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 29
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
·
262
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
with the tree and Mr. Scott. In this way they reached him unper- ceived and made him prisoner. The boys took to their heels; but the father, in order to save his own life, which he was given to un- derstand would be taken if he refused, recalled his sons Thus the three were captured. The Indians then retraced their steps rapidly with their prizes, having taken the precaution to cut off Scott's right thumb, in order to cripple him if he should make resistance." Dr. Bronson had met another tradition, for he adds, elsewhere, in relation to Jonathan Scott: "The tradition is that he was buried on Scott's mountain, and his supposed grave is still pointed out." It is evident that Joseph Scott's grave has been mistaken for that of his brother, for although Joseph was killed far from the early Scott's mountain, there is an eminence in the vicinity, to the west- ward of the grave, to which the name has been erroneously given. Bronson adds, "that part of the tradition, however, which relates to the circumstances and time of his death, as that he died by vio- lence on his way to the north, at the hands of the Indians, after having had his tongue cut out, is without foundation in fact." This tradition is probably entirely true of Joseph Scott, of whom Dr. Bron- son failed to find trace. The entire facts may be and probably are, that Joseph was taken on Fall mountain, in Poland, and killed amid the West Branch rocks at Reynolds Bridge, in order to stay his screams, while on the retreat; that Jonathan Scott was captured in 1710, and again at a later date, perhaps at the same time with his son John; but I have been able to find no evidence that John pre- ferred the life of the French Indians to a return to Waterbury-or that Jonathan Scott, Junior, was ever in captivity. Granting for one moment that the traditional story of the capture is entirely true, one finds it difficult to resist the temptation to draw a picture of Waterbury on that summer's night, as its residents fled to their fortified houses to pass the hours of darkness-but we must confine ourselves to historical facts, and relate only that the Court in Au- gust, 1710, in response to an appeal from Mr. Southmayd and others, appointed a Special Committee of War for Waterbury, with full power to raise and send men thither from the county of New Haven for its relief by scouting or lying in garrison there, as occasion should require. From the date of Waterbury's cry for aid, we may place the capture of Jonathan Scott as probably July 25, 1710.
The following April, Waterbury was again suffering from appre- hension.
At a town meeting in Waterbury, April 9th, 1711, the town made choice of Mr. John Southmayd, Lieut. Timothy Standly, Thomas Judd, John Hopkins, Serg.
263
THE SCOTT FAMILY.
Isaac Bronson, Serg. Stephen Upson, George Scott as a committee to write to the Committee of Safety at New Haven and to represent our case to said committee concerning our present fears of the common enemy to take their advice and counsel in said affair.
It was comparatively easy to call a town meeting at that date, the majority of the inhabitants living within sound of the beat of the drum-and "a writing on the meeting-house door with the hour and day asserted in said writing, 4 days exclusive before the day " was "the legal warning for a town meeting for Judd's Meadows, Break Neck, and Buck's Hill farmers" in 1709. A meeting must have been called in haste after the capture of Scott, for on the next day (July 26th), the town made choice of a committee, at whose head was Mr. Southmayd, and the poor recorder was so frightened that he wrote the name "Soth mad," "to draw up in writing the circum- stances of the town" in that time of war, and present it through their deputies to the General Court, which was to assemble at New Haven within nine days. This document is not known to be extant. At the same town-meeting, the town "gave Jonathan Scott his town rate for 1709, for getting out of town William 'Stanard's' wife, and in consideration of his present circumstances, he being in captivity."
In response to the appeal made by the town, the Court appointed a Special Committee of War for Waterbury, whose duty it was to respond to the call of Waterbury men in case of danger on the approach of an enemy, by sending "men for their relief" by scout- ing or lying in garrison "as occasion should require."
The following April, Waterbury applied to the above committee of war for "advice and counsel in said affair." We get no hint of the occasion of the above appeal except that it was because of "present fear of the common enemy."
CHAPTER XXI.
THE FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GREAT RIVER-FIRST DIVISION NORTHWARD - FIRST DIVISION SOUTHWARD - SECOND DIVISON NORTHWARD-SECOND DIVISION SOUTHWARD-THREE ROD DIVISION -THE FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE GREAT RIVER.
T HE early settlers of New England came to America thoroughly imbued with the spirit of law and order. Every possible condition of community-living was anticipated and prepared for in England before a ship sailed for Massachusetts Bay, and but four years had elapsed after the landing at Plymouth, before cattle were brought to the new country -- accordingly, when the pilgrims sallied forth for the Connecticut wilderness we find them driving cattle before them.
We have also found that "the settlers of Mattatuck were not a mere band of adventurers bound together by a common purpose and a common sympathy, nor yet a confederacy of independent individ- uals, at liberty at any time to withdraw from the general govern- ment voluntarily submitted to, but that they were pre-eminently a unit in regard to social, political, and religious matters. It was not each man's privilege to select for himself a portion of land on which to found a home and raise sustenance for his family, but the major vote of those men who were qualified to act determined where each one should pitch his tent, as it were, and where he should be privileged to expend his efforts to produce corn and wine, or the other good things of this life. When each man's van- tage ground had been duly carved out for him, he could not build upon it such a domicile as he liked, and reside upon it when it suited him to do so, but in all things he was subject to the rule of others, whether he would or would not. In like manner, he must not choose for himself what form of religious worship he would sus- tain, or whether he would support any form, but must submit to the governing voice of others in this, as in minor matters." *
In view of the above orderly and dignified arrangement, it is interesting to witness the extreme caution and care with which the colonists approached a condition incident to the new life, and for which they had no precedent in English living. When the neces- sity lay before them "in their beginnings " to improve their land in
* B. F. Howland.
265
THE COMMON FENCE.
a common way that should best advance the public good, it was ordered that each town "should choose seven able and discreet men, who were to take the common lands belonging to each of the towns into sad and serious consideration, and after a thorough digesting of their own thoughts, they were to set down under their hands in what way the lands might in their judgment be best improved for the common good." If five men in any one town agreed on the way of improvement suggested, that agreement decided the law for that town. The same committee was also to set down what fences should be made. When a fence was made, and viewed and approved by five out of the seven men, it was deemed a sufficient protection to the fields, and if any cattle thereafter sur- mounted that fence and damaged crops, the owner of the cattle was compelled to make good the loss, "without any gaynesaying or releife by Repleivy or otherwise."
As time went on, the inhabitants had liberty to choose each year three new men as fence viewers, and the former committee was reduced to five members-penalties and forfeitures being under its control.
In 1662 the orders concerning the viewing of common fences had fallen into neglect. To remedy this neglect, the Court then ordered that every town-the number of towns had increased to twelve (this was before the union with New Haven Colony)- should choose two men, each year, who should be sworn to a due performance of the work of fence viewing; refusal or neglect being punishable with a twenty-shilling fine. It was at about this time that the order was given concerning the setting down of fences in meadow, and upland, and home lots, that gave liberty for either party of twelve inches from the dividing line, for breaking ground to set the posts, or "for the laying on the hedge," while the stakes and posts were to be placed in the dividing line. In the uplands, a liberty of four feet from the dividing line was granted for a ditch.
To the committee for Mattatuck was consigned the duty of establishing the common-field, and the common-fence. To protect the treasures of grass and grain from wandering or unruly cattle, a portion of this fence was built at a very early date. This must have been made to enclose the acre-gardens clustered about the Neck hill, and as every man must have had an equal length of fence, there seems to have been no record of it-at least, none has been found. The first recorded division of fence was ordered in 1677 It began at the Mad river, near, if not at the point where the Bald- win street bridge crosses it; from thence it ran westwardly and northwardly, bounding the town plot of 1677 on two sides (Union,
266
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Grand and Willow streets imperfectly representing its course). It followed the general course of Willow street as far north as that street now extends. It there bent to the westward, crossed David's brook (named for David Carpenter), went along the western base of Drum hill, and from thence to the river, reaching it above the Michael Bronson house place, a portion of the cellar of which can still be seen between the New England railroad track and the "Water- bury River Turnpike Road " (which extended from Salem Bridge to the Massachusetts line). This division of fence reached "towards the upper end of Steel's meadow." This meadow STEEL'S MEADOW ALONG THE RIVER. lies along the west bank of the river from the mouth of Steel's brook up to Prindle's island, passing the mouth of Hancox brook and terminating where Edmund's mountain joins the river. Joseph Welton's house indicates the locality.
In January, 1677, this fence was ordered "to be made sufficiently by the last of May, 1678." The entire division was in length one mile, two hundred and twenty rods, eight feet, and two inches. It was made by twenty-three men. Thomas Richardson began the fence at the Mad river, making only one hundred and eighty-six feet-his interest in the meadow lands being less than that of any other man. Timothy Standly then took up the work, carrying it on for three hundred and fifty-three feet, and was followed by Joseph Hickox with two hundred and twenty-three-John Newell with three hundred and sixty-seven-Daniel Porter with three hundred and thirty, leaving a Great lot interest of five hundred and fifty- four feet, across Great brook and up the steep Grand street hill to Bank street, to be made by the planters in a general way. An air line drawn from the northwest corner of the Grand Street cem- etery to the Mad River bridge is about three thousand feet, and will very nearly, if not accurately represent the south line of the town plot and the course of the common fence of 1678.
267
THE COMMON FENCE.
The two thousand feet of fence reaching to Bank street, having been accounted for, the adjoining thousand, exterding to the west- ern limit of the burying-yard, was made by John Warner, Edmund Scott, and Samuel Judd. Eight men of the proposed planters hav- ing not arrived, and having no substitutes at the time when this division of fence was necessary, compelled the twenty-three men who were here to combine and make the upper section in the same manner as they fenced for the great lots. This portion, when the next division northward was made, was called "a piece of town fence."
The second division of fence, was the first division southward from the town. It began on the north bank of the Mad river, where it met the south end of the first division. After crossing the river it followed the high lands for a considerable distance, and then turning westward reached the Naugatuck river just below Mad meadow, following the hill that meets the river at that point. This division was three hundred and ten rods, eight feet and two inches in length, or nearly one mile, and was made by thirty men. The third division of fence, was the second division northward. It began towards the upper end of Steel's meadow and continued that line of fence two hundred and fifty-eight rods, eight feet, and three inches, or more than three-fourths of a mile. This section was made by twenty-seven men.
Feb. 8, 1680, an addition to the fence that ran southward was ordered. It began at Mad meadow and ended in the neighborhood of the Great hill which begins at Hopeville near the red house built by Joseph Nichols (about 1800), and extends to Fulling Mill brook at Union City. This division numbered two hundred and twelve rods, thirteen feet and seven inches, or more than five- eighths of a mile. It was made by one woman and thirty-three men, including "the miller."
Thus we find that within four years an average of twenty-eight planters, in addition to all their other industries, constructed four miles, forty-two rods, one foot and seven inches of common fence, every foot of which had to be cleared of its primeval forest, or other growth, before a rod of it could be built. This surely was a public work of no mean sort, for every detail of the fence was sub- ject to law, whether built of stone or wood; whether "hedged or ditched."
A discovery of special interest is made at this point. It is that in this fourth division, the position of the fence makers in the line of improvement was not established by the drawing of "lots," but was determined by the position of the house lots in the village plot.
268
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Could this have been learned at an earlier date, it would have saved much hard work in determining the exact town plot of 1681. How- ever, we are delightfully assured by this discovery that the house lots were correctly given, and that the planters whom we placed here in 1681 were here-for this fence was built in that year. We transcribe the list. The reader can begin at the lot of John Bron- son on the north side of West Main street and compare the names with the map of the town plot on page 160, omitting the lots of Samuel Scott and Richard Porter. We learn by this list that the lot at the corner of East and South Main streets that was "reserved," was a great lot in 1681. This discovery is a genuine surprise, for no hint of it has anywhere been given, except that in one convey- ance at an early date John Hopkins' house lot was bounded "west on common," but that has been held to be an error of the recorder, while this finding verifies it. We transcribe the list.
+ Rods.
Foote.
Inches.
first John Bronson,
second Thomas Judd,
6
03
O
Thomas Richardson,
widow Warner,
3
II
7
grate lote,
9 04
Obadiah Richards,
4
15
6
Edman Scoot,
4 05
4
Samuel Judd, .
4 I5
6
benjamin Judd,
5 09
2
Joseph Hickox,
-
3
II
6
John Wilton,
4
I5
6
Samuel Hickox,
5 04
O
Abraham Andeus, great lote,
9 04
6
John newill, 6 03 0
John Langton, 6
I3
Isaac Bronson,
5 09
2
benjamin Joans, .
6
3
John Standly,
6
03
0 John Scovill,
4
15
6
Joseph Gaylor,
4
15
6
William Judd,
6
3
grate lote,
9
04
6
John Warner, .
5 9
2
Thomas Warner, 6
03
David Carpenter,
4
I5
6
Steven Upson,
3
I
6
Tho Hankox,
6
3
Abraham andeus,
6
03
O Tho Newill, ,
5
9
2
Danill Porter,*
IO
09
2
Timothy Standly,
5
14
3
The fowr acrs for the miler which is
John Carrington, .
3
II
7
the last, 7
4 I5
6
benjamin Barns
6
03
6
Edmund Scoot Sen", 6 03
ow Rods. 3 OI
Foote.
6 6 99 · Inches. 0
The first section of fence was made during the spring of 1677, before the crops were planted, or a house was built. Twenty only of the proprietors came-and with them went to work David Car- penter, who made John Porter's fence; Thomas Warner, who made his father's section, and Joseph Gaylord, who fenced for Thomas Gridley. The second section was made early in 1678-twenty-one of the former builders being present, John Root making John
*"Danill Porter had five rode layd to his 3 acore lote which was granted him by the towne."
·
269
THE COMMON FENCE.
Langdon's part, and Joseph Andrews appearing in place of his father. The third division was built early in 1679- - eighteen only of the builders of the first section appearing. The fourth division was made, in haste, in May and June of 1680. Twenty of the men who made the first section were present. But sixteen men held fast from first to last in the four divisions. The great lots were as yet ungiven and undivided, and appear in each division under that name.
Before 1686, there was a three rod, or fifth division made. This consisted of the removal of forty rods of fence at the northern end of the line, to the east side of Hancox brook-from thence it was continued northward one hundred and one rods, fifteen feet and six inches. It would seem that no record of the three-rod division was made until 1700, or, about the time when it was found necessary to fence on the west side of the river.
In 1691, the town caused to be placed on record the following formula for fence making :
What shall be counted sufficient fence for our meadows. Ist. Rail fence to be four feet high, not exceeding 6 inches between the rails two feet from the ground upward. 2d. Hedge fence, 4 feet and a half high, 5 stakes to each rod and well wrought. 3d. Stone fence, 3 feet and nine inches in height. 4th. Log, or pole fence, 4 feet in height and well wrought. 5th. Ditch, two feet wide, and rails or hedge 4 feet in height from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the fence, and well wrought. And if there be any advantage by reason of the land or place where the fence is, it is to be left to the judgment of the fence viewers what shall be suffi- cient.
At the great town meeting in December 1698, Thomas Hikcox and Joseph Gaylord were appointed fence viewers. In order to pre- serve the fences from burning, by reason of forest fires, it early became the custom to clear a space on both sides of the fence by burning the bushes or whatever stood in the way. In March 1692, "the town agreed to burn about the common fence." The drums being beat in the morning of the appointed day, and that day not proving suitable, the townsmen were to appoint a day -" causing the drum to be beat at night, and to fire about the fence the next day."
In 1700, when men began to live on the west side of the river, the common field was in danger from the incursions of their cattle -and pounds being established-men had liberty to "pound their neighbor's creatures in all the field north and south to the extent of the 20 acre division of meadow to a lot." Annual appointments were made of the date, when, in the fall of the year, the meadows should be cleared of crops and made ready for the cattle to be turned in. In 1699, on the 12th of September, it was voted that
270
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
" the meadows should be cleared to turn in cattle on the 29th of this month, at night." The next year, it was the first of October; in 1701, the fourth of October, and then the time began to turn back- ward into September again. The extremes were September 26th and October 4th.
In the spring of each year, the time was announced for every man to have his section of the common fence put in perfect order, and ready for inspection. In 1704, the fence about the fields was to be done up by the fifth of March, and the fence viewers sent out the sixth, and the haywards the eighth. This year, for the first time, it was ordered that two days should be taken to burn about the fence-the first day, northward; the second day, southward, and " the town ordered that if the neighbors at the east end of the town don't keep their cattle out of the meadow, then the townsmen by themselves or some other on the town charge, to endeavor the securing the fields for the present the cheapest and best way they can." The two items, taken in connection, indicate that a portion of the fence had been burned by trying to do too much in one day, or possibly a freshet had had its own sweet will along the valley.
The first pound was "set up on the South highway, somewhere near the south gate," in 1702. In 1704, one was "set up in the lane at the west end of the town-Deacon Judd to be pound-keeper." The same year, the proprietors "gave Judd's Meadow men leave to set up a pound for themselves on their own charge for impounding their own cattle and such as are left out in the field when men are at work with them there."
In 1705, the town "by reason of one of its fence viewers being removed, ordered the other three, under oath, to view the whole range of fence on the east side, and in case one of them be sick or out of town, the others to do the work." An intimation of a fence on the west side of the river at the above date is here given. The office of fence viewer was held by nearly every proprietor-perhaps by every one-that of pound-keeper, by the residents living near the pounds. John Scovill was pound-keeper in 1706-and seems to have filled his duties so well, that in less than two months the town promoted him to its highest civil office-that of constable.
As time went on, the need of a fence on the west side of the river became imperative. The town had tried, by all the legisla- tion in its power, to put off the great work. In order to accomplish this, it had required men who wished to live on the west side to enter into an agreement to keep their creatures out of the common- field with as much care as though it were fenced around, and allowed no man to cross the river unless he promised "to submit to
271
THIE COMMON FENCE.
the order of the proprietors in regard to fencing and the meadows." In 1704, at the great town meeting in December, the question was before the meeting: "Whether the town should fence southward from the end fence to Beacon brook on the east side the river and that to be counted sufficient for securing the fields." Eighteen voters were present. Five of the number-John Hopkins, Left. Timothy Stanley, Jeremiah Peck, Dr. Porter, and Edmund Scott voted to extend the fence to Beacon brook. Thirteen proprietors voted against the extension. The land had been duly measured between the Long Meadow falls and Beacon Hill brook, and also from Buck's Meadow mountain to Long Meadow falls on the west side. Before the meeting ended, it was decided to build the fence on the west side, and to extend it on the east side "to the falls in the river at the lower end of the Long meadow." All the land that was fit for plowing or mowing was to be encircled by this fence, and it was to be made good and substantial against all orderly horses and cattle, and "sufficient against two year olds." Men were given permission to enclose lands within the fence "for wheat or other corn," and the proprietors agreed that "he who should leave open the common gates or bars in the field, should pay all the damage that was done thereby, and that horses should not be staked nor cattle baited (unless men were at work by them), from the first of April until commoning time."
It was ultimately decided to proportion the rods of fence each owner of lands was to make, according to the number of his acres, whatever the land might be-good, bad, or indifferent. Dr. Porter "protested," and he had occasion to protest-for he had made more fence on the east side than any other man. The new public work did not progress satisfactorily. Certain men built the fence that had been allotted to them, and other men held aloof. Two years passed by, when a proprietors' meeting was held to discuss the building of this fence-and a spirited meeting it must have been, for the former vote was annulled, and a new allotment declared, in which "only the land that was fit for plowing or moing" was to be accounted in each man's propriety. Much land had been spoiled by the flood, and the owners of such land "were to be considered and abated." In the new allotment, each man's burden was to be meas- ured by the benefit received. The records recognize "the difficulty in reference to the fence on the west side the river," and tell us that the proprietors, "for to obtain a peaceable proceeding," agreed to the new allotment and declared that if, by reason of it, any man who had already fenced should be removed from that portion of the field, the man to whom his former lot fell should be responsible for
272
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
the fence already made. In the new lot, the fence was to extend no further than it was already laid-and to be " there or thereabout." The fence was to be kept up all the year, and men could turn their cattle into the field for the month of October only. The number of cattle any man was permitted to turn in, was to be according to his interest in the field; neither could any man bait or stake cattle there, except upon his own land. The owners of the east-side fence at the south end were allowed by the proprietors ten pence a rod, in "good pay" to their satisfaction, for removing the fence to the Falls. Every man was ordered to give the appointed committee an account of his land in the field, that it might be properly measured, and the fence apportioned. For that year, it was to be made against cattle, but not against hogs. At the same meeting-May 1707-"the proprietors gave to Mr. John Southmayd four score acres of land on the south side of the rock called Mount Taylor on the top of the hill where we get rails as part of his propriety on the commons and to take off the entailment of fencing in the common line for said land -the town keeping liberty to fetch timber and stones-they shutting up bars as there shall be need."
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.