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 21
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
" Benjamin Joanes complayned of for neglect of cohabitation.
John Nuel complayned of for ye same-
John Scove no chinny-
B: Scott conyslait-"
The last word is not easy to decipher. It does not seem to be complaint, and it does not seem clear that Major Talcott intended to write "comes late."
The committee exempted Benjamin Jones and John Newell from the ban of condemnation and forfeiture. To the other men, they gave an opportunity. They were to submit, to reform and live upon the place one year longer than their neighbors, who had fulfilled conditions. This they were required to do, in order to become abso- lute owners of the soil. They all, with the exception of Benjamin and Samuel Judd, availed themselves of the way of return.
Benjamin Judd withdrew his services as public surveyor and returned to Farmington. Samuel Judd left his house, into which he had moved with his bride in November, 1681, and followed his father, Deacon Thomas Judd, to Northampton, where, in due time, he fell heir to the estate of his father's second wife. It is not known what became of their houses; but it seems probable that Samuel's house remained for the occupancy of his brother Philip, who came in 1687, and received from the committee his brother's allotments, and that Benjamin's house was occupied in 1683, by Thomas Judd, Jr., his nephew. Thomas Hancox, after fifteen months' delay, when the meadows were growing green again, thought them promising enough to pay him for subscribing anew and staying the additional year.
Before this meeting ended, the committee agreed that all public charges, including those for making and mending highways, should be laid on the meadow allotments for two years, or until 1684. They also granted that each proprietor inhabitant should have eight acres laid out in such places as the inhabitants should agree
18I
MATTATUCK AS A PLANTATION.
upon, and they confirmed a grant of land, bestowed by the planters themselves, upon Samuel Hikcox. I think, but cannot prove, that this grant was bestowed upon Samuel Hikcox at this early date in recognition of his expenditures for a saw-mill. Philip Judd also, who died in 1689, after living here but two years, owned a " right of eleven pounds in the saw-mill and horse tackling." Six months before, on August 3, 1682, the inhabitants had held a meeting in the interest of Stephen Hopkins. Deacon Langton's allotments had returned to the committee, and at this meeting the inhabi- tants granted them to Stephen Hopkins, with the understanding or condition that one-half of the proprietorship should be entailed to the mill, in the same manner that the thirty acres had been. A copy of the record of this town meeting was prepared and sent over to the Assembly's Committee, that the act of the inhabitants might be ratified by the power that still governed the plantation. Among the early documents, we unfold this very copy that went from Mattatuck to Farmington in 1682, and was returned, with the acts of the committee, at an unknown date. There is upon it the words, "transcribed on page 23 b." This indicates that Mattatuck Records at that date filled twenty-three pages. Samuel "Hickcox " signed his name, and John Warner made his mark on the copy; they being the townsmen in that year. At some time between the date of the town meeting-or more strictly speaking the proprietors' meeting, for as yet there was no town-and this meeting of the committee in February 1682, Stephen Hopkins must have resigned the care of the mill to his son John, for when the committee at the meeting whose acts we are considering, ratify the act of the inhabitants con- cerning Deacon Langton's allotments, the name of " John Hopkins, the present miller," is substituted for that of his father Stephen. The last words of this meeting are given in the form of advice. "Sergt. John Stanly " had petitioned the committee to allow him to have four or five acres of meadow land up the river, even though he must go four or five miles away from the village to find it. The committee advise the inhabitants to comply with Sergeant Standly's request, "in consideration of the meanness of his allotments." This land grant was called Standly's Jericho and the name still lives in Jericho bridge, on the Naugatuck railroad.
The acts of this meeting were not signed until the next day; the committee having taken time to duly consider all the evidence offered. There is nothing to throw light upon the case of " Edward " Scott, Junior. He had a house upon the lot that had been allotted to William Higginson, but it will be remembered that it had no chimney. On this day his father " Edward " Scott, Senior,
182
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
appeared before the committee, and made a verbal deed of gift to his son of " that house set for a dwelling house on the home lot granted to his son by Mattatuck committee," and all his rights in the other grants received that belonged to the home lot on which the house then stood, together with all the charges and expenses there- on. This gift included what "he had disburst for the lands in refer- ence to the purchase thereof." This first deed of land in Mattatuck bearing date February 7, 1682, is recorded by Major Talcott upon the same paper that contains the records of this most important meeting. "John Talcott and John Wadsworth Assistants," sign the deed as witnesses.
We are not able to account for the house on this lot without a chimney, and at the same time, another house on the same lot that met all the requirements of the committee, unless we assume that William Higginson had built a house on it, and that Edward, Sen- ior, had bought it, without the land. Similar transactions were frequent at this period.
This is believed to be the last meeting held at Farmington by the Committee for Mattatuck, for upon the same paper and beneath the deed of Edmund Scott, John Wadsworth wrote the following formula for signatures :
"We whose names are here under-written do subscribe to a faithful submission and observation of the act of the committee on the other side of this lefe February 6, 1682." Nearly four months passed away before a penitent approached to promise "submission " and "observation," and then we find appended the following list of four names with their dates of signature.
Subscribed this 4 June 83 Thomas Hancox. Jan. 10 83 Thomas Judd. May 26= 84= Robert: Porter. June 13. 87 Philip Judd.
In a little corner of space left on the paper in the deed of Edmund Scott to his son, and above the formula for signatures, John Wadsworth tucked in the explanation of Philip Judd's signa- ture in the following words: "We the committee grant Philip Judd the quiet possession of the land and allotments at Mattatuck that was formerly his Broth Samuel Judds lands this 13th of June 1687 pr us,
JOHN TALCOTT JOHN WADSWORTH Committee."
Thomas Hancox was the only penitent. Thomas Judd was "accepted as an inhabitant at Mattatuck " on the day he signed the agreement. The following is the document:
183
MATTATUCK AS A PLANTATION.
" HARTFORD, Jan'y: the 10th: 1683.
Thomas Judd Jun' is accepted as an inhabitant at Mattatuck his father Thomas Judd having signified his desires of the same he the sayd Thomas Judd Jun": sub- scribing to the Act and order of the Committee February the sixt 1682. in reference to Benjamin Juds allotment, and privilidg of reseizen of the same upon condissions in the sayd Act and order granted. It being determined by us the Committee, in case any grant or grants be made by the inhabitants of Mattatuck to Thomas Judd Jun': in reference to possession of any parcels or Tracts of Land is hereby made voyd and of none effect, notwithstanding any thing to the contrary. And whereas there is an Addission formerly granted by the Committee to Benjamin Judd's home Lott, it is now ordered that the sayd Addission shall not run further into the High- way [West Main street, about present State street] than it was layd by Sergt Jnº Stanley Thomas Judd, and the Townsmen appointed for that service.
JOHN TALCOTT
Pr us JOHN WADSWORTH NICHO. OLMSTEAD SAMUELL SNELL Senr
Committee."
This is the latest document that has been found containing the autographs of the surviving members of the committee. It sug- gests that Thomas Judd, Junior, had before that date received from the inhabitants, either with or without the sanction of the commit- tee, certain lands that he could no longer hold when invested with the allotments of his uncle, Benjamin Judd.
Lieutenant Nicholas Olmstead died soon after he signed the acceptance of Thomas Judd, Junior, as a proprietor of Mattatuck. Lieutenant Samuel Steele, died in 1685, thus leaving but two mem- bers of the committee of five. Lieutenant Steele had more personal interest in our plantation than any other one of the number, for two of his sisters lived here, they having married the brothers William and Thomas Judd. Three children of Deacon Thomas Judd of Farmington, married three children of John Steele, of Farmington. As long as Mattatuck continued its plantation life, all the acts of the inhabitants that included the granting of lands, or the acceptance of proprietors, required the sanction of the committee; but after 1682, we find that gradually the inhabit- ants became more independent in their acts, because the committee more and more lessened its grasp upon affairs. In October, 1685, the Court "appointed Major Talcott and Mr. Wadsworth to con- tinue in full power as a committee for Mattatuck, as formerly, not- withstanding the decease of some other of the committee."
Dec. 26, 1685, Major Talcott gave directions for raising rates for defraying public charges. There is in the writer's possession, a let- ter written by Mr. John Wadsworth to the selectmen of Waterbury, that is of interest in this connection. It is the last communication from a member of the committee. When folded in the creases made by the writer, the letter is about two and one-half by two inches.
184
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
It still bears upon the red sealing-wax the impression of the writer's seal, which is so broken that only the sections of an anchor can be identified. We give the letter. It speaks for itself as clearly as we could interpret its meaning. We do not follow the spelling or punc- tuation:
" To the Selectmen of Waterbury:
GENTLEMEN :- When we had the last meeting at Farmington concerning your affairs, it was pleaded and owned by some of yourselves that there was a division of land laid out, wherein it was agreed by yourselves and the committee that laid it out that there should be an addition, namely, 5-4 for one acre; that is to say, [in] part of that division; but through forgetfulness or oversight it was omitted, and so the persons concerned fall short of what they should have had. This is therefore to request and desire you to accommodate those persons concerned with that which may be just on the fore mentioned account, and, so as they may be suited as well as you can; for without doubt they will be losers by not having it together with fore said division-which is all at present from him who is
Your assured friend and Servant, JOHN WADSWORTH.
POSTSCRIPT-Your "atendent" of the above said, shall be allowed by us the Com- mittee.
FARMINGTON, Sept. 9, 1687."
The custom of "throwing in" land in the measurements of it was extensively practiced in our township. Hills were sometimes thrown in, and waste land not estimated. There is one instance of a land division wherein three roods of the best land was laid out for one acre and seven roods of the "worst" land for one acre. This arrangement was entered into in order to equalize values, as Mr. Wadsworth explains. At last on the fifteenth of May, in the year 1686, twelve years after the plantation was formed, the General Assembly was pleased to accept the plantation into Hartford County and to bestow upon it the name of "Watterbury."
We have closely followed the government of the committee to the"present date. Meanwhile, the inhabitants have carried on their own enterprises in the most enterprising manner. They have built their houses, constructed miles of common fence, built a corn-mill, and we feel constrained to write, a saw-mill, although we can offer no evidence as to its site, unless the saw-mill near the corn-mill was the earliest one built. Already the lot for the minister's use is chosen and perhaps built upon. It may have been the presence of the minister in the plantation that caused the General Assembly to confer upon it acceptance into the Corporation of Connecticut. It is at points like the present one that we miss the sight of the twenty-three pages of Mattatuck Records, ungrateful for the moment, for all that is left to us. During the nine years that have passed since the close of King Philip's war, not one note of alarm, so far as we know, has been sounded in Mattatuck, that was caused by the word or act of a single "dusky child of Adam."
CHAPTER XIV.
FARMINGTON'S BOUNDS - DEEDS FROM TUNXIS INDIANS- MATTATUCK LANDS CONVEYED TO THE PROPRIETORS BY INDIANS-BOUND LINE WITH DERBY-BOUND LINE WITH WOODBURY-A SUGGESTION-THE THREE SISTERS-DEATH OF KING CHARLES 1I .- JAMES II. PRO- CLAIMED KING, AT HARTFORD-THE CHARTER IN PERIL.
A S in all her beginnings Waterbury must go back to Farming- ton as the source of her life, so must we study the boundaries of that township and examine her Indian titles in order to establish clearly and definitely our own territory. The acts of the General Assembly and the acts of the Indian are so firmly inter- woven and adjusted to fit the web of civilization, that, if taken sep- arately, we lose the meaning of the design. Therefore, difficult as it may be to follow outlines, we make the attempt, resisting the temptation to give the interesting details that crowd close to one's pen and claim to be put upon record.
When, in 1645, the bounds of Farmington were established, there seemed no necessity for a western boundary on its wilderness side, and no bound was appointed. Its eastern limit was five miles west from the Connecticut river. The Round hill, in the great meadow toward Masseco (Simsbury), was the point of measurement for its north and south bounds. Its south bound was five miles south from this hill, with the following very significant liberty : " They shall have liberty to improve ten miles further than the said five, and to hinder others from the like, until the Court see fit otherwise to dispose of it." Here stands revealed the fact that Farmington had jurisdiction over all of the territory comprised within ancient Waterbury for twenty- two years, before any restriction whatever was placed upon her improvements by the court.
We will try and learn how the "Governor and Company of the Colony of Connecticut " acquired the title under which the terri- tory could be granted to subjects. The honest men of Farmington answer this question for us. It was "taken for granted that the magistrates bought the whole country to the Mohawk's country of the chief sachem, Sequassen." After the three bounds of 1645 had been established, it became necessary to look up the title that had been obtained from the Indians, at the first settlement. About 1650 there was a "discovery made, in writing, of such agreements as were [made] by the magistrates with the Indians of Tunckses concerning the lands, and such things in reference thereunto as tend to settle
186
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
peace, in a way of truth and righteousness, between the English and them." It is by this "discovery, in writing," that the above fact appears in relation to the supposed title. We repeat it. It was "taken for granted that the magistrates bought the whole country to the Mohawk's country of Sequassen, the chief sachem !" The record goes on to narrate that "notwithstanding their interest by that means, yet that the magistrates did in a friendly manner come to terms with the Tunckses Indians that some English might come and live amongst them, which terms were these: That the Indians should yield up all the ground that they had under improvement at that time when the bargain was first made, and reserve ground in place together compassed about with a creek and trees, and now also to be staked out only in that piece. The English were to have the grass for their cows, which now they are willing to let go, also one little slip to be staked out, to avoid contention." There was also an agreement made, by which the English were to break up lands in the grounds that were, in time to come, to be used by the Indians. This bargain, or deed, seems to have been made with a full understanding on the part of the Indians; for John Stanton, the interpreter, was present, and is one of the witnessing signers; and the very language of it impresses one with the spirit of fair- ness evinced by the men of Farmington. The Indians are told in the plainest words, in this document, that "all the lands the Eng- lish have are of little worth until the wisdom, labor, and estate of the English are improved upon them, and that the magistrates, when they have land for a place, give it away to the English to labor upon, and take nothing for it." The advantages that the Indians were then enjoying through the presence and protection of white men are then very prettily pictured in words, after which the following promise is made by the chiefs of the tribe :
"In this we, the chief Indians, in the name of all the rest, acknowledge; and we engage ourselves to make no quarrels about this matter." The Indians who signed this agreement were Pethus and Ahamo, said to be the son of Pethus. The marks or heraldic devices appended to this deed are notable; the first, because the signature is made with two separate marks, perhaps in imitation of English names; the second, or Ahamo's mark, is replete with a sig- nificance that merits consideration. It is an elaborate device, nearly two inches in height and more than an inch in width, show- ing care and intention on the part of the signer to express his meaning. The original deed forms a part of the volume of record. This deed, or agreement, was the second one, or rather it was a combination of the two agreements that had been made, one in 1640 and the other in 1650.
187
THE TOWNSHIP OF 1686.
In 1667, " the Court granted unto Farmington to run their bounds from the Round hill to the southward ten miles, provided it did not prejudice any former grant to any town or particular person." It will be seen that by this grant, five miles of the ten that had for- merly been secured to Farmington for improvement, now came within her own proper bounds, leaving the five miles that she had had liberty to improve, entirely outside of her jurisdiction. In 1671, twenty-six years after she became a plantation, Farmington's west bound was established. It was to run ten miles west from Hartford bounds, or fifteen miles west from Connecticut river. Farmington in 1671 was anxious to have her western bound established. Was it not with direct reference to the possible plantation at Mattatuck? It is unreasonable to suppose that the men of Farmington remained in profound ignorance of the region in which, for nearly a genera- tion they had had liberty to improve the lands, or that the impetus toward a settlement was unfelt up to the time when legal steps were taken to that end. With this thought in view, we can under- stand how certain places were already named, when the legalized settlement of Mattatuck began, and understand why we are unable to account for the naming of Steele's brook and plain and meadow; of Bucks hill and Wooster swamp; of Mount Taylor, of John " Macy's " land and Golden's meadow. They are one and all sug- gestive of the days when Farmington had liberty to improve, and the General Court used all the inducements in its power to per- suade its subjects to raise commodities, for export. Could a better field have been found for Edward Wooster, the great hop-raiser of the region, than Wooster swamp?
Farmington seems to have been keenly alive to her landed inter- ests at about the time the settlement at Mattatuck was in the thoughts of her sons, for in 1672 she secured along her entire west- ern border an additional mile of territory, and even Wallingford, apparently in dread of too near a neighbor on her western side, petitioned for and secured two miles of additional territory on her western border. The grant to Farmington pushed Mattatuck a mile to the westward.
But the Indians of Farmington had never conveyed the lands extending ten miles to the southward of the Round hill, and ten miles to the westward from Hartford's west bound, and now the court had added the eleventh mile ! A new agreement was entered into on May 22, 1673, in order to cover the above territory. This argeement recognized the deed, or treaty of 1650, between Pethus and Ahamo, and the English, but explained that in course of time, dissatis- faction had "been growing amongst the Indians in reference to the premises, on which account the town of Farmington gave them a
188
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
meeting by a committee." How could it have been otherwise, when the court was, without authority, giving away their lands, and Farmington was receiving them, without making payment for them? However, at this meeting both parties came to a friendly and final conclusion, based upon the court's present lay out of lands. For all the miles of territory they gave up, the Indians received two hun- dred acres of upland within the bounds of the plantation, and three pounds in other pay. Upon this deed, also the original document, there is traced an outline of the Round hill, which is nearly a cir- cle, on the interior of which is written, "ye round hill-Wepansock ye Indian name." From the circumference of the hill, lines are drawn to the cardinal points, with the distance from the hill given on each line. Twenty-six Indians were present at the signing of this deed, and made their marks upon it. The territory covers fifteen miles from north to south, and eleven from east to west.
It was not until May 18th, 1674, just nineteen days before the signing of the Articles of Agreement for the Settling of Mattatuck, that Farmington's southern and western bounds were measured and laid out and returned to the court. The south bound reached a tree on the west side of a swamp under the Hanging hill, near the south end of the hill. The tree was marked with initials, and the date, May 7, 1672. It is with interest that we note the western bound of Farmington, for it indicates the existence of a recog- nized, and, without doubt, habited place, farm or farms, before the plantation was organized. James Steele, the surveyor, makes the return to the court, as follows: "Farther, I being appoynted to measure the bredth of Farmington bownds from Hartford bownds westward, have accordingly measured out eleven miles towards Mat- tatuck to a white oak tree marked with divers letters and figures, as S: S: [Samuel Steele] I: S. [James Steele] F: B., I: W. I: R., May 7: '73. with divers other trees marked in the sayd line."
That Mattatuck was not at that date, simply a territorial region to which the name was applied, and that there was something beyond this western bound of Farmington, which, when reached was the Mattatuck, towards which James Steele measured is certainly dis- closed by the words chosen to describe the western bound of Far- mington.
August 26, 1674, fourteen Indians (six of whom signed the deed covering the court's extension of Farmington lands the year before), conveyed to the committee "one parcel of land at Mattatuck, situate on each side of Mattatuck River; being ten miles in length north and south and six miles in breadth." The eastern bound of this tract of land was upon Farmington. In 1677, the committee conveyed this sixty square miles to the thirty-one proprietors of
189
THE TOWNSHIP OF 1686.
Mattatuck, they having paid the purchase price thereof. It must be kept in mind, that, as yet, the Colony of Connecticut had con- firmed no right in the soil to the planters. It simply held jurisdic- tion over the territory, and only quitclaimed its interest in lands, when the inhabitants had secured title to them from the aboriginal owners. Thus, we get a glimpse of the value to the settlers of the " uncouth " marks of the native potentates, and no longer marvel at the efforts made by the planters to secure an enlarged township by bargaining with the tribes for land to the north, south, east and west, of the sixty square miles of 1674. It must be kept in mind that the colony had in 1640, simply " taken for granted " that it pur- chased of Sequassen all the lands to the Mohawk country-but it soon fell back from that untenable assumption, and required would- be proprietors to buy their own lands. Meanwhile, it was decided to look ahead, and determine what might be suitable lines of divi- sion between town and town. Accordingly on May 18, 1675, a com- mittee was appointed to view the lands and the distances between Derby, Woodbury, Mattatuck, Pototock (Southbury) and Wyante- nuck, and to consider what might be suitable bounds for each town. Three years passed by, accompanied by King Philip's war, without a return to the court from this committee. During this interval, Mattatuck had awaited development; the inhabitants of Woodbury had entered into retreat at Stratford and perhaps, like our own peo- ple, they returned to their old love with renewed affection, for the town of Woodbury found it necessary to appeal to the court to make an order that might enforce the people who had taken up lots to return and inhabit there. The court made the order, which was very compelling and armed with penalties. Because of these things, the bounds had been neglected.
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.