USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Waterbury > The town and city of Waterbury, Connecticut, from the aboriginal period to the year eighteen hundred and ninety-five, Volume I > Part 15
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 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105
When one looks upon the Farmington meadows of to-day, and goes back, in thought, to the time when, in 1672 or 1673, but eighty- four men, with their families, inhabited the great township, the Indians occupying only their reservation of two hundred acres, together with "the little slip, staked out, to avoid contention," the question forces itself upon the mind anew: Why were these men not content ? The question of land, surely, could not have been a serious one; nor were its divisions so arbitrary as to account for the spirit of unrest that prevailed in Farmington, as elsewhere. Men were not equal. The government of towns was in the hands of a few men. Few were the changes in the more honorary offices, and heavy was the repression felt by the individual, consequent upon the letter of the law, whose weight weighed him down more heavily than he could bear. Hence the efforts of the individual to seek out some tract of land, even if distant from the settlement, where he could, at least to his little herd of cattle, speak his mind, with- out suffering the consequences. However many other good and sufficient reasons there may have been for the continual wandering in townships by man, and out of townships by bands of men, we think we must look beneath surface indications for the foundations whence this spirit of restlessness was upheaved.
As early as 1663, we find that three or four men had strayed away into that portion of Farmington then called Poland-and now Bristol-and by permission of the town, had there selected lands to be laid out to them when granted by the town. Richard Bronson, Thomas Barnes and Moses Ventrus seem to have been the pioneers
I2I
CONNECTICUT'S PLANTATION AT MATTATUCK.
in securing grants. These grants were followed in 1664 by one of twenty acres to our John Lankton.
In 1670 a movement began, that may be looked upon as the first and vital step toward Waterbury, and yet it occurred within the lim- its of Farmington itself. Land in Great Swamp was conferred upon men of Farmington upon conditions. This Great Swamp lay along the branches of the Mattebeset river and was allotted in par- cels, varying from twenty to fourteen acres, "through the conde- scendency of particular persons in the town to part with something which is their right, to persons of lesser estate, on these conditions." The conditions were, that the lands were forever to be a part of Farmington; "never to be a distinct people from the town without their liberty and consent." The land was to return to the town "if the people living there should endeavor to rend themselves off from the town to be a distinct people of themselves, or, with any other." Neither could any man thus endowed with his acres in the Great Swamp make sale of this land until he had lived his four years in Farmington, and further, no one was allowed to go there to live except he owned the land. Twenty-eight of the men who just four years later signed the " Articles Agreed upon for the Settling a Plan- tation at Mattatuck," were twenty-eight of the men who had by waiting secured for themselves these lands at Great Swamp. In 1687, the town of Farmington agreed to give Richard Seymour, a blacksmith, twenty shillings, as a "gratewety " for his moving to the Swamp, and 1686 is the date given by historians for the settlement at " Farmington Village in and about Great Swamp."
We have already given evidence that the region within ten miles of Waterbury-at Bristol-was sufficiently well known in 1663 to be selected and granted, in part, to three men of Farmington. We also know of one colonial grant of a farm that was laid out within Waterbury's borders before we have any evidence of a design on the part of the men of Farmington to petition for a plan- tation here.
In 1673 the court bestowed upon Deacon Stephen Heart a one hundred and fifty acre farm. In the records of 1705 we learn for the first time that "this grant was laid out to him within the town- ship of Waterbury, which afterward being granted for a plantation, he or his heirs relinquished, and it was to be removed to a place upon Mattatuck river to the northward of the town there." We may not stop to follow this grant. Like the Indians it was compelled to move on in advance of townships, being now at the meeting of the bounds of Windsor, Simsbury and Farmington, and again sent over the Connecticut river into Killingly, where possibly it remained.
122
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
We return thanks to this wandering farm for the light it reflects from 1705 on 1673. Having thus shown conclusively that land was held within the bounds of Mattatuck in May, 1673, we must give to Deacon Stephen Heart the honor of being, so far as known to the writer, the first English landed proprietor in Waterbury; but it does not follow that he had no predecessor. We have already alluded to the earliest grant, that of Fisher's Island in 1641, to John Winthrop. This was soon followed by grants to the soldiers of the Pequot Massacre, and from that early date the grants grew rap- idly in number, and in size to one at least of one thousand acres. A very suggestive grant is that to Thomas Judd and Anthony Haw- kins, of four hundred acres in 1661. The evidence has not been met, but the suggestion is here offered to a coming investigator that the whole or a portion of this land was laid out in present Naugatuck, and that this farm gave rise to the name by which that territory was known for so many years while it was a part of Water- bury-not Judd's Meadow, but Judd's Meadows. If this should prove to be tenable, then Deacon Stephen Heart must give place to Deacon Thomas Judd, his fellow townsman. This Deacon Judd of Farmington was the father of William, John, Benjamin, Lieuten- ant Thomas, Philip and Samuel Judd, every one of whom had some part in the settlement of Waterbury. Therefore Deacon Thomas Judd's six sons may have been familiar with our hills and valleys, even in their boyhood. This view has been taken as one of the pos- sibilities of the situation, and may be upheld by several plausible facts, one of which is that the Judds must have had a reason for not desiring a plantation at Mattatuck; for not a Judd name is to be found in the list of the petitioners for it, while, when the planta- tion arises on their landed horizon, the entire family rush in as planters ! Was this because they had been improving the two hun- dred-acre farm-granted to be laid out in not more than four pieces -at Judd's Meadows for thirteen years, and fain would keep it from the iron hand of a plantation ? And is this an explanation of records which reveal to us certain facts that we are unable to account for-such expressions in the first book of Proprietors' Records as " Butler's House," " Butler's House Brook," "Where Butler's House was," when we have no knowledge of any Butler among the early inhabitants of Waterbury-a man whose house was a thing of the past in 1689 ! Was he the farmer of Judd's Meadows, or was he a Stratford Butler and a Quaker, one of the five Quakers in the colony at that date, and obliged to move on? or who was this But- ler ? Before October 6th, 1673, Thomas Newell Sent, John Warner, Sent, and Richard Seamor, all of Farmington, "partly for their own satisfaction, and for the satisfaction of some others," came to view
123
CONNECTICUT'S PLANTATION AT MATTATUCK.
"Matitacoocke " in reference to a plantation and made report that they " judged it capable of the same."
October 9th, 1673, twenty-six men, all of Farmington, and not a Judd of the number, sent up a petition by John "Lankton" to the court then in session at Hartford. The following is a copy of that petition as it appears in the State Records of Towns and Lands, vol. I, page 162. The original papers relating to the period, of which this is one, have been carefully preserved by pasting them to the leaves of volumes. On holding the leaf on which this petition is found to the light, it was seen that upon the back of it had been written, " Farming petition for to make Mattacock a plantation, 9 Octobr 1673. John Lancton payes for this petition." John Lanc- ton therefore paid ten shillings for the privilege of having the peti- tion read in court, for such had been for eleven years the require- ment.
THE PETITION FOR A PLANTATION.
To the honerd generall court now siting In Hartford Octobr 9, 73
Honerd gentlemen and fathers we being sensible of our great neede of a com- fortable subsistance doe herby make our address to your selfes In order to the same Not Questioning your ceare and faithfulness In ye premisses: allso hoping of your freeness and readyness to accomidate your poore supplicants with yt which we Judge to be: In your hands: acording to an orderly proseeding we therefore whose names are hereafter Inserted to humbly petition your honours to take cong. nicance: of our state who want Land to Labour upon: for our subsistance & Now having found out a trackt at a place called by ye Indians matitacoock: which we aprihend may susfetiently acomidate to make a small plantation: we are therefore bould hereby to petition your honors to grant vs ye liberty of planting ye same with as many others as may be: capable comfortably to entertaine and as for the pur- chasing of ye natives with your alowance we shall take care of: & so not to trouble with farther Inlargement we rest only desiring your due consideration & a return By our Louing ffriend John Lankton and subscribe our selfes your nedy petitioners
Thomas Newell John Lankton
John andrews John warner seinior Daniell porter Edmun Scoot John Standly Junior abraham brounsen Richard seamer John Warner Junior Isack brounsen Samuell heacox John Wellton
Daniell warner Abraham Andrews
Thomas hancox
John Carrington
Daniell Andrews,
Joseph heacox thomas standly
Obadiah richards *
Timothy standley william higgeson
John porter
Thomas Barnes John woodruff.
Attention is requested to the apparent distinction made in this petition between the tract of land desired for a plantation and the place within it-the language it will be noted is, "having found out a trackt at a place called by ye Indians Matitacoock."
* In a different hand writing.
I24
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
THE ANSWER OF THE COURT TO THE PETITION FOR A PLANTATION.
Oct. 9. 1673
In answer to the petition of severall inhabitants of the towne of Farmington that Mattatock that those lands might be granted for a plantation, this Court have seen cause to order that those lands may be viewed sometime between this and the Court in May next, and that reporte be made to the Court in May next, whether it be judged fitt to make a plantation. The Committee appoynted are Lnt Tho: Bull, Lut Robt Webster and Daniel Pratt.
The same distinction is preserved in the response of the Court in the words: "that Mattatock that those lands might be granted." Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull in editing the published Records of the Col- ony notices this apparent vagary of language, and adds in a note, the words, "So in the Record." Nothing is more unsafe to historical accuracy than the easy assumption that the early writers were care . less or used language unadvisedly, when the fact may be and usu- ally is, that we fail to comprehend the intricacies of the situation, or are ignorant, or unmindful, of important factors in the case.
Unfortunately for us, the early records of Waterbury have been, twice at least, harvested, with an abundant portion of excellent his- torical grain left in the field, but no gleaners passing that way to garner it. Events that were familiar to the men of that time, and for which there seemed to them to be no future use, were omitted in the new volumes of record, the old books being discarded and lost. It will be remembered that it was upon the ninth of October, 1673, that the committee was appointed to view the lands in ques- tion, and that it was to make report concerning them at the May session of Court, 1674. It did so, and here is the report, as rendered:
THE COMMITTEES RETURN ABOUT MATTATOCK.
April 6. 7. 8. 9. 1674.
Wee, whos names are underwritten (according to the desire and appointment of ye honoured Court) have viewed ye lands upon Mattatuck river in order to a planta- tion, we doe apprehend that there is about six hundred acres of meadow and plow- ing land lying on both sides of ye river besides upland convenient for a towne plot, with a suitable out let into ye woods on ye west of ye river, and good feeding land for cattell.
The meadow & plowing land above written a considerable part of it lyeth in two peices near ye town plot, ye rest in smaller parcels, ye farthest of which we judge not above fower miles from ye towne plot: and our apprehensions are that it may accommodate thirty familyes
Thomas Bull Nicho: Olmstead Robert Webster.
[For some reason, not apparent, Nicholas Olmstead acted in the place of Daniell Pratt.]
It will be seen that Thomas Bull, Nicholas Olmstead and Robert Webster, occupied four days in the investigation. They must there-
I25
CONNECTICUT'S PLANTATION AT MATTATUCK.
fore have passed the nights of April 6th, 7th and 8th, 1674, in the wilderness, if it was all wilderness at that time, or possibly, like the earlier travelers between Connecticut and " The Bay," they lighted upon Indian wigwams by the way, and were hospitably entertained. Is it urged that there were no wigwams at Mattatuck? We have the best of evidence that there was here one of the "Long Wigwams" that were built for the use of the Indians when they assembled in large numbers for festive and other purposes. "The path that comes from the Long Wigwam," occurs more than once in our records. We suppose this wigwam to have been in the vicinity of Wigwam Swamp, "whose west end is at the north end of Burnt Hill," and from which a brook flows into Hancox Brook. This committee, in its report, proves itself to have done efficient work. In four days the men journeyed from Farmington to present Waterbury; crossed Mattatock River; selected the town site upon our present Town Plot; estimated the meadow and ploughing land, available for imme- diate use, at six hundred acres; examined the territory, we have reason to think, both up and down the river, as they give an opinion of the distance of the more remote meadows from the "town plot" of their selection as not above four miles; reported good feeding ground for cattle, and, finally, concluded their report with the oft- repeated and much-misunderstood "apprehension " concerning the ability of the region to support thirty families.
Having lost from the records, in the case of Farmington, the formula for the formation of plantations, and their care by committees during the period of their infancy, before they arrived at the stature of towns, with every one then committed to the care of its duly appointed King Constable, we are compelled to gather, here and there, what facts we may, regarding the conditions under which a plantation might be granted by the Court. We add here, what has perhaps been already intimated, that one of the requirements was, that as many as thirty fami- lies must be secured to form a plantation, for the reason that that number of house-holders was deemed sufficient to support a minister; therefore this return to the General Court of the ability of the region to support thirty families did not limit it, even in the opinion of the committee, to that number of inhabitants, but merely gave evidence that that requirement of the Court could be met in the case of Mattatuck. It was also added that there was a suitable outlet into the woods on the west of the river. The significance of the last sentence does not seem clear. It may have had reference to Mattatuck's access to Woodbury. Woodbury was then but an infant of eleven months, just that time having passed since four men and their associates had been granted permission "to errect a plantation
I26
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
at Pomperoage." Woodbury is somewhat apt to hold her head proudly with age above Waterbury, but her plantation grant is less than a year older than ours, although her English name and town estate bear carlier date.
It was on Tuesday, the 19th of May, 1673, that the report con- cerning Mattatuck lands was received by the Court, considered, accepted, and acted upon by the appointment of " Major John Tall- cott, Lut Robt Webster, Lat Nicho : Olmstead, Ens : Sam" Steele and Ens : John Wadsworth to be a committee to regulate and order the setleing of a plantation at Mattatock in the most suitable way that may be;" and thus Mattatuck was duly committed to the martial nurses of its infancy-a major, two lieutenants, and two ensigns- and it still does credit to its early training. Of this committee, Major John Talcott was the most conspicuous member. From the time when he was " chosen ensign by the Trained Band of Hartford " in 1650, to the date of his death in 1688, John Talcott, Jr., led a busy, eventful and important life. The marvel is, that a man so weighted with colonial trusts of magnitude, should have been chosen to lay the foundations of a plantation of minor importance. He never- theless attended to the commission valiantly and well. We have abundant proof of this, in the still existing documents relating to Mattatuck in his excellent legible handwriting. In the November following this appointment he was nominated and appointed " Com- mander-in-Chief" of all the military forces to be raised in the colony, and sent against New York. He already held the position of assistant to the Governor; was treasurer of the colony; commis- sioner of the United Colonies, and on the very next day after the Mattatuck appointment, he was on a committee to hear the "Indian Complaints " and draw them to an issue; two days after that, he was to go over to Long Island, empowered, with two others, “to order and settle the affairs of those people, establish military officers " and perform other trusts of magnitude; also, he was "to consider of and dispose of some tracts of land for the country " on still another com- mittee; and to " consult of some way to promote the public good " on another; beside being requested to look after the fencing of the meadows between Farmington and Simsbury. Independent of all these matters, he was, it would seem, expected to obtain from the owners a deed of the territory of Mattatuck. His genius for coax- ing Indians was believed in. Just what tactics were used in the case of Waterbury we are not able to delineate, for records are silent, but we can, perhaps, obtain a dim outline from his own description of the manner in which he influenced the Indians of Simsbury to part with the lands that formed that township.
CHAPTER IX.
WATERBURY'S FIRST ENTRANCE UPON PLANTATION LIFE-THE "NEW TOWN GOEING UP AT MATTATUCK " IN 1675-THE EFFECT UPON IT OF " KING " PHILIP'S WAR-THE SUPPOSED FLITTING OF THE INHAB- ITANTS TO FARMINGTON-CONNECTICUT'S INDIAN GOVERNOR- PROGRESS OF THE WAR-SALE OF THE SURRENDERING INDIANS- MAJOR TALCOTT'S INDIAN BOY-THE "IRISH CHARITY " OF 1680.
T HE Committee appointed by the General Assembly for the ordering of the settlement at Mattatuck, acted with com- mendable promptness. The company of and from Farm- ington knew that the land was virtually their own, and we are quite ready to believe that men did not wait for their allotments in severalty, in the spring time of 1674. Everything was just edging toward newness of life, a life made enjoyable by the tem- porary amiability of their Indian neighbors. That year's crops may have been already planted in the heaven-made meadows on the day when the committee announced that it had formulated the laws and the covenants under which Mattatuck might take its place as the twenty-sixth town within that portion of Connecticut colony that is now included in the bounds of the State .* This formula of obligations and agreements covers eight conditions.
The first one permits every accepted inhabitant to have eight acres for a house lot. The second, bases the amount of land to be distributed in the meadows, upon the amount of each man's estate, and limits the value of that estate for this distri- bution, to one hundred pounds. The third, provides for the payment of public- charges, for five years, by a tax upon the meadows. The fourth, requires every person who shall take up allotments within four years from the date of the " Articles " to build " a good, substantial dwelling house, at least eighteen feet long, sixteen wide, and nine feet between Joynts" with a good chimney.
The fifth, requires the fourth article to be complied with in every particular, under penalty of loss of the allotments-buildings excepted-and the return of the allotments to the committee for future bestowment upon a more complying inhab- itant. The sixth, requires the possessor of an allotment-he having built his house- to take up his personal residence in it as an inhabitant within the four specified years. If a man failed to perform his duty in building and occupying, he was to forego not only his allotments, but his lands also. It is supposed that this failure operated to shut him out from any further rights in the township, notwithstanding any pur- chase money he had paid. The seventh requirement is, that a man, having built his house, must live in it four years before coming to the full ownership of it, or
* At the time when Mattatuck became a plantation the eastern portion of Long Island was under the jurisdiction of Connecticut Colony.
I28
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
such possession as would enable him to sell the same and his lands in the township. The eighth condition required every person who received allotments from the committee to subscribe to the " Articles " by his name or mark.
To this document thirty-nine names are appended. Thirty-one of the number are upon the face of it, eight upon the reverse. The thirty-one names were written by Major Talcott. The eight
Artisly agreed fon and conclua by us wholes Names are under write the Committee for sale) a plantation at Mattatusk as followsth,
That every one who is accepted for an inhabitants at Mattatuch sho have eight Acry for a house fett.
Buss agree that the differbution of Meanswe shall be proprotiens& fo tack pson according to staty, not pson exfering a hundred pounds. agatment on Except Two or three a lotmenty we were the fam spell lay out accord de to of best Sifunction . Alsot wer agree that al tapy and Baby what shall be found for. Jefraymg Which charges, shall bepage proportionally according to their elleadore delements, and this Article to stand in full tu and vertue, five years next following after the Date here ni after the end and comention of five yeary, Rates for diferen blick charge shall to Penyod and rayson upon psons and ifuss wording to thelaw and Customs of the Country.
Doreming that Curry pson that takes up adottements at Mattatuch the four years after the Date hereof shall Prilago Suffici iall Tiosimy House It vido and Pine foot Ortwee im laynts with a Good chiming in the saydi place .
Itis agreed icafe and person shall fails of Building as afort sayle a Swelling House upon his House flott, as is enjoyned within the Article ) within the Terms of foure graver after the Dans hver That forfait all his a lotments at Mattatuck, and Lofs all his ving and title thisem (Buildings only Excepted ) to Go difspese to si
other mit psons for improvement as shall be accepted by the Committee, according to the conditions of these Article. ~ Am it is alas aguas that when a fostments are Granted, sonally take up his reference as an Chhabitant at Maktatuck ne his own House, within the Firmo of four years after the Date hereof, and upon failu? or Default shall shall forfaits his fandy and alotments of Maltatach, to Go i proved as fore sayed by the Commit,
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE PLANTERS OF MATTATUCK ; FIRST PAGE.
MATTATUCK AS A PLANTATION.
129
names are autographs. Upon a list of orders issued by the com- mittee in 1682, we find three additional names-also autographs- thus making forty-two men in all who assumed the responsibili- ties of planters at Mattatuck from 1674 to 1687. A fac simile of this paper is here given.
2
It is farther conclure that in my person who ich bryn of Sand as i said Mattatuck shall Behabit and Swoll the. in his own house for the times and terms of four years he hath Built, according to the Jenn and true meaning fourth Article. and until the au four years to under person shall have pour to make any alination or Sale of afore said Land of which he or they are possesso off .~ (finally it is determined that all those persone to the
8 are granted (by us the Commise) Shall to engaged to the going Articly by a fussexim on of their Names or max. And for a full confirmation of the going Articles, was Commiti have this. intenta of May in the ye.
1 one Thousand Sixhur SEquanty and fourEr Buff Varme ! , whoh Namoj are under written dos engage a faithful IF Taffettf Robert Driver" admission to, and performance of the fore going totil Nicho
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.