The memorial history of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1633-1884, Vol. I, Part 9

Author: Trumbull, J. Hammond (James Hammond), 1821-1897
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Boston, E. L. Osgood
Number of Pages: 870

USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > The memorial history of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1633-1884, Vol. I > 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).

Through the winter of 1661-1662 the people of Connecticut were eagerly waiting to hear news about the progress of Winthrop's nego- tiations. But at last the patience of the people was to be gratified. In

MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.

the first volume of the Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, pp. 52, 53, may be found the letter bearing date, London, May 13, 1662, which Governor John Winthrop sent home when he was sure of his charter. He knew (though it took some persons on this side the water a long time to find it out) that he had obtained a grant from Charles II. for which all the people of Connecticut ought to be grateful. Mr. Winthrop was writing, as is supposed, to Mr. John Taleott, Treasurer of the Connecticut Colony. He says : -

" SIR, - I must refer to this bearer, Mr. Woolcott, to lett you know what I might certify more at large concerning the full issue of this Charter for our colony of Connecticutt, which hath now newly passed the great seale, and is as full and large for bounds and priviledges as could be desired, so as I hope all will be well satisfied about the Charge that has been necessary for the affecting and prose- cuting a business of such consequence which is to the full settlement of the colony for them and their posterity."

There is not much doubt that the bearer of the letter was Henry Wolcott, then fifty-two years old, who was one of the trustees mentioned in the charter. These incorporators, or patentees, are nineteen, and in the various repetitions of the names, as is common in such documents, Mr. Wolcott's name is written Woolicott, Woollcott, Woolcott, but never Wolcott.

The charter itself did not come over yet for some months. It was first exhibited on these shores at the meeting of the Commissioners in Boston, Sept. 4, 1662. It was a death-blow to the New Haven Colony as a separate jurisdiction. Palfrey regards the conduct of Winthrop toward New Haven as of doubtful morality, at the same time that he raises the question whether this annihilation of the New Haven identity was not done contrary to Mr. Winthrop's own wishes. He suggests that Lord Clarendon, the English Prime Minister, may have desired to humiliate Massachusetts, the most powerful of the New England colonies, and could do it in no way more effectually than by taking the New Haven Colony, which in its ideas of Church and State was in hearty sympathy with Massachusetts, and destroying its existence by merging it in Connecti- cut. But whoever contrived the plan, and whatever the motives may have been, after the hatreds and animosities of a few years had died out, the people of Connecticut, of both colonies, found themselves in posses- sion of a fair heritage of freedom which none would wish to part with or fundamentally change.

Governor Winthrop returned from England, was made the first governor under the new charter, and so continued by re-election yearly until his death, April 5, 1676.

THE CHARTER OF 1662.

SECTION IV.

BY THE REV. INCREASE N. TARBOX, D.D.

THE CHARTER OF 1662. - THE UNION OF THE COLONIES. - HARTFORD COUNTY CONSTITUTED.

WE have before given a rapid account of the agency by which this charter was obtained ; but it is fitting that we should look somewhat more closely to the charter itself, its contents, and its after history.

Charles II. and his ministers must have been in an amiable mood during the years 1662 and 1663, to have conferred on Connecticut and Rhode-Island charters so much more large and liberal than those con- ferred by the English Crown on the other American colonies. Rhode Island claims, perhaps with some justice, that hers was more generous even than that of Connecticut. If so, she certainly did not know how to use it any more wisely, or get a more substantial good out of it, than did the people of Connecticut out of theirs. The vital peculiarity of these charters, in distinction from those of other American colonies, appears in the fact that no veto power was retained in England to thwart the free action of the people in the election of their own governors and the transaction of all governmental business. To show the practical outworking and variation of the two kinds of charters, we may recall the fact that just before the breaking out of the Revolutionary War, Thomas Hutchinson, an American-born citizen, was royal governor of Massachu- setts, and was serving his royal master, when he was obliged to fly from the anger of the people and take refuge in England. Thomas Gage, commander of the English army at Boston, was made governor in his stead ; as though the king of England had said, if you will not accept one of your own citizens, whom I have appointed to be your head, I will give you a man of war, with his battalions and ships of war about him, whom you cannot so easily drive away.

But how was it in Connecticut at that time ? Jonathan Trumbull, of Lebanon, had been elected governor of Connecticut in 1769 by the free suffrages of the people, and was re-elected to the same office for fifteen years, to the close of the war; and there was no place in the charter given by Charles II. where the king of England conld step in to stay those proceedings. Jonathan Trumbull was of the people and for the people, the right-hand counsellor and helper of Washington through the whole revolutionary struggle.

It is true, under the brief but miserable reign of James II., 1685- 1689, this guaranty was broken, not by any pretence of law or right- eousness, but simply by kingly violence, and the conditions of the char- ter for a little time were suspended. Sir Edmund Andros was appointed governor and claimed to be governor of all New England, in spite of all previous grants and charters. It was in this time of usurpation that the Rev. Gershom Bulkeley (or Gershom Bulkeley, Esq., for he was a

MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.

civilian as well as a preacher) wrote a letter to Governor Treat and the Magistrates, " To advise concerning Holding of a Court of Election by Virtue of and according to the late Patent." 1

In this letter (p. 61) he says : -

" Our late soveraign, King Charles the Second, did in the year 1662, by his letters patents for himself, his Heires and Successors, Ordaine and Constitute the therein named Pattentees, and the then present and future Freemen, &c., One Body politick and Corporate in fact and name, by the name of, His Governour and Company of the English Colony of Connecticut in New England in America, and that by the same Name, they and their Successors shall and may haue perpetual Succession. . . . But now you are not such a Body politick and Corporate, capa- ble in Law as aforesaid, for you know that by the late Transaction between his Majesty and his then Gouernour and Company of the late Colony of Connecticut the Government is changed and taken into his Majesties' hands."

As it proved, this was only a brief episode in the history of Con- necticut. Not far from the time when Mr. Bulkeley was writing his letter in 1689, King James II. was driven from the throne, and in the reign of William and Mary, that succeeded, there was no disposition to ply these tyrant arts against New England. The charter ventured out again from its hiding-place, clothed with all its beneficent powers and privileges for the people. For nearly one hundred years after this at- tempt to stifle its existence it stood out in sight of all men, and no- where, perhaps, in all the world, could a people be found more intelli- gent, virtuous, prosperous, and happy than those who lived under the protection and guidance of that charter.

The charter had been obtained, and it was as ample and noble as could be desired, and far more so than the most sanguine mind could have expected. The charter was good, and was safely landed on our shores in the autumn of 1662. But the great question now was, how to bring the two colonies, legally united in the charter, into actual and peaceable union.

It was not to be wondered at, that a storm of indignation arose in the towns under the New Haven jurisdiction. The colony of New Haven was the smallest of the four, but inferior to none in the intelligence, culture, wealth, and social standing of her families. It came from England later than the others and was selected and organized with great care. That its corporate existence should be thus suddenly taken away without note or warning, and that it should at once be merged in any other jurisdiction, however good it might be, was more than human nature could quietly and patiently bear.

As hinted in another place, this merging of the New Haven Colony was perhaps more of an English than a New England idea. In addi- tion to other motives that may have influenced Charles II. and his min- isters, the following may have been one. The New Haven magistrates and people had been more active than those of any other colony in feeding, sheltering, and concealing the judges who had tried and exe- cuted Charles I. It is not likely that the king's officers on this side the water, Messrs. Kellond and Kirke could fail to know that the men they were after were hidden by the New England people, and chiefly, as things

1 See Collections of Connecticut Historical Society, vol. i. p. 59.

HARTFORD COUNTY CONSTITUTED.

turned, by the people of New Haven. No thorough New Englander, then or now, would be apt to lay this particular sin to their charge. But Charles II. in the years 1660 and 1661, trying to catch the men who had had the unheard-of audacity to sit in solemn tribunal on his royal father and then publicly execute him, would be likely to regard this whole matter in a very different light. No doubt from time to time he had heard from the officers in pursuit how their best-laid plans were foiled by the people, and all their efforts to trace and arrest the fugitives brought to nought, very largely through the magistrates of the New Haven Colony.

But at last the long public contest was ended. Trumbull, in his " History of Connecticut " I tells us (and the testimony is more valuable because he lived and wrote within the bounds of the old New Haven Colony ) that : -

" At the General Election, May 11, 1665, when the two colonies of Connect- icut and New Haven united in one . . . a proportionable number of the magis- trates were of the former colony of New Haven ; all the towns sent their deputies ; and the Assembly appears to have been entirely harmonious. . .. The union of the colonies was a happy one. It greatly contributed to the convenience, strength, peace, and welfare of the inhabitants of both, and of their posterity. Greater privileges New Haven could not have enjoyed, had they been successful in their applications to his Majesty."

By the union of Connecticut and New Haven the territory and the population were so increased beyond what had belonged to either one before, that the time had arrived to cast the State into four subdivisions called counties, for its better regulation and government. This business took place at the Court of Election held at Hartford, May 10, 1666, when there were present the governor, John Winthrop; the deputy-governor, John Mason ; twelve assistants, and thirty-one deputies. Those who had before been called Magistrates were now under the new charter called Assistants.

At first the counties were four, -Hartford, New Haven, New London, and Fairfield. The bounds of Hartford County were as follows : -

" The Court orders that the Townes on the River from ye north bounds of Windsor wth Farmington to ye south end of ye bounds of Thirty Miles island shalbe & remaine to be one County weh shalbe called the County of Hartford. And it is ordered that the County Court shalbe kept at Hartford on the 1st Thurs- day in March, and on the first Thursday in September yearly." 1

The Thirty Miles Island, so called, was the territory now occupied by the towns of Haddam and East Haddam, which was then chiefly wild and unoccupied land. The singular name it bore was from a little island in the river, over against it, which was reckoned to be thirty miles from the mouth of the river. At this same session clerks were appointed for these several counties ; and in Hartford County the ap- pointment fell upon Mr. Daniel Clarke, who for a long course of years was to be one of the well-known public men of the county. In the follow- ing year it was voted that the County Courts shall have leave to " chuse their own clarkes." In this year (1667) there were nineteen towns in

1 Vol. i. pp. 276, 277.

MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.

the several counties of the State, and the total valuation of the estates showed £144,398 6s. 9d.

In the same session of the General Court constituting these coun- ties it was ordered : -

"That ye Wills and Inventories of persons deceased wthin any of the Counties in this Colony shalbe exhibited and proued at ye County to which the deceased did appertaine by his habitation. And the said County Court is to settle the distribution of the estate to the legatees."2

The County Courts too were to have liberty and power (but not exclusive power) over the question of selling liquor, which has been one of the most difficult questions to manage, from that day to this :

" This Court grants liberty to the County Courtes in the respective Countyes to grant lycense to any particular person to retale wine & liq's, as occation shall require; and none els but such as are lycensed by the Generall Court or the County Courtes, without a ticket from the Magistrate of the place where they liue, shall haue leaue to sell by retale any wine or liq's."

Other functions and powers were lodged with these county organi- zations as time passed on ; these were their chief primitive duties.

1 Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. ii: p. 34. 2 Ibid., p. 39.

CHAPTER IV.

THE COLONIAL PERIOD.

SECTION I.

THE ANDROS GOVERNMENT. - THE CHARTER AND THE CHARTER OAK.

BY SHERMAN W. ADAMS.

C YONNECTICUT'S Charter of 1662 was more favorable to its grantees than the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, of 1629, had been to the latter colony. The document, in the form of letters-patent, for Connecticut, gave to John Winthrop, and to his associates therein named, and to those who should thereafter be " made free of the Company and Society of our Collony of Conecticut in America," general and exclusive governmental powers, - such as the right to organize and maintain a house of Deputies, and to establish courts ; the corporation having the right to execute its powers on the soil of Connecticut. In Massachu- setts it was always a question whether the corporate powers must not be executed in England, where the office of the " Council at Plymouth " was, from whom the colony received its deed. The grant of the soil of that colony was to the Charter grantees and their assigns ; while the powers of government were conferred upon the corporation and its successors. No power was expressly given to Massachusetts to estab- lish courts of law, nor had it admiralty jurisdiction. Connecticut, however, was, as Chalmers expresses it,1 a " pure Democracy ; since the freemen exercised without restraint every power, deliberative and ex- ecutive." Rhode Island and Connecticut, he says, were "two little republics, embosomed within a great empire."

The most active and unscrupulous agent for the revocation of the colonial charters of New England was Edward Randolph, the collector of His Majesty's customs in New England, and deputy auditor-general of revenues in America. He it was who framed the " charges " whereon writs of quo warranto were based, against the colonial governments. He crossed the ocean many times in pursuance of his purpose. Two such writs were served upon Massachusetts, both of which were aban- doned ; and a writ of scire facias was finally brought to the High Court of Chancery in England ; whereon, in October, 1684, a decree was ob- tained, annulling and vacating the Charter. This was in the reign of Charles II. In the following February James II. became king. The

1 Introduction to the "History of the Revolt of the American Colonies."

MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.

last election under the Massachusetts Charter occurred in May, 1686. In the same month Joseph Dudley, the Royal President of the new government, arrived. His territory included Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine; and Boston became the seat of government for all the provinces.

Sir Edmond Andros arrived, bearing a royal commission as Gov- ernor of New England, Dec. 19, 1686. He had been a major as early as 1666, in the war against the Dutch, in New York; in 1672 he was major of Prince Rupert's Dragoons, and in 1674-1681, Governor of New York, having in the mean time been made a Knight, while on a visit *** to England. From 1681 to 1686 he had remained in England, where he had been a lieutenant-colonel of horse, and had commanded a troop of horse against the rebellious Duke of Monmouth.

We cannot here recount the doings of Andros as Governor of New England ; but it may be said, THE ANDROS SEAL.1 generally, that he, like Randolph, was particularly offensive to the Puritan element. He compelled them to open their houses of worship for the holding of services according to the forms of the Church of England. Concerning the advent of Andros to Connecticut, much more than can be stated here will be found in Vol. I. of Dr. Benjamin Trumbull's "History of Connecticut ;" in Vol. III. of J. Hammond Trumbull's "Colonial Records of Connecticut ;" and in the unpublished document, entitled "Will and Doom; or, the Miseries of Connecticut," written in 1692 by the Rev. Gershom Bulkeley.

Edward Randolph had been obnoxious to Connecticut in the per- formance of his official duties. He had also been the agent of the Duke and Duchess of Hamilton, when in 1683 they had laid claim to that part of Connecticut east of the river. In July, 1685, he prepared, for the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, " Articles of High Mis- demeanors against the Governor and Company of Connecticut ;" that being the corporate name of the colony. The " charges," six in num- ber, may be summarized thus : first, the general one, that the colony had " made laws contrary to the realm of England ;" second, that fines were converted to the colonial treasury ; third, that an oath of fidelity, and not of allegiance, was required from inhabitants ; fourth, that exer- cise of the religion of the Church of England was denied ; fifth, that justice could not be obtained in the courts ; sixth, that loyalists were excluded from office, and the power kept in the hands of "the inde- pendent party." These accusations were made in order to justify the issue of a writ of quo warranto against Connecticut ; the object being

1 " The seal used by Sir Edmond Andros while Governor of New England (a fine impres- sion of which is preserved on the commission to Governor Treat as Colonel) bears - quarterly, first and fourth on a chevron, between three leopards' faces, as many castles triple towered [for the seigniory of Sausmarez] ; second and third, a saltire voided, on a chief three mullets. Crest, a falcon affrontant, wings expanded. Supporters : dexter, a unicorn, gorged ; sinister, a greyhound, tail cowarded, gorged. The motto is not legible. That of the family of Sausmarez (to which the crest and supporters belong) is 'In Deo Spero' (Burke's Armory). The bear- ings of the second and third quarters are given by Burke as those of Andrewes of London, and Andrews of Doddington. The arms of the Andros of Guernsey (to which Sir Edmond belonged) are described in Berry's 'History of Guernsey' (p. 138) as 'a chevron between three pelicans vulning themselves.'" - Dr. J. H. Trumbull's Note to Colonial Records of Connecticut, iii. 392.

THE ANDROS GOVERNMENT.

to make that colony a province to be subject to the government to be established at Boston.

On Randolph's charges, the Privy Council recommended that the King direct his Attorney-General to prosecute such a writ. In July, 1685, two writs of quo warranto were issued. Both were served to- gether, a year later, by Randolph ; the service being upon Robert Treat, Governor; Captain John Allyn, Secretary ; and Major John Talcott, one of the Assistants of the General Court. The service was, of course, defective ; the return-day of the process having already elapsed. William Whiting (son of William, a Hartford gentleman) was then a merchant in London, and Connecticut's agent there. To him Governor Treat Robert Freat ... wrote, acquainting him with these facts and authorizing him to procure defence against the suits. A petition was also sent in August, 1686, to the King, praying that the privileges of the colony be not taken away. No action was had in the Court of King's Bench upon these writs. In December, 1686, a third writ was served upon Governor Treat, requiring the colony to appear in answer thereto in the following February. With the service of this writ, December 28th, a letter from Governor Andros was delivered, announcing that the King had authorized him to receive " the surrender of the charter, if tendered," by Governor Treat. Nei- ther then nor afterward did Governor Treat offer to surrender that instrument. But in January, 1687, Andros was informed by him, by order of the General Court, that Mr. Whiting had been empowered, in the colony's behalf, to defend against this latest writ. It was added that the colony desired " to continue in the same station ;" but that it would, " as in duty bound, submit to His Majesty's royal commands ;" and that, if compelled to join any other colonies, it would prefer those under Andros.

This answer was made the pretext, by some of Andros's adherents (as, for instance, Gershom Bulkelcy), for the claim that Connecticut " consented " to the surrender of her Charter. But Andros himself did not so construe it; for he continued, until June, 1687, to urge the colony's submission to his authority. Finally, Oct. 22, 1687, he wrote to Governor Treat that he had "received effectuall orders and com- mands from his Matie for Connecticut, annexed to this [Boston] Gov- ernment." He further stated his resolve to be " att Hartford abt the end of next weeke, pursuant thereunto," etc.

Judge Sewall's Diary, under date of Oct. 26, 1687, says : -

" His Excellency, with sundry of the Council, Justices, and other Gentlemen, four Blew-Coats, two Trumpeters (Sam. Bligh one), 15 or 20 Red-Coats, with small Guns, and short Lances in the tops of them -- set forth for Woodcock's [Woodcock's tavern, in what is now Attleborough, Mass.], in order to goe to Connecticut, to assume the Government of that place."

Andros, in fact, set out at this date, coming by way of Providence and New London, and crossing the river at Wethersfield ferry, later known as Pratt's ferry. At the latter point, to quote from Mr. Bulke- ley's " Will and Doom," he arrived

"On Monday, October 31, 1687, with divers of the members of his Council, and other gentl. attending him, and with his guard ; came to Hartford, where he VOL. I .- 5.

MEMORIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD COUNTY.

GOVERNOR ANDROS.

was received with all respect, and welcome congratulation ;" etc. "The troop of horse of that county conducted him honorably, from the ferry, through Wethers- field, up to Hartford ; where the trained bands of divers towns . . . united to pay their respects at his coming."

The county troop was at that time commanded by Captain Samuel Talcott, of Wethersfield; and it is not probable that he had much " respect " for the Andros government, for he had furnished money to aid in defending against it. But Bulkeley, though undoubtedly honest, colored his account, as a partisan of An- dros naturally would.

Andros

At Hartford, the same day, Andros, according to Bulkeley, was escorted to the " Court Chamber " (on the second floor of the Meeting-House), where, taking the " Governor's seat," he caused his commission to be publicly read, and made proclamation of his assumption

THE CHARTER AND THE CHARTER OAK.

of the government. He then made the Governor and the Secretary mem- bers of his Council, and administered to them the oath of office. The record of the General Court shows that the meeting was a special session of that body, " by order of the Governor." Upon the conclusion of the proceedings, Secretary Allyn closed the record with this entry : -.

" His Excelency, S' Edmond Andross, Knt, Capt. Generall & Gov" of his Maties Teritorie & Dominion in New England, by order from his Matie James the second, King of England, Scotland, France & Ireland, the 31 of October, 1687, took into his hands the Government of this Colony of Conecticott ; it being by his Matie annexed to the Massachusetts, & other colonys under his Excelencies Government.

FINIS."

Dr. Benjamin Trumbull's version of the proceedings at Hartford (History of Connecticut, vol. i. p. 390) is very different from Mr. Bulkeley's ; but he had not seen the latter. He says that Andros was accompanied by more than sixty "regular troops ;" that he demanded the Charter, and declared the government under it dissolved. During the conference between the royal and the colonial Governor, -

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.

The memorial history of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1633-1884, Vol. I, Part 9

Author: Trumbull, J. Hammond (James Hammond), 1821-1897 Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Boston, E. L. Osgood Number of Pages: 870

Author: Trumbull, J. Hammond (James Hammond), 1821-1897
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Boston, E. L. Osgood
Number of Pages: 870