USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Windsor > The history of ancient Windsor, Connecticut > Part 41
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 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93
The last act which appears upon record of this ecclesiastical society in reference to common schools, is dated 9th day of November, 1795. The usual two pence on the pound was voted for the use of schooling for the coming year, and the usual committee of 12 persons chosen to collect the money and super- intend the schools. After this, school matters disappear from the records of the ecclesiastical parish.
CHAPTER XXIV.
FERRIES, INNS, STORES, HOUSES, SLAVES, ETC.
Bissell's Ferry.
The subject of a regular ferry across the Connecticut, at Windsor, seems to have been first agitated about January, 1641-2, at which time the court decreed that if the town of Windsor provide a ferry boat to attend the river, they are to be allowed 3 pence for a single passenger, and 2 pence a person when they carry more than one at a freight, and 12 pence for a horse. 1
No definite action, however, was taken in the matter until January, 1648-9, when the court concluded the following contract: 2.
John Bissell undertakes to keep and carefully to attend the Ferry over the Great River at Windsor, for the full term of seven years from this day, and that he will provide a sufficient Boat for the carrying over of horse and foot upon all occasions: And that if his own occasions should necessitate him at any time to go out of call from his house or Ferry, that then he will provide some able man in his room to attend that service ; for which the said John Bissell is to have of those that he ferries over, eight pence for every horse or mare, and two pence for every person that goes over therewith, or that hath another passenger to go over the said Ferry at the same time; and three pence for every person that goes over the said Ferry alone, single, or without any more than himself at the same time.
1 Col. Rec., 1, 71.
2 Col. Rec., 1, 174.
462
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
And the court prohibits all other persons (except the inhabi- tants of Windsor, who have liberty to carry over themselves or neighbors in their own canoes or boats), from carrying over the said Ferry any passenger or passengers, when the said Jolin Bissell or his assignee is present, or within call of his house or Ferry as aforesaid, to attend that service. And if any person. or persons as aforesaid shall at any time during the aforesaid term, go over by Indians or English that have not boats or canoes of their own, that they pass over the said Ferry in, they shall as truly pay &d for every horse or mare, and 2d for every person, as if they went over with him. And the court also gives the said John Bissell liberty to relieve (i. e .- entertain) such strangers and passengers as can not go the ordinary, and take of them convenient and reasonable recompense for the same. This was consented to by Jolin Bissell in Court. 1
The road from the Street to the original Bissell's Ferry lay along the south side of the present home lot of the heirs of Hez- ekiah Hills to the top of the Meadow Hill, where it bore to the right upon the land now owned by Leavitt Ellsworth, to the river. The landing place on the east side of the Connecticut River was probably from twenty to thirty rods below the pre- sent wharf used by the Quarry Company. The road leading from it turned north to the present road, thence east following the present road to a point of the Meadow Hill, at a considerable distance from the Street, where it ascended the hill bearing away to the north-east.
The lease having expired, was again renewed May 15th, 1656, for one year, on the same terms as before, with this
1 There is a tradition in the BISSELL family, that in 1636-7 this John Bissell was sent by the colony to England, to procure a new supply of cattle to re- plenish the heavy losses which they had suffered from the exceeding severity of the preceding winter,-that he returned with " 17 cows and a bull"-and as a reward for his services, received the monopoly of this ferry, from the court. The tradition is strongly marked, both by its prevalence and its uniformity of detail, among all the different branches of this large and widely extended family. Yet we are disinclined to believe it; Ist, because in the official colonial records, there is not the slightest allusion to any such circumstance ; 2dly, because we have very serious doubts whether John Bissell was here in Windsor, at so early a date. It is possible that he may have come here about 1639 or 40, and may have brought some cattle with him, but we have been as yet unable to connect them with the ferry.
463
FERRIES.
addition, that troops shall have free passage for man and horse, " so often as the said troopers shall with their listed horses travel with them to Springfield town or beyond."1
Again:
May, 1657. John Bissell's lease of the country ferry was re- newed for one year "at his old house."2
March 11, 1657. John Bissell, Jr., having managed the coun- try ferry at Windsor, to entire satisfaction, received from the court a renewal thereof for ten years, viz:
"This court doth grant to and agree with John Bissell, Jr, of Windsor, that the ferry there, over the Great River, shall be and belong to him for the space of 10 years next ensning, upon the limitation and terms hereafter expressed, to which he doth in court agree and engage to attend:
1. That there shall be always maintained in readiness upon all occasions, an able and sufficient boat and man for the safe passage of horse and man.
2. The said John Bissell shall have 8d a head for any beast, and 2d a head for any person that cometh with them, and 3d for any single person.
3. That each Trooper listed and allowed in the Court, and the horse he rides, is only freed from the ferriage going to Spring- field Town, or as far as Springfield Town, or further.
4. That no person of Windsor shall have liberty for to help over any person or beast of any other town, but they shall then pay the ferryman as much as if they were carried over by him.
5. Upon consideration with the inhabitants of Windsor, they are to go over the ferry at half the forementioned price, only that single persons shall pay 3d per head for their passage, as before. 3
In March, 1663-4, John Bissell, Jr., applied to the court for a release from his contract. It was granted, "if the Assistants " at Windsor should provide " a sufficient man " in his place.4
In May, 1668, " The court leaves it to the deputies and towns- men of Windsor to agree and settle a Ferryman there to keep the ferry over the Great River for 7 years, provided there be no charge come thereby to the county."5
1 Col. Rec., 1, 281.
2 Col. Rec., 1, 298.
3 Col. Rec., 1, 310.
4 Col. Rec., 1, 394.
5 Col. Rec., II, 183.
464
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
This order had not been attended to by the subsequent session of the court in October, for the Windsor authorities received a very brief and summary order to attend to it " without delay."1
October 31, 1668. The townsmen consulted with Nathl. Bis- sell about keeping the ferry (supposed to be the one across the Connecticut, as in the same meeting, they engage " a rope for the little ferry"), but they could not agree as to terms, and the sub- ject was deferred. 2
May 10, 1677. 'Nathaniel Bissell received a lease of the Ferry for seven years from date; "he was always to keep a boat and men ready to attend the service, and to take for his pains sixpence [for] a horse and man in silver presently paid, [i. e. in cash] or in other pay eight pence a horse and man."3
The ferry subsequently reverted to the town.
March 18, 1716. At a town meeting, the Connecticut River Ferry at Scantic was granted to Jonathan Bissell and Ammi Trumbull on condition they should carry over the selectmen, and collectors free, when they were upon business, and foot passen- gers on lecture days.
In February, 1719-20, the selectmen were ordered to lease it again.
Joseph Baker had the ferry in 1724-5.
In 1726, the ferry was granted to Jonathan and David Bissell, for seven years. They engaged to pass over all, who lived north of the Rivulet in Windsor, or those who lived north of Stoughton's Brook in East Windsor, free on sabbath and lecture days.
January, 1730. It was voted by the town to raise a sum not exceeding £20, for the purpose of having a free ferry at Scan- tic; but it does not appear with what success.
The next year, however, Jacob Munsell was the ferryman,
1 Col. Rec., II, 95.
2 In 1695, the court, in consequence of some overcharges 'of ferry-rates which had occurred, established the following tariff of fares : A man, horse and load, nine pence in pay, or five pence in money ; single man three pence in pay, or two pence in money ; a horse five pence in pay, or three pence in money. (Col. Rec.)
3 Col. Rec., 11, 314.
465
FERRIES.
and petitioned the Legislature for a license to keep accommoda- tion and "strong drink for the accomodation of travellers."
1780. A lease was authorized with Jonathan Roberts "to keep a good ferry where Scantic ferry is now kept."
1782, February. A similar lease was granted to Azariah Mather, Jr., for twenty years.
Captain "Dont [Jonathan] Ellsworth " kept the ferry at one time.
The Wolcott, or Higley Ferry.
In October, 1735, Roger Wolcott, being in need of a ferry for his own purposes, petitioned the assembly for leave to establish a double ferry, from the landing place in Plymouth Meadow, across the Rivulet and the Connecticut River, to his own land on the eastern bank of the latter. He offered to make landings and passways on the east side, at his own cost. His request was granted, and the court ordered the town to make three highways, for which (March, 1726,) they were assessed £158 Ils. The town protested against this, alleging that the grant was £1000 damage to them, and only benefited Wolcott. Con- siderable litigation followed, but the future governor was a rising man, and his influence enabled him to hold his own; and and it is but just to say that there is evidence that the ferry was well kept and attended.
In January 27, 1735-6, the town " voted that there shall be a ferry set up across the Connecticut River against the Little Ferry, at the place called Newberry's Landing." A committee was also chosen to oppose the petition of Edward Wolcott, at the county court, "for a way from the ferry over the Little River through the Great Meadow to the point to the ferry that cross- etli the Great River."
July, 15, 1736. A committee was chosen to negotiate with Major Wolcott concerning his ferry, and to buy his ferry house and boat, if they judged it best. Also, to purchase a way to accommodate the ferry lately voted to be set up at Newberry's Landing.
One year after, July, 1737, the town voted to move the " New ferry lately set up at Newberry's Landing."
59
466
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
In April, 1738, it was voted to reimburse the committee for the amount (£192 13s 3d) which they had expended in the purchase of Major Wolcott's ferry boat and ferry grants, etc.
In 1741, Wolcott obtained from the assembly a renewal of his former grant of a ferry across the Connecticut and Little Rivers, " where he formerly had it." This was remonstrated against by the town.
In 1745, the assembly regulated the fares at this ferry, by the following tariff: Across both rivers, 12d, old tenor, for each single passenger; 6d for each single horse; neat cattle, 8d per head. Across Connecticut River only, man, load and horse, 10d; single passenger, 5d. In 1746, the rate was reduced; man, horse and load, 4d; single passenger, 2d. In 1749, the ferry rates on this as well as the Scantic Ferry, were again re- duced by legislative action, as follows: Man, horse and load, 3d ; single passenger, ld; horse, ld; neat cattle, 2d per head; sheep and swine, ¿d per head.
In 1769, Erastus Wolcott petitioned the legislature for an in- crease of fare, inasmuch as the river was considerably widened. His petition was granted.
Sometime previous to the revolutionary war, this ferry passed into the hands of the Higley family, by whose name it was afterwards known. It has long been discontinued.
Warehouse Point Ferry.
In May, 1755, Samuel Watson, of (East) Windsor, petitioned the assembly for a ferry across the Connecticut River. He represented that a ferry from the southeast corner of his farm, on the east side, to the end of the ferry road1 on the west side, would be a great convenience to Scantic Parish. He urged that the travel between Ellington and East Windsor was increasing; that it took two hours to reach Bissell's Ferry, which in high floods was often and deeply overflowed. His petition was signed by 61 residents of the said Scantic Parish. 2
It was, however, negatived.
1 Described as running east from the country road near Daniel Bissell Jr.'s, to the Connecticut River.
2 The names of the signers of this petition, comprising probably all the in- habitants of the North or Scantic Parish at that time, are as follows :
467
FERRIES.
The next motion we find for a ferry at this point, is the peti- tion of Mrs. Elisabeth Thrall, dated May 17, 1782. She thinks the ferry is much needed, and prays that it may be confirmed (after her) to her son Timothy, then aged 17 years. Her peti- tion was referred to a committee, who reported favorably to establishing a ferry on the side of William Thrall's land in East Windsor, " where one Mr. Fitch dwells."
The next year, Mr. James Chamberlain informs the assembly that he has purchased Thrall's land, and renews the petition for a ferry, which was granted to him on condition that he should open a road from the common road in East Windsor, to the river. This was done, and the ferry was kept by him for many years.
The Rivulet Ferry.
The history of this ferry, prior to 1700, has been incidentally presented in the previous chapters of this work. The first item we have concerning it, subsequent to that date, is a town vote, in December, 1719, to appropriate £28 for the purpose of build- ing a new ferry house.
In March, 1732, we learn from the Ecclesiastical Society's Re- cords that " Jacob Munsell desired this society will allow him to set in the west or lower end of the east flanker seat on the men's side so long as he shall continue ferryman here, and he may also make a door in the east end of the said seat." The request was granted.
Jno. Ellsworth, Nathaniel Ellsworth, Benj. Ellsworth, Charles Ellsworth, Thos. Ellsworth, James Olcott,
Josiah Blodgett, Job Blodgett, Ebenezer Blodgett,
John Thompson,
Job Thompson,
Israel Stiles,
John Thompson, Jr., Israel Osborn, Nathaniel Osborn, Joseph Eggleston, Bigot Eggleston,
Nath'l Stoughton, Ebenezer Watson,
Samuel Allen,
Lamson Wells,
David Skinner,
Abel Allen,
Solomon Wells,
Jeremiah Bissell,
Samuel Allen, Jr.,
Aaron Clark, Josiah Gaylord,
Israel Bissell, Jerijah Bissell,
Noah Allen, James Cole, Joseph Harper,
Stephen Newton,
Samuel Bissell,
William Young,
Ephraim Bancroft, Jr., John Prior,
Abm. Whipple, Sam. Russell,
John Prior, Jr.,
Joseph Harper, Jr., Jona Munsell, Calkins Munsell, Jacob Mansell, Jr., Henry Wriglit,
Alex. Mckinstry,
Ammi Trumble, Jr., Jona. Bartlett, Jacob Elmer, Simeon Booth,
Peter Wolcott, Simon Wolcott,
Medina Fitch, Dan'l Eaton,
Samuel Watson.
Benoni Stiles,
Israel Dibble,
Joseph Allen, Jr.,
Phineas Chapin, [?]
468
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
In July, 1737, Lieut. William Thrall made a proposal to build a bridge, " across the Rivulet at the ferry," and a committee was chosen to consider the matter. The lieutenant was somewhat ahead of his more conservative neighbors - as we find no further mention of a bridge, until April, 1745, at which time a town-meeting was warned to consider "about the Rivulet ferry," and "about a bridge there." The latter was again negatived. In April, 1748, however, the subject again came before the town-meeting, and it was then agreed that any person or persons might have liberty to build a bridge, provided they did so at their own expense, and made it a free bridge for ever! Said persons were to leave their names with the town clerk, within one year from date.1 In December following, Peletiah Allyn, Daniel Bissell, Isaac Burr, and sundry others, 2 announced to the town clerk their intention of accepting this extremely liberal offer. Accordingly, in 1749, they erected a good cart bridge - the first ever erected across the Tunxis - and made it free.3 In 1759, it needed repairs or rebuilding, but the town voted " not to build or repair."4 Whereupon (December, 1759),
1 Town Acts, III, 78.
2 The names of these bridge builders of 1749, should be preserved in grateful remembrance. They are copied from the original petition in the State Archives at Hartford. (Travel, 1, 373, 375).
Caleb Phelps,
Daniel Phelps,
Nathl Mather,
Henry Allyn,
Josiah Loomis,
Nathl. Loomis,
Timothy Loomis,
Job Drake,
John Warner,
Benj. Allyn,
John Palmer,
Phinehas Drake,
David Barber,
Ed. Moore,
Gideon Barber,
Seth Youngs,
John Roberts,
Joseph Moore,
Jolın Gillet,
Benedict Alford,
Nathl. Filley,
Wm. Cook,
Amos Filley,
Josiah Cook,
Benj. Ellis,
Alex. Wolcott,
Danl. Bissell,
Peletiah Allyn,
Isaac Burr,
Josias Allyn,
Samuel Eno, Esq.
3 The last vote in regard to the ferry, was in September, 1755, when the selectmen were ordered to "take care of, and dispose of the ferry-house, ferry-boat, and rope, for the best advantage of the town." Town Acts, III, 85.
4 State Archives, Travel, II, 369.
469
FERRIES.
the original builders of the bridge petitioned the assembly that they " would order" the town of Windsor to rebuild or make such repairs as were necessary.1 The assembly did so order (May, 1760), but the refractory and illiberal town merely con- tented themselves with making a few slight and temporary repairs;2 and thus the matter rested until 1762, when the necessity of a good, new and substantial bridge became too imperious to be any longer evaded.
We now find the town of Windsor (March, 1762), petitioning the assembly for a lottery, to enable them to rebuild the Rivulet bridge. They state that it is the most costly bridge in the gov- ernment, being 20 rods long, and 25 feet posts; that money is scarce, owing to the expense of the war; that societies in the town are destitute of ministers, and three are building meeting-houses ; and that persons stand ready to take tickets for plank. The assembly therefore, authorized a lottery of £250 for the bridge, and £30 for the expense of the said lottery, and appointed Wil- liam, Erastus, and Alexander Wolcott, and Capt. Josiah Bissell, as managers.3 The drawing took place October 1st, 1762, and the bridge was soon after built.4
It stood until January 1, 1767, when " by a sudden fall of rain, the ice in the river and brooks in this colony broke up on a sudden and rushed forward with such impetuosity as to destroy almost everything that stood in its way, so that very few bridges in the colony could withstand its rage, the like of which has not happened within the memory of man, at which time about one-half of said bridge was carried away with the ice," and the other half left standing.5
Again the town refused to repair it, and 31 individuals peti-
1 State Archives, Travel, II, 370.
2 The town ordered that the selectmen should repair the bridge across the Rivulet, "not exceeding £10." Town Acts, III, 89.
3 Petition in State Archives, Travel, 1, 372, 373.
4 March 9, 1762, " it was voted that the town will take all the tickets of the lottery for the bridge, not sold by the 1st of October next." Town Acts, III, 91.
5 Petition in State Archives, Travel, 11, 275.
-
470
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
tioned the assembly, May, 1767, to " order the town" to build anew. They were accordingly so ordered, and reluctantly com- plied.1
Again, iu the winter of 1782-3, this bridge was carried away by a great freshet, and again the town refused to replace it, so 10 petitioners pray for assistance from the assembly.2 That omnipotent body also received a petition from 43 inhabitants of the Poquounoc District, in which they state ( May 7, 1783) that the bridge was built on a sandy foundation, and has been frequently carried away; and that Poquonnoc Society has built a bridge making a nearer road and better accomodating the travel to Suffield. Therefore, as the lower bridge is " now down by the ice" and about to be rebuilt, and (in their opinion ) little needed, aud obstructs navigation, they request that it may be rebuilt as a swing bridge.2 Another petition from 16 persous, says that if the river were kept open for navigation to PoquonDoc, it would save much land carriage.2 Nineteen masters of coasting vessels also testify that they can pass up Windsor River as far as Poquonnoc, and of course prefer the lower bridge to have a swing.2
All these petitions were referred to a committee, who repaired to Windsor, examined the facts of the case, and reported as follows: 2 that the road through Poquonnoc was 4 of mile and 60 rods, that it will not auswer for wet seasons, and "the present location is the best ; that the swing bridge is needed by the First and Fourth Societies, and that at high water vessels can pass up to Poquonnoc, but if these two societies are com- pelled to build the bridge, they ought to be at the expense of a draw. Furthermore, that the town had voted to divide the town into districts, as Poquonnoc and Wintonbury had maintained their own bridges, and were urgent, and the others feared that otherwise no vote could be obtained to build as ordered, May 1767." On the whole, the Committee were of the opinion that it would be better to take care of all the bridges within their limits. The assembly (June, 1783) ordered the town to build
1 By a vote of 51 affirmative to 44 negative. Town Acts, III.
2 State Archives, III, 331, 332, 333, 335, 337.
471
INNS.
the lower bridge so as to let vessels pass, and hereafter to support the other bridges in their limits.
In 1794, a bridge and causeway were erected as part of the union contract between the First and Fourth Societies of the town, as more fully described in chapter xxii. On its site another bridge was built-about 1833-and being carried away in the freshet of 1854, was replaced by the present one.
Inns
Were first established by the following order of the court, dated June 4th, 1644:
"Whereas many strangers and passengers that upon occa- sion have recourse to these towns, and are straitened for want of entertainment, it is now ordered, that these several towns shall provide among themselves in each town one sufficient in- habitant to keep an ordinary for provision and lodging in some comfortable manner, that such passengers or strangers may know where to resort; and such inhabitants as by the several towns shall be chosen for the said service shall be presented to two magistrates, that they may be judged meet for that em- ployment, and this to be effected by the several towns within one month, under the penalty of 40s, a month, cach month either town shall neglect it."1
The duties of the innkeeper were very fully defined by the Code of 1650,2 for the court justly remarks, that although there is a necessity of houses of common entertainment, "yet be- cause there are so many abuses of that lawful liberty, both by persons entertaining and persons entertained, there is also need of strict laws and rules to regulate such employment." So landlords were forbidden to sell any guest more than half a pint of wine at a time, or to allow them to " continue tippling " over half an hour, or later than nine o'clock at night. All the recog- nized grades of drunkenness, from slight mellowness to down- right beastly drunkenness, were threatened with fines of pro- portionate severity. Second offences - always doubly heinous in the eyes of Puritanic justice- were visited with treble fines, and wo to the unlucky chap who could not " fork over the cash," for he was then unceremoniously whipped, or else clapped into
1 Col. Rec., 1, 103.
2 Col. Rec., 1, 533.
472
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
the stocks "for three hours, when the weather may not hazard his life or limbs."
The innkeeper was also specially instructed in regard to making proper provision for the " beasts" of travellers and guests. In 1686, the court enacted a strong law against gam- ing, dancing and singing in taverns.
The first innkeepers 1 in Windsor, of whom we have any record, were appointed at a town meeting in December, 1715. They were Simon Chapman2 and Eliakim Marshall on the west, and Nathaniel Cook and the widow Grace Grant on the east side of the Connecticut River. Of Messrs. Chapman, Marshall and Cook, we have no information. Mrs. Grant, however, kept tavern in East Windsor until about 1734-5, when it passed into the hands of her son, Ebenezer Grant, subsequently better known as Capt. Grant, the leading merchant of the east side of the town.
The other inn-keepers on the east side of the river, before its incorporation as a distinct town, were landlord Nathaniel Por- ter, whose place was on the west side of the street, a little south and opposite to the south middle district school-house.
Captain Joel Loomis also kept tavern about forty rods south of the middle school-house, on the west side of the street. After his death his son, Capt. Giles Loomis, succeeded him in the busi- ness for many years. He built an addition to the house for a Freemasons' Hall. The tavern was the regular rendezvous for the train band - and on these occasions, says an aged friend
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.