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 30
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
All the legislation the men of Waterbury were capable of-and they were tireless in their efforts-fell powerless for a number of years, before the magnitude of the undertaking. When combined with the sense of injustice which prevailed in regard to it, the work seemed hopeless. The project was attempted of "giving" away lands to a number of persons-the recipients to make fence, in pay- ment. Committee after committee was appointed to measure and "modelize " and proportion the lands within the fields, but the fence was not completed. Finally, each man who had made his fence was permitted to remain in position in the line, but "mistakes were to be regulated." In March of 1709, the condition of the fences may be estimated by the following vote. "It was agreed on by vote to burn about the fences on the west side on the 21 March and 22 day on the east side if it be a good day to be warned by the beat of the drum over night and the fence on the east side-the gaps stopped and gates shut forthwith-and the west side quickly after it is burned about." A three rail fence, four foot high, was established as sufficient in 1709, on the west side-but peace could not be estab- lished, and each man's private holdings in the field had to be meas- ured, "each piece by itself," the proprietors agreeing to remove Thomas Richason's fence from the west side to the east side of his land at the lower end of Hancox meadow so as to take in the land at Hickox Holes (present Waterville). When the lands were duly measured-the east-side fence came up for re-measurement,
273
THE COMMON FENCE.
and the grand result of the surveyors was written down in the Pro- prietor's Book, pictured on page 216. On its open page, as seen in the illustration, appears "ye lot for ye fenc on ye West sd ye River as it f[ell] decm" 24th=1706=to begin at ye falls at ye long- m[eadow]."
There were fifty drawings for this lot-Mr. Southmayd had the first chance, and drew number twelve-while poor widow Jones drew number one, and consequently had to build the fence at its most difficult point-for her lot fell at the Falls, where the promon- tory, called Dragon's Point, comes nearly to the river. A slightly detached, rocky, and pine-covered little hill fills up the intervening space at the southeast corner, except that a narrow ravine lies between the promontory and the diminutive hill. At the eastern base of this hill the Naugatuck railroad runs, and through the ravine, just wide enough for the purpose, the old highway west of the river to Judd's Meadows, passed. At or in this ravine or natural passway, were located the Long Meadow bars, where in going from Waterbury to Judd's Meadow, one passed through the common-fence into the open land.
This drawing is followed by the grand result of all the measure- ments of land and fence, and we learn that in 1709 there had been erected on the east side seventeen hundred and fifty-four rods-and on the west side fifteen hundred and thirty-six rods of fence. The measurements do not include the portion that was discontinued below the Long Meadow falls-and the northern terminus remains ungiven-the page on which it was recorded having been mutilated. A little more than ten miles of fence had been constructed in 1709. Every rod of it was put into serviceable repair each year-while the continual danger attending it, by reason of forest fires, and unruly cattle, and floods (at the points where it crossed the val- leys), must have caused the planters much care and labor-but it was a practical and ever-present lesson to them in self-government. Men were not taught to live unto themselves, but to act for the common weal. Even protesting Dr. Porter yielded, and manfully made over three furlongs of fence for his twenty-six acres. Deacon Judd had the longest line of fence-it being only thirty-six feet short of a mile. He held forty-seven acres within the field, and it is satisfactory to find that Widow Jones made but forty-one feet of fence, she owning, in 1710, but half-an-acre in the Waterbury meadows-whereas her husband, at the time of his decease in 1689, held a notable list of acres. Much of the delay and annoyance attending this work arose from the mistaken generosity of the planters in "throwing into the measure " waste lands, and "vacant
I8
274
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
lands," and unproductive uplands, which the owners declined to fence for-and the mistake was atoned for by giving away many additional acres-the sole condition being that the recipients should fence for the land. As quite a number of the grants were made after the fence reached the narrows at Mount Taylor and Buck's Meadow mountain-notably one requiring its owner to make fifty rods of fence at the north end-it is quite fair to suppose that it continued above that point, and there are intimations that it reached as far up the river as Reynolds Bridge, as mention is made of Standly's Jericho gate. Near the village, there were South, East, and West gates. The West gate was near Deacon Judd's and John Scovill's home lots, and they were the pound-keepers, the pound being in the highway. The South gate was on Bank street, at Grand-and the pound near by has been mentioned as being in the highway, where the Waterbury Bank building now stands. James Prichard was the key keeper in 1734, he living close by. This gate was removed three times to a point, each time farther south, between 1820 and 1840, and disappeared from view when Bank street was opened, soon after 1840. The first removal was to give free entrance to David Prichard's barn, which stood where the L. C. White building stands-the second for the accommodation of Timothy Ball-who built the first house that ever stood on Bank street between Brooklyn and the corner of Grand street. The Griggs building occupies its site. The East gate was sometimes called the Mill Plain bars; it stood on the south side of Union, near Elm street. There was a North gate at the upper end of Manhan meadow, but at a later day this was not in the common fence.
The West side fence crossed Sled Hall brook near where at the present time stands a line of primeval trees, and crossed the Mid- dlebury road near its junction with the Town Plot road. It crossed Hikcox brook, went through Westwood and Loren Car- ter's land, and through the lot owned by Willard Woodruff, crossed the road and ran the west side of Woodruff's house, kept along the base of the hill west of the present Bunker Hill road, and skirted the hills west of the Driving park; crossed the valley of Steel's brook, the southwest corner of Edmund's mountain, the valley of Turkey brook, and then ran "skewingwise and partly lengthwise " over and across Edmund's mountain to its northeast extremity. When the common fence was made, highways were not laid out, and, as the necessity for them grew imminent, we find them laid out through the field itself-a little later, following the fence lines outside the field-and then, as the inhabitants scattered and the uplands and mountain lots were laid out, crossing the field at more
275
THE COMMON FENCE.
and more frequent intervals, until common fence bars and gates dotted the line and the highways were frequently fenced in. We give a single instance: 'Liberty to James Balding' " was given to fence in the highway from the common fence bars at the lower end of long meadow to Carrington's brook, Baldwin to maintain two horse gates, one gate at the common fence bars, the other at the [place] where he fences across the highway and one pair of bars." In 1710, the year that Jonathan Scott was captured-there was no record made of the closing or opening of the field. Perhaps it was not considered safe for cattle or men to wander in the enclosure. It will be remembered that about ten square miles of land eastward of the town was sequestered for commons, in which each and every man might freely take wood and stone. The annual burnings about the fence had probably consumed much valuable timber and firewood, for, in 1714, "the town voted that the East woods should not be fired for seven years, that is to say, the east side of the fence from a great brook called Smugse* brook, that runs into the river about two miles south from the town to the top of the East moun- tain to a little brook, and all the woods the west side the Mill river. The penalty for firing was twenty shillings.
In 1716 four fence viewers, Richard Porter, David Scott, Thomas Bronson and William Judd were appointed, but the following week "we find that Benjamin Barnes was accepted a fence viewer upon the proposition that Mr. Southmayd made, that is, to have 8 shil- lings for performing the work of a fence viewer for this year." This agreement is the first intimation that any one of the original proprietors received money for performing duties that concerned all alike.
In 1721, "for securing the fence the east side of the river from the North meadow gate to Wigwam Swamp brook (David's brook) was to be by firing the east side the Little brook till they came to the head of it, and then to the lower end of the Wigwam swamp, and then down the brook to the fence." From the Mad river to the lower end of the fence, they were to fire the east side of the path to Judd's meadows. The Reverend John Southmayd's advent into the Waterbury records as town clerk is evidenced by his taking up the work at the appointment of fence viewers for the year 1721. In 1722, eight men were required to do the work- two were to view the fence " from the common gate by Deacon Judd's to the north end "-two from the Woodbury road to the north end -- two from the same point southward, and two "from the common
* Smugse brook supplies the water power for Hopeville. It may have been named from an Indian. The name of Smugse does not appear as an English name in Waterbury.
276
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
gate by Deacon Judd's to the south end." At this time, the gates and bars on the Country road to Woodbury, and at the South gate, were to be maintained by the town. Our records are replete with laws and regulations relating to swine. In 1723, they were per- mitted to run at large during the year. Liberty did not agree with the planters, or the swine, for the next year it was decreed that a "Yoak 8 inches long above the hog's neck and 6 inches on each side a grown hog, and proportionately on lesser swine, well put on, should be deemed sufficiently yoaked." Occasionally we meet permission like the following: "Swine may Run on the Commons without rings or Yokes and be free from being pounded."
The next town meeting was to be held in January, 1724, "at 8 o'clock in the morning at Stephen Hopkins' house," but there is no record of the meeting.
In 1729, "it was voted to have a flock of sheep in the Town of Waterbury," and Stephen Hopkins, Joseph Smith, and Thomas Barnes were appointed a sheep committee. There was a colonial law relating to sheep, in which it was declared that no sheep should be kept on the commons but in flocks, to prevent the sheep either doing or receiving damage, except in plantations where there were not a hundred sheep that might be kept together. If men neglected to put their sheep to the herd, they were to be pounded, the pounder to be paid two pence per head.
In 1739 and 1740 we find no record of fence viewers, neither is there any from December, 1743, to December, 1753. From that time onward, the appointments were made with little regularity, six men being able to perform the service at all times, and four oftentimes being deemed sufficient, while in 1770, Ezra Bronson and Ashbel Porter were the only fence viewers. The common fence remained as a bound line until after 1800, and many portions of it could be identified without doubt in 1893.
CHAPTER XXII.
WATERBURY MANUFACTURES FOR EXPORT IN 1707-HER MEN AMONG THE FOUNDERS OF DURHAM-PROPRIETORS VOTE TO TAKE THEIR LANDS -CURRENT EVENTS-THE MEETING HOUSE ENLARGED- SCHOOL HOUSE BUILT - FIRST DEATH IN NAUGATUCK - BURYING YARD SEQUESTERED ON PINE HILL-REMONSTRANCE FROM JOSEPH GAYLORD OF DURHAM-LAND DIVISIONS-ZACHARIAH BALDWIN ARRIVES - BOOK OF RECORDS ESTABLISHED - THOMAS CLARK ADMITTED-THE SOUTH BOUND OF THE TOWNSHIP SURVEYED- THE GREAT SICKNESS OF 1712-13-A NEW ERA-LIEUT. JOHN STANLEY'S REMONSTRANCE-MORE LAND TROUBLES AND LAY-OUTS -MEETING HOUSE SEATED-MR. SOUTHMAYD'S SALARY.
W ATERBURY began to manufacture staves for export at a very early date-the white and red oaks that abounded on every side making excellent staves and headings for casks, barrels and hogsheads. The extent of the manufacture of these staves-which were largely exported to the "Wine islands of the West Indies "-was such, that as early as 1714, restrictions were placed upon the trade on account of the rapid destruction of Con- necticut's forests. We are able to give but a single item in proof that Waterbury engaged in this manufacture-and that is afforded by the chance preservation of an agreement between John Bronson and Joseph Hikcox. In 1707, John Bronson made two thousand staves in Waterbury, which were sent to Joseph Hikcox, at Durham, who paid for them by an acre of land "at Sled Hall."
This trade was doubtless carried on vigorously for many years, and possibly the numerous saw-mills that sprang into being along our streams were utilized in preparing timber for the hands of the workmen who made the staves, for three saw-mills seem to have been required before 1700; the first one on Saw Mill Plain before 1686, the second in 1699 at the north end of the Long hill-or at least permission was given for one at that point, with "the liberty of the stream and conveniency of ponding and the improvement of what land was needed to set the mill on and to lay logs and the like as is needed for use." The third grant was at the corn-mill in 1699, to Serg. Bronson, Deacon Judd, John Hopkins, Samuel Hikcox, and John Richason-the conditions being that they should not prejudice the corn-mill, and that they should maintain two rods of the dam from the corn-mill eastward. The order forbidding to fire
278
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
the East woods for seven years may have originated in the desire to preserve and grow timber for pipe staves; for all the early saw- mills were in the East woods, on Mill river, or Great brook.
There was an exodus in 1706 that stirred the town. One Grand proprietor and four Bachelor proprietors left Waterbury together. Of the number were Joseph Hikcox, who bought the staves; his brother, Stephen Hikcox; Joseph Gaylord, the Grand proprietor, and his sons John and Joseph. This was, it would seem, the first attempt of Young Waterbury to found another town; for the five men mentioned were original proprietors or "patentees" of Dur- ham, in December, of 1708. Joseph Gaylord was the first selectman, and Joseph Hikcox the first surveyor of that town. Thus Water- bury had, after thirty years, to sip of the same bitter cup that Farm- ington drank when bereft of thirty of her sons by Mattatuck.
Hitherto, nearly every person who had left Waterbury had returned to the old home-town of Farmington, but this going forth was deliberate and intentional, and it was deeply felt, especially so, as it lessened the protective force at a time when every man was needed in his own place. If the inhabitants were disheartened there is no sign of it in their acts, for they went on laying out new highways; measuring their town bounds; strengthening their for- tifications; altering and improving their meeting-house by putting up a beam for a gallery at the west end of it; consenting to Mr. Southmayd's request that he might alter and enlarge his seat at the west end of the pulpit; repairing the doors and windows of the meeting-house, and building a gallery at one end of it; constructing a school-house, sixteen feet long and fourteen feet wide; hiring a school-master and dame (if need be) to teach in it, and paying them with the remainder of a rate of two pence half-penny on the pound; and living the while in perpetual fear. It was during these days of fear that the second place of burial within the township was established. It is the southern portion of that now known as Pine Hill cemetery; the same ground so valiantly and reverently saved from encroachment and destruction by the efforts of Mr. William Ward. In the home of Daniel Warner in present Naugatuck, died, on April 10th, 1709, his wife, Mary, the daughter of Abraham An- drews, Senior. We do not know that she was the first English per- son to die at Judd's Meadows, but her death evidently made the need apparent of a place of burial nearer than that of our late cem- etery on Grand street. The record tells us that the selectmen of Waterbury on the next day, April 11th, with the presence and con- sent of Samuel Hikcox, laid out and sequestered half an acre of land of said Hikcox on the southward end of a hill at Judd's Meadow
279
TO THE CLOSE OF THE PROPRIETORS' REIGN.
called the "pin[e]" hill for a burying place for that part of said town or any other who should see cause to make use of it for said use: The record adds, that the land was laid out with the consent of the neighborhood, and that on the same day the wife of Daniel Warner was buried there. It is difficult to resist the impulse to pic- ture in words that first burial in Naugatuck, to gather by name the funeral band that went out of the house on Fulling Mill brook bear- ing its silent burden over the rough highway down to the lonely height that overlooked the river valley, there to lay it down for its long rest, while three motherless children look down into that grave the unutterable thoughts that children think, but never speak, in the presence of death.
Brief, terse and incisive are the words in which the proprietors of Waterbury express their mingled feelings regarding the bolt of the Durham men.
They disdain to even mention them by name, but vote in January of 1707, "to take the forfeiture of all the lands given on condition to those men gone out of town that can not hold them by record in not fulfilling the conditions." Stephen Hikcox had been accepted a pro- prietor inhabitant in May of the year in which he left; while Joseph and John Gaylord, and Joseph Hikcox had been proprietor inhab- itants seven years. Joseph Gaylord answers back from Durham in 1713, in the following style:
To the moderators of Waterbury. I do for my propriety-and my father being proprietor in said township-demand my right in said township by devision accord- ing to propriety, and do by this, according to Right, deny and bar any grants of lands in said township to any, so far as the law justify me, in any other way but according to propriety, and as for what has been given away since we came away and have not been warned to said proprietor's meeting, demand our right according to our propriety, and I desire this may be recorded.
JOSEPH GAYLORD.
Joseph Gaylord having been a Grand proprietor for thirty years could not legally suffer loss by removal, but with the young men it was different. Stephen Hikcox forfeited everything that stood in his name, and the others, all their grants whose conditions were not fulfilled. Generosity was perilous to our fathers. They tempted with gifts, to their own hurt. We have found evidence of that in the matter of the common-fence. Near the close of the cen- tury, at the advent into legal manhood of certain of their sons, they announced that to every one who would settle in the town, there should be given "thirty acres of upland, swamp, and boggy meadow, as an allotment, with a propriety in the commons according to the allotment, beside a house lot and four acres for a pasture." The con- ditions were, the building of a tenantable house, at least sixteen feet
280
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
square, within four years, and the inclusion in the thirty-acre grant of all the lands formerly given to the young men. This act was declared to be in force for all such as lived among them as they became of age and desired the privilege and were accepted by the proprietors. This allotment was to be deemed a forty pound owner- ship in all divisions of land, and a right in the commons, but carried with it no right to join the Grand proprietors in the giving away of lands. For two years the new proprietor was not to be taxed; but after that time his allotment was to be deemed as a two pound estate in bearing town charges for four years, and, after that time, to be appraised as other lands were. During the four years, the new pro- prietor might not sell any of the land of his allotment that he had not improved or subdued-but the record saith : "If any dye here his heirs to poses his lands."
The above decision seems to have opened the door of the town- ship to admit any outsider who should choose to come and live in it, provided that the new comer gain the good will of the Grand pro- prietors. Joseph Lewis was the only one to enter and meet approval before 1700, and we have no record of his arrival or admis- sion into proprietorship; he simply appears on the scene invested with the rights of a forty-pound proprietor, and is called to duty at a town meeting in December, 1700, as fence viewer. He was the seventeenth proprietor received under the new rule. It was extremely natural that opposition should speedily arise under the new order of things. Grants of ten acres each to the Grand propri- etors, and four acres to the young men, flew thick and fast over the uplands and hills. The young men could take their thirty acres in three places, and the man who got first a written description of the land he had selected to the measurer, gained title by the act. The grants made at this time afford us many place-names and are full of interest. Thomas Warner selected his ten acres "at his three acres at his boggy meadow over thre mile brook;" Stephen Upson, " at his hog field at the north side of Philip's meadow;" Joseph Gaylord Sen. and Edmund Scott, "at Judd's Meadow above where Butler's house was;" Abraham Andrus Sen., "on the hill against George's horse brook" (this was Beaver Pond hill); Benjamin Barnes, "at Brake neck hil;" Stephen Upson, "where the grinlet runs into the great boggy meadow, we say that grinlet that comes from the east corner of the Long hill." Five or six of the young men chose their lands " on the hill on the west side of the river against Buck's meadow," where young Obadiah Richards had already broken up land.
In 1702, it was declared that the only men who were qualified to act in giving away lands were the proprietors for the first purchas-
281
TO TIIE CLOSE OF THE PROPRIETORS' REIGN.
ing of the place, together with Stephen Upson, Richard Porter, and Jonathan Scott. In 1705, the question came up in Proprietors' meet- ing, whether they would divide the commons of the township according to purchase. By a full vote the question was decided in the negative, and the announcement was made that the proprietors would give away their lands to particular men as they should see cause, or judge that men had need of them.
In 1707, came the sequestration of ten square miles, for commons, and this was followed at the same meeting by a division of upland and meadow which gave every f100 proprietor fifty acres, and every other Grand proprietor forty-five, while the new £40 men received thirty acres each-and lots were to be drawn for the divis- ion. By this distribution, more than twelve hundred acres passed at once out of the keeping of the original proprietors, and a disturb- ing force entered the little republic. Had proprietory rights been restricted to heirs, and every one of the Grand proprietors been the father of an equal number of sons to receive this largess, all might have been well. In the case of Joseph Gaylord, whose sons had left Waterbury at this date, it was aggravating-hence, the remon- strance of his son Joseph, which has been given. The case of Cap- tain John Standly (who had returned to Farmington), was little better, he having but one son, Samuel, in Waterbury, and we shall hear from Captain Standly in due time. The most trying case of all, was that of his brother Timothy, who was childless, but who soon found a way out of his difficulty. This division was not allotted or drawn for until two years later. John Hopkins and Samuel " Stanly " were chosen March 6, 1709, " to fit [prepare] a lot, and on Monday next 1710 to meet at twelve o'clock, there to draw the lot." That first Monday in 1710, must have been a day of deep interest and much excitement in Waterbury. A week later it was, that to the young soldier, Nathaniel Richardson (who had returned " sick" from the war), the town voted four-score acres on the main branch of Hop brook, east from Break Neck hill-but the vote met with vigorous opposition from Jeremiah Peck, Lieut. Timothy Standly, and Edmund Scott-nevertheless the town went on giving away its lands even at the same meeting. March 5, 1711, the second man from the outside world was admitted into the corporation, in the person of Zachariah Baldwin, of Milford, whose name appears as "Zacery balding Jr." That inhabitant did not find Waterbury altogether attractive. For some reason, unknown to us, he sold in 1713, his "land, building and other timber, and all the labor that he had done to it," together with his right in the township, to George Scott Sen., who established his son Obadiah at the place, and the town
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.