USA > Massachusetts > Hampshire County > Ware > History of Ware, Massachusetts > Part 3
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
26
HISTORY OF WARE
waste or Destruction on the premises during the sd Term and at the Expiration thereof Shall Deliver quiet and peace- able possession thereof to ye Heirs of the said John Read or their Assigns with all the buildings Fences and Improve- ments which shall be found Convenient and be used there in good Repair, And Furthermore he the said Joseph Scott his Executors administrs & assigns Shall at all times during the said Term maintain & preserve good & sufficient bounds & Marks round the said two Hundred acres and Especially on that Side where it bounds on the South line of the said Ten thousand acres and the fence he shall have Occasion to make near that line Shall be carefully laid & Erected in the line for the greater Security & preservation of the Just limits & bounds of the said Read's land, and leave the same fence Especially in good repair at the End of this Term, And further that the said Joseph Scott his Execurs adminrs and assigns and Every of them doing and paying as is before Expressed Shall quietly & peaceably have hold use Occupy & possess the two Hundred acres aforesd with the appurtenances and Priviledges & liberties aforementioned for and during the said Term of Seventy two Years as fully as I myself might or Could by virtue of the lease afores d with- out any lett or Molestation from me the said Joseph Brooks my Heirs Execurs administrs or assigns or any other person claiming from by or under me or them or any of them and further in case the said Joseph Scott his Executrs Admin- istrs or assigns shall fail of doing & performing & paying as is before Expressed it shall & may be lawfull for him the said Joseph Brooks his Heirs, Executrs administrs or assigns to Re Enter into the premises and to use Occupy & Receive the profits of the Same. And it is further agreed between the said Joseph Brooks & Joseph Scott that whereas the said Joseph Brooks hath lately Erected and Set upon the said two Hundred acres of Land a Dwelling House about fifteen rods Northerly of the House In which Joseph Wright now liveth that the said Joseph Scott Shall have the said House Intire to himself without being accountable therefor save only the said Brooks may hold and Improve the same till the Tenth Day of May next and no longer. In Witness whereof the parties to these presents have Interchangeably set their hands & seals the Day and Year first mentioned. In presence of
Jacob White : David Bliss.
Joseph Brooks & Seal.
Weit 12:30 South 1382RG
Nevins Jaren
:
10899 acres 127 Row of Land
Theiris Contain, in thus Plan Confitting of Black Lines
North 1:30 m Caft-1328
This Man is ro trac Want Low Down by a jeale of 200 Row to the Arch Surveyed Sept 1:7 6g by owner ofout Going Day Loveyou
Butge
East 12°=30 mt North 1438 Rot
Caft , North 1634ROZ
1. -
1
-
1274
THE MANOUR (reduced) From a survey made in 1769
27
THE MANOUR OF PEACE
It is fair to infer that the terms of the lease to Henry Dwight embodied in this indenture do not differ materially from the terms of other leases given by the proprietor, ex- cept in the amount of the annual rental. Fifty shillings a year for 200 acres of land certainly was not excessive. In all probability the earliest lessees were able to make the best terms, the land increasing in value as more farms were improved. There is evidence from certain old court cases that other leases, the dates of which unfortunately cannot be determined exactly, were made at a much higher rate. For example, of the Nivins farm in 1763 we find that "The said John Read ... within 30 years last past was seized of the said 78 acres . . . in his own right, ... taking the profits thereof to the value of 40 shillings by the year." About this same rate is recorded for the Moulton farm.
From this evidence, and from the very favorable situa- tion of the Dwight farm at the Elbow of the river, which would lead to its being taken up at the first, and from the comparatively high valuation of the farm over and above the annual rental, showing the rental to be below its true value, I think we may conclude that the year 1726 is not far from the actual date of settlement of the Manour.
It would appear that for some years boundary lines were rather vague. But as settlers came into the neigh- borhood, and as Mr. Read's lessees increased in numbers, it became necessary to mark the boundary lines clearly. This, in 1734, Mr. Read caused to be done, as may be seen by the following record in the Proprietors' Book of the Elbows:
Whereas I Ebenezer Pumroy of North Hampton within ye County of Hampshire Esqr Being appointed by John Read of Boston within the County of Suffolk Esqr To Per- ambulate & Run ye Lines Between the said John Read's ten thousand acres of Land Called ye Equivelent Land Lying upon ye East Side of Swift River Between Hadley and Brookfield: And a Tract of Land called the Elbow Tract Belonging unto ye Proprietors of Said Tract as per act of the Gen11 Assembly may appear, Which Elbow Tract of Land Lyeth Partly Southerly and partly Easterly of Sd Read's Ten Thousand Acres, And I, ye sd Pumroy giving more than Six Days warning Sent & Gave Notice to ye
28
HISTORY OF WARE
Proprietors of the Said Elbow Tract to meet me at ye Home of Mr. Aaron Lyman near unto said Place, Upon Munday Aprill 29th 1734. And accordingly I went to the Place appointed and the Same Day there mett me Messrs Steward Southgate, Andrew Mackee and Samuell Doolitel a comitee appointed by ye Proprietors of the Said Elbow Tract, To Perambulate and Run ye Bounds Between ye Said Tract of Land and ye Said John Read Land. And we could find no Eastern Bounds that was made when ye Land was originally Laid out, But only at ye South East Corner of the Said Reads Land which was a Red oak tree marked and a Heap of Stones by it Standing upon ye Side of a Hill Close by a Small Run of water and about Eighteen Rods Southerly of Ware River, Which Tree is now fallen Down but very Evident to be ye Same Tree, and Place, in ye originall Boundarie and we added to ye afforsd Heap of Stones, and from Said Tree we Run North by the Needle So farr as we Supposed the Elbow Tract Extended North, in which Line we Erected Severall Heaps of Stones & marked many Trees in sd Line with the mark in ye margin; And we Ended that Line in a Narrow Swampy Place, Partly between two Popple Swamps and there we marked a Small popple Standle or Tree Setting upon it as follows vizt 1734-Read=E. P .: And then we Returned Back to ye afforsd Heap of Stones being the sd South East Corner of the sd John Reads Land, and then run West and by South, by ye Needle and in that Line we Erected Severall Heaps of Stones and marked Severall Trees in sd Line wth ye Mark in ye margin afforsd and we extended that Line to Swift River, which came to sd River a little above a Great Bow in ye River, about two Rods northerly of a cart Path that Crosses Said River, and there we Laid a Heap of Stones; which Heap is ye South West corner of sd John Read's ten Thousand acres of Land, Being about a mile and a Half Below Swift River Bridge. Upon which Perambulation we have made Duplicates of the Same, and Sett to our hands this thirtieth Day of Aprill in ye Seventh Year of the Reign of George ye Second by ye Grace of God of Great Brittain France & Ireland King Defender of the Faith, &c. Anno Domini 1734.
Comtee
Ebenez Pumroy Samuell Doolitel Andrew Mackee Steward Southgate
29
THE MANOUR OF PEACE
Nor was the Manour so undesirable a territory for set- tlement as from some quarters we have been led to believe. Much has been written of the poverty of the soil due to annual burnings. The extent and frequency of those burn- ings has been greatly exaggerated. The hills were well wooded, and furnished an abundance both of timber and of fuel. The statement copied by writer after writer that a stray cow or sheep could be discerned from the top of Coy's Hill within a radius of many miles is so manifestly absurd that one wonders at its constant repetition; unless, indeed, the domestic animals were "giants in those days."
Without doubt the early inhabitants were poor, but never as poor as the second Brookfield community that settled after the massacre.
The advantages of the Manour were not inconsiderable. In the first place the Bay Road crossed it from east to west, - an important and well-travelled highway long before 1725. The Flat Brook, Beaver Brook and Swift River valleys made it easy to travel north and south. There was a highway through the Beaver Brook Valley at a very early date, connecting Palmer and Greenwich, and though there was no highway through the Flat Brook Valley until after 1795, yet there was a passable road, for as early as 1761 the Magoons, praying the General Court that they might be annexed to Ware River Parish, describe the road from their farm to the meeting-house as "naturally good."
A second advantage was in the brooks themselves and the water-power they supplied. It was far easier to build a dam on a brook sufficient for the needs of a saw-mill or a grist-mill than to harness the waters of a considerable river. Beaver Brook, Flat Brook and Muddy Brook, just to the east of the Manour, furnished no less than a dozen small but advantageous mill-sites. Probably the earliest dam was built on Beaver Brook, and the Mill Pond that figures largely in ancient documents, and was evidently the import- ant centre of the whole Manour, occupied the territory of the late Beaver Lake. The dam was some rods farther north than the Miner and Yale dam and the pond smaller than the one so lately drained. The pond was in use in 1755, but the mill appears to have been destroyed not long after, for
30
HISTORY OF WARE
when the County Road was built in 1763 it was described as "crossing Beaver Brook near where a saw-mill formerly stood." 1
Besides these advantages, such as they were, there was one which we of today are liable to lose sight of; the advan- tage of having a wealthy and influential patron near to the centre of colonial authority. John Read - and his heirs car- ried on the same traditions - was always ready to promote the interests of his tenants. He was continually consulted, and before important action was taken in public matters it was customary to appoint a committee "to see what Mr. Read would do."
Few traditions of the proprietor have survived. The latest that the writer has found is in Mr. Hyde's address, where he says that the oldest son of one John Tisdale "was named John Read after the lord of the Manour." The names of a few of the original lessees have been discovered, culled from ancient deeds and other papers in which they are mentioned. Besides Henry Dwight there was Ebenezer Davis who leased a farm on the Swift River, which he purchased in 1761, and John Harwood, who purchased in the same year. A tract originally leased to Isaac Magoon was bought by his grand- son in 1771. John Pulsifer bought in 1761 land which he had previously held under lease. Others less surely identified were John Davis, David Read, Benjamin Bartlett, Enos Allen, Robert Moulton, the Widow Bush, Edmond Taylor, Joseph Patterson, Thomas Crowfoot and Jonathan Rogers.
John Read died in Boston in 1749 at the age of sixty-nine years, and was buried in the crypt of King's Chapel of which he had been vestryman.
What Mr. Read's wishes and intentions may have been in regard to the Manour Estate which he kept intact during his lifetime can never be known. He died intestate, and his vast estates in Connecticut, in Massachusetts and in New Hampshire were divided by mutual agreement among the heirs. A division at first agreed upon but afterwards re- voked is recorded in the Probate Records of Fairfield, Con- necticut. The second agreement was recorded in the Reg- istry of Hampshire County, - a huge document covering
1 Records, Court of Sessions, Northampton.
31
THE MANOUR OF PEACE
more than twelve folio pages closely written. That docu- ment enables us to trace the earliest division of the Manour Lands, and by its aid we can fill in with the names of early settlers a great portion of the space that has appeared here- tofore as a hopeless blank. Untiring search has been made for a complete plan of the Manour, such as certainly existed, for references are constantly made to it in the old papers, but none has come to light. There was found, however, filed among the Probate Records in Boston, a detailed plan of Abigail Miller's Division, and this has materially as- sisted in the identification of certain positions. The agree- ment among the heirs is dated June 20, 1755. After dis- posing of the Connecticut estates the agreement proceeds thus:
And now that tract of Equivalent lands lying betwixt Swift River and Ware River in Ware River Precinct in the county of Hampshire, containing 11320 acres or there- abouts, bounded Southerly and partly Easterly on Palmer precinct, Easterly partly on Palmer, Northerly partly on Hardwick and partly on Greenwich, and Westerly on said Swift River, so often called the Manour of Peace.
John Read, Jr., receives 1513 acres; Ruth Hunn, 970 acres; Wm. Read, 980 acres; Deborah, wife of Henry Paget, 2385 acres; Abigail Miller, 2271 acres; and Mary, wife of Charles Morris, 2501 acres.
But one other matter relating to the Manour as a whole remains to be told in this connection. It was noted in the Division that the Manour Lands amounted to 11,320 acres instead of the traditional 10,000. An attempt was made in 1755 by Robert Nevins or Nivins of Hartford, in a petition to the General Court of Massachusetts, to get the bound- ary lines of the tract relocated, on the ground that the original survey
exceeds, as your petitioner supposes the Quantity designed, greatly so that the province is wronged thereby.
Nivins was not so disinterested as the words would imply. It seems that he had purchased a tract of land of the Pyn- chon heirs, it being part of a grant of 500 acres made to
32
HISTORY OF WARE
the Hon. John Pynchon as early as 1666, but not sur- veyed until 1726. This tract lay to the north of the 10,000 acres of Equivalent Lands. The Pynchon heirs had en- croached on the Read Tract unwittingly, and had given warranty deeds to Nivins, Moulton, and possibly others, of lands to which they had themselves no title. These men began to improve their farms and put up buildings. Moul- ton's house was built on Read's land, his chimney figuring in a certain dividing line of the Manour. The simplest and least expensive method of disentangling the matter was to ask the General Court to appoint a commission to relocate the northern line of the tract and confirm the titles of Nivins, Moulton and others. The General Court on receiv- ing the petition appointed a committee to "take this matter under due consideration and report." The Committee looked over the ground, and reported to the General Court, which body in 1759 wisely declined to enter upon any read- justment of lines. Soon after this decision of the General Court the Read heirs brought suits against Nivins and Moulton. The former was made the test case, and was appealed by Nivins to the Supreme Court, after judgment in the lower court had been given against him. A second survey of the tract was ordered by the court which, though a little more definite than the first survey, was practically identical with it. The case was before the courts six years. In 1769 the verdict of the lower court was confirmed, the jury finding for the plaintiffs (the Read heirs) "possession of the land and premises demanded, and cost of court."
III
SETTLING ON THE LAND
THE methods by which the early settlers gained their titles to the land need a few words of explanation.
It was generally assumed that the Indians owned the land, and that their rights ought to be respected. So it was that in all the Colonies we constantly read of the white set- tlers purchasing the land of the aborigines. But to purchase land of the Indians did not, at least in the Colony of Massa- chusetts, give a man a legal title. The governmental theory was that all the land belonged to the Colony, and the Gen- eral Court alone could dispose of it. So if a man desired land, he must go to the General Court for a clear title. At the same time the Court recognized a quasi-ownership by the Indians, and expected the grantee to satisfy any Indian claimants, either before or after the legal grant was made. A deed of sale from the Indians was evidence of ownership as far as it went, but that was not very far. The Indians did not understand the purport of the documents to which they fixed their marks, the boundaries of which tracts were ex- tremely indefinite. In many instances, too, the price paid by the white men was absurdly inadequate, and they were frequently buying wholly as a speculation. Thus we see that the famous Indian Deed that was signed by John Magus, Lawrence Nasowanna, James, Simon and Anogemag, transferring a great tract to Joshua Lamb and Company, though drawn in 1686, was not even presented for registra- tion until 1723, when all the original grantees were dead except one.1 The price purported to have been paid was only £20. That the purchasers of Indian lands did not take their transactions seriously in all cases, is shown by a whimsical
1 This Indian Deed has been so often quoted that the text is not given here. Nor does it in fact include any considerable portion of Ware territory, the Nename- sick or Ware River forming its western boundary. Lamb and Company never had any rights within our town borders.
34
HISTORY OF WARE
deed drawn by John Read while living in the Connecticut Colony :
Know all men by these crooked Scrawls and Seals, yt we Chickens, alias Sam Mohawk, and Naseco, do solemnly declare that we are owners of yt tract of land called Lone- town etc.
Witness our crooked marks and borrowed seals.1
Furthermore the Indians did not mean to give away their own fishing and hunting rights, the reservation of such rights being sometimes specified, and generally under- stood even when not specified.
As to the claims of squatters, the Court was not disposed to give them any countenance whatever. It is readily seen that once squatters were scattered over the country-side further grants would be out of the question, for the boun- daries would be indeterminate and doubtful, and in many instances where squatters had taken up and improved lands and built homes upon them, the Court confirmed their titles, provided there was no encroachment on any legally and regularly granted premises.
Land grabbers and speculators were extremely common, men who through their political influence had the oppor- tunity to get hold of huge undefined tracts. Such were the Pynchons of Springfield; such was John Read, whose hold- ings were enormous. Some tracts were developed and settled through the influence of the owner, others disposed of.
One example of many, showing the magnitude of these transactions, is the sale by John Read in 1737 of a great tract lying to the south of the Deerfield River. For £1020 he deeds to John Checkly, Gentleman, and Gershom Keyes, Merchant, both of Boston, 23,040 acres, "by me purchased of the Selectmen of the Town of Boston by there deed dated the 14th of July last, . .. being Township No. 1, granted and laid out to the town of Boston."
It was impossible for Mr. Read's heirs to locate all his holdings, some of which were situated in the wilds of New Hampshire.
Legislative grants were frequently made to private indi-
1 "History of Redding."
35
SETTLING ON THE LAND
viduals as a reward for some service to the Colony, as fight- ing the Indians or bearing dispatches. Frequently also to men who had no claim except that they were in needy cir- cumstances. In the earliest days the grants were made with- out conditions, and frequently changed hands, for a financial consideration, several times before they were actually set- tled. Such was the case with the Hollingsworth Tract. In later times the grant was made with the proviso that the lands be improved and families settled upon them within a stated period, otherwise the title to be forfeited.
There was no need of observing the formality of purchas- ing land from the Indians so far as Ware territory was con- cerned, for there were no permanent Indian settlements within our borders, and any claims of the aborigines were extremely vague and indefinite.
THE CAPT. JOHN SHELDON GRANT
The earliest map or plan of any portion of our territory which I have found, with the exception of the Read Manour survey of 1716, is the survey of a grant to John Sheldon dated 1719. Sheldon was one of the sufferers from the In- dian assault on Deerfield, Feb. 29, 1704, when his wife, a baby, his brother-in-law and his daughter's husband were slain, and four of his children, together with other relatives and townsmen, more than a hundred in all, were carried as prisoners to Canada. Sheldon was employed by the Pro- vincial Government to trace the captives, and made three journeys to Canada, securing the redemption of fifty-six of those unfortunate persons. In 1707 he recites his hardships and misfortunes to the General Court, and asks for a tract of 500 acres "in or near the County of West Hampshire." The request was granted as follows: -
Massachusetts,
Anno Regni
Annae Reginae Sexto. 1127711
At a session of the Great and General Court or Assembly held at Boston upon Wednesday the 29th of October 1707. In Council
36
HISTORY OF WARE
The following Resolve passed in the House of Representa- tives, upon the petition of John Sheldon, several times sent on messages to Canada, Read and Concurred.
vizt.
Resolved that three hundred acres of land be granted to the Petitioner (not to contain above forty acres of meadow) In consideration of his good service mentioned in the Pe- tition.
A plat thereof to be laid before this Court for confirmation. Consented to
J. Dudley
Mr. Tim Dwight
These ... orders: to lay out by the direction of your Kins- man Henry Dwight: three hundred acres of upland and meadow: of the Countrey land: and make A Returne: to me or your Kinsman of your proceedings: before the next Electtion at Boston:
Yours
John Sheldon
May 4th, 1719.
The land was surveyed as directed:
Platt of 300 acres of land laid out to Capt. Jnº Sheldon west of Potaquatuck Hill on Ware River, sd land not con- taining above fourty acres of bogg meddow. Protracted by a scale of 33 perch to an Inch. Surveyed by the Needle of the Instrument May 23, 1719. p .Timothy Dwight
Sur.1
The plat is interesting as it shows the course of Ware River carefully projected above and below the point where Beaver Brook flows in, thus identifying the exact locality in the southern portion of the Manour Lands. The encroach- ment upon the Manour must have been detected very soon, for when in October of the same year Sheldon sells his grant to Henry Dwight of Hatfield for £21, he gives only a quit- claim deed.2
Finding that the 300 acres he had purchased of John Sheldon had indeed been surveyed on lands already ap- propriated, "so as to interfere with the 10,000 acres of
1 Mass. Archives, Maps and Plans, No. 5, pp. 29, 30.
2 Springfield Registry, D, p. 395 ..
37
SETTLING ON THE LAND
Equivalent Lands," Dwight petitions the General Court that the grant may be laid out in some unappropriated lands. In the House of Representatives it was ordered "that the 300 acres be laid out in the unappropriated land of the province where the same may be found, and a plat returned within twelve months, to discharge and satisfy the Grant made to the said John Sheldon . . . and the former survey is hereby declared null and void." The Council concurred, and the Governor consented. Henry Dwight found a tract a little farther to the south, on the slope of Pottaquattuck Mountain, - "beginning at a pine tree So. Et from Patta- quattuck Pond,"-and so he leaves our territory so far as the grant is concerned. But evidently he had found the first location greatly to his mind, for he leased of John Read 200 acres lying at the Elbow of the river, - the best portion of the survey of 1719.
SQUATTERS
A certain number of squatters settled within the bounds of our town, filling the spaces that were not comprised in the Manour, the Hollingsworth Grant and the Marsh Tract. Some of these squatters had settled under the authority of Lamb and Company, or rather of their successors. Lamb and Company, claiming a sort of ownership in the large tract cov- ered by the Indian Deed, tried in vain to get the General Court to "Confirm unto them and those they represent and their associates the said Tract of land described in the deed." This the Court refused to do. For six years the Company strove to secure a grant, succeeding at last in 1732, when a tract was given them six miles square "northward of and adjacent to Ware River." There was absolutely no recogni- tion of any rights under the Indian Deed.
But illegal as any claim on our town lands was, the Com- pany had asserted a claim, and had been able to impose upon certain settlers, claiming a right to give title which they did not possess.
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.