USA > Massachusetts > Hampshire County > Hatfield > History of Hatfield, Massachusetts, in three parts: I. An account of the development of the social and industrial life of the town from its first settlement. II. The houses and homes of Hatfield, with personal reminiscences of the men and women who have lived there during the last one hundred years; brief historical accounts of the religious societies and of Smith Academy; statistical tables, etc. III. Genealogies of the families of the first settlers > Part 4
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
Thomas Meekins was a millwright by trade. His mill was built on the Capawonk brook, which thereafter was called Mill river, near the site of the present Hatfield gristmill. The ridge of red sandstone that shows outcroppings at various points in the vicinity made a waterfall in the brook and the stone was easily quarried for millstones. It is not known whether any dam was built at first, but probably greater power was secured by throwing some sort of obstruction across the stream. Meekins was given twenty acres of land near the mill and he moved from the street and built a house on the hill where M. W. Boyle has his residence.
The east side inhabitants brought their grain across the Connecticut to be ground. The Hadley records show that on the 8th of November, 1662, they agreed with Thomas Wells and John Hubbard to carry their grain over the river to mill on the second and sixth days of the week and bring back the meal, at threepence per bushel, to be paid in wheat at 3s. 6d., and Indian corn at 2s. 3d. per bushel. No corn mill was built on the east side till 1671, when a portion of the Hopkins Grammar School funds was in- vested in a mill at North Hadley. It was burned in 1677 and the Hadley people again brought their grist across the
47
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
river; rebuilt in 1678 or 1679, and was operated by the Boltwoods for a while, finally coming back to the trustees of the Hopkins Grammar School fund.
The meal and flour were bolted at home or used unbolted. Bolting mills moved by water power were not at all common in England when the colonists first left the mother country and they did not come into use in New England for nearly one hundred years. Sometimes the bran was separated from the flour by the use of sieves.
Thomas Meekins also assisted in setting up corn mills in other towns. He built the first sawmill in Hatfield in 1669 and had one in operation on the east side of the river perhaps as early as 1662 in company with Robert Boltwood. They were granted liberty to build a saw- mill in Hadley in that year. Dec. 19, 1670, the town of Hatfield voted that Meekins's sawmill should be free from the town rate for three years. It is thought to have been located about where Maj. C. S. Shattuck's gun-shop stands.
In the distribution of the meadow land made from 1661 to 1663 the estates of the different settlers served as a basis for divisions. Drawings were by lot and those whose lots came out first had first choice. Each £100 estate drew 27 acres and 60 rods on the west side of the river and larger estates correspondingly larger amounts. The east side proprietors also drew lots on the west side and it is difficult to ascertain the amount of land divided on the Hatfield side because the lands of several of the proprietors are not recorded. Considerable allowance was made for swamps, ponds, and light lands. It is estimated that about 1,200 acres were included in the four main divisions of the Hatfield meadows as follows :-
1. The Great, North, or Upper Meadow, purchased of Mr. Bradstreet and including a swamp adjoining, was separated into six divisions,-Fifty Pound Lots, Long Lots, Cow Bridge, Turn of the River, Upper Hollow, and Bashan. Each west side proprietor received a lot in each division and some were reserved for others. The names given to the divisions are those in use at the present time, but they probably were applied at a very early day.
2. Little Meadow was at the north end of the street and part of it east of the North Meadow. It was in two
48
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
divisions, Little Meadow proper and Little Meadow Hol- low.
3. The South Meadow, or "the meadow adjoining to the street" in the early records, was called Wequetayag by the Indians and Great Pansett, Pontius, or Ponsett in the records of Peter Tilton, the first recorder of lands in Hadley. It contained about 430 acres at the time of division with little waste land. The east side or Hadley proprietors had the west part, called 205 acres, and the west side proprietors the east part, 225 acres, including Indian Hollow or Indian Bottom. The divisions known at the present day, East and Middle Divisions, Great Ponsett, Brook Hollow, Indian Hollow, The Nook, and Indian Field, were probably so called very early in the history of the town and the roads through this meadow were the same as now. Before the choice of lots was made the roads were staked out. The road that led to the landing at the north of the Hadley street was the one by the Richard Fellows house, now Valley Street. A road was laid out along the brow of the hill above Indian Hollow and Indian Field which is not in use as a traveled way at present during its whole extent. The so-called Baker's Ferry road, across the lots in Indian Hollow, is of later origin.
4. The Southwest, or Capawonk Meadows, also called Amponchus, Little Pansett, Ponsitt, or Ponsett, was sepa- rated from Great Ponsett by the Capawonk brook, or, as sometimes called, Napanset river. The east side pro- prietors had all of this except the upper part called the Plain, while the west side proprietors had the Plain at two acres for one. The extent of this meadow after rejecting ponds and worthless swamps probably did not exceed 275 acres. This upland plain was considered of little value until quite recently and was used for corn and rye land. The names of the divisions, Scotland, Lower Plain, New Field, Thomp- son Lot, and the Park, are of comparatively recent origin.
The number of west side proprietors who drew lots in the South and Little Meadows was 22, the amount of the estates £2,500; 23 drew in the North Meadow. Probably not all the Engagers had arrived when the division was made. £100 estates drew as follows and larger or smaller ones in proportion :-
49
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
Acres.
Rods.
In 3 divisions in South Meadow
8
144
In the Meadow Plain.
2
55
In 2 divisions in Little Meadow.
2
22
In 6 divisions in North Meadow
13
159
27
60
The rest of the land was used in common for wood and pasturage and there was no call for a division of the upland plains west of the town for many years.
A large amount of fencing had to be done as a protection against roving animals. Fences were built of posts and rails and often had a ditch and embankment on the out- side. Some traces of the ditch in the South Meadow could still be found in the nineteenth century. The house lots probably did not have ditches with the fences. All fences were to be sufficient protection against horses, cattle, sheep, and hogs, and were four or five rails high with gates where needed. It was considered a serious misdemeanor, pun- ishable by a heavy fine, to leave a gate open. Great and
Little Ponsett were fenced as early as 1662 by united labor of the settlers on both sides of the river, the Hadley men doing about 500 rods of the southern part. In that year also, Indian Field was ordered to be fenced "after the proportion of 2 rod to each £100 estate." It was then used by the savages for their planting ground. Fence viewers were appointed yearly, usually two on each side of the river. In 1663 each proprietor was ordered to have his land marked by "meer-stones" and it was common to have initials cut on the posts of the fences to indicate the owner- ship of the lots. There was a division fence between the land owned by the east and west side proprietors in South Meadow. The meadows north of Hatfield were fenced, at least in part, before 1670.
CHAPTER IV.
A CHAPTER OF CONFLICT. THE STRUGGLE LEADING TO THE INCORPORATION OF HATFIELD.
" They have rights who dare maintain them."
The early town records .- Local self-government by the west side inhab- itants at their "side meetings."-Desire for full independence .- Petition to the General Court for separation and its signers .- Number of families on the west side in 1667 .- Counter petition of east side inhabitants .- Attempted adjustment of the dispute .- Preparations of west side inhabitants for a minister and house of worship .- The end of the conflict .- Articles of agree- ment.
The public records of the settlers on both sides of the river during the ten years following 1660 are quite full, containing many votes that now seem of slight importance though they were at the time no doubt the cause of much serious debate. On the other hand many things were not recorded that would throw great light on the proceedings if fully known.
The west side inhabitants were allowed from the first a large degree of local self-government and held frequent "side meetings," of which a record has been preserved. The first entry bears the date of Mar. 31, 1662. How the notes of the transaction of public business were kept at the start is not certain, or by whom, perhaps on loose sheets of paper, but they were written out in their present form in a bound volume by the first town clerk of Hatfield, John Allis, about 1670. The inference is that he also kept the records for the first ten years. The entries are not in chronological order.
During the first part of this ten year period the desire for full independence on the part of the west side settlers was growing till it led to a sharp contest and culminated in the separation of Hadley and Hatfield in 1670. The num- ber of families did not increase as rapidly as was expected and it was not practical to separate till each settlement could support itself alone.
51
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
In March, 1665, the town of Hadley voted that the inhab- itants on either side should make and maintain all their own highways and bridges except the mill bridge, the expense of which was borne equally, and in June of the same year it was voted to carry on the work of the town and church as one "until the Lord makes it appear that one part of us have a call to be a society of ourselves." The subject of separation seems to have been agitated by the west side inhabitants.
No petition on the subject was sent to the General Court for two years, but from 1667 that body was flooded with petitions and letters about the controversy. The first one given in full below is dated May 3, 1667 :-
"To the Honored Governor, Dep. Governor, Assistants and Deputies, now in General Court assembled :
"The petition of us whose names are underwritten, being inhabitants of the west side of the river at Hadley, sheweth-(May 3, 1667,)-that, whereas it hath pleased God to make you the fathers of this Commonwealth, and it hath pleased the Lord, by your great care and diligence under him, to continue our peace and plenty of outward things, and in a more especial manner the chieftest and principal of all, the Gospel of peace, with the liberty of his Sabbaths, which mercies your humble petitioners desire to be thankful unto God and you for, that you are so ready and willing for to help those that stand in need of help, which hath encouraged us your humble petitioners for to make this our address, petition and request, to you for relief in this our present distressed state and condition.
"First, your petitioners, together with their families within the bounds of Hadley town, upon the west side of the river, commonly called by the name of Connecticut river, where we for the most part have lived about 6 years, have attended on God's ordinances on the other side of the river, at the appointed seasons that we could or durst pass over the river, the passing being very difficult and dangerous, both in summer and winter, which thing hath proved and is an oppressive burden for us to bear, which, if by any lawful means it may be avoided, we should be glad and thankful to this honored court to ease us therein, conceiving it to be a palpable breach of the Sabbath, although it be a maxim in law: nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, yet by the Word of God to us, it is evidently plain to be a breach of the Sabbath : Ex. xxxv : 2; Levit. xxiii : 3, yet many times we are forced to it; for we must come at the instant of time, be the season how it will. Some- times we come in considerable numbers in rainy weather, and are forced to stay till we can empty our canoes, that are half full of water, and before we can get to the meetinghouse, are wet to the skin. At other times, in winter seasons, we are forced to cut and work them out of the ice, till our shirts be wet upon our backs. At other times, the winds are high and waters rough, the current strong and the waves ready to swallow us-our vessels tossed up and down so that our women and children do screech, and are so affrighted that they are made unfit for ordinances, and cannot hear so as to profit by them, by reason of their anguish of spirit; and when they return some of them are more fit for their beds than for family duties and God's services, which they ought to attend.
"In brevity and verity, our difficulties and dangers that we undergo are to us extreme and intolerable; oftentimes some of us have fallen into the river through the ice, and had they not had better help than themselves, they had been drowned. Sometimes we have been obliged to carry others when
52
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
they have broken in, to the knees as they have carried them out, and that none hitherto hath been lost, their lives are to be attributed to the care and miercy of God.
"There is about four score and ten persons on our side of the river, that are capable of receiving good by ordinances, but it is seldom that above half of them can go to attend, what through the difficulty of passage and staying at home by turns and warding, some being weak and small which, notwithstanding, if the means on our side the river, they might have the benefit of the ordinances which now they are deprived of to the grief of us all. Further, when we do go over the river, we leave our relatives and estates lying on the outside of the colony, joining to the wilderness, to be a prey to the heathen, when they see their opportunity. Yet, notwithstanding, our greatest anxiety and pressure of spirit is that the Sabbath, which should be kept by us holy to the Lord, is spent with such unavoidable distractions, both of the mind and of the body. And for the removing of this, we unanimously have made our address to our brethren and friends on the other side of the river, by a petition that they would be pleased to grant us liberty to be a society of ourselves, and that we might call a minister to dispense the word of God to us, but this, by them, would not be granted, although, in the month of June, in the year 1665, it was agreed and voted, at a town meeting, that when the west side had a call of God thereto, they might be a society of themselves. We sent a second time to them, entreating that according to said agreement they would grant our request to put it to a hearing, but they will not, so that we, your humble petitioners, have no other way or means, that we know of, but to make our humble address to this honored court for relief, in this our distressed state, humbly praying this honored court to vouchsafe your poor petitioners that favor as to be a society of ourselves, and have liberty to settle a minister to dispense the ordinances of the Lord unto us, which we hope will be for the furtherance of the work of the Lord amongst us, and for our peace and safety. Not that we desire to make any breach among brethren, for to attain our desires, nor yet to hinder the great work of the Lord amongst us, but that which we aim at is the contrary. Thus, committing our cause to God and this honored court, and all other your weighty affairs, we leave to the protection and guidance of the Almighty, which is the prayer of your humble petitioners .- May 3, 1667.
"THOMAS MEEKINS, SR., DANIEL WHITE,
WM. ALLIS, JOHN WELLES,
JOHN ALLIS, OBADIAH DICKINSON,
JOHN COULE, SR.,
NATH'L DICKINSON, JR.,
SAMUEL GILET,
ISAAC GRAVES, ELEAZER FRARY,
JOHN FIELD,
RICHARD BILLING,
SAMUEL BILLING,
JOHN COULE, JR.,
WM. GULL,
SAMUEL DICKINSON,
URSULA FELLOWS,
SAMUEL BELDEN,
THOMAS MEEKINS, JR.,
MARY FIELD."
JOHN GRAVES, DANIEL WARNER,
SAMUEL KELOG,
BARNABAS HINSDELL,
The last two signatures were those of the widows of Richard Fellows and Zechariah Field, who had represen- tation as the heads of their families. Fellows died in 1663 and Field in 1666. Two of the other original settlers had died, John White, Jr., and Stephen Taylor, both in 1665. These twenty-five families were surely living on the west side of the Connecticut in 1667. The names of John Cole- man, Philip Russell, Samuel Allis, and Benjamin Waite do not appear on the petition; perhaps they had not then taken up their residence on the west side though they did so
.
53
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
very soon after. Benjamin Waite's name first appears on the town records in 1664, when four acres of meadow land were granted him "in some place or places as convenient."
A counter petition on the part of the town of Hadley -- the east side inhabitants-was also sent to the court, stating their view of the matter, their principal objections being that the communities were not yet strong enough to separate and that to have granted the request of those who desired to withdraw would have been to "sin against the Lord, ourselves, and them." It was signed by forty- four people.
The town sent the pastor, Rev. John Russell, to Boston with Samuel Smith and Peter Tilton to look after its interests, while the west side inhabitants were represented by Thomas Meekins, William Allis, and Isaac Graves. The court judged it best to make no division at that time, but advised that the two parties in the dispute jointly settle another minister. The petition of the west side people was presented again in the month of September, 1667, but no agreement was reached. An attempt was then made to settle the matter between the factions by correspondence, lasting for over a year. The east side did not object to having a second minister, but would not consent to the formation of two societies and expected the west side to worship with them except when crossing the river was difficult. The west side people were firm in their intention to have a minister constantly with them and to be a society by them- selves.
In April, 1668, the east side made another answer by petition to the General Court written by Mr. Russell, part of which ran as follows :-
"When we moved to this plantation, we engaged to each other to have two ministers. We gave to poor men liberty to suit themselves, and those who had more estate denied themselves, not taking up half as much as they might have done, no man having more than 45 acres of interval land. This was done in respect to maintaining the ministry and ordinances. When those on the west side of the river took up land there, they did it on condition that they were to be one with us and to come to the east side on the Sabbath except in extraordinary times, one of the ministers would go over to them. The meetinghouse was to be set where it is, for their sakes, to our great inconvenience. The difficulties of crossing the river were pre- sented to them at first, and they chose to go. In some other towns, the river is crossed on the Sabbath. It is doubtful whether they can make a plantation of themselves. The place does not afford boggy meadows or such like, that men can live upon, but their subsistence must be from their home
54
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
lots and intervals. A great part of these men are in near relation to us and we would not injure them. If the Court judge that our brethren have a call of God to be by themselves, we trust we shall do our duty without disturbance. Our place is hard, remote and inconvenient. In asking that the river may be the bounds between them and us, and all the land on that side pay public charges to them, they demand what is unjust. We are about 46 or 47 families, and if the river be the bounds, we shall not have so much land to maintain public ordinances as they, who are a little more than half as many."-Signed by Henry Clarke, John Russell, Jr., William Goodwin, Andrew Bacon, and William Lewis, in the name of the rest of the inhabitants of Hadley, on the east side of the river."
In reply William Allis and Isaac Graves contended that while the west side inhabitants stood by the covenant of 1660, they "did not suppose such a covenant perpetual when things should so change as to require an alteration." They felt that they had a clear call of God to be a society. They pointed out the danger from the Indians and men- tioned the fact that one of their houses was burned on the Sabbath not long before.
And so the struggle continued at Boston and at home and much bitter feeling was aroused. The west side people were so determined to have a minister of their own at the least that, without waiting for further authority from the colonial government or agreement with their fellow towns- men, a committee was appointed Nov. 6, 1668, to provide a boarding place for a minister during the winter and make arrangements for his comfortable support. At the same time it was also voted to choose a committee to draw up a list of all the timber necessary for building a meetinghouse 30 feet square, and to assign work to each man in felling timber or getting it ready for use.
The next day, Nov. 7, the General Court at Boston voted : "In answer to the petitioners on the west side of the river at Hadley, the Court judgeth it meet that they be allowed to procure an able minister to settle with them on their side of the river, for whose maintenance they are carefully and comfortably to provide, and shall be freed from the maintenance of the minister on the east side, unless the inhabitants on the east side of the river and they shall agree together for the maintenance and allowance of both jointly; provided that the inhabitants of the west side shall not rate any of the estates or lands of the inhabitants of the east side lying on the west side of the river, toward the maintenance of their ministry."
55
HISTORY OF HATFIELD.
On Nov. 21st at a "side meeting" it was voted to choose Thomas Meekins, Jr., William Allis, and John Graves a committee to procure a minister, and on the 17th of the succeeding May, 1669, it was "manifested" that they were willing to call Rev. Hope Atherton to the ministry and a salary of £50 was authorized. Evidently word of the action was hastened to Boston, for in the same month Thomas Meekins and Isaac Graves informed the General Court of what had been done about the meetinghouse and that they had "already pitched upon a man who is recommended to us by sundry reverend and godly persons and hope we shall obtain his help. The man whom we have in our eye is one Mr. Atherton, a son of the late Worshipful Hum- phrey Atherton of Dorchester." Very likely Mr. Atherton had been preaching in his new field during the preceding winter.
Mr. Russell and his followers still fought against the separation, raising again the difficulty of dividing the land as an issue, and the lack of sufficient "boggy meadows," but they finally yielded as gracefully as they could to the inevitable and the conflict was ended on the 22d of Decem- ber, 1669, by the following agreement, here given in full, signed by men from each side of the river :-
"Articles of agreement between the inhabitants on the east side of the river in Hadley with those of the same town on the west side of the river. "1. It is covenanted and agreed that those on the east side of the river do grant and give to those on the west side, liberty to be a distinct town or township of themselves, and so of and among themselves to carry on all their common or town occasions; and this to take place as soon as the Gen. Court shall grant their approbation or allowance thereof.
"2. For the bounds of each society or town, those on the east side are to have and enjoy now and forever the free and full disposal of all the land on the east side of the river, for the maintaining of all common charges respecting things ecclesiastical or civil.
"And on the west side, the bounds between the two societies or towns are to be the highway between their several furlongs of land, viz. the highway running from the river to the Widow Fellows her house; and from thence downwards, the fence to be the bounds until it comes to the Mill river, and then the river to be the bounds until it meets with Mr. Webster's lot in Little Ponsett; and from thence the fence of Little Ponsett to be bounds unto Connecticut River, where the end of the said fence is; this to be and remain forever the bounds of each society or town, for the main- taining of the rights and privileges of each; viz. all the land on the lower or southwest side of the highway shall be unto the society or town of Hadley on the east side of Connecticut, and all every parcel thereof to pay all common charges to the said town of Hadley on the east side of the river. Except those lands within the said highway and fence which are already either given or sold to inhabitants on the west side; which land or parcels of land are the whole accommodations of Mr. Terry on the west
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.