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 18
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
CHAPTER XI.
THE FIRST MEETING OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE, IN JANU- ARY, 1077-THE SECOND MEETING IN 1678-THE THIRD MEETING IN NOVEMBER, 1679-THE FOURTH MEETING IN 1680-THE FIFTH MEETING IN 1680.
H OW many meetings were held by the Assembly's Committee for Mattatuck in the interests of that plantation, cannot be told with accuracy. We have, well-preserved, in the hand- writing of Major Talcott, the orders of six meetings. They extend over a period of five years, from 1677 to 1682. By following their order we shall learn something of the growth of Mattatuck.
New Year Day in England was March twenty-fifth until the date was changed to the first of January, by act of Parliament, in the year 1752. England's colonies obeyed the law implicitly, so long as required to do so. Attention is called to this point, for the reason that the writer has followed the usage of the period throughout its extent, thereby avoiding any confusion of dates, or unnecessary reference to "Old Style and "New Style."
THE ORDERS OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE-THE FIRST MEETING.
In January, 1677, a meeting was held, probably in Farmington, by the committee for Mattatuck, at which six points were "agreed and concluded." The first one accepts John Root, senior, he sub- scribing to the " Articles for settling of Mattatuck in behalf of one of his sons." The autograph of John Root, as a subscriber to the "Articles," has not been found. The name is found placed upon a fence division at a later day. It was before this date that Abraham Bronson * withdrew from Mattatuck and went to Lyme; that Rich- ard "Seemor," Thomas Gridley, and John Porter dropped out of the race-John "Scovel," Benjamin Barnes, Joseph Gaylord and David Carpenter coming in at this meeting to take their places. It was at this meeting that the highways were to be "mended sufficiently "- Benjamin Judd being appointed to call the proprietors out each in
* As early as October of 1677, Abraham Bronson had taken up his residence in Lyme. Bronson and Joseph Peck were candidates for the office of Lieutenant. "The remonstrants" against Bronson's confirmation declared themselves " possessed with many fears what will become of our sweet and pretious peace which the Most High, praysed be his name, hath favoured us with." This election appears to have been made with all due formality. That it might be carried on in a solemn way, there was at least "a fortnight's warning given before the choice," and a sermon preached by Rev. Mr. Noyes. Abraham Bronson was elected Lieu- tenant, Joseph Peck, Ensign-Lieutenant Bronson was also a deputy from Lyme, to the General Assembly, for a number of years.
15I
ORDERS OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE.
his turn, to do his just part, and Benjamin-Mattatuck's resident surveyor-was warned by the committee "to attend the Country Law" in this service. With great consideration the committee granted to the proprietors one year more in which to take up resi- dence, each in his own house, in Mattatuck. The time that was formerly granted was soon to expire-on May 30, 1678. This exten- sion of time was to May 30, 1679. The final order related to public charges. They were to be borne "one year longer or more " than had been ordered in the third article, dated May 30, 1677. Major Talcott perhaps intended to write May 30, 1674-the date of the original articles-the third one of which does relate to public charges-or it may have been that there was an annual meeting on May 30, 1677, and that the orders were given on that day which would give us knowledge of the layout of the first highways, house lots, meadow allotments, garden - spots of an acre and less in Munhan Neck, and other events of interest that we can not learn the time and manner of. It is evident that there was a meeting prior to the one whose orders we are following.
It was in January, 1677 also, that the committee took occasion to announce that during the time it continued in power, it should appoint men "to lay out all necessary highways for the use of the inhabitants that were needful" and afterward the " Town was to state and lay them out, together with what common passages should be judged necessary." Then it was that the broad highway on the old Town Plot was reduced to two rods, and that the common field fence on the " East side of the river, for securing the meadows, was ordered to be made sufficiently by the last of May." Does the question arise ; How do we know that the above order is not the beginning of orders concerning the common-fence and field? The answer is furnished in the list of names, whose owners were appointed to make the portion of the fence that was first allotted to them. It was appointed unto them to make it, at a time when Abraham Bronson, Richard Seamor, Thomas Gridley and John Porter were members of the plantation, and, as we have seen, they had left it before this meeting was held. Furthermore, on its roll, there is not the name of a man who joined the organization at this time ; showing conclusively that the common field and its fence had been the subject of an earlier order. During the year 1678 the settlement lapses into silence. Not a note of life can we extract from it, or find in relation to it, until March in that year.
THE SECOND MEETING.
Three men of the committee met "according to joint agree- ment " at Farmington, March 11, 1678, and determined that those
152
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
lots not yet laid out to the proprietors should be laid out by "Lieutenant Standly [of Farmington] with the helpfulness of William Judd, and John Standly Jr." It speaks well for this committee of father and son that John Standly Junior's allot- ments were such that Talcott and Company afterward advised the town to make amends to him because of the "meanness" of them. In this second spring of the new beginning on the east side of the river, in 1678, there was " a mile of fence or thereabouts," ordered to be made within fifty days, and the three acre lots, which had been granted to the proprietors by a former grant, were to be laid out. William Judd, having had a grant that his three- acre lot should be "layd out upon the west end of his House Lott," the grant was confirmed. The three acres still lie to the southwest- ward of the house lot on which the late " Johnson house " stood, on North Willow street.
THE THIRD MEETING.
By the twenty-sixth of November, 1679, as winter was close at hand, the few courageous souls who had complied with the condi- tions, and adventured themselves and their families in the enter- prise, had appealed to the committee. These men doubtless felt that they were entitled to the presence and protection of every man who had signed the agreement to help build the town. Many of the pro- prietors still lingered in their old homes. Each man had some reason, sufficient unto himself, for his course of action, but his neighbor, in the lonely plantation on Great and Little Brooks, failed to see why the obligation should not be met. The committee con- vened at Farmington and held a meeting that continued two days. During this time it considered the case of the delinquent sub- scribers, and declaring that their delay led to the discouragement of the men already at Mattatuck, and weakened their hands, "deter- mined and resolved " to bring about a better state of things. To that end, the announcement was made that every man who was not personally present with his family at Mattatuck by the last of May, 1680, there to abide, must forfeit his title and interest in all the allot- ments that had been granted to him there. This meant his house lot; his old Town Plot house lot; his three-acre lot, and such other grants as the committee had made every man equal in, without regard to the number of pounds annexed to his name. To add to the force of the argument for speedy removal, it was seemingly declared that mere personal presence, although it might hold allotments, was not sufficient to hold title as a proprietor in the undivided lands of the township itself. To secure his hold upon them and place it upon a foundation never to be moved, he was required to build a mansion house in all
I53
ORDERS OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE.
respects up to the specifications given on the last of May, 1674, and to have it finished the thirtieth day of May, 1681, and to be abiding in it on that date. The committee had been very considerate. In the first place, the time limited was from May, 1674, to May, 1678. Because of the intervening war, this time was extended to May, 1679. When that time expired, an additional term, it is thought, must have been granted, but we find no extension covering the interval to November, 1679. Then, apparently, consideration, ex- tension and grace being alike failures, the penalty was annexed. We shall soon be able to see the result of this new law with its forfeitures.
On the other side of the paper on which the above order is writ- ten, we find that Major Talcott has traced the announcement of the second death, so far as we have learned, that took place in the little band of thirty-one men, that of Daniel Warner. The language of the original record in the words that, "he, with his family, were upon the remove to Mattatuck, and on that juncture of time, the Divine providence of God removed the sayd Daniel out of the Land of the Living," suggests the possibility that his death was caused by accident, during the removal. "Out of compassion to his relict and children Left behinde him," the allotments were confirmed to them, without conditions. Mrs. Warner was advised, as were her relatives, to build a dwelling-house with all possible speed, and to inhabit there, or to cause some person to dwell there in her stead. Even in building, she was not compelled to abide by the time set for other settlers. The first death of a signer is believed to have been that of John Warner, Sent, the father of Daniel. The priority of his death appears-in our records-only from the fact that he was not in Mattatuck when the first and second divisions of fence were ordered, while Daniel Warner is the active maker of his pro- portion, in both divisions.
On the next day, the committee was again occupied with our interests. We learn at this session that Lieutenant Samuel Steel laid out our first highways. East Main street was one of the number laid out by him. It is described as "that Highway at the east end of the Town plot at Mattatuck, running eastward out of Sayd Town plot, being Three rods wide." It was determined that it should be and remain for public and common use. It is further described as lying between Joseph "Gaylers" lot, and a house lot of two acres " reserved for such inhabitant as shall hereafter be entertained." Joseph Gaylord's lot is now the site of Irving block. The reserved lot is the corner of East Main and South Main streets, reserved to be the birth-place of the renowned Samuel Hopkins.
154
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
It was on this memorable 27th of November, 1679, that certain lands were designated and set apart for a specified use forever. Why those lands are not to-day serving the uses for which they were set apart, is an unanswerable question. Here are the words of the authorized committee: "It is agreed and determined that the House Lott of Two Acres, lying at the east end of the Town abutting Northerly on Thomas Warner's Hous Lott, and a piece of Meadow and Swamp conteyning about fifteen Acres, by estima- tion lying upon Steele's Brook, [the bounds being given] and a piece of Land conteyning by estimation Three Acres, lying in the pasture Land, commonly so called, shall be and remayne for the use, occupation and improvement of the ministry of the sayd Town forever, without any alteration or dissposal, use or improvement whatsoever." The two-acre house lot was the third lot of the six two-acre lots that occupied the east side of Bank street, between East Main and Grand streets. The well -known First Church property at the foot of Grand and Willow streets is the portion that is left of the three acres, lying in the pasture land. It is the only remaining fragment, the little crumb that is left of the generous loaf designed for the support of the ministry forever. The First Church was amply endowed by the Colony's committee, but permitted her inheritance to depart from her. Somewhere about eight hundred years hence, at the expira- tion of a lease, the fifteen acres on Steele's Brook may return to her.
After providing for the ministry, the committee's next act was to encourage an inhabitant, by allowing " an additional House Lott to what was formerly allowed," to be laid out. And here we get an insight into the allotments that were before granted to each man, by the grants that were to accompany the new house lot. They were " eight acres on the old Town plot and a three acre lot." To the former grants were now to be added eight acres in the new division to be laid out, ten acres upon a plain on the west side of Steels meadow, and about twelve acres in "Buck" meadow "being an Island." When a town was in need of an inhabitant, because of his skill in any of the lines of its development, special grants were bestowed. This inhabitant thus provided for, was probably then in waiting. He was a man who was undoubtedly welcomed with all the greeting little Mattatuck had to offer, for he was a carpenter! His name was Stephen Upson. He subscribed to the articles in December 1679, and probably made his mark on more than one of the houses that were waiting for the builder, for we have his testimony that "Samuel Judd's house was shingled
155
ORDERS OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE.
about Michaelmuss " and that " he went into it in November 1681," and that "it was not fit before."
The last bit of advice to the inhabitants on this day in Novem- ber 1679, was, to build a sufficient corn mill for the use of the town. Thirty acres of land were proffered to the persons who should build such a mill " and keep the same in good reparation for that work and service of grinding Corne." The thirty-acres of land were to be laid out, to "be and remain to their heirs and assigns forever, he or they maynteyning the sayd grist mill, as afore sayd, forever." The last words of this meeting are the following: "We allow the standing of Thomas Warner's cellar without molestation, according to agreemt of Lieut. Sam" Steel." This was also a con- cession probably because of bereavment, and it gives us the assur- ance that there was, at least, a cellar in Mattatuck, in Nov. 1679. John Warner had recently died. He had undoubtedly built the cellar of his house on his house lot on the east side of Exchange place. It must have occupied the land near where South Main street begins, also the part of Exchange place that was taken for that street when South Main street was laid out about 1806. It probably included the site of Apothecaries' Hall, it being the second lot from the northward of the six two-acre lots already referred to, as filling the space between East Main and Grand streets. The cellar may have been placed there before Lieutenant Steel laid out the highway, as it seems for some reason to have been an intru- sion upon it. However it may have been, the committee did not compel Thomas Warner, the son of John Warner deceased, to remove it, and it is agreeable to learn that the curved line of the east side of Bank street probably had its origin in a kindly intent toward the son of the man who was the first to die, of the men of Mattatuck.
THE FOURTH MEETING.
Major Talcott and Mr. John Wadsworth met at Hartford, May 22, 1680, and appointed William Judd, Thomas Judd, and John Standly, or such others as the inhabitants of Mattatuck should appoint, to meet with men of Woodbury, to determine a bound line between the towns. Representing the town, John Welton and Samuel Hickcox acquiesced in the appointments made at Hartford, and declared that they did not see cause to appoint any other persons to determine the bound. This town act is the earliest, perhaps, on record, and indicates that the inhabitants had already chosen offi- cers, and before having been granted power to do so. The date is May 31, 1680. It appears upon the same paper with the commit- tee's act making the appointments, and is signed by John "Well-
156
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
ton " and Samuel Hickcox "in the behalfe of the reste." Therefore John Welton and Samuel Hickcox were the first townsmen, or select- men. The same day, Major Talcott and Mr. Wadsworth sent a com- munication addressed : "To Our Friends at Mattatuck," in which more than a mile of new fence was ordered to be made. The need of this fence must have been very great, for the proprietors were directed to make it within nineteen days.
THE FIFTH MEETING.
This meeting was held at Farmington, on the fifth of February, 1680. Three members were present. Town officers had been chosen by the inhabitants as before stated, and without apparent authority. The committee gave power to the officers "to execute their respect- ive offices " and gave the inhabitants liberty, "being orderly called and convented " by their major vote, to choose their " Townsmen, constables, surveyors, fence-viewers and haywards, or any other civil officers, from time to time, without any farther order from the committee."
Stephen Hopkins had, at this date, built a mill in Mattatuck. He was granted to have the "thirty acres appointed and intailed in a former order to such as should erect a mill there." To the thirty acres, the committee now added "so much more land as should be necessary to advance the grant to be in value of one hundred pound alottment."
Deacon John Lankton, William Judd and David Carpenter, had been complained of for not meeting their obligations as subscribers. They had doubtless failed to arrive at Mattatuck with their families on or before May 30th, 1680, and their allotments, granted at Matta- tuck, were declared to be forfeited. Should any persons appear and desire allotments, they, by subscribing, building a house, and set- tling in the place with their families within a year from the time of subscribing, were to be invested with the allotments. If the new subscribers failed to fulfill, the lands were to return to the committee. "Leavyes" for defraying the public charges, except for watching and warding, were to be raised upon the meadows for one year from date. Uplands were permitted to be added to the meadow lands of Isaac Bronson and Benjamin Judd, sufficient to raise the meadow land to the value of an hundred pound allotment. Thus carly we hear the cry raised for more land to improve. The applicants are Daniel Porter and Thomas Richardson. The town was granted liberty to add the desired land and the committee appointed men to lay it out, and also to lay out to Stephen Hopkins, his lands. Necessary fences for securing lands under improvement
157
ORDERS OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE.
were again ordered to be made by the last of April, 1681. Stephen Upson complained that he was much straightened in his possession of lands. Whatever addition the town should see cause to lay out to him, was granted. A house lot of two acres was granted to Stephen Hopkins. It was ordered to be laid out "as conveniently as might be to suit the mill;" also a three acre lot, "according as the other inhabitants have granted." The final act was the grant to Benjamin Judd of "some land at the north end of his house lot, to build on." This was the first legalized encroachment upon the fine broad way laid out through the town plot. Our beautiful "Green " is the portion that testifies to its original width. To this grant of "some land," the condition was annexed, that the highway should always be and remain four and one-half rods wide.
CHAPTER XII.
THE INHABITANTS OF MATTATUCK-ITS PLANTERS YOUNG MEN-FARM- INGTON WELL REPRESENTED-THE PLANTATION OF 1681-THE GREEN PLAIN-HOUSE LOTS SURROUNDING IT-THE HOUSES-THE OWNERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
A N attempt, however imperfect its result may be, to gather by name and family the little band of town-builders that grad- ually constructed the compact village of Mattatuck, will not be without interest. It may be said, with approximate truth, that the plantation of 1677 was the work of young men. That these men were "poor" men has, in one way and another, been so impressed upon our minds, that we find it almost natural to think of them and to speak of them as pioneers, driven by stress of lands and worldly goods to leave Farmington and live in log houses in the wilderness, in order to eke out a livelihood; but the facts, as they have one after another been relieved from obscurity, compose a brighter picture. The young men were, with few exceptions, married men with families. Some of the number, perhaps every one who came from Farmington, owned his own house in that place. Dr. Henry Bronson had not seen, when he pictured the log houses of the planters, the evidence granted to us, that the houses were both clapboarded and shingled. Neither did he know that his own ancestor-the John Bronson who is thought to have been of the company that migrated with the Rev. Mr. Hooker from Massachusetts Bay in 1636; who owned a house lot and other lands in Hartford in 1639; who was a soldier in the Pequot war, and who was one of the earliest settlers in Farmington -that he, also, reached out his aging hands to bless in the most practical manner the beginnings of our town. We find that he had here, when he died in 1680, the early form of the saw-mill-in a " pitt saw, Tiller and box." He also had other implements of the builder, given in the inventory of his estate as "at Mattatuck." They were " 4 plaine stocks with Iron and file. 3 Augurs and a zest [rest], a plow stock Irons and chisell." Beside these, he had here, cattle, and "one small feather bed."
Farmington did not send out men whom she could spare, because they were "unwholesome members of her community," to found Mattatuck. She parted with some of her very best men; men who had assisted to lay her own foundation walls; men who were and
159
MATATUCK AS A PLANTATION.
who continued to be owners of many fruitful acres in her beautiful valley; young men, whom she needed to serve her own places and purposes. There were not many families of note in Farmington that were not represented here by some one of their number. The Farmington church, that stood for all that was highest and best in the civil and social life of the time, yielded to us abundantly of her treasures. More than thirty of the men and women who came here, and who were dwelling in their own houses before the last of May, 1681, came hither out of the full communion of that church. The greater number of them had spent their entire lives under its influ- ence, guided by the religious teachings of Reverend Roger Newton and Reverend Samuel Hooker-while at least six of them could remember a boy-life in Hartford, and the teachings of Reverend Thomas Hooker. Beside these, the church parted, a little later, with Robert Porter, one of her seven pillars, and doubtless would have yielded to us another one, had John Bronson, Senior, lived to accompany his three sons in their removal. Whatever may be said of the planters of Mattatuck, it must, through all time, be admitted that they were a people-God-fearing, God-worshiping, God-loved, and we hope, God-loving. That they were well-born and well-bred, we know, for we have followed, even though it has been in a very imperfect and fragmentary manner, the path leading through time, and marked with the events in which they and they fathers had been led from 1628 to 1677.
Of the elder men who ventured themselves to brave the discom - forts and dangers incident to migration; who attended the prepar - atory stages of the plantation, guiding its initial steps with their experience; not one, so far as we have learned, perfected his resi- dence as an inhabitant in 1681. John Warner, Senior, another soldier of the Pequot war, had passed on in the endless migration to the Unknown, before that time came; John Bronson, as we have seen, had already followed him, while John Andrews, Senior, was about to write his will, in which he describes himself as "grown aged," and "attended with many weaknesses," and even John Langdon-a deacon, at a later day, in the Farmington church-who had been energetically interested in the plantation, carrying up to the Court the petition for its formation, and paying the ten shillings neces- sary for the sending of it on its courtly way, failed to secure his position as inhabitant and proprietor-thus leaving young men at the front in every line of endeavor.
160
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
2 Meros
John Lankton
Benjamin Jones
John Androus
Jesteres
Thomas Judd in og
John ston:11 2.Term: .İbrahim Bronson.
Highway
now
Willow
Street.
A Great Lot Rev John Southmayd
John Warner Jr 1% Acres
¿ Aores
Abraham Andrews
2 Aeres
Thomas Hansar 13% Acres
John Welton
Highway
Benjamin Judd Themas Judd Jr 2 Acres
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.