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 31
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
282
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
accepted him on Baldwin's propriety. It was at Judd's Meadows, on the New Haven road, near Thomas Richard's house. I think, but do not know, that Zachariah Baldwin was a member of the Church of England.
In 1711, a "book of Records" was established, in which it was directed that the meadow divisions should be recorded, and Mr. John Southmayd and Deacon Judd were chosen "to view some writ- ing of the Grand committee and such as of value to be recorded the remainder to be obliterated." It is well for this history, that in this instance Mr. Southmayd and Deacon Judd did not do the oblitera- tion-duty assigned to them. In December, 1711, Thomas Clark, a nephew of Mrs. Timothy Standly, was the third person admitted to the township from the outside world. The only record that we have of proprietor's meetings in 1713, relates to Joseph Gaylord's remon- strance, and of 1714, we have nothing until January, when the south- ern bounds of the township were ordered to be measured, Mr. South- mayd being at the head of the committee to make the measurements. The Wallingford bounds were also to be looked after and settled, and if an agreement could not be had with that town, the matter "about the bounds was to be carried to court till it had a final issue."
When we consider where the southern bound of our ancient town- ship lies, we are not surprised that the men of Waterbury, although led by Mr. Southmayd, could not satisfactorily define the line, and that the town called Mr. Kimberly, the County surveyor, to under- take the task. "In company with Mr. John Hopkins, Dr. Porter, and other men of the town of Waterbury on the 6th day of May, 1715," Mr. Kimberly informs us that he set forth to measure the southern breadth of the township. The following is the document, which obliging Mr. Southmayd failed to " obliterate :"
These may certifie all whome it doth or may Concern That I Thomas Kimberly Surveyor of land in the County of Hartford on the 6th day of May Anno Dom. 1715. At the Desire & in Company with Mr. John Hopkins Dan1 Porter, and othermen of the Town of Waterbury in Order to Survey and find the breadth from East to West of the Southern bounds of the Said Township of Waterbury. And I begann at two Chestnut trees markt, standing on the Westerly side of a Run of Water, at some distance Northerly of a boggy Meadow, which trees stand at the South West Corner of the bounds of said Township, and at South Easterly corner of the bounds of Woodberry, from Thence I ran East by the needle of the Instrument. 3. miles and 36. rods, to the River Called Naugatuck, viz-the Westerly bank thereof, and from thence We ran (South by the needle) one Mile & 20. rods (Crossing the Said River) to a brook running W. falling into the Sd River in the Southern bounds of the Said Township of Waterbury next Derby-from thence I proceeded on my former Course. E. one mile, then made another offsett of. 80. rods-Then again Con- tinued our Course. E. I miles, and. 120. rods falling. Io. rods N. of 3 Chestnut trees Standing at the N. E. Corner of the bounds of Milford. and, N. W. corner of the
·
283
TO THE CLOSE OF THE PROPRIETORS' REIGN.
bounds of New Haven Commonly called the. 3. brothers, alias, three Sisters (as these Gent'" informed me.) Then Course continued-I ran. E. one Mile, and fell. So rods. N. of a White Oak tree Markt anciently, and a large [heap] of stones about, and diverse Letters & figures on $d tree standing on the Southerly side of Wet land. From that tree. E. ran. 13 Changes" wanting. 16. rods to a heap of Stones (on the top of a bare Mountain) by us now Erected for the E bounds of the Said Township of Waterbury-A Map of this survey is hereunto Annext, Here Note that a Line drawn. E. from the first mentioned Chestnut trees till it Intersect a line drawn. N. from the mentioned White Oak tree in length, is, 6 miles. &. 156. rods and that in this. 6 mile. &. 156 rods no allowance was made for the roughnesse and unevennesse of the Land, whereas according to my best skill there ought to be allowed, at least. 118. rods.
THO. KIMBERLY-Surveyor-
The above figures gives us seven miles and twenty rods as the length of the south bound of Waterbury in 1715. The following is a transcription of the map of the survey.t The chestnut trees at
Waterbury. n.
-
1
Woodbury-
1
Wallingford -
W.
1
2 miles, 120 rods,
! One mile ..
1
E-
Chestnut Trees
rook
The 3
Brothers-
White oak. - 15
Derby-
Milford.
NEW Haven.
J.Kimberly Sung -
the southwest line had become "two stumps" in 1753. They were "near Samuel Wheeler's house " which was in Derby, and southwest of the "two stumps." The present aspect of the "Three Brothers " is given on page 193.
So thoroughly did the men of Waterbury, Derby, and Woodbury establish their relative bounds in 1680, that they seem not to have been in serious question at any subsequent time. There was a con-
* In measuring lands the forward chain bearer puts down one of ten pins which he carries, placing one at the end of every chain. The rear chain bearer gathers the pins, and when the ten have been used, a furlong has been measured, and a change of pins is made-therefore a change meant a furlong.
+ The last line run should be " 11/2 mile & 24 rods."
1
i
11/2 miles @ 120 rods, 1
3 miles p 36rods
Naugatuck River
284
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
test with Wallingford in the settlement of which Waterbury seems to have yielded a little more than one mile and one-half of her ter- ritory, at the southeast corner. In 1765, Waterbury and Milford settled their line by this survey-"starting from the Three Sisters and running due west one mile and one hundred and twenty rods to a white oak staddle." From the oak "southward it was forty- eight rods to Derby's northeast corner the southwest side of Beacon Hill river."
ENTRANCE OF BEACON HILL BROOK INTO THE NAUGATUCK RIVER AT THE STRAITS.
The above survey was made in order to a settlement of the bound line with Wallingford. The Assembly afterward appointed a committee "to go upon the spot and measure the controverted lines," for which service the proprietors of Waterbury were ordered to pay Wallingford four pounds, three shillings and six pence. They were also to resign their claim to the land lying to the eastward of the "Three Sisters." Waterbury borrowed the above money of Joseph Lewis and paid it in eighty acres of land in 1720.
285
TO THE CLOSE OF THE PROPRIETORS' REIGN.
In 1715, the limit of the attainments of Waterbury under its Grand proprietors was reached. We have been dimly recording, in faintest outline, the achievements of a few men and their sons in their endeavor to build an ideal English town, on foreign soil, in which the Law of God should be the supreme rule of man, and His public worship the visible sign of that rule. Waterbury was severely disciplined and sorely afflicted during the thirty-eight years in which it remained under the government of its founders. In 1715 it had but just emerged from the scenes of illness and death, that befell it from October 1712, to September 1713, in which time more than twenty persons died. Mr. Southmayd gives us no hint of the origin of this "great sickness," but it perhaps was the same "camp distemper" that caused the troops to turn back so fre- quently. It began in Waterbury, in so far as we may tell, by the illness and death of John Richardson in October of 1712, in the third house (east from Willow) on the north side of West Main street-to be followed in seventeen days by the death of his soldier brother, Nathaniel, in the house next eastward; and that death in eleven days more, by that of Thomas Richardson, the Grand propri- etor, in the same house; while but a week later, from the same home was borne forth the weary-hearted wife and mother, Mary Richardson-she, who, when living in a cellar, became the mother of the first-born child of Mattatuck. In less than a month, on the 18th of December, Israel Richardson, another son of the same fam- ily, was taken-to be followed in a brief while by his wife and their daughter. In the next house eastward, died Mary, the widow of the Grand proprietor, John Bronson-while in the following March a most unusual event took place in the Burying yard on Grand street-it was the burial of two young girls who died on the same day, and who bore the same name-Hannah Judd-the one was the sixteen-year old daughter of John Judd; the other the fourteen- year old daughter of Deacon Judd. Of the Hikcox family, five members died. Samuel, the first settler of Naugatuck, and his son Samuel, and three young sons of William Hikcox, who occupied his father's homestead-now crossed by Prospect street. In the next house, on the corner of North Main street, before the year closed there died the wife, and son Ebenezer, aged twenty, of Benjamin Barnes. Every death that occurred in the village, of which we have record, took place in the row of houses on the north side of West Main street, between Willow and North Main streets, supple- mented by the two houses, close by, of Samuel Standly and Stephen Welton on the east side of the Green, and that of Deacon Judd at the west end. To these must be added the death of Daniel Warner,
286
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
at Judd's Meadows. We have no means of estimating the number of those who were ill, but Dr. Porter's ability must have been tested to the utmost, and the need of another practitioner was felt, for we find the proprietors urging Dr. Ephraim Warner to "live among them " and coaxing him with the use of all the school lands for three years, and ten acres in the sequester, and other alluring mor- sels of meadow, or "swamp that would make meadow." Dr. War- ner was coaxed and came, and proved professional enough, on occasion, to assist Dr. Porter in his "protesting " cases.
A new era was dawning. The proprietors prepared to meet it by trying to place their lands on a basis that would please every- body concerned. This they sought to do by making amends for wrongs formerly done; by ratifying the acts of the town, it having illegally granted lands; and by agreeing that every Grand pro- prietor should have two bachelor allotments of forty pounds each, to each lot-a few of the "old " proprietors being owners of more than one Grand propriety. In the extra allotments here granted, all lands that had formerly been given to individuals out of the undivided lands were to be counted, and if the sons of planters had been given lands, such gifts were also to be included in making up the old planters' bachelor lots. This was intended to give equality among those men who had sons who were bachelor proprietors, and those who had not. Having thus restored the old planters to their former standing, it was next agreed to make "a division of one hun- dred acres apiece to each original proprietor and bachelor's accom- modation to each of them alike and the remainder of the undivided land to be divided to the original proprietors according to meadow allotments." To prevent any possible misunderstanding, Thomas Clark's bachelor-right was to be accounted on his uncle Timothy Standly's bachelor rights. After the above votes had been passed, it was formally announced that "the 40 pound propriety formerly granted was to be void and of none effect."
The above votes were, without doubt, the effect of Lieut. John Stanley's remonstrance, for it was at this meeting that that gentle- man protested vigorously and in forcible language, against the act of 1697-promulgated "in order to bring in inhabitants"-as contrary to equity and justice; declaring that the first purchasers of the land acquired a right in the lands according to the proportion of the pay- ments they made by order of the committee for the settling of the place, and in virtue of the articles of agreement which they had fulfilled, and that they were entitled to the subdivisions as accorded by the town patent to the then proprietor inhabitants and their heirs. He informed them that he had nowhere seen that the
287
TO THE CLOSE OF THE PROPRIETORS' REIGN.
ancient proprietors impowered the major part by vote to give the land at their pleasure, and announced that the received principle seemed to be, that the major part of the proprietors in common, might, by vote when opposed by the minor, give away from the minor when and as they pleased. He tersely told them that that which was consequent upon it, was, that the major part might com- bine and give it all to and amongst themselves, so that the minor part should have neither land nor commoning. Mr. John Stanley had been away from Waterbury for twenty years at this time, but his landed interests and his family ties in Waterbury had kept him in intercourse with its people. He was, from time to time, called upon to perform some service for the town. At this very meeting, he was "desired by the proprietors to record the Indians' deed of the town."
In November of the same year, it was voted that the original proprietors should take up the acres of their bachelor lots in the sequestered land. By the next vote they had liberty to take them by their own land, and if not taken there, they were to be laid out with the hundred-acre division. By the next vote an entirely new layout was determined upon. It was that the allotment of one hundred acres apiece, to each man alike, and the bachelor rights belonging to the Grand proprietors, and the bachelor accommoda- tions, should begin on the southwest corner of the bounds next to Woodbury bounds, and the length of the tier of lots should be a mile in length east and west, and to run north on the Woodbury line until they had half the number of acres, and then on the east of said tier, a highway twenty rods wide, and then another tier of lots south to Derby bounds; which lots were to be a mile in length as the first tier was. The east and west highways were to be four rods wide.
There was evidently a desire at this time, or an influence at work in the direction of repairing wrongs. Five-sixths of the three Great lots, set apart by the committee for special uses, had been diverted from such uses, in order to give munificently to the Rever- end Jeremiah Peck, and his son Jeremiah, and to the Reverend John Southmayd-only one half-lot remaining for the schools. At the same proprietors' meeting we find "a hundred and fifty pound propriety in the undivided land set apart to be kept for the ministry that is for the town to dispose on for the use of the ministry." Thus, we have the appearance of the fourth Great lot. The next thing in order was to enter in the "book of records" the names of the Grand proprietors. Accordingly, Dea. John Standly and Abraham Andrews, who were here from the beginning, and John Hopkins
288
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
with John Judd-whose boy-memory might serve him somewhat- were appointed "for finding out who were the proper original proprietors," and to record their names in the book of records.
Before the year 1715 closed the town was divided into four quar- ters and four measurers appointed. for the four quarters. The northwest quarter was west of the river and north of the Woodbury road; the southwest, south of the Woodbury road. The northeast quarter was east of the river and north of the Farmington road; the southeast, east of the river and south of the Farmington road. To each division of the township, a measurer was appointed.
A glance at the land records at this time will convince us that certain of the young proprietors made haste to part with their lands. On Dec. 14, 1716, Obadiah Scott sold to Daniel Shelton of Stratford, eight acres in the Sequester. Three days later, Thomas Richards sold the same number of acres to Mr. Shelton, and the next month Jonathan Scott sold to him, "for a young mare, four and one-half acres in the Sequester, not yet laid out;" while Thomas Richards, "for a horse," sold land to the same party. These, and other immediate sales made by the young proprietors of their new possessions were disappointing.
Under the progress of expected events, and the natural growth of the second generation, the little meeting-house was too small. Waterbury must have had at this time a population of over three hundred souls. A gallery was built, extending around three sides of the audience room. The "fore seats" in the gallery were finished; the interior of the roof was ceiled; four windows were "put up," and apparently everything was made ready in 1718 for the arduous work of "seating the meeting-house." The repairs had been going on for four years under the guiding hand of Jeremiah Peck, the educated carpenter and school-master of 1689. One pay- ment was made to him in 1718 of £15. We may not readily obtain a mental picture of the interior from the records. Captain Judd, Lieutenant Hopkins, and Dr. Porter were the committee for seating the people when the repairs were completed. Age and estate were the only factors to be considered in dealing out the stations of honor in Waterbury; one year in age was counted as the equivalent of four pounds in estate at the first recorded seating of the meeting- house. It was voted that "the fore short seat in the gallery should be deemed equal with the pillar or second seat below; that is to say the second long seat from the upper end." This vote was annulled, and it was voted "that the short seat in the gallery should be equal, or next to, the short seat below." Ensign Hikcox, Joseph Lewis, Stephen Upson, Jr., and William Judd were to sit in this fore
289
TO THE CLOSE OF THE PROPRIETORS' REIGN.
short seat in the gallery and " were to take their turns yearly out of the four first seats." The only other item granted to us is the follow- ing : "Those that were formerly seated in the pew-the seat which Mr. Southmayd had enlarged in 1709-should sit there without any disturbance notwithstanding our other votes to seat the meet- ing-house." The meeting-house having been duly enlarged, it was in order to enlarge Mr. Southmayd's salary. In 1710, it was £50 in provision pay, of which not more than one-third was to be in Indian corn. Any man by paying money could save one-third of his rate. Mr. Southmayd released the town from paying him fro in labor, and it was agreed to pay the same amount in wood, at eight shil- lings per cord. There had been no material change in his salary for nine years, when, in 1719: "It was agreed by vote with Marster John Southmayd to give him sixty pound in money and the per- ticullers as followeth that is to say wheet at five shillings per bushill ry at three and six pence pr bushill ingun at too and six pence pr bushill porcke at three pence pr pound flax nine pence pr pound and also we agree to give him ten pound in wood half a crown a lod for ock and three shillings a lod for warnut wood." This rate was to be paid before the first of the ensuing March.
It cannot be too strongly impressed upon our minds that to this period in the history of the town, we find only its landed owners forming any visible portion of its dwellers. In every instance we have not been able to identify the person owning land, or giving name to locality.
The student of the early history of New England towns will soon discover that in their building no room was prepared for non-pro- ducers of the necessary things of life. Every dweller within the town edifice was expected to do his part in every department to which the votes of the householders called him, and we find-taking at random the period of ten years from 1708 to 1718-no less than fifty- four men holding office, and six proprietors representing it at the General Court. In 1708 the town officers were a constable, three townsmen, a town clerk, a surveyor, four fence-viewers, two hay- wards, three listees, three rate-makers, a collector of ministers' rates, a collector of town rates-a school committee, consisting of two mem- bers, and a man " for to dig the graves." The last office was held by five different men in the ten years. Poor Richard Porter must have made many a weary journey up Grand street in the year 1712 and 1713 (his house was at the corner of Bank street), to prepare the graves for the dead of that time. The new offices created in the interval, seem to have been those of town treasurer, chimney-viewer, ordinary or tavern-keeper, grand juror, inspector, and leather-sealer.
19
290
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
During this period the town was served by a captain, two lieuten- ants, an ensign, four sergeants and two doctors. Benjamin Barnes, Jr., was the only proprietor who declined office. On one occasion when he was appointed fence-viewer, his father, in town meeting, promised that if his son did not do the work he would do it for him.
If there was any one thing that the colony and the towns dis- liked, it was making provision for the poor; it must be remembered that their aim was in many respects an ideal one; that they tried to bar out penury and all forms of unwholesomeness. In the beginning, the Court of Magistrates held power over poor persons, and disposed them in such towns as it deemed best able to care for them. Pov- erty was considered a crime, consequent upon the sin of idleness. Men were forced to bring up their children to some useful employ- ment. A householder even, could not, under the town's watchful eye, indulge in wasting his time. The natural seats of stone on the Waterbury Green, it is safe to say held no loungers, and even the holidays were improved by the earnest workers to remove them in- nevertheless the poor were here, even in 1709, when-Deacon Judd being the town clerk-made the following record of his own act. "Oct. 8, 1709, William Stanard and his wife came to Waterbury, and Dacon Judd out of pity gave them leave to be in his house a few days and to work in his shop. Said Stanard staid till the thirtieth day of said month and then by the said Judd, as a townsman, was warned to depart the town and his house." A second townsman, Stephen Upson, also warned him to depart; but he "not going away" was warned again in November by Upson "to quit the town and be gone." The sixth of December "he was warned by the said Upson to depart or he would carry him away or take care it should be done." It is evident that the kind-hearted Deacon Judd "out of pity " declined to again warn, "as townsman," William Stanard and his wife to depart; but the law's rigors were enacted, and curi- ously enough we know by whom the deed was done, for when Jona- than Scott had been gotten out of town by the Indians, we learn that it was Jonathan himself who did the deed-for the town gave him his town rate for 1709 for getting out of town William Stanard's wife." There are no sweeter words in all our records than the three words, "out of pity," with which Deacon Judd tries to justify his transgression of law, in taking the homeless and the wandering into his house and shop-the little "smith " shop that was "set six feet into the highway," at the southwest corner of West Main and Willow streets. Did William Stanard die here, one cannot help asking, that only his wife was gotten out of town. The above is the first of a long and numerous list of "warnings out of town," that soon
291
TO THE CLOSE OF THE PROPRIETORS' REIGN.
became only a form of compliance with law. This act relieved the town of liability to support persons (being so warned) if, for any cause, they become dependent upon the public. In this list are names of men who later became prominent and prosperous citizens; therefore if any resident of Waterbury should find that his ances- tor's name is mentioned in the list, it need not cause a moment's confusion.
It was not until 1715 that the colonial law was passed compelling a man to support his children and grandchildren, and children to support their parents and grandparents. The first provision for the unfortunate in Waterbury was made January 6, 1718. " A rate of five pounds as money was granted as town stock for the necessity of the poor or distracted persons to be disposed of at the discretion of the present townsmen according to law."
There was a colonial custom of granting a license to certain per- sons who had endured unusual hardships through misfortune, acci- dent, or affliction, to solicit alms in certain named towns for speci- fied periods, but it is not known that any of Waterbury's inhabitants ever sought the privilege.
Under date of April 28, 1719, we find the following entry: " Thomas peate was admitted an inhabitant in the town by vote." This is a mysterious entry, and contains in itself, all that we are permitted to know concerning a man who got within the charmed circle, apparently without condition or obligation.
CHAPTER XXIII.
REMARKABLE INCREASE IN POPULATION-THE TOWN DECIDES TO BUILD A NEW MEETING HOUSE-MR. SOUTHMAYD'S LITTLE MEETING HOUSE BOOK-SEATING THE MEETING HOUSE-LAYOUT OF THE VILLAGE- THE TAX-LIST OF THE YEAR 1730-THE NEW INHABITANTS OF 173I.
T HE period from 1721 to and including the year 1731 was the most important decade in the early history of the town; it witnessed changes greater in proportion to existing condi- tions than any subsequent ten years has seen. The year 1720 found but seven of the signers of the plantation agreement of 1674 living in Waterbury-these were John Welton, Timothy Standly, Daniel Porter, Abraham Andrews, Benjamin Barnes, Stephen Upson and Richard Porter-the names of John Hopkins, Captain Thomas Judd, Edmund Scott, Jr., and John Richards complete the list of those who represented original proprietors. The same year found Waterbury with a village center of perhaps forty-five families, while twelve or possibly fifteen more may have been living in the neighboring regions of Bucks Hill, Break Neck, and Judds Meadow. There is no list extant of the voting population of 1720-it must however have been less than sixty-five persons,-while ten years later we find one hundred and fifty-one men living here; an increase in ten years of over one hundred and twenty-five per cent. Before this migration to Waterbury began, the proprietors had, after many attempts to deal satisfactorily with each other and with their sons the bachelor or first degree proprietors, reached a final adjustment of their landed rights. There are no proprietor's records from March 4, 1717, to October 9, 1721. Therefore we are unable to give an account of the steps that led to the following adjustment-which took place at a meeting held at eight o'clock in the morning at the house of Sergt Scovill, on February 28, 1721. Before this meeting was held, the report of the committee appointed to search the records and find out what men were entitled to land divisions was received, accompanied by a list of their names. At this meeting it was agreed that every original proprietor should have two £40 or bachelor lots if he owned froo interest in the township-thus giving him £180 interest. A like proportion accrued to every lesser owner- ship. The £40 interest was considered at that date, equal to sixty- eight acres of land. Thereafter all divisions were to be made to the original proprietors according to their propriety, with the additions
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.