mill on Great Brook which I have met with is in April, 1737, when Nathan Prindle sold to Nathaniel Ar- nold a fulling mill, which stood on the Buck's Hill road near the site of the old Clock Factory of the late Mark Leaven- worth, (Waterbury Knitting Co., on the map.) The mill then standing must have been built between 1728 and 1732.
The first fulling mill known to have been built in Water- bury, was on Fulling Mill Brook, at Judd's Meadow, now Nangatnek. I suppose this mill, then about to be built, is referred to in the following passage, and that Daniel Warner's Brook is the same as that which was afterwards called Fulling Mill Brook, the mill giving its name to the stream.
March 6th, 1709-10, the proprietors granted to Samuel Hickox the Liberty of that Stream called daniel Worner's Brook from the East side of the going over the sd Brook. Any place for Conveniancy of Daming So Long as he Shall main- tain A fulling mill and Conveniency of Land to pass and dry Cloth.
Samuel Hickox, 2d, died June 3d, 1713, and after his death, one of his sons is spoken of as having had land laid out " where his father built a fulling mill." Samuel Hickox, then, had a mill, which was erected before 1713, and probably after 1709, on the brook where he lived, called Fulling Mill Brook. Dr. Trumbull, in his History of Connecticut, remarks that there was but one clothier in the Colony, in 1713. In refer- ence to this statement, Mr. Cothren, in his History of Ancient Woodbury, (Vol. I, p. 73,) remarks, that " if the assertion is true, which he has no reason to doubt, Woodbury was the location of the first elothier," Abraham Fulford having es- tablished himself there and built a fulling mill previous to that time. Dr. Trumbull, who quotes as his authority, " An- swers to questions from the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 1710," was doubtless mistaken. In all probability, there were many clothiers and fulling mills in the Colony at the period named.
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.