USA > Vermont > History of eastern Vermont, from its earliest settlement to the close of the eighteeth century with a biographical chapter and appendixes > Part 18
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
These causes do not appear to have advanced beyond the ori- ginal process, and it is more than probable that Grout was unwilling to continue them, when he had ascertained that it was almost impossible to secure the execution of a punishment or the levying of a fine in any of the north-eastern counties of the province when the conduct which had rendered such satis- faction necessary in the eye of the law, was sustained and com- mended by persons of weight and influence.
* MS. deposition of John Grout, dated June, 1770. Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. 636-645.
169
PROTEST AGAINST DISORDER.
.1770.]
These proceedings did not, however, command the approba- tion of the people. On the 1st of November following, a petition signed by about four hundred and forty of the inhabitants of Cumberland and Gloucester counties was presented to the King. Having in the preamble alluded to the right by which the terri- tory west of Connecticut river was a part of the province of New York, recited the order in Council of July 20th, 1764, and referred to the ordinances by which the counties had been established, the petitioners reprobated the events which had recently occurred, and the feelings to which they had given birth. " In the month of June last," thus ran the statement, " a num- ber of disorderly persons seated in the township of Windsor, in the county of Cumberland, assembled in a riotous manner, and by threats obstructed the proceedings of the court of Common Pleas, pretending that the magistrates and civil officers were unauthorized; that no obedience was due to them; that the jurisdiction belonged to the government of New Hampshire ; that your Majesty's royal order, aforesaid, would soon be re- scinded, and the lands thereby declared as part of your Majesty's colony of New York be decreed to appertain for the future to the province of New Hampshire." They further stated, that the rioters had eluded justice " by flight into New Hampshire," where they had united with some of the inhabitants of that pro- vince, and had already promoted "a spirit of disorder and disobe- dience" towards the jurisdiction of New York over the "Grants," by "procuring the subscriptions of many persons in both pro- vinces to a petition," the avowed purpose of which was to place the "Grants" within the limits of New Hampshire. This latter measure, they announced, was designed to free the "lawless transgressors" who had proposed it, from merited punishment; to promote the interests of those who had trafficked in New Hamp- shire titles, and to aggrandize the family of the late Governor, Benning Wentworth, "for whose benefit, reservations of land had been made in all the grants which he had seen fit to pass. In view of these considerations, the petitioners prayed his Majesty to resist any attempt which might be made to change the juris- . diction, and to grant them such relief as in his " great wisdom" should seem meet .*
In opposition to these sentiments, another petition, probably that referred to in the document above noticed, was circu-
* Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. 663-665.
170
HISTORY OF EASTERN VERMONT.
[1770.
lated on the " Grants " and in New Hampshire, and was largely signed. Its subscribers, with their "helpless wives and chil- dren," dependent upon his Majesty's "lenient and paternal interposition," for relief " from immediate poverty, distress, and ruin," prayed for succor and protection. The account which they gave of their condition was indeed lamentable, but was scarcely reliable. They stated that their situation as subjects of New York had been, was, and ever must be, " highly detri- mental and disagreeable to them both in their property and good government ;" that since the order of July 20th, 1764, their possessions had been " unexceptionably granted to other people under the great seal of New York;" that writs of eject- ment had been brought against them, "their property wrested from them, their persons imprisoned, and their whole substance wasted in fruitless lawsuits, merely to the enrichment of a few men " in the province of New York, who were assiduous in using their "great influence " to rob them of their "hard, honestly earned " acquisitions. Such were the terms in which the adherents of the jurisdiction of New Hampshire sought relief from the King .*
The petition signed by the citizens of Cumberland and Glou- cester counties, was followed, on the 3d of December, by another, from the " inhabitants of certain lands on the west side of Connecticut river, in the province of New York," praying for the confirmation by New York of certain New Hampshire grants. The Council of New York were not indifferent to the measure proposed in this last document, and means were readily taken to ensure a compliance with the requests which it con- tained. At the expiration of a little more than a year and a half, from the time when this petition was presented, confirma- tion patents for fifteen towns, situated west of the Connecticut and east of the Green Mountains, had been granted by New York, and instructions advising the confirmation of the charters of thirty-three other towns had been presented to his Majesty for approval. In almost every instance in which confirmation charters were issued, special favor was shown to those who had been occupants under New Hampshire titles.
To this general rule the proceedings which were had in the case of Hinsdale and Guilford formed an exception. As has been before stated, the township of Hinsdale was at a very early
* Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. 672-675.
171
HINSDALE AND GUILFORD.
1770.]
period granted by charter from Massachusetts. The tradition is, that the first white proprietors purchased the Indian right, thus rendering their title doubly strong. When, in the year 1739, the township was adjudged to be within the limits of New Hampshire, the old proprietors obtained from that province a ratification of their chartered rights. By the order in Council of July 20th, 1764, Hinsdale, with all the other townships west of the Connecticut, fell within the jurisdiction of New York. Owing either to "an unwillingness to pay the quit rent," or to a neglect of their own interests in some other particular, the proprietors of Hinsdale failed to apply for a confirmation char- ter. Meantime a certain Col. Howard, having asked for a grant of land, obtained a royal order for ten thousand acres, with per- mission to locate the tract in certain situations. Agreeable to the privilege given him in the mandamus, he made choice of about one half of the township of Hinsdale, and being an inti- mate friend of Governor Tryon, his selection was approved of and confirmed. As soon as this act became known, "it was reprobated by the whole country." So great was the clamor which ensued, that, in order to restore the township to its former proprietors, Governor Tryon offered Howard £600 "out of his own pocket," for a release of his claim. With this pro- posal, Howard " ungenerously refused " to comply. Notwith- standing the injustice with which they had been treated, the people of Hinsdale, instead of blaming the inhabitants of New York, regarded them as friends, and still remained firmly attached to that province .*
Not unlike this was the case of Guilford. The first proprie- tors had, on the 2d of April, 1754, obtained a grant of that township from the government of New Hampshire. In the year 1765, soon after the settlement of the boundary line between New Hampshire and New York, application was made to Lieut .- Governor Colden for a regrant of the township. This he promised to give as soon as the petitions for lands in the new territory should come under consideration. Another petition on the same topic was presented to Governor Moore, in the year 1766, but, like the former, was "either neglected or mislaid." A third representation made in the year 1767, experienced a similar fate. The subject was now allowed to rest, the proprietors hoping that they should, in the end, receive
* Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. 668-671, 785, 786, 812, 832, 839, Allen's Narrative of the Controversy, 1774. MS. Duane's Plea, in Lib. N. Y. Hist. Soc.
172
HISTORY OF EASTERN VERMONT.
[1771, 1772.
what was due them. Meantime a patent comprehending twelve thousand acres of the township, was issued to Col. Howard. By this grant a number of the inhabitants were deprived of all their property. Redress was now earnestly sought in a memo- rial to the Governor of New York, dated May 11th, 1772. A charter for the land in Guilford without the bounds of Howard's tract, and a grant in some other locality as a compensation for the loss occasioned by the mal-appropriation of that tract, were the means which were proposed to restore confidence and create satisfaction. As it was with Hinsdale, so was it with Guilford. The inhabitants of both towns were unable to obtain reparation for their losses, until by the war of the revolution the possessions of royalists became the property of rebels .*
Owing to the enmity which separated the supporters of the jurisdiction of New York from the favorers of the juris- diction of New Hampshire, events often occurred which not only served to show the extent to which this feeling was car- ried, but actually endangered the existence of society. Espe- cially in the execution of law did New York magistrates meet with a firm opposition from New Hampshire adherents, and not unfrequently from the inhabitants of the latter province. At the June term of the Inferior court of Common Pleas, in the year 1771, one Jonas Moore of Putney, recovered judgment against Leonard Spaulding of the same place, to the amount of forty pounds, including costs. A fieri facias having issued to satisfy the judgment, the sheriff by his deputy seized some of Spaulding's effects, and placed them in the charge of Moore, who was instructed to keep them at his house until the day appointed by the sheriff for their sale. Meantime, on the 27th of January, 1772, a party of persons, numbering seventy or eighty, crossed over the Connecticut from New Hampshire, and going in the evening to the house where the goods were deposited, broke open the door, seized upon and carried them away, and at the same time insulted Moore's family "in various ways." They also threatened to go to Chester, pull down the jail, and deliver some of the prisoners there confined. On reflection, however, they concluded to defer the execution of these lawless designs. Efforts were immediately made by the officers of the court in Cumberland county, to find out the ringleaders in this disturbance. On account of the state of
* Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. 782-785.
173
DISTURBANCE AT PUTNEY.
1772.]
public feeling, Judge Lord did not deem it practicable to carry on his inquiries before a jury, and consequently endeavored to obtain information by means of depositions. Ere the examin- ation had closed, and before warrants had been issued, five of the principal rioters confessed their guilt, and delivered themselves up as prisoners to the sheriff. With the assistance of Thomas Chandler Jr., and William Willard, two of his Majesty's justices of the peace, Judge Lord now began a jury inquiry. On the part of the rioters, the signs of repentance became more evident as the examination proceeded, and, before it was concluded, they had satisfied the judgment on which the fieri facias issued, and had made ample satisfaction to all persons who had been injured by them. Under these circumstances, further enforce- ment of the law was judged unnecessary. Although the per- sons engaged in this riot were mainly from New Hampshire, yet no "gentlemen, magistrates, or officers were encouragers, abettors, or assistants," in carrying out its illegal proceedings. As an evidence of their good will, Messrs. Bellows and Olcott, two of his Majesty's justices in the county of Cheshire, in New Hampshire, assisted Judge Lord in enforcing the laws, and having issued their warrants, apprehended about thirty of the rioters who resided within their jurisdiction, and bound them over to appear at the next session of the court, "to answer for their unlawful assembling and other misdemeanors."*
Acts like this, showed the necessity of enforcing as well as enacting laws. But, in order to enforce laws, it was all import- ant that proper means of punishment should be provided. As a "terror to evil doers," a strong and commodious jail was indispensable. Of such an edifice the county could not, as yet, boast. When in 1768, a new charter was granted to Cumber- land county, permission had been given to the inhabitants to erect at their own charge a court-house and jail. Chester was named as the location for these buildings, and being nearest to the centre of the county, was also declared to be "most con- venient for that purpose." Although there were objections to this place as the county town, both on account of its distance from Connecticut river, and its backwardness as compared with other settlements, yet these objections were for the time effec- tually silenced by the assurances of Thomas Chandler, the first judge, that he would "at his own expense build a good and
* Doc. Hist. N. Y., iv. 757-761, 765, 766, 770, 771.
174
HISTORY OF EASTERN VERMONT.
[1770.
sufficient court-house or jail," at Chester. How well these promises were observed, will appear by the annexed extract from an old chancery document. The time to which the de- scription applies, is the latter part of the year 1770. That which " then was called a jail," so runs the musty law paper, "was a place made in the corner of a dwelling-house or hut, the walls of which house were made of small hackmatack poles, locked together at the corners by cutting notches into the poles, and laying them notch into notch, so as to bring the poles as near together as conveniently might be. The cracks or vacan- cies between pole and pole were filled with tow, moss, or clay. The chamber floor [was] laid with single boards, [which were] not nailed, but lay loose. Such was the house, a corner of which then had the name of a jail, which jail corner may be justly described as followeth, viz., small palisades or poles of the diameter of about six inches each, [were] set up, one end of them on the lower floor, and the other end reaching one of the joists on which rested the upper floor. These poles resting against the joist, hindered them from falling inwards to the jail part, and another pole at some inches distant, [was] pegged up with wood pegs, which pole was fixed about parallel with the joist, and prevented the palisades from falling outward from the jail apartment; and, as many of the palisades were not fastened at the top or bottom, nor the chamber floor nailed, it was always in the power of any man who might be put into the jail apartment to push away the loose upper floor boards, and move away the palisades, and be at liberty.
"Such was what was then called a jail, in which no man had ever been attempted to be confined."
In the summer of the same year, the inhabitants of Chester commenced the erection of another jail. The lower and cham- ber floors, also the sides and ends, were built with hemlock logs, twenty inches in diameter, and at the corners the timbers were locked together in the manner of log houses. In order to complete the roof, a supply of nails was necessary. As these were not to be obtained, on account of the enforcement of the non-importation agreement, the new jail was left in an unfinished state. It was, however, the intention of Judge Chan- dler to render it as strong " as any jail in any county in the pro- vince." Meantime the old jail, which had been built by Chandler, and which, according to his account, had been accepted by the court and the sheriff as a "sufficient " building,
175
A " SUFFICIENT " JAIL.
1770.]
and had "held prisoners for more than four months at a time, who never left jail, till delivered by due course of law," was refitted .* On the sides, " where it was most slender," it was strengthened, and at right angles with the logs which formed the main body of the house, other logs were placed and pinned, thus rendering the building doubly secure. These extra repairs being completed, escape from this toll-booth was deemed by Chandler scarcely possible.
In addition to the jail, Chandler, at his own expense, built a court-house in Chester, during the year 1771. According to
* In a petition presented to Governor Tryon by a number of the inhabitants of Cumberland county, dated February 15th, 1772, it is stated that " sundry con- siderable sums " had already been subscribed "towards building a Court House and Jail " in Chester. The nature of the aid proffered may be deduced from a perusal of the annexed obligation, which is a copy from the original MS.
" June 16th, 1770.
" To Encourage the Finishing the Goal now began in Chester, we the subscribers will pay to such person or persons, as Thomas Chandler, Thos. Chandler Jr., Esqrs., and Mr. John Grout shall Employ to Labour or Provide Materials; the sums against our Names written. Witness our hands.
Joseph Woods, one bushel of Corn.
Willard Dean Two bushels of Wheat Delivered at Rockingham at the last Day of August."
In a letter to Governor Dunmore, under date of April 10th, 1771, Judge Chan- dler was at special pains to refute several calumnious stories which had been told concerning him in a petition lately circulated. The account of the assistance he had received in building the jail, received its share of denial. " As to the Sub- scription mentioned in the Petition," said he, " I can say there has not been more than Twenty pounds subscribed by any of the Petitioners, be they who they will, if half so much, and not one of them has paid so much as one farthing."
The declaration in the text, that the jail " had been accepted by the court and the sheriff," was averred in the letters of Judge Chandler, but was contradicted in the petition of February 15th, 1772, before referred to. Among the signers of this petition appeared the name of Samuel Wells, who on the bench was associated with Chandler. Speaking of the court-house and jail, the petitioners said, no build- ings " have been erected which deserve that name, or which are any way sufficient for holding the Courts, or for the reception or safe Custody of Prisoners, for which reasons the magistrates are not in a capacity of maintaining peace and good Order."
The strength of this noted little jail probably depended more upon the will of its occupants than the excellence of its construction. When Daniel Whipple was sheriff, in the year 1770, an order was issued for the imprisonment of one Atherton Chaffee. Being in conversation with John Grout, Chaffee told him " that he knew it was out of Whipple's power to confine him against his will, but that Whipple had always used him with great tenderness, and that he should not be hurt; for, says Chaffee, I will tarry in the jail be it never so slender-rather than Whipple should be hurt." It was probably of men like Chaffee that Chan- dler spoke, when he said that the jail had "held Prisoners for more than four months at a time."
176
HISTORY OF EASTERN VERMONT.
[1771.
his own description, this structure was " thirty feet long, sixteen feet wide, and eleven feet post," and was so planned as to be " convenient " when finished. It was provided with a " suffi- cient lobby or room fit for a jury, with a fire place in it," and was covered with some kind of roofing. This building he leased to the county for the term of ten years, and as much longer as they might choose to use it. In it were to be held the terms of the Inferior court of Common Pleas, and of the court of General Sessions. There also was to be transacted all such other business as related to the general welfare of the county. But if the people had been displeased with Chandler's efforts at jail building, they were incensed at his failure in court-house construction. Before the commencement of this last failure they had endeavored to effect the removal of the shire town from Chester, and had even then brought the subject to the attention of the highest authority in the province. In their petition, pre- sented to Governor Dunmore on the 11th of March, 1771, they commenced by setting forth the "peculiar grievance " under which they labored in being unrepresented in the General Assembly of the province. Turning then to the subject which at that time more particularly engaged their notice, they declared that previous to the establishment of the shire town of the county at Chester, Thomas Chandler had promised to erect a court-house and jail in that town at his own expense ; that, on account of this promise, some had been induced "to give no opposition " to the selection of that place ; that, notwithstanding this promise, and the subscription of "considerable sums of money " by themselves and others, to defray a portion of the charge of erecting the county buildings, none had been erected; that there was not " any real probability that any would be built ;" that it was " extremely inconvenient " for the people to be obliged to attend the courts at Chester, since more than three fourths of them resided in the river towns ; that the roads lead- ing thither were bad, the inhabitants of the town few in number, and the accommodations poor. For these reasons they were of opinion that it would be more advantageous to the county, if the courts were removed from Chester to two of the river towns, " at least for a dozen or fourteen years," by which time the back towns would be better settled. They also proposed that four sessions of the courts should be held annually, as in Albany county. This petition having been read before the Governor and Council, the petitioners were ordered to serve a copy of it
177
CHANDLER'S REPLY.
1771.]
on Thomas Chandler, and the first Tuesday of the following May was fixed upon as the time when the parties on both sides would be heard .*
In compliance with this order, a copy of the petition was left with Chandler on the 7th of April. His reply, addressed to Governor Dunmore, was transmitted to New York on the 10th. In this he asserted that the county was established without his " knowledge or application." He acknowledged, however, that when he heard that such an establishment would probably be made, he, in company with his son, Thomas, rode to New York, but he stated further that, on his arrival there, he found that the county had been erected and the civil officers appointed. During his visit nothing was said about a court-house or jail. To the declaration that no county buildings had been erected, he gave a flat denial, and in support of this denial gave a partial description of "a good and sufficient jail" which he had constructed at Chester, and of another which had been com- menced by the inhabitants of the town.t Not " one farthing," he said, had ever been given towards defraying these or kindred expenses by any of the petitioners, and their announcement relative to subscriptions was, he stated, "so notoriously false," that it almost made him blush for their character. To the charges relative to the inconveniences attending the situation, condition, and accommodations of Chester, he answered that although the majority of the inhabitants of the county were residents in the river towns, yet the roads leading into Chester from Brattleborough on the south, and from Hertford and Windsor on the north, were "vastly better" than those which connected Brattleborough with the last two towns. From this he argued, that in a general view it was easier for the people to go to Chester than to Brattleborough or the more northern towns. He stated further, that it was probable that the inhabit- ants of each town would prefer to have the courts held in the place where they resided ; that as for his part, he should choose to have the shire town located near the centre of the county, "for the good of the publick ;" that there was but little choice between Andover and Chester; that the selection of Andover would "promote the settlement of the back townships, vastly more" than the selection of one of the river towns; that the
* Council Minutes, in office Sec. State N. Y., 1765-1783, xxvi. 214, 215.
+ See ante, pp. 174, 175.
12
178
HISTORY OF EASTERN VERMONT.
[1771.
removal of the courts from the more inland portions of the county would, in fact, break up the back settlements, and cause those persons who were now intending to remove to Kent, An- dover, Bromley, Cavendish, and Thomlinson, to settle in other places, whereas, to continue the shire town at Chester, or in that vicinity, would in a year's time add a hundred families to the population of the adjoining towns; that the situation of the river towns was a sufficient motive to lead people to inhabit them, while the principal inducement to settle in the interior towns was their nearness to the centre of the county-the situation selected in the charter for the location of the shire 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.