^'"'^^^H

''^'i^

'"m

university of

Connecticut

libraries

BOOK 974.67.B789H c. 1

BRONSON # HISTORY OF WATERBURY

CONNECTICUT

3 T153 ODOSSflbfl b

'SV,*i9>

,vV3

THE &S

/S.53

HISTORY

OF

WATERBURY,

CONNECTICUT;

THE OEIGINAL TOWNSHIP EMBEACING PEESENT WATEETOWN AND

PLYMOUTH, AND PAETS OF OXFOED, WOLCOTT, MIDDLE-

BUEY, PEOSPECT AND NAUGATUCK.

APPENDIX

OF

BIOGRAPHY, GENEALOGY AND STATISTICS.

BY IIENKY BRONSON, M. D.

WATERBURY: PUBLISHED BY BRONSON BROTHERS.

1858.

J6nfe^

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858,

By henry BRONSON,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut.

Printed by T. J. STAFFORD,

State Street, (Stafford Building,) 2^ew na/ven.

P U B L I S H E R S' NOTICE.

TuE late financial crisis rendered it expedient to defer for a few months the issue of this volume. The publishers would regret this, had not the delay enabled them to add to the number of engravings which had been previously provided. Subscribers and others, it is hoped, will be more than satisfied. Besides the additions referred to, the work contains over one hundred pages of printed matter more than Avere anticipated when proposals were issued. In point of mechanical execu- tion, the publishers feel assured the book will occasion no disappointment, unless an agreeable one. Tliey have taken pride in it, and have not been actuated wholly by selfish motives. As a work of art, however, they do not take the chief credit to themselves. Unaided, they could have done little towards providing the numerous and expensive engravings which embellish the volume. The greater proportion of these have been furnished by the liberality of others — tliose taking a deep interest in the success of the undertaking. The author has sacrificed much time and labor, with the object of benefit- ing his native town, and presenting it with a reliable record of its past history. Of his success, it is unnecessary here to speak. It has been the aim of all interested, to make the book in substance and in form, worthy of the dead, honorable to the living, and acceptable to its immediate patrons.

BROXSON BROTHERS, Publishers. Watkrbuuy, May, 1858.

I^IIEF^CE,

It is well known that my father, the late Bennet Broxson, spent much time in the collection of facts, historical, genealogical and tradi- tionary, relating to the early history of Waterbury. He began this work as early as 1820, and prosecuted it at intervals during the re- mainder of his life. His object was simply information on a subject which had been almost wholly neglected by others. He not only searched the Waterbury records, but he examined the records of Far- mington and Hartford, and opened a correspondence with those suppos- ed to have important knowledge of the old famillies of the town. Thus he gained a large stock of information, and about 1830, wrote a brief historical account of ancient Waterbury, which he delivered to his fel- low citizens, as an evening lecture, in the old meeting house. After- wards, several prominent individuals addressed him a letter, requesting him to write, for publication, a history of the town. He neglected to do this ; but when Barber was gathering materials for the Connecticut Historical Collections, he furnished a sketch of the old town, which, with slight alterations and some abridgment, was published in that work. Two or three years before his death, he re-wrote his lecture, amplifying and correcting it, and bringing it down to the close of the Revolutionary

IV PEEFACE.

war. As left, it would liave made, perhaps, fifteen printed pages. He also added to, and perfected in a certain sense, his genealogical tables.

Two years after my father's death, with a design of preserving more effectually what had been done, I undertook myself to write a fuller his- torical sketch, using the papers which have been mentioned, and the notes and extracts from records from which these had been prepared. My labors then had no reference to publication. At this stage, the Messrs. Bronson Brothers proposed to publish a History of Waterbury, and applied to me to provide the manuscript. Knowing the labor and time which would be required, I declined. No one else, however, being willing to undertake the task, I reversed my decision, and reluctantly ' consented. I soon found, however, that in order to understand the sub- ject— to get hold of its spirit and to construe properly the facts — I must begin at the beginning and go over the entire ground anew. I have done this, and the present book is the result. Those who have been engaged in a similar undertaking need not be told the labor it has cost ; and those who have not would not comprehend me, though I should attempt to tell them.

Deeming the early events of Waterbury in most need of a historian — in most danger of being lost — I have given much time and space to them. Modern history, particularly that which may be called post- Revolutionary, has not engaged so much of my attention. After 1800, the reader will find only items and fragments, with no attempt at a complete history. What I have neglected it is to be hoped some other person, who is willing to labor in a humble way without reward, will undertake.

In what I have written, I have relied mainly on record evidence, and rejected traditional knowledge as untrustworthy. By pursuing this method, I have sometimes sacrificed popular attraction to truth or, in other words, history. It has been no part of my purpose to furnish en-

PREFACE. V

tertainment for the readers of legendary tales, though I might have done so with comparatively little labor. I have aimed to be correct in all that I have written and quoted. It cannot be, however, that I have made no mistakes. My authorities have sometimes been copies of the originals made by others, which in some cases had been re-written, possibly, more than once. Facts and dates given in letters of correspondence may have been relied on too implicitly. It is easier to criticise error in a work of this kind, than wholly to avoid it. It is common to plead " want of time " as an apology for shortcomings in this regard ; but I claim that no man has a right to make a book in haste. In my quotations from early rec- ords, I have preferred, in most cases, to give perfect transcripts of the originals, even to the matter of orthography and punctuation. My ob- ject in this has been to give the truest history, and to preserve portions of the record which might be lost. Thinking it improbable that any one would again go over the ground of my inquiries, at any rate, with equal advantages, I have endeavored to perpetuate what I could with authentic types. If the reader complains that I have introduced trivial subjects, and have spent too much time on things of little importance, I have only to say, that I have occupied myself with the matters which most interested those whose history I have written. They were men who gave their time to their own private affairs — to their individual, social, religious and material interests — and I must needs dwell upon these or be silent.

Of those who have assisted me in the preparation of this work, I must mention particularly Mr. Philo M. Trowbridge. He has given me important aid in the examination of records and in furnishing me with extracts. He has had charge of the genealogies contained in the Appen- dix, and is chiefly responsible for that portion of the work. I have furnished him my own and ray father's collections of materials ; and from these and the original records, and his own independent inquiries, he has compiled the tables. These extended genealogies were not

VI PKEFACE.

contemplated in the original plan of the work. I designed to give a somewhat particular account of the orginal proprietors of Waterbury and their children, as I have done in Chapters XI and XII ; but the continuation of the subject in the Appendix was an afterthought of the publishers and others. This will explain how it happens that the gene- alogies of particular families are to be sought for in diflferent portions of the work.

Mr. Sylvester Judd of Northampton has given me much information concerning the first settlers of Waterbury. Rev. William S. Porter of New Haven has kindly allowed me the use of his papers on the geneal- ogy of the early settlers of Farmington.

In the preparation of this volume, I have found it difficult to divest myself of the idea that I am still a resident of my native town. Find- ing this, on the whole, a pleasant delusion, I have taken no pains to dispel it. From many passages in the work, the reader would infer that Waterbury had not ceased to be my dwelling place.

I am mortified to find that there are a few errors which escaped notice till the sheets were printed. They are in part owing to my inexperience in reading proofs. The most important of them, it is hoped, have been corrected in the errata at the end.

New Haven, December, 1857.

INDEX TO ENGRAYIXGS.

View of the City of Waterbury, Opposite Title Page.

Portrait of Bennet Bronsox, Opposite Page 1

Plan of the Village of Mattatuck, " " 16

Portrait of Samdel Hopkins, D. D., " " 32

" Mark Leavenworth, " " 48

Map of the Old Township of WATERnriiv, ■ ■ 04

Portrait of J. M. L. Scovill, • " 80

" Dr. Isaac Bronsox, • " 1)6

Eli Terry, " " 11-2

Fac-similes, ■' • " 128

Portrait OF Samuel M. Hopkins, LL. I)., " " 144

William n. Scovill, • " 160

Deacon James Brown, " ' 176

Josiah Bronson, •' " 192

Dr. Ambrose Ives, " " 208

Captain Reuben Holmks, " " 224

Almon Farrell, " " 240

Deacon Aaron Bexkdict, " " 256

Alvin Bronson, " " 272

Seth Thomas, " " 288

John Buckingham, ' " S04

Green Kendrick, " " 320

Silas Bronsox, " " 352

Israel Holmes, ' " 384

Benedict AND Burnham Maxufacturixc; Co's Works, " " 432

Waterbury Brass Company's AVorks, " " 404

Scovill Manufacturing Company's Work.^, " " 496

Brown AND Brothers' Works, " " 528

Holmes, Booth and Haydens' Works, " " oCO

ADDITIONAL COREECTIONS.

The delay in the publication of this work has given the author an opportunity to add to the corrections which will be found at the end of the volume.

Page 13th, 17th line from bottom, after date, insert (May 21, 16*77.)

Page 19, 2d line from top, /or country, rcaJ county.

Page 26, 6th line from top, /or 1673, read 1672.

Page 43, 3d line from bottom, after 1686-7, erase the period and insert a comma.

Page 86th, 4th line from bottom, erase the sentence beginning with "It will bo noticed."

Page 191, 5th line from top — This John died an infant. A second John Stanley (baptized May 25, 1682,) m. Aug. 1710, Hannah, daughter of Dea. Samuel Porter, and Dec. 9, 1714, Mary AVriglit. He was made a bachelor proprietor in 1715, (see p. 120,) and died Sep. 8, 1748, having had three children.

Page 191, 24th line from top — The Thomas Stanley who m. Anne Peck was not the son of Lieut. John of Waterbury, but of Capt. John Stanley of Farmington, and died April 14, 1713. It was his widow Anne, and not he, who d. May 23, 1718. (See p. 189.)

Page 239, 13th line from bottom, /or school and, reafi school land.

Page 326, add to the list of those engaged in the old French war, the name of Moses Cook, drunmicr.

Page 421, 2d and 3d Hnes from top, /o7- Wealthy U. Upson, read Mrs. Wcalihy Hopkins Norton, (whose maiden name was Upson.)

Page 462, 20th line from top, /or 1st, Euth Frisbie, 2d, Olive Warner, read 1st, Olive Warner, 2d, Ruth Frisbie.

Page 486, last line, /or David, read Daniel.

Page 487, 15th line from top, /or Charles, read William.

Page 490, 6th line from bottom, erase Benjamin and insert Alma, m. Eli Curtis ; IV. Anna Maria ; V. Philomela ; VI. Benjamin. Other children d. in childhood.

CONTENTS,

CHAPTER I.

Discovert of the Naugatuck Valley : Preparations for a Settlement, . . 1

CHAPTER II. The Settlement begun : Town Center, 12

CHAPTER III. Delinquent Subscribers, 24

CHAPTER IV. Subscribers who finally secured their Rights, 31

CHAPTER V. The Common Fence ano Common Field, 47

• CHAPTER VI. Indian Purchases : Incorporation of the Town: Sequestered Land.s,. .. . 62

CHAPTER VII. Mills, "79

CHAPTER VIII. Roads, Bridges, &c., 93

CHAPTER IX.

Indian Wars : the Great Flood: the Great Sickness, 101

CHAPTER X. Bachelor Proprietors, 113

CHAPTER XI. Personal Notices of the first Settlers of "Waterbury, 129

/

-"^ J

Vlll CONTENTS.

PER XII. J

IS, CONTIXUED, ./.A..

CHAPTER XII. Pkksonal Notices of the first Settlers, contixued, ../..").... 167

CHAPTER XIII.

Ecclesiastical Affairs : Mr. Peck's Ministry, , .

CHAPTER XIV.

Ecclesiastical Affairs : Mr. Southmayd's Ministry 215

CHAPTER XV. h^f Schools, . . . .^^^..^^^^

\^:

y^--"^ CHAPTER X^O^^ 3

Population increases : Immigration, ^^..-r-rrT^ 243

— -^ CHAPTER XVII. The Settlement extends : new Societies, 250

CHAPTER XVIII. Mr. Leavenworth's Ministry : the third Meeting House, 283

CHAPTER XIX. Episcopacy in "Waterbury, 292

CHAPTER XX. Church and State : old French War, 315

CHAPTER XXI. Revolutionary History,

CHAPTER XXII. After the War : Miscellaneous Items, ,

APPENDIX.

I. Biography, 370

II. Genealogy, 458

III. Later Ecclesiastical Societies : Manufacturing : Statistics, 653

'^T^ZO^

J.XeUy. frintir.

HISTORY OF ¥ATERBURY.

CHAPTEE I.

DISCOVERY OF THE NAUGATUCK VALLEY : PREPARATIONS FOR A SETTLEMENT.

Moke than a ceutuiy and a quarter intervened between the discovery of America and the settlement by Europeans of any part of New England. In 1620, a small band of English Puritans, one hundred and one in number, including women and children, planted themselves at Plymouth, on the eastern shore of Massachusetts. For a long time, this feeble colony struggled for existence. At length, however, the English set- tlers became firmly established at Plymouth and the Massa- chusetts Bay. In the course of the years 163-i and 1635, sev- eral parties from Watertown, Dorchester and Newtown, (now Cambridge,) in the neighborhood of Boston, made their way through the wilderness to the banks of the Connecticut River, and established themselves at Wethersfield, "Windsor and Hartford. Mr. Hooker and his congregation of sixty persons

1

Z HISTORY OF WATEEBUEY.

came from JSTewtown and settled in Hartford. These towns, in their early infancy, in 1637, waged a successful war with the Pequot Indians, and conquered their country. Soon after the conclusion of this war, or in 1638, a small colony went from Boston, and settled at New Haven, Milford and Guilford. From 1637 to 1675, thirty-eight years, the inhabitants of Con- necticut, and indeed of all New England, enjoyed almost unin- terrupted peace. During this period of comparative quietness, the settlements in Connecticut were extended through the State, from north to south, on both banks of the Connecticut River, and from east to west in all the towns bordering on the sea-coast. In 1 61:0, the people of Hartford commenced a set- tlement at Farmington, being tlie first made in Connecticut away from navigable waters. From this time to 1673, small beginnings of settlements were made at Norwich, Derby, Wallinglbrd, Simsbury, Woodbury and Plainfield. Up to the last named date, with the above exceptions, the whole State, as now constituted, was a wilderness, in the possession of the native Indians. It is believed, however, that no Indian settlement existed, at the time of its discovery, within the limits of ancient Waterbury. The nearest wigwams were in Farmington, Derby and Woodbury, where native tribes exist- ed. The territory of Waterbury was claimed by the tribes of the two former towns. It was used as a hunting ground. It was first visited by white men in tlie pursuit of game.

It appears that as early as 1657, some of the inhabitants of Farmington had become acquainted with a portion of the Naugatuck Yalley, and obtained from some of the native claimants, belonging to the Tunxis or Farmington tribe, a deed of a tract of land which secured to themselves certain rights and privileges therein mentioned. The deed, which is copied from the Farmington record, runs as follows :

This Witnesseth that "Wee Kepaquamp and Querrimus and Mataueage have sould to William Lewis and Samuell Steele of ffarmington A psell or A trackt of Land called matetacoke that is to Say the hill from whence John Standley and John Andrews: brought the black lead and all the Land within eight: mylle: of that hill: on every side: to dig: and carry away what they will and To build on y' for y« Vse of them that Labor there: and not otherwise To improve: y® Land In witnes whereof wee; have hereunto set our: hands: and those: Indi-

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 3

ans above mentioned must free the purchasers from all Claymos: by any other Indyans:

William Lewis

Witnes John Steel Samuel Steele

febuary: y« S^^ 1657

The niarke ^-^ of Kepaquamp:

The mark ^^of Querrinius

The mark of ^ iM^ ) A Mataneajrc

Tlie abov^e deed is copied into Mr. Woodruff's sketch of the town of Litchfiehl, publislied in 1845. Mr. W. makes the fol- lowing remarks : " Precisely where the hill referred to in this deed was situated, I have been unable to discover, but from the subsequent claims of the grantees, from tradition, and from the deed itself, it would seem that it was in the southern part of Ilarwinton, and embraced that town, and also some portion of Pljaiiouth (then Mattatuck or Waterbury) and Litchfield. This purchase was made by the grantees in behalf of them- selves and a company composed of certain inhabitants of Farmington." It doubtless proved valueless for the purposes for which it was obtained, as we hear nothing further concern- ing the black lead.

Another deed, bearing date the 11th day of August, 1Y18, from Petthuzso and Toxcrunuck, successors of the grantors, conveyed to the Farmington people the whole title to the above lands. The two deeds were the ground of a claim on the part of the grantees to the lands described ; but it was truly said that the territory north of Waterbury and west of Farmington had been conveyed by the Colony in Jan., 168G, to

4: niSTOKY OF WATERBUKY.

the towns of Hartford and Windsor. Besides, there seems to have been a colonial statute in o]3eration, in 1718, and previ- ously, declaring that " no person or persons in this colony, whether inhabitants or not, shall buy, hire or receive a gift, or mortgage any parcel of Land or Lands, of any Lidian or Indi- ans for the future, except he or they do buy or receive the same for the use of the Colony, or for some plantation or vil- lage, or with the allowance of the General Court of this Col- ony," Nevertheless, the Farmington company, in 1718, re- ceived from the towns of Hartford and Windsor a grant of one sixth of the township of Litchfield, in consideration of their making over to said towns their interest in the disputed terri- tory.

In process of time, certain hunters or explorers from Farm- ington, in their excursions into the western forests, discovered the flats or interval on the Naugatuck River, where the city of Waterbury now stands. They told their friends what they had seen. So favorable was their report, and such the disposi- tion of the early settlers to push out further into the forest, that tliey began at once to think of emigration. But at that period, according to the laws of the Colony, no person could acquire a title to Indian lands, or make a settlement upon them without the permission of the General Court. Having there- fore sent out from among themselves a committee to view the place for a new plantation, and obtained from them a favorable report, the Farmington people petitioned tlie " honered gen- eral court " for liberty to make a settlement. This was in the fall of 1673. The following is the petition referred to, preced- ed by the report of the committee spoken of : —

We whos names are here under writen partly for our own satisfaction and for the satisfaction of some others haue bene too uieu matitacoocke in refarans to a plantation doo Judge it capable of the same, thomas newell Sean"" John warner Sean"" Richard Scmar Octtober: the 6: 1G73

Octob"- 9, 73 To the honerd generall court now siting In Hartford Houered gentlemen and fathers we being sensible of our great need of a comfort- able Subsistence doe hereby make our address to your selfs In order to the Same

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. O

Not Questiouing your care and faithfulness In y^ premisses: allso hoping of your frecness and I'eadyness to accomidate your poor suplicants with y' which we Judge to be: In your hands: acording to an orderly proceeding we therefore whose names are hereafter Inserted to humbly petition! your honors to take cog- nicanee; of our state who want Land to Labor vpon: for our subsistance & now hauing found out a track at a place called by y* Indians matitacoocke: which we aprihend maj- susfetiently acomidate to make a small plantation : we are therefore bould hereby to petetion your honors to grant vs y« liberty of planting y^ same with as many others as y' may be: capable comfortably to entertain and as for the purchasing of y« natives with your alowance we shall take care of: & so not to trouble with father Inlargements * * * * only desireing your due consideration & a return by our Louing ffreind John Lankton

Thomas Newell Danioll wancr

John Lankton abraham andrews

John andrews Thomas hancox

John waruer seineo"" John Carrington

Daniell porter Dauiell andrews

Edmund scott Joseph hancox

John Standly Junior Thomas standly

Abraham brouuson Obadiah richards

Richard semer: Timothy standly

John waner Junior william higgenson

Isack brounson John porter

Samuell hacox Thomas barnes

John welton John Woodruff

[State Records — Towns and Lands, Vol. I, p. 162.]

Here is tlie action upon this petition :

Oct. 1673 In answer to the petition of Seueral of the Inhabitants of the Town of Farm- ington that Mattatock that those lands might be granted for a plantation. This Court haue Seen cause to order that those lauds may be viewed sometime between this and the Court in may next and that rcporte be made to the Court in may next whether it be Judged fitt to make a plantation. The committee appointed are Lnt: Tho: Bull, Lnt: Rob' webster and Daniel pratt.

[Nicholas Olmsted was afterwards substituted for Daniel Pratt, as a member of the Committee.]

April 6, 7, 8, 9, 1674.

We whose names are underwritten (according to the desire and appointment of y« honoured court) haue ueiewed y® lands upon Mattatuck riuer in order to a plantation, we do apprehend that there is about six hundred acres of meadow & plowing land lying on both sides of y« riuer besides upland conuenient for a towne plot, with a suitable out let into y« woods on y« west of y* riuer, and good feed- ing lands for cattell.

6 IIISTOKY OF WATERBUEY.

The meadow & plowing land above written a considerable part of it lyeth in two peices near ye town plot, y« rest in smaller parcels, y« farthest of which we iudge not aboue fower miles from y® towne plot ; and our apprehensions are that it may accommodate thirty familyes

Thomas Bull NicHo: Olmstkad Robert webster

The " two jjieces near y® town plot " alluded in the above report, are probably tlie level river lands on the east side of the river afterwards called Manhan, or Mahan, Meadow, near which a final settlement was afterwards made, and the tract of meadow on the west side of the river near the mouth of Steel's Brook. The most distant piece " not above fower miles " was most likely the tract which at a later period was called Judd's meadow, now a part of I^augatuck. These natural meadows were looked upon with much favor by the early settlers, and were regarded not only as convenient but necessary to the ex- istence of a new plantation. On them they depended for fod- der for their " cattell " during the long and severe winters. Artificial meadows are prepared with difliculty and require much toil and time. They absorb capital, and appear only in the more advanced stages of society.

The foregoing report of the committee showed the reason- ableness of the request of the " supplicants." The petition was granted, "and the Court appointed Major John Talcott, Lieut. Eobert Webster, Lieut. Nicholas Olmstead, Ens. Samuel Steel, Ensign John Wadsworth, a committee to regulate and order the settling of a plantation at Mattatuck." This com- mittee was composed of men of note, who bore honorable names, well known in the history of the Colony. Their titles attest the high consideration with which they were regarded.

Major Talcott of Hartford was one of his majesty's justices of the peace, and assistant from 1062 to 1688, and treasurer of the Colony for nineteen years. He was distinguished for his gallantry and success in King Philip's war, in 1676. He commanded a body of five hundred and fifty English and Mohegans in several successful expeditions in that year. He died, leaving children, July 23d, 1688. The inventory of his estate amounted to £2,272.

HISTORY OF AVATEEBURY. 7

Lient. Webster of Middletown and Hartford was a son of Gov. John Webster, and married a sister of Gov. Treat, by Avliom he had many sons and danghters. He was a respecta- ble man, though not distinguished like his father. He died in 1676, making his widow, Susannah, executrix of his wiU. His son Jonathan married a sister of John Hopkins, an early settler of Mattatuck.

Lieut. Olmstead of Harlford was a son of James Olmstead, (who died in 1640,) and married a daughter of Joseph Looniis of Windsor. He was a Pequot soldier and apparantly a wild youth. In 1640, for his moral delinquencies, he was " ad- judged'' by "the P'^ticular Court" "to pay twenty pownd fyne to the country and to stand vppon the Pillery at Hartford the next lecture day, during the time of the lecture. He is to be sett on, a lytic before tlie beginning and to stay thereon a litle after the end." He was a de])uty in 1672, and in active service, as a lieutenant, in King Philip's war. He died in 1681, and was the father of several sons and daughters.

Ens. Samuel Steele was the son of John Steele, an early settler of Hartford and a prominent man. He was born in 1626, and, together with his father, removed to Farmington at an early date, and became one of the original settlei-s of that town. He married Mary Boosy and had many children; Mary, Rachel, Sarah, Samuel, John, Benoni, James, Hannah, Ebenezer. In May, 1669, he was a deputy to the General Court in Hartford ; and in 1674, was approved as lieutenant of the Farmington "Traine Band." Late in life, he removed to Wethersfield, and died in 1685. He appears to have been a respectable but not a distinguished man. As a member of the committee, he was one of the most active, and was connected by marriage with some of the leading planters of Mattatuck. His sister Mary married Serg. William Judd,and his sister Sarah, Lieut. Thomas Judd ; while his brother John married a sister of the Judds. He is the only one of the committee who has left his name in tlie territory he assisted to plant, and connected it indissolubly with its physical features. Steel's Brook and the tracts of land upon its borders, Steel's Meadow and Steel's Plain, will pre- serve the memory of Samuel Steele.

O IIISTOKY OF WATEKBURY.

Ensign Jolm Waclswortli of Farmington, was a son of Wil- liam Wadsworth. of Hartford, and brother, I believe, of the famous Captain Joseph Wadsworth, of charter-oak memory. He was an assistant from 1679 to his death in 1689. Some of his descendants have been distinguished.

The business of this committee was " to regulate and order," in the language of the record, the aifairs of the plantation ; to make rules for the planters and prescribe the conditions of set- tlement ; to select a site for the town ; to lay out the house lots and to dispose of them and of the other lands, so far as exj)e- dient, by grant ; to direct concerning highways and fences ; to consult with the people, and to watch over their best interests. They were expected to see to it that education, virtue and re- ligion were properly cared for in the infancy of the settlement, and to act with authority, when the emergency and the common weal required it. They were selected as the tem- porary guardians and the fathers of the plantation, with all the j)ower usually exercised by the town authorities. In fact, they were to found a town ; to organize it, and to supply it with locomotive force, until it got legs of its own. This done, their duties were ended, and their trust could l)e resigned.

The assembly's committee, (called on the town records the Grand Committee,) thus constituted, in pursuance of their duties, drew up the following Articles of Association and . Agreement, which the proposed settlers signed : —

Articles agred vpon and concluded by us whos names are vnder writen the Comity for settling a plantation att mattatucke as followeth that

1 Euery on[e] that is excepted for an inhabitant at matatueke shall have eight acres for a hous lott

2 We agre that the distribution of medow shall be proportioned to each person Acording to estats [propriety] noe person exceding a hundred pound alot ment except too or thre alotments which we the Comite shall lay out acording to our best discrestion

3 Also wee agree that all taxes and Ratts that shall be leuyed for defraying pub- lick charges shall be payed proportion ably acording to their medow alotments and this article to stand in full fore and vertue fine years next folowing the datt here- of and after the end and expiration of fiue yers all Ratts for defraying publike charges shall be leuyed and raised upon persons and estats acording to the law or custom of the coutry

4 We determin that every parson that tacks up alotments att mattatucke within

HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY. 9

four }'er after the datt hereof shall build agood substan shall Dwelling house [at least eighteen feet in length and sixteen feet wide and]* nine foot between joynts with a good chimly in the forsaid place.

5 Itt is agred in case any parson shall faile of building as aforsaid: a dweling house upon his lott as is inioyned within the 4th article within the terme of four vers after the date herof shall forfit all his alotments att mattatucke and lose all his right and title therein buildings only Excepted to be dis posed to such: other meet parsons for im proue ment as shall be excepted by the Comity acording to the conditions of these Articles

6 And itt is also agreed that euery one to whom alotments are granted shall par- sonly tack up his resedenc as an in habitant att mattatuck in his own house within the term of four yeres after the date hereof and upon failler or defalte shall forfitt his lands and alottments att mattatuck to be improued as aforsaid by the comite

7 Itt is further concluded that Every parson that shall be posesed of lands att the said mattatock shall inhabit and dwell ther in his own House for the time and term of four yers after he hath built acording to the Tenu'' and true meaning of the fourth Article and untill the said foure yers be ended no parson shall haue pouer to mack any alynation or sale of the afor said lands of what he or they are posesed of

8 J'inaly itt is determined that all those parsons to whom alottments Are granted (by vs the comity) shall be ingaged to the forgoing Articles by a subscription of tlieir names or marcks

And for a full confirnuition of the forgoing articles wee the comitie haue this thir tyeth of may in the yere one tliousand six hundred seuenty and four: sub- scribed our names

We whos names are under writen doe Igag a^ "^^^^ Talcott faithful submission to and performance of the JJo^ert webster ~ . . , ... 1 1 ii ■ • r Nicholas ohnsted forgomg articles as wittness our hands this sixt ., „° . , , .H. bamuel steel of June in the yer lb74 J John wadsworth
John Langhton			loo	Thomas Ilankox	100
John Andres			loo	William Judd	100
Thomas Juddl Ju''			100	John Warner Jun	90
Edmun Scoot			100	Thomas Richarson	50
John wilton			080	William Higason	70
Abraham Andrus			080	John Carington	060
Isaac Brunson			090	Obadiah Richards	080
John Stanly Ju''			100	Thomas NeweU [for] son	100
Samuell hicok Richard Seamor			085 100	Sargt John Stanly for son Daniel Warner	95 60
Abraham Brounson			080	John Warner sen	100
Isaac brounson ingageth for him		John Judd	100
John Porter			080	Joseph Hecoks	060

* The clause in brackets is presumed to have been inadvertently left out in tlie record. I have supplied the omission from other copies.

10 IIISTOKY OF WATEKBUEY.

Joh bronson Ju' 080 Thomas Jud seno"" for his j

Thomas Gridly 080 son Sam" J"'^^*^

Danill Porter for son 090 Sam' ' Gridly 90, th newell*

Soon after the signing of the articles of settlement, a new and more thorough exploration of the country was made, with a view of finding out its capabilities and deciding on a place for the center of the town. In the meantime, however, the committee took the precaution to extinguish any title to the land which was in the native or Indian proprietors. " Per order and in the name and behalf of the Genaral Court of Connecticut in New England," they purchased of certain In- dians, eleven in number, living in Farmington and belonging to the Tunxis tribe, (and took to themselves a deed of the same,) a certain tract of land at Mattatuck, lying on both sides of the Naugatuck River, ten miles in length from north to soutli, and six miles in breadth from east to west, but- ting east on Farmington bounds, south on Pegasset, (Derby,) west on Pegasset, Pomperang, (Woodbury,) and Potatuck, (Southbury,) and north on the wilderness. The consideration was thirty-eight pounds in hand, and "divers good causes," and the deed bore date Aug. 21st, 1674. It may be found in the second volume of the Waterbury Land Records, page 224, and is signed (by marks) by Caraachacpio, James, Putteko, Atumtacko, Alwaash, Spinning Squaw, Nosaheagon, John Compound, Queramousk, Chere, Aupkt. The witnesses are Samuel Willis, Benjamin Fenn and Philip Lewis.

During the same season, a site was selected for the contem- plated village. It was the elevated ground on the west side the river, which, from this circumstance, has ever since been known by the name of Old Town Plat, or Town Plot. It was airy and showy ground, overlooking the alluvial lands upon the river. Here, three quarters of a mile west of the

* Thomas Newell, Jr., was afterwards substituted for Samuel Gridley, and the name is placed here in the original.

This document is taken from the second volume of the Waterbury Land Records, pages 221 and 222. It is in the hand of John Stanly, copied professedly from the original by direction of the proprietors, (in 1717,) after he removed from Waterbury, and certified by John Judd, then the town clerk. There are several copies of this paper to be found in the early volumes of the Town and Proprietor's Records, diflfering from one another in several (for the most part) unim- portant particulars. I have selected that which was fullest and seemingly most complete and authentic.

HISTORY OF WATERBUKY. 11

present city, the roads were laid out, the one nmning north and south, sixteen rods "wide.* This was cut in the middle, by an east and west road, running down towards the river, south of Sled Ilall Brook, eight rods wide. There was another cross- road at the south end, probably near the present highway over the hill from the south bridge. The home lots, eight acres in each, according to the articles of settlement, were ranged along the north and south street, thirty-two in number, sixteen on each side, the east and west road already referred to, divid- ing each " teer " in the middle, leaving eight lots on either hand.

So much was done in the summer and fall of 1674, towards the settlement of Mattatuck, but it does not appear that any dwellings were erected. For some cause, not fully understood, the progress of the enterprise was suspended at this point. Perhaps the country, on a closer examination, did not prove so attractive as it had been represented. In the following year, however, there were new and obvious reasons for not pushing forward the enterprise. A more serious and pressing business presented itself, demanding attention.

Early in the summer of 1675, the great Indian War of New England, commonly called King Philip's War, broke out. Connecticut, though not itself attacked, entered with spirit into the struggle. Her sons left their husbandry and followed Treat and Talcott to the scene of danger. All thoughts of new settlements were abandoned and many of those recently com- menced were broken up. For the present, the policy of the colonies was to concentrate themselves that their defense might be less difficult. It was a fierce and bloody war, in which the parties aimed at extermination. It was more destructive to the lives, property and immediate prospects of the country, than any which has taken place since. The whole weight of it fell upon New England, then containing about forty thou-

* Afterwards, or January 15, 16TT, old stj-le, when a new site had been selected and approved for the town, the committee passed a new order respecting this road, as follows : — " we order the highway of sixteen rods wide that is already layed out north and south through the old town platt to be butt two rods wide and grant that the propriators of ecih side the said highway to butt upon the new highway for enlargement of their lots proportionally."

12 HISTORY OF WATEKBUEY.

sand people, (Connecticut perhaps ten thousand,) widely dis- persed in small settlements, and destitute of almost everything but stout hearts and a trust in Heaven. It was brought to a successful termination, without any assistance from the mother country, or the neighboring colonies, in the latter part of 1676, by the death of King Philip, an able, and, in many respects, a wise chief.

Who among those who subsequently became the planters of Mattatuck were personally engaged in the war against King Philip and his confederates, I am -unable to say. I find, however, the following:

A meeting of the Coimcill in Hartford Dec. 5, 1670.

The Councill granted John Brunson of Farmington the sume of fine pounds, as a reparation for his wounds and damage rec*. thereby, and quarteridg and half pay to the first of this present moneth. [Col. Rec. II, p. 483.]

There were, at this time, three persons bearing the name of John Bronson living in Farmington, John, John the son of John, and John, Jr., the son of Richard. Probably the ex- tract refers to John, the son of John, who went to "VVaterbury, and the reward was for injuries received in the war just closed. His father, though an old Pequot soldier, was now doubtless too old for active service.

CHAPTER 11.

THE SETTLEMENT BEGUN: TOWN CENTER.

In the spring of 1677, the tranquillity of the colony being secured, the Farmington people began once more to think of making a settlement at Mattatuck. They were, however, dis- satisfied with the place selected for a village site. Though attractive from its sightliness and probable healthfulness, a closer examination brought to light disadvantages and objec-

HISTOKY OF WATEKBURY. 13

tions of a decisive cliaracter. The many broad acres which it allowed for each man's home lot were hardly a recompense for its rocky sm-face and moderate productiveness. It was of diili- cnlt access from the east. It could be reached from the river lands (from which, in an important degree, subsistence was expected to be drawn) only by a long and steep ascent. Be- sides, a settlement upon the west side of the river would be liable, from the frequent floods which covered the flats, to have its communication with Farmington cut oflT. For the present, Farmington alone would connect the people with the civili- zation of the day, whence, for a time, must be obtained many of the necessities and all the comforts of life. There lived their friends, and there they would look for refuge, or succor, in case of a hostile attack from the Indians. There, too, for a time, they must resort for the regular ministrations and ordi- nances of the Gospel.

In pursuance of a plan entertained by those most interested of changing the town center, a meeting of the proprietors was held and a committee appointed " to vew and consider whether It will not be for the benefit," &c. This is the first meeting of the ancient proj)rietors of Waterbury, of which we have any account. I infer, from the date, that it was held in Farming- ton, though the place is not mentioned. The vote passed at this meeting is recorded, and the record seems to be original. It is the oldest, by several years, of the Waterbury Records. The recorder is, apparently, the " John Standly, Jr.," who sub- scribed the articles of settlement, though his name does not appear — the same person who subsequently, for many years, is known as the clerk of the proprietors and the town. The vote is written in a business-like hand, somewhat brisker than that which characterized the clerk's performances at a later day. The record book is an old, dingy manuscript, of foolscap size, which I dug out of a mass of forgotten rubbish, found in a private family. The sheets are sowed through and through, in the middle, by a cord of unnecessary strength, and the whole is covered by coarse, brown paper turned over at the edge, with a broad margin and made fast with a thread. Many leaves are gone at the beginning and end, and those

14 HISTORY OF WATEEBURY.

wliicli are left, are rent and broken and exceedingly brittle when handled. Fifty fonr pages only remain. This is the first original Proprietor's Book, now in existence. Much of its contents has been copied, by successive clerks, into more recent books. The same has been done with the other earliest records, and the originals afterwards scattered and lost. Care has been taken by transcribing to preserve the evidences of property, particularly land titles ; but other matters have been regarded as of little account.

The following is the vote referred to in the preceding para- graph :—

At a metting held by the proprietors of mattatucke may the twenty first, 1&11, upon furder Considaration of some difeculty that doth atende them seting the towne whare It is now kid out theay made chois of deacon Judd, John Langhton sen' John andrus sean"" goodman Rote and John Judd and danell porter as a comite to vew & Consider whether It will not be more for the benefit of the propriators In Generah to set the towne on this east side of the River contenting themselfes with les hom lots prouided: those formerly laide out be secured to them: prouided also they thinke & conclude It so to be to aduis with the grande Comite and in conjunction with them they jine with liberty so so doe we the proprietors agre to act Acordingly not withstanding what Is alredy done.

As the result of these movements, favored by the reason- ableness of the thing itself, the Court's committee changed the town center to the place where it now is, the planters " contenting themselfes with les home lots." The latter seem- ed disposed to settle as near as possible to the lands from which they expected to draw their chief sustenance. In consequence of this anxiety, they jeoparded health to some extent. They erected their dwellings, in many instances, upon ground which was wholly unfit for building purposes. Just at the center of the village, the land was low and wet, and in some instances, marshy, and covered with standing water. Even within the writers's memory, the road was made solid by logs, laid in " corduroy " fashion, and cows that got off the traveled path sunk deep and helplessly in the yielding mire. As the conse- quence of its low situation, the ancient town was often envel- oped in fogs, as the young city now is. A part of the sickness and mortality among the early planters, may, perhaps, be attrib- uted to damp dwellings and an unhealthy locality. Against

HISTORY OF WATERBUKY. 15

the evils of these, they could provide but a slight defense, on account of their straitened circumstances.

Our fathers, looking to agriculture for support, did not select the most eligible part of the Naugatuck Yalley for a settlement. Indeed they could hardly have fared worse, within the limits of their future township. Had they gone up or down the river, and planted themselves in what is now Plymouth, or Nauga- tuck, they would have found better land, and have been in the former case no farther removed from their friends in Farmington. It is true, they would not have had, perhaps, as liberal a supply of meadow lands, ready cleared and prepared for tillage ; but these proved, in the end, an unsafe depend- ence. Had they crossed the river and established themselves in present Watertown, they would have found a good soil of superior agricultural capacity, for this part of the State. Mid- dlebury, too, that part of it embraced within the limits of the ancient town, though rough, has much strong land. But there was an objection to a locality so far west, with the Naugatuck* flowing between the settlers and the parent towii, which has already been alluded to.

On the tenth day of September, 1677, the committee, being the grantees named in the deed from the Indians conveying the lands of Mattatuck, nuide over all their title and interest in the same to the proprietors of Mattatuck. By this act, liow- ever, they did not part with any of their authority in the man- agement of the settlement. This is the assigmnent, signed by John Talcott, only : —

The aboue writen deed of sale we the said John talcot Nicholas olmsted and Samuel Steel do this tenth of September in the year 1077 asign and mack oucr aU our Right and tittle therein and thereunto vnto Thomas Judd John Stanly Samuell hickoks and Abraham brunson inhabitants of mattatuck to themselus heirs and asigns for euer and to the rest of the inhabitants belonging to the said mattatuck for them selves and their heirs and asigns for ever as wittness our hands the said inhabitants having payd the purches to our order the purchesers

Lieut Webster being dead before our Asign

Signed and delivered by us John Talcott

* Naugatuck— in the Indian lan^age, N'avkotunl\ one large tree — is said to have been the original name of Iluraplireysville, (Seymour;) so called from a large tree which formerly stood near Rock Kimmon at Seymour. (Barber's Con. Uist. Col.)

16 niSTOKY OF WATERBUEY.

Soon after this assignment, or in October next following, the committee in the exercise of their approj^riate functions, " ordered " that the inhabitants of the new plantation "shonld settle near together for benefit of Christian duties and defense against enemies." They also modified at a little later date, some of the conditions of settlement, in consequence of the un- expected delay which had taken place in the movement of the emigrants. I quote, the date being Jan. 15th, 16Y7, (16Y8, new style) :*

We doe allso alow the propriators of mattatuck one yere for settleing them • selues on [in] the aforesaid mattatuck more than was first granted: not withstand ing any thing to the contrary and all publick charges to be borne one yer longer or more than is concluded in the third article datted may 30"' 1611

From various circumstances, it would seem that the first settlers came to this place some time in the summer of 1677, bnt at what precise date, I have been unable to ascertain. At any rate they were here on the tenth of September, as appears by the assignment of the Indian deed to certain persons, " in- habitants of Mattatuck." They came without their families, and erected some rude huts, for temporary shelter, on the banks of the river, near Sled Hall, so called. Having pnt in their winter crops, and made some preparations for the ensuing spring, most of them probably returned to Farmington, as the cold weather came on. In the spring following, some of the proprietors remov- ed their families to their new-found homes, and went to work. And serious work they had to do. But they were inured to it. Their hands were hardened by toil, and their hearts made

* The old year began March 25th. Between 16S5 and 1690, the subject was first agitated of making a change, and commencing the year Jan. 1st. During this interval, some used old style and others new style. After 1690, the custom obtained, when giving a date from Jan. 1st to March 25th, of adding the new year to the old, in the form of a double date. Thus Feb. 5, 1710, old style, (which would be Feb. 5,_1711, new style,) was written Feb. 5, 17^. The custom, however, was not entirely uniform. Some began the year on the 1st of March, and on (and after) that day employed the new style. Our clerks were very careless, following no certain rule. Mr. Southmayd sometimes uses the double date, sometimes old style and sometimes new style. More usually, he employs new style for dates occurring any time in March. On the 14th day of March, 1752, it was enacted by Parliament that the year should commence on the 1st day of January. By the same act, eleven days were struck out of the month, and the third was called the fourteenth, to correct an error arising from the " procession of the equi- noxes." In this work, when referring to specific dates, I shall observe the custom of the eras concerning which I write, making at the time such explanation as may be necessary.

HISTORY OF WATEEBURT. IT

brave by successful encounter with difficulty and danger. They were neither drones nor cowards. They were tough men, and had come into a tough country — a country which, for easy tillage, was in striking contrast with the plains of Farmington. Though prepared for unceasing toil and much sacrifice, they probably did not expect the prolonged hardship, the great dis- couragements, and fearful calamities which kept the popula- tion of the colony stationary for more than thirty years.

In the course of the summer of 1678, a few houses were erected on the newlj'^ selected site for the village. They were constructed of logs, after the fashion of the new settlements of the present day, with the naked ground, or in some cases, if the soil was wet, or the occupants were persons of taste and substance, with split logs, for a floor. They were " good and substantial dwellings," doubtless, (" mantion houses," they were sometimes called,) "'at least eighteen feet in length and sixteen feet wide, and nine foot between joynts with a good chimly " of stone and clay mortar, according to the re- quirements of the subscribed articles; but they were not what, at this day, would be called fashionable. They might have been picturesque, provided the spectator stood far enough off. We shall be obliged to guess how they were furnished; but I risk nothing in saying tliat they contained no tapestry carpeting or lace curtains. They in fact were designed for shelter, not ornament. According to tradition, there were, at a later period, forty of these rude log-houses, standing at one time, in the town center.

The village streets were laid out, in the commencement, very nearly, in most cases, where they still are — three running east and west, something more than half a mile long, and three shorter ones running north and south, the four outside streets forming an irregular oblong square, the east being more than twice as broad as the west end. The west street on the map of Waterbury, published in 1852, is called Willow street; the east. Mill street and Cherry street ; the north. Grove street, and the south. Grand street and Union street ; while the central streets are named, one West and East Main, and the other Bank, North Main and Cook streets. No new roads of much

2

18 HISTOKY OF WATEKBURY.

importance liave been laid outnntil about the commencement of the present cen tury. That part of Cook street, however, which lies between Main and Grove streets, previously to 1703, ran farther west than at present. It must have wound round between the hills west of Lyman W. Coe's house, coming into Grove street, probably a few rods west of the present junction, where the Brunt Hill road (Cook above Grove) commences. It passed west far enough to leave a house lot of four acres, owned by Benjamin Warner, between the road and the brow of the hill just east of the Little Brook, near the house owned by Andrew Bryan. In the conveyances of this four acre lot after it went out of the possession of "Warner, it is de- scribed as in two pieces, the larger one butting east, and the smaller west, on the highway. The town action, relating to this new road up the Brook is seen in the following extract from the town record :

January: 25"^: 1702-3 y^ town with benimin worner exchanged y* highway on y6 west s^ worners hous lot next beniamin barns to let s"* worner haue y' hiway for a three rods highway throu his lot on y® hill sid on y^ east s^ his lot next y« litle brook and s"* worner is to extend southword in ye frunt of his lot to y^ sixt porst of beniamin barnses fenc y' is now set and to extend northward in y® deui- dent loyn next barns as fur as s*" barnses lot gos and to run to his own north east conr not to pergedis [&c.]

Probably when the town was planned and the highways staked out, there was no road contemplated in the place of that which runs diagonally from Mr. Coe's, past Charles D. Kings- bury's to the east end of Grove street ; but subsequently, and before long, its convenience became apparent. It is mention- ed in connection with the grant of George Scott's (after- wards Benjamin Warner's) liouse lot, in December, 1687, and referred to " as the highway that runs over the Little Brook." After this road was nuide, the thought of a new and better road north, up the brook, doubtless suggested itself.

The road w^hich now runs from Bank, across South Main, and up Union, to the top of the hill, being a continuation of Grand, seems not to have existed in the early history of the town. This appears from the descriptions of the home lots on the easterly side of Bank street, which were bounded west,

HISTORY OF WATERBUKY. 19

but not north or south, on highway. South Main street, so called, was laid out and made as a countrj road, not till after 1800 ; but there was, from an early date, a passage, called the Pine Hill road, from the south end of Bank street, near wliere Meadow street commences, running southeasterly in the general direction of Meadow street,* within the common fence, to the Mad River crossing, near the present bridge, and so on to Judd's Meadow, (Naugatuck.) A branch from this passage, communicatingwith what is now Union street, and the corn mill, (Scovill Manufacturing Go's Rolling Mill,) extended northeasterly, bounding in the rear, or on the southeast, some of the Bank street home lots above mentioned.

I have been unable to find (as already suggested) any refer- ence at an early date, to what is now Union street, from Bank to Elm. I have not identified it as bounding any of the home lots, or any grants of land. And yet, it was probably includ- ed in the original plan of the village. A road, or path, such as I have referred to in the preceding paragraph, connecting the corn mill with the Pine Hill road running down the river, was required for the convenience of the people. I obtain no certain knowledge of it, however, till March 13th, 1730, when a highway was laid out, (which has been closed within the last thirty years,) beginning near the top of the hill, a little west of Elm street, " a little below Hopkins' Plain bars, from that highway that runs by the common fence, to that that goes to Judd's Meadow," at a stake on the brow of the hill, in the corner of Thomas Porter's lot, running across said lot south- wardly fourteen rods, then seven rods, " at the bottom of the hill within Deacon Clark's fence, where it empties into said highway that goes to Judd's Meadow, two rods wide." It came out near Charles Bronson's house. It was to be a " pent road," that is, to be closed at its upper end with a gate or bars. Its object appears to have been to shorten the distance to the mill, for the southern and southwestern inhabitants.

Probably the survey above referred to is, for the most part,

* The passage referred to, at the time the turnpike was made, (1801,) came into the latter near the house of John M. Stocking, (on the map.)

ZU HISTORY OF WATEEBURY.

only a resiirvey of an old road — tlie same wliicli has been allud- ed to as extending in the rear of the Bank street home lots, bound- ing them on the east. Union street, within the present century, came into South Main from the east, farther north than now, at a point nearly opposite the continuation of Grand street.

Mill street, below the old mill, which thirty years ago ran close to the river, down to the place occupied by the Hotchkiss & Merriman Manufacturing Go's Factory, did not exist at an early period. The lot between the mill-dam and the river crossing, bounded easterly on the river, in 1718. Abraham Andruss' house lot next the river, below the crossing, bounded on the river in 1687 and 1704.

The following extract relates to that part of Mill street which runs from the old corn mill to East Main street, by George W. Welton's house : —

Water bury March y« 9"» 1720 we whose name are under writen ware formerly apointed aecomety with leftenante Judd by the town of Waterbury to lay out high- ways to the mill in persuante thare too we laid out a high way from the Rode that goes to farmingtown opposite against the south easte corner of the hous lot that is now thomas hikcox so to the mill foure rods wide at that ende next be fore mentioned rode and something wider towards the mill buting east upon doctor porters land and west upon the land that Stephen hopkins hous now stands on

Benjamin Barnes

mark Comety

Stephen 2 Ubson Sen. his

From another and earlier record, it would seem that the above was a re-survey of an old highway, or else that the committee previously appointed to lay it out neglected to do it. A copy of the record is given below. The old road re- ferred to, w^hich was to be changed, bore off more to the east than the present one.

Desember 8 1712 de [deacon] thomas Judd abraham andrus s' Stuen upson was chosen a commity to run a hi way north from the mill between John hopkins and doc danll porter in order to chang it for land on west sid the mill plan of s^ hopkins and mak return to the town

" The mill path," so called in the early records, now Cole street, which runs obliquely from East Main by Mrs. Zenas Cook's house (on the map) to the mill, was not apparently an

I

HISTORY OF WATEKBUKT. 21

original street, though it existed from an early period. I find it first alluded to in 1694, in connection with John Richards' house and honse lot.

I believe there is no early mention made of that part of Cherry street which runs north and south, except incidentally. In December, 172-i, the town granted John Bronson liberty to run the lines by his house in a certain manner ; but he was " to leave a high way six rods wide against his house." His house (then the only one upon the street) stood just north of Solomon B. Miner's, (on the map.) Cherry street, at that point, was once much wider than now.

The upper end of Cherry street, that portion of it which runs westerly across the Great Brook and terminates at North Main, was laid out by Daniel Southmayd, Dec. 1st, 1746, though doubtless it existed as a passage long before. It is described as " a highway at the upper end of Lt. John Bron- son's saw mill lot, beginning at the highway that goes by said Bronson's new barn, tlie first corner being at James Nichols' southeast corner, which is the first corner of the highway, running west twenty one rods to said Nichols' southwest corner, which is the northwest corner of said liighway, bounded north on said Nichols' land, three rods wide, the bounds being on the north side."

Grove street was surveyed or re-surveyed, in two parts, Dec. 21, 1752. The east part began at Deacon Thomas Bron- son's clay pit pasture, (corner of North Main and Grove streets,) and ran west thirty-two rods to the southwest corner of Isaac Nichols' Little Brook pasture, terminating at the road that " goes north from Obadiah Worner's barn to Robert Johnsons house," (Cook street continued.) It was four rods wide. The west part began at the highway last mentioned " at the South East corner of William Adams lot," and ran west one hund)-ed and sixteen rods " to the highway that goes by Serg. Thomas Barnes house," (Willow street.) It was three rods wide.

This highway doubtless existed from the beginning of the settlement. The original home-lots on West Main street were bounded on it on the north.

Church street was laid out May 5th, 1S06. It ran south forty rods and was two rods wide.

22 HISTORY OF WATEKBUET.

The following action of the grand committee related to East Main street. — (Joseph Gaylord lived on the north side of the street, on the corner of North Main.)

Farmington November 27 1619: A meeting of the comitte for mattatuck Itt is determined that high way layed out by Lt. Samuell Steele att the east end of the town plat att mattatuck running eastward out of said town plat being thre rod wid shall always be and remain for publick and common vse which is between Joseph Gaylords lott and a hous lott reserved for such inhabitants as shall her- after be entertained

I have given above all which I have been able to gather, concerning the old highways comprehended in the original plan of the town center. There is nothing on record regard- ing tlie most ancient roads as they were first laid out. What- ever we know is obtained from the re-surveys, incidental re- marks and the very imperfect memoranda, and often erroneous descriptions of the home lots, and the early land grants, w^hich " butted " on highways.

In Feb. 1702-3, it was ordered by the town " that the high- ways layd out be recorded :" but this order appears to have been wholly neglected till 1716.

The home-lots of the first settlers of Mattatuck were upon the central streets, most of them on that running east and west, a few on the one running north and south. The lots on the outside streets, and those that were situated most distant from , the center, were taken up at later dates, as there was occasion for them. They were staked out by the committee, and those first disposed of, distributed by lot, in the way the old town plot lots were designed to be, without reference to amount of proprietorship. They varied in size according to the desirable- ness of the locality, and " the make of the ground," natural disadvantages being compensated by additional acres. A majority of them contained two acres, but some had four, one five, and others only one and a half acres. Some eligible lots were reserved, and many outside ones, not so desirable, w^ere left for future settlers. These were disposed of by grant — by the committee, at first, and subsequently by the j)i"oprie- tors.

Around the " Green," (Centre Square,) on all sides and so

HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY. 23

west as far as the house of the late Bennet Bronson, the houses were numerous, the hand having been all taken up and built upon, except a tract near the present Episcopal Church, The lots on the south side of the road, except one at the east end, and those on the north side, except four at the east end, extend- ed through to the back streets. Previously to about 1700, there were no dwellings east of Dr. Jesse Porter's, north of C. D. Kingsbury's, south of a house on Bank street, marked on the map, " Timothy Ball," and west of the late B. Bron- son's. On the plan of the old town center, I have entered the names of the first settlers. When the block is omitted, it is to be understood that no house is expressly mentioned, (in some cases from inadvertence, probably,) as existing on the lot.

There are no land records of Waterbury, attempting descrip- tion, that bear date earlier than 1687, immediately after the incorporation of the town. The lands granted by the Assem- bly's committee were not recorded at the time ; and those which were afterwards distributed by the proprietors, in pub- lic meetings, are not defined, except in the most general terms. For instance, in 1684, the proprietors granted to Daniel Porter " four acers in y^ wigwam swamp as near y^ loer end as may be so as to liaue the breath [breadth] of y« swamp." But in the year named, (1687,) something more was attempted. A record was made of each man's lots, and particularly of his house lot. This was made both in Hartford (on the colony records) and in "Waterbury. The description is of the brief- est sort, and in the most general terms. Boundaries are given, and the estimated number of acres ; and whether the title was obtained by purchase, or special grant. If a deed had been taken, the date of the signing and acknowledgment is given, with the name of the commissioner, or justice. These record- ed and very brief accounts, are afterwards referred to as evi- dence of title. On these chiefly, I have been obliged to rely in my attempts to locate the early planters of Waterbury, They are often so indefinite, so lacking in detail, so erroneous indeed, that it is a matter of the utmost difiiculty to make anything out of them. Distances are very rarely given, and points of compass, never, except in the most general way.

24 HISTOEY OF WATEKBURT.

East is sometimes inadvertently used for west, and north for south, and vice versa. Tlie settlers often bought and sold, and exchanged houses and lots, and this circumstance has increas- ed the diificulty of ascertaing the earliest dwelling places of individuals.

CIIAPTEE III.

DELINQUENT SUBSCRIBERS.

Of the thirty original subscribers to the articles of settle- ment, thirteen never became permanent proprietors of Water- bury. Tlieir names follow :

John Warner, Sen., Daniel Warner,

John Andruss, Abraham Bronson, Thomas Gridlet, John Porter, Richard Seymour.

William Higason, Samuel Gridley, John Lankton, John Judd, Samuel Judd, William Judd.

John Warner, Sen,, and Daniel Warner, father and son, whose names are in the first group, both intended to join the planters of Mattatuck, but died when about to remove, in 1679, in Farmington. The place of the father seems to have been filled by his son, Thomas Warner ; while the death of the son gave rise to the following action of the committee, which con- ferred his rights upon his widow.

HISTOKY OF AVATERBUKY. iiO

Farmington, November 26, 1679, Where as Daniel Worner with his Family were upoa the Remove to Mattatuck, And on that Juncture of time the Divine providence of God hath Removed the S^ Daniell out of the Land of the Land of* the Living. Out of compassion to his Relict & children left behind him, we do Grant the s** Relict shall hold her Allottments Firm and Good to her self and children not with standing any thing Contained In any Former Article to the Contrary, only advising her Self and Re- latives that a Dwelling house be Erected there with all possible Speed, and that Shee Inhabit there or some sufficient person to manage he[r] Lands & accommo- dations upon the place.

By us

John Talcott John Wadsworth Nicholas Olmstead Samuel Steel A true Record of the Original

Attest John Southniayd, Clerk.

It appeared early that there were several of the original sign- ers of the articles who had changed their minds, and had no longer any intention of becoming permanent settlers of Matta- tuck. They made a declaration to this effect, and the com- mittee permitted other applicants to take their places, Tliere were five of these persons who abandoned the enterprise at the outset, or in the first season, 16TT, before any houses were erected. No more than one of these is heard of as having been with the first planters of this town. Their names are in the second giouj).

John Andruss. Benjamin Jones was accepted as a proprie- tor, in his stead. The name will again be mentioned in con- nection with his son, Abraham, an early settler. He was one of the committee of the proprietors, appointed May twenty- first, 1677, to take into consideration the expediency of remov- ing the town site.

Abraham Bronson was a younger brother of John and Isaac Bronson, original signers and settlers. He was one of the as- signees named in the assignment of the first Indian deed to certain persons, " inhabitants of Mattatuck." Tliis was Sept. 10, 1777 ; so that he would seem to have been one of the first

* So in the Record.

26 HISTORY OF WATEKBUKT.

company of planters. But he sickened of the enterprise, and his place was filled Jan. 15, 1677-8, by John Scovill,

Thomas Gridley, of Farmington, was a son of Thomas Grid- le}'^ of Hartford and Farmington, and brother of Samuel, an- other signer. His name is among those of the " eighty-four Proprietors of Farmington," in 1673. He was born 1650, and died in 1742. The vacancy made by his failure was supplied by Joseph Gaylord, Jan. 15th, 1677-8.

John Porter, of Farmington, was probably a son of Robert, a subsequent settler and proprietor. David Carpenter was accepted for him, Jan. 15tli, 1677-8. The family will again be mentioned.

Richard Seymour, of Farmington, was a son of Richard Seymour, of Hartford, Farmington and Norwalk. He was the leader of the settlement which was made at the Great Swamp, (afterwards Kensington,) to which place he removed in 1685. He was killed by the falling of a tree in 1710. His wife died in 1712. His sister Mercy married John Steel, the father of Ensign Samuel Steel, one of the State's Committee ; and his sister Mary married, in 1644, Thomas Gridley, another signer. Benjamin Barnes was accepted in his place, Jan. 15th, 1677, (1678, new style.)

The six persons in the third group all had meadow allot- ments and divisions of the common fence assigned them, at, different times, from 1678 to 1681 ;* and from this circum- stance it is rendered probable that they were, for a time at least, residents at Mattatuck, with a prospect of securing their proprietary rights and becoming permanent settlers.

William Higason. His name is on the list of proj^rietors of Farmington, 1672. He was born in 1648, and had several children — Sarah, Margaret, Elizabeth, Mary. The last, mar- ried Clark Carrington, a son of John, an original propri- etor of Waterbury. Edmund Scott, Jr., was accepted for him and took his allotments, about 1680.

Samuel Gridley, a " smith " and " trader," was a son of

* The four first divisions of fence, of which a record has been preserved, were made between these dates.

niSTOEY OF WATEfiBURY. 27

Thomas, and elder brother of Thomas above mentioned. He M^as born in 1647, and died 1712, having had eleven children. Thomas Newell, Sen. was made a proprietor in his place, prob- ably before 1680.

John Lankton, or Langdon, was a deacon of the church in Farmington. He was one of the committee raised in May, 1677, to inquire into the propriety of removing the town site. He was a son-in-law of Thomas Gridley, had several children, and died in 1689. His rights as proprietor of Mattatuck were declared forfeited, " Feb. 5"^, 1680," and were afterwards con- ferred on John Hopkins, the miller.

John Judd and Samuel Judd, were sons of Dea. Thomas Judd, of Farmington, to be hereafter mentioned. They neg- lected to comjjly with the articles of settlement, and, after a long indulgence on the part of the committee, their allotments were " condemned," Feb. 6th, 1682. (1682-3.) The commit- tee accepted of Abraham Andruss, 2d, or Jr., in the place of John Judd ; and at a later period, 1687, Samuel's right was bestowed on his brother Philip.

William Judd was an elder brotlier of John and Samuel, above mentioned — a man of substance, of much influence and greatly esteemed. He was the most distinguished of the Judds, and promised to be the leading man among the plant- ers of Mattatuck He is usually called Sergeant William Judd, he having been confirmed sergeant of the Farmington train band by the County Court of Hartford, Dec. 4th, 1679. He was one of a committee to apportion the fence among the proprietors, appointed Jan. 15th, 1677-8, and was selected for a similar service, March 11th, 1678-9. At the same date, he was chosen, in company with Lieut. Steele and John Stanley, to lay out " the three acre lots " to the settlers, and was allow- ed the privilege of having his own lot laid out adjoining his house lot. From the nature of the duties assigned liim, and the way he is spoken of, I conclude that he was an inhabitant of Mattatuck at the dates mentioned, with the intention of remaining ; but some how the time allowed for building, &c., ran out, and on complaint, he along with other delinquents, was declared, under date of "Feb. 5th, 1680," to have for- feited all his rights. Here is the action of the committee :

28 HISTORY OF WATEEBURY.

In consideration of some of those persons that haue had alotments granted Att mattatuck we haue heard the alygations layed in against them and doe determin that deacon John langton william Judd and dauid carpenter haue forfited all their rights and tittles to those alotments granted to them att mattatuck not hauing at- tended [to] those articles to which thay haue subscribed.

Afterwards, however, "William Judd's name again appears as a subscriber to the articles, he obligating himself to erect a dwelling, and to settle in the place, with his family, within one year after subscription. May 18th, 1680, he was at the head of a committee, on the part of Mattatuck, to settle bounds, with Derby, and a little later, June 9th, 1680, to set- tle bounds with Woodbury. A second time, however, he was a defaulter, and at length, his lands and rights of land were given, by the proj^rietors, to his son Thomas. His name dis- appears from the record after 1681. His house lot appears to have been on Willow street, a little north of the dwelling of the late Bennet Bronson.

Of those who signed the articles after a settlement had been commenced, live got faint hearted, or for some other reason, failed to secure their projjriety rights. They are nam- ed below. All had meadow allotments and divisions of fence except the first.

Thomas newell s*° Joseph Andruss David Carpenter Benjamin Judd John Root

Thomas Newell, Sen., was an original settler of Farming- ton, and the father of John and Thomas Newell, proprietors. He was one of the petitioners to the General Court, in 1673, for liberty to plant a colony in Mattatuck ; but there is no evidence that he took any steps in the way of forwarding the enterprise after subscribing the articles. The "Thomas New- ell" whose name appears about 1679 as having fence assigned him to build, appears to have been his son, who took his place and became a jiroprietor.

Joseph Andruss, I suppose to have been the fourth son of John Andruss of Farmington, another signer, and younger brother of Abraham Andruss, a proprietor. I know nothing

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 29

ol him except that he had a meadow allotment, and a divis- ion of fence assigned him in 1080.

David Carpenter. There were two persons by this name in Farmington, father and son. The above is presumed to have been the son. He was born in 1647, and married Han- nah, a daughter of Richard Bronson of Farmington. He was accepted as a proprietor, Jan. 15th, 1677-8, in the place of John Porter, but his right was not declared forfeited till Feb. 5, 1680-1. He removed to ]^ew London.

Benjamin Judd probably subscribed the articles and joined theplantersofMattatuck, within the first year of the settlement. He was a brother of "William, John and Samuel, and a son of Dea. Thomas Judd, of Farmington. Jan. 15th, 1677-8, he was appointed " to call out the proprietors in their turns to mend the highways." Feb. 6th, 1680-1, he was selected by the committee to lay out land which was granted to the mill. At the same date he was allowed an addition to his propriety so 2s to "mack it in valeu of one hundred pounds," and land was granted him as follows:

Also we doe grant Benjamin Judd shall haue added to the north end of his House Lott some land to build one always prouided that the highway that runeth through the Towne in towne in that place shall be and remain four rods and a half wide to be layd out to him by the forsaid persons.

At a later period, he signed a petition addressed to the committee, " in reference to herding of cattell," which was answered April 5th, 1682-3. Before the date of this answer, however, (Feb. 6th, 1682-3,) his allotments were all " con- demned" for not building according to articles, &c. But a year afterwards, Jan. 10th, 1683, he was allowed the " prive- ledg of reseasing" (entering again into the possession of) his allotments, on the conditions prescribed by the "act of Feb. 6th, 1682," which required a residence of " full four yers in a stedy way and manor," with his family. After this he is heard of no more in Mattatuck.

John Root was the son of the John " Eoote senr.," who sub- scribed and was accepted " in behalf of one of his sons," Jan. 15, 1677-8. The father, called "goodman Rote," was one of the committee, in 1677, to take into consideration the expe-

30 HISTORY OF WATERBUKY.

diency of changing tlie village site. As to the son, his name is among those who had a division of fence in 1680, but he is spoken of no more. He removed to Westfield, (Mass.,) and died in 1687.

There were then eighteen persons (including the two who died) who signed the articles — thirteen in 1674, and five in 1677 and subsequently— who failed to make good their pro- prietary rights.

The following passage shows the way in which vacancies happening among the proprietors were filled by the com- mittee :

Att a meeting of the Comity for mattatuck January 15, 16*77 Itt was agread and concluded: that we doc accept of John Roote seno"" subscribing to the arti- cles for Settling of mattatuck in the behalf of one of his sons and we accept of John Scouall on the Ace* of Abraham Bronson and benjamin barnes on account of Richard Seymour and of John Stanly Junior Joseph Gaylor on the account of Thomas Gridley [they] subscribing to submit to the articles aforsaid dated may 30* •" 1674 and in soo doing are excepted as inhabitants of the place dauid Carpenter subscribing in behalf of John Porter is excepted upon the same terms

Below will be found what purports to have been copied from "the back side of the leaf where the original articles were filed." The new proprietors, of course, were required to take upon themselves the obligations of the old. The names of some of them are here met with.

We whose names are here under written do ingage to stand by and fullfiU the Articls within written acording to the tru intent and meaning in all Respects aS witness our hands

Thomas newil Seno' on the account of Sam Gridly

Benjamin Barnes Thomas newill Sc

John Scoval his Tmark

John Stanly Junor for Joseph gaylor Benjamin Joans on the acount of John Andrus

Edmund Scott Juno'' his c^ Benjamin Joans

mark for william higasonc2 . , > . ,

° oj Abraham Andruss

, in rome of John Judd

William Judd has his allotment(^^

granted to him by the comitee \o William Judd

according to their act feb^ 5 leSuV*

Steven upson subscribes on the account of a new lott this 29 of December 1679.

The mark of Steven / upson

i

HISTOKY OF WATEBBUEY

31

CHAPTER IV.

SUBSCRIBERS WHO FINALLY SECURED THEIR RIGHTS.

The number of persons wlio signed the articles subsequently to 1674, and who ultimately became proprietors, is nineteen, making with the seventeen on the list of 1674 who made good their rights, thirty-six. I give below a complete cata- logue of their names, throwing them into several groups, placing the groups in the order in wdiich the individuals are known (or are supposed) to have subscribed the articles and complied with the conditions they imposed. Those of the two first groups signed in 1674 ; those of the third in 1677-8 ; those of the fourth about 1679; those of the fifth between 1682 and 1 705. The persons who have a star prefixed to their names had not made good their claims as proprietors, in Feb. 1682-3.

Thomas Judd,	£100	*Thomas Warner,	£100
Edmund Scott,	100	Widow Warner,	60
John Welton,	80	*Thomas Newell,	90
Abraham Andruss,	80	Edmund Scott, Jr.,	70
Isaac Bronson,	90	Stephen Upson,	50
John Stanley,	100	Benjamin Jones,	100
Samuel Hikcox,	85	*Abraham Andruss, 2d,	100
Joseph Hikcox,	60
John Bronson,	80	John Hopkins,	100
John Warner,	90	Thomas Judd, Jr.,	100
John Newell,	100	[Robert Porter,	100]
		Samuel Scott,	50
*Thomas Hancox,	100	Richard Porter,	50
*Thomns Richason,	50	Thomas Judd (smith,)	100
*John Carrington,	60	Philip Judd,	80
*Obadiah Richards,	80	John Richards,	80
*Timothy Stanley,	95	Jeremiah Peck,	150
*Daniel Porter,	90 100	John Southmayd,	150
Benjamin Barnes,	£3,130
*Joseph Gaylord,	80
*John Scovill,	80

32 HISTORY OF WATERBUET.

The name of Timothy Stanley, in the above catalogue, oc- cupies the place of " Sergt. John Stanley for son," in the ori- ginal subscription list, he appearing to take possession of the al- lotment thus subscribed for by his father. In the same way, Daniel Porter (the son) and John ISTewell (the son) stand in the places of " Daniel Porter for son," and of "Thomas Newell for son." Thomas Judd, John Stanley, John Bronson, and John Warner, all signers of 1074, have, in each case, Jr. at- tached to their names in the original list, they having fathers bearing the same name. After they became inhabitants of Mattatuck the Jr. was omitted, and at length, when their sons had grown up, they were called Sen.., in each instance, except that of Stanley. Robert Porter's name is omitted (for what reason I know not) from all the lists of proprietors made out after 1688. But as he is on that list, owned a house and lived, and finally died, in Waterbury, in 1GS9, he would seem to have complied with the conditions of a proprietor. Besides, after his death, his son Thomas sold his lands, and in 1700, his £100 propriety, to John Richards, proving his rights had not been forfeited. We might suppose that Richards name, which appears not till after the death of Porter, was intended to occupy the place of the latter, were it not for the fact that the proprieties of the two are different, that of Richards being but £80.

The following passage relates to the acceptance of Thomas Judd, Jr., as a j)roprietor :

Hartford Jan 10''' 1683 [1683-4] Thomas Judd Jun' is acepted as an inhab- itant att Mattatuck his father thomas Judd having signified his desires of the game he the sayd Thomas Judd Junor subscribing to the act and order of the comity feb the 6 1682 ****** itt being determined by us the com- ittee in case any grant or any grants be made by the inhabitants of mattatuck to thomas Judd Junor in refarence too posesion of Any parsols or tracts of land it is hereby made void: and of none effect not with standing anything to the contrary

Samuel Scott was made a proprietor soon after, receiving probably a part of a grant to Thomas Judd, Jr., "made void" by the preceding act of the committee.

Matatuck Decembe y^ 30 1684 y« town granted to Samuel Scott half y= alot- ment formerly granted to thomas Judd junr with y' exception of four acres to be

■^t^/z/;7^

'a^ u^/:iyvaM /;7^/

IIISTOKY OF WATEKBURY. 33

taken out of y* a lotment [for a?] great lot — and a deuition of meadow with y« Rest of y® propriators in y« next deuition of meadow land according to a fifty pownd a lot[ment] with y® hous lot an y^ south sd of Stephen ubson with thea prouisals y' he build a hous according to articles within four yeirs and Hue here after his hous be build and pay y« purchas of a fifty pound lot

Samuel Scott's name disappears from tlie list of proprietors after 1088, that of Jonathan Scott occupying its place, the lat- ter having bought, April 28th, 1601, the house and all the lands divided and undivided, of his brother, in Waterbury.

It seems there was some doubt about the proprietary rights of Stephen Upson, Richard Porter and Jonathan Scott. This doubt was finally the origin of a declaratory act in 1702-3, which seems to have settled the question :

At a meeting of y« propriators in waterbury february 22*'' 1702 y« propriators de- clare y' y^ propriators for y^ first purchasing of y* place and such as stand pos- sesed of alotments according to y® gran comitya act with Stephen ubson Richard porter and Jonathan scott whos alotments ware excepted of y« commity as a fifty pownds a lot ment apeic shall be acknowledged propriatory inhabitants and to act in giuing a way lands in s-J propriatory ship and for y« futor no more to act in y" propriators meeting then one for a singell alotment

Several of the signers had the amount of propriety for which they at first subscribed (given above) increased, on applica- tion, by the committee. Here are extracts from the record re- lating to Isaac Bronson's and Samuel Hikcox's rights. (Ben- jamin Judd, it will be remembered, forfeited his claim.)

Upon further considaration we haue hereby granted benjamin Judd and Isaac brownson shall haue so much uplands aded to their alottments as shall mack their raedow alotments in valew of one hundred pounds and that adition to be aded to their respectiue eight acre lotts already granted feb. 6 1G80

Att a town meeting in mattatock decern 29"" 1682 : there was granted to sam'^ hickox an adition to his alotment so much land as shall make up his lot to be a hundred pouncf alotment and this addition to be aded to his eyght acer deuition y® com te [committee] granting y® same

Tlie rights of Daniel Porter and Timothy Stanley seem also to have been augmented, each, £5 ; but I am unable to say when. Doubtless it was done by grant of the committee. The whole increase, in this way, was £35.

3

34: HISTORY OF WATEEBUET.

It will be recollected that, in the articles of settlement, the committee reserved to themselves the right " to lay out two or three allotments at their best discretion." Tliis they exer- cised by setting apart, in the beginning, three proprieties of £150 each, for the common benefit — "for public and pious uses," — particularly for the maintenance of religion, and the promotion of education. These were called "great lots," ("greate lotes," on the record.) Two of them were given to Mr. Peck and Mr. Southmayd as they were settled suc- cessively in the ministry.

A declaratory act was passed in 1715, relative to Jeremiah Peck's right, as follows :

The Proprietors did conclude that Mr. Jeremiah Peck our former Minister in his hfe time was Invested with one hundred & fifty Pound propriety.

The sum of all the subscriptions of the thirty-six persons in the above list, was £3,130. There were additions made after subscription to the rights of certain individuals, as already stated, in all of £35, which sum added to the other, makes a total of £3,165. Of this amount there was subscribed in 1674, by thirty persons, and afterwards represented by them, or by those who were accepted in equal numbers, in their places,

the sum of . . £2,580

There was added to this " a new lot " for Stej)hen

Upson, Dec. 29, 1679, the sum of - - - 50

For Isaac Bronson's addition, .... lo

For Samuel Ilickox's addition, - - - - 15

For Daniel Porter's addition, . _ . _ 5

For Timothy Stanley's addition, . . _ . 5

For Samuel Scott's " half an allotment," - - - 50

For Richard Porter the other half, probably, of the same, 50 For Thomas Judd, Jr., probably a new allotment, - 100 For Mr. Peck and Mr. Southmayd, £150 each, - 300

£3,165 As a general rule, a propriety once subscribed for, and se- cured by a compliance with the articles, went in the name of the original signer. If a person sold out a part, or the whole

inSTORY OF WATERBUKY. 35

of his riglit, or if lie died and liis interest was distributed among his heirs, the propriety was kept together on the record and stood in the name of the first owner. If a man had a claim, derived from others, he mnst show that he obtained his title by regular conveyance from the original owner. Rights in the undivided lands were transferred like other real estate by deeds, warrantee, or quit claim. A man, for instance, sold a £5 or £10 right or propriety, and the deed was recorded, the record being evidence of title.

There are a few instances, however, in which the name was changed on a change of ownership. When Thomas Judd, Sen., died in 1702-3, his £100 right went into the possession of his son John, and John Judd's name, ever after, is entered in the place of his father's. Benjamin Jones died in 1689, and Capt. Thomas Judd, in 1715, purchased his right. From tliat date, Thomas Judd appears twice in the successive lists of proprietors, once as " Tliomas Judd," and again as "Thomas Judd Jones," while Benjamin Jones is heard of no more. Again, the original Tliomas Judd, Jr., conveyed, in 1721, to Samuel Hall of Wallingford, his propriety. After that, the right goes in the name not of Samuel Hall Judd, (according to the rule in the preceding case,) nor of Samuel Hall, but of "Thomas Judd, Jr. Halls."

The above, three in number, are all the alterations of names which resulted from a change of ownership, (unless John Richards' name was substituted for Robert Porter in conse- quence of such a change.) And in adopting these, it will be observed, no uniform rule was followed.

Tlie subscribers to the articles were, in the beginning, the joint owners of all the lands of the town, each having as many shares or " rights," so to speak, as he subscribed pounds. A person in the first instance, might subscribe for any sum, not exceeding a £100 allotment, according to article II, thus securing, within certain limits, such proportional interest as he pleased. This limitation was designed to prevent specula- tion, and to restrain individuals from obtaining too much land. The committee wished to secure actual settlers, and as far as consistent, equality of condition and possessions. The

36 HISTOKT OF WATERBUET.

sum of all the subscriptions, as tliey at first stood, was £2,580, or twenty-five hundred and eighty shares. Each person, then, who had a £100 propriety, had a title to one-twenty-sixth part (within a fraction) of all the undivided lands in the township. The admission of new proprietors, or additions to the rights or shares of the old signers, of course diminished the propor- tion of each one whose propriety had remained unaltered- By augmenting the number of proprietors one-fifth, or rather by increasing the number of shares nearly one-third, a pound right came to have a greatly reduced land value. The cost of the original purchases of the Indians was borne by share- holders, according to each man's interest. Expenses incurred for the common benefit, were defrayed by the same rule. Roads and fences to inclose the common field, were built by a tax on shares. Article ni required that all public charges, in the first years of the settlement, should " be paid proportiona- bly to meadow allotments," and " meadow allotments " were proportioned to propriety.

Each settler was to have, in the commencement, according to the articles, eight acres for a home lot. These eight acre lots, as has already been stated, were at first " located " on the old town plot ; but as the town center was changed, there was at that time no occasion to do more, and they were not regularly laid out and surveyed, till 1730. As there were not lots enough for all, a few of the original subscribers, and all the most recent ones, had to take their lots somewhere else.*

* " Nov. 29, 1 726. It was by vote a greed that if the Committee for the Old Town platt Lotts Cant find all the Old Town platt Lotts for «1I the Original Proprietors, those that are Wanting may have Liberty to take them up in the Undivided Lands." Pro. Book, p. 80.

The record of the laying out and distribution of these lots is particularly interesting, because it furnishes the first authentic list, as far as it goes, of the original proprietors of Waterbury. There are ihirty names, it will he noticed, corre.«ponding with the number who first signed the articles. If a signer had forfeited his right, his name is omitted, and that of a substitute, who had complied with the conditions, is inserted. There is one exception, however. David Car- penter's name is here, though he did not "fulfill." I don't know why it is found, and am unable to say who took his place. lea. Judd's name is entered twice, once, I suppose, for Benjamin Jones, whose propriety he bought in 1715. Lieut. Timothy Stanley's name is also inserted twice, once c-oubtless for that of somebody whose right he had purchased. Of the two "great lots," one was for schools and the other for the minister. The latter went to Mr. Peck. These last lots swell the whole number to thirty-two.

"A list of the House Lotts on the Old Town Platt Set out by a Committee Lieut. Timothy Stan-

niSTOEY OF WATEEBURY. 37

Tlie new house lots were distributed in the same way, each proprietor being entitled to one, the choice being determined by lot. " A three acre lot for pasture," seems also to have been granted by the committee, in the beginning, to each set- tler. This appears not from direct evidence, but from allu- sions like the following, under date of March 11th, 1678-0.

And itt is ordered that Lieut samuel Steele Willuni Judd and John Stanly Jun"" Lay out to the proprietors their thre acre lotts that are granted to them accord- ing to former agreement.

It appears that in addition to the above, each proprietor had eight acres (called his " eight acre lot ") granted him by a vote of the committee, Feb. 6tli, 1682-3 : —

ly, Doctr Daniel Porter Senr & Deacon Thos Hickcox. We began on the West Teer, at the south End and found as follows : —

1. John Brounsons Lott	Then we begun at the South End of the East
2. Edmund Scotts, Lott	Teer & found
3. Isaac Brounsons Lott	1.	Deacon Judds Lott
4. Samuel Hickcox senr. Lott	2.	David Carpenters —
5. Doctr Porters —	3.	Abraham Andrus —
6. A Great Lott	4.	Lieut. Judds —
7. A Great Lott	5.	Edmund Scotts Senr —
8. John Warner —	6.	Lieut. Timo Stanleys —
Then an Eight Road highway South of	7.	Abraham Andruss, Cooper —
Warners Lott that Runs East and West	8.	Benjm Barnes —
as the Lotts lye,	9.	Thomas Newel's —
9. Thomas Richardsons Lott	Tlien Eight Rods highway to Run East & West
10. Joseph Hickcox —	or as the Lotts lie
11. Lieut. Tirao Stanleys —	10.	Obadiah Richards Lott
12. John Newells —	11.	Thomas Warners —
13. Benjra Jones —	12.	John Scovils —
14. Lieut. John Stanleys —	13.	John Carringtons —
1.1. Deacon Judds —	14.	John Weltons —
16. John Hopkins —	15.	Daniel Warners —
	16.	Thomas Juds —
The several Lotts in the East Teer Butt west on highway.
The several Lotts in the West Teer Butt East on highway.
found by the Committee		Daniel Porter Thomas Hickcox Timothy Stanlbv."

The old, familiar names which we do not find in this catalogue, are those of Thomas Hancox, who signed in 1674, (but who afterwards forfeited his rights and was obliged to take his chance as a new subscriber,) and of Joseph Gaylord, who signed in 1677-8, and of several others who became proprietors at a later period — Stephen Upson, Ricliard Porter, Philip Judd, Jonathan Scott, John Richards, John Southmayd and John Judd, the last, however, being represented in the list by Lieut. Judd. All these, I suppose, omitting the last, had to go to the undivided lands for their eight acre lots.

38 HISTORY OF WATEEBURY.

Itt is Granted that ecth propriator as addisonal to ther former grants shall ecth inhabitant haue eight acrs pr man layed out to them in such places within their towne bounds as the inhabitants shall agre to be layed out by persons chosen by the inhabitants of the place.

These several parcels of land, then — the town plot eight acre lots, the new home lots, the three acre lots for pasture, and the eight acre lots of 1682-3 — were distributed, at the outset, without reference to propriety. With these exceptions, and also with the exception of certain special grants hereafter to be referred to, the lands of Waterbury were, from time to time, as there was need of them for improvement, distributed among the proprietors in the way of division. The land thus obtained was called an allotment, and the same term was ap- plied to the proprietory right, or the right of allotment. These divisions were nothing more than dividends on shares, usually so many acres, or so many parts of an acre, on each pound propriety. There was occasionally, particularly in the early years of the settlement, a moditication of the rule which commonly gave some advantage to the small stockholders, or proprietors. The divisions were repeated at intervals, till there was nothing more to divide, or till the entire township passed into the hands of individuals. The first one was made at the time the settlement was commenced, under the direc- tion of the committee, when the meadows were distributed, or the "meadow allotments" taken up. The first made by authority of the proprietors themselves, was in 1688, and the last in 1801.

The proprietors, as has already been mentioned, disposed of their lands by division, except in the cases in which reasons were supposed to exist for special grants. That the division might be equitably made, it was the practice to draw lots for a choice of lands. He who drew number one, was to have the first choice, having liberty to select from any of the lands proposed to be distributed. He who drew number two, had the second choice, and so on. A person's chance was his lot, and the thing acquired (the land) was also his lot. After the order of choice had been determined, a certain day, distant enough to allow time for examinino- the lands and making: a

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 39

selection, was specified, on wliicli the laying out was to com- mence. Running on from this fixed time, eacli proprietor was to have a day determined by his lot drawn, (sometimes two were to have two days,) on which he might take up his lands and have them surveyed by the town measurers. It he neglected to do this, in the time allowed, he must wait till all the others had had their turns. In some instances, in order to equalize the chances, or compensate for good or ill luck, the land to be drawn for was divided into two equal parcels, with a distinct lot for each, (two draughts^ the record says.) The first was drawn in the way described. In the second lot, he who had the first chance in the first drawing, now had the last, and he who before had the last now had the first, the order of choice being reversed. Certain regulations and re- strictions were established, at dilferent times, designed to govern action in taking up the lands, and to secure the com- mon weal, by preventing an abuse of privileges.

The following extracts indicate the steps that were taken preparatory to the proprietors' first land division of 1688 :

Att a town meeting in mattatuck decern 30 (1G84) the town determined that there should be adiuition of all y« undeuided meadow to each propriator accord- ing to his meadow allotment former grants exsepted

Dec 31 1684 y® town mad choys of serg Judd sam" hikcox and Johnstandlya commity to uew and prepare al y* undeuided meadow for allotment * * * it was determined y' each man should haue y* charg of laying out hys lot

Geneuary: 3^ 1686 y^ town declare y« worck of y* commity chosn deem 30"* (1G94) [1684] namely srg judd sr standly & sani" hickox was to uew and pre- pare all ye undeuided meadow up y^ great Riuer and up Steels brook and hancox brook and all y^ branches up y^ Riuer.

I have been unable to ascertain how much land there was distributed in this division. At any rate, there was not enough to be foimd in the places indicated up the river and up Ilancox's and Steel's Brook, to give a full proportion to all the proprietors, so that several had to take a part of their al- lotments somewhere else.

This division bears date April ITtli, 1688. I transcribe the record which gives a list of the proprietors who were congern- ed in this land distribution. It is the earliest formal list now

40 HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY.

extant, made out after the town was incorporated, and under circumstances which give it authority. It is interesting and important. The amount of propriety is not stated.

Timothy Standly Robard porter

Stephen ubson thomas Judd jun'

Samuell Scott Richard porter

daniel porter Mr fraysr

thomas Warner smith judd

John brunson obadiah richards

isaac brunson daniell warner

John welton John standly

edman scott juner John wornor

Tho nuell John nuell

jn hopkins John scouell

ben barns John carrinton

benjoanes thomas hancox

Thomas Richason philipjudd

Joseph gaylard abraham andrus senor

Sam' ' hikcox Ensign Judd

edman Scott senor abraham andruss junr

Here are thirty-four names, two less than the full number, at a subsequent period. Who Mr. Frayser was, I know not. His name is not found, in any other instance, upon the record. It may, temporarily, have been substituted for that of Joseph Hickox, who had removed and recently died. Possibly Frayser was Ilickox's executor or administrator. We miss in this catalogue, Joseph Hickox and John Kichards. Doubt- less Richards had not yet become a proprietor. I have al- ready stated that he purchased Robert Porter's right, and that we ought to suppose that he afterwards stood in his place, were it not for a discrepancy in the amount of their propri- eties.

K we deduct two from this list, and add two, and then again add Mr. Peck and Mr. Southmayd, afterwards made proprietors, we complete the catalogue, having thirty-six in number.

The next land division, so far as can be gatliered from the records, was in 1691-2. The following passage is all I can find relating to it. It is taken from the old, unboimd Propri-

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 41

etors' Book, page 20tli, and it is in tlie liand of Jolm Stan- ley :—

Att a meeting of the propriators in Watterbury: march the 15 1692^ there was granted : to ecth propriator : inhabetant a deuition of outlands of ten acres to a hundred pound alotment and fiue acres to a fifty pounde alotmente and so propor- sonable acording to mens alotments granted by the comity for the plas that is to say to thos that hould the poseson of the medow alotments by their own righte : ecth man to tacke itt up by suckseson after the lots are drawn the first too men to haue two days hberty to tack his land : and bringe in his report to ensign Judd who is to lay it out two them : and so to haue on day to two men.

Besides the method by division, the lands were disposed of by grant. I have already referred to the home lots, the three acre lots and the eight acre lots, bestowed by the committee in the beginning. These grants were continued for the purpose of securing some common good, (as in the case of the grants to the mill and for the use of the ministry ;) or with the design of correcting inequalities and furthering the ends of impartial justice.

One would suppose that our fathers need not have com- l)lained for want of land, considering their possessions. Some of them, however, considered themselves "straitened" as in- dividuals, and applied to the committee for relief. Relief was vouchsafed, as, for instance :

And wharas steuen upson macks complaint that he is much straitened in his presant posesion of lands we grant ane adition acording to what the town se cans [&c] to be layd out by Tho Judd John Stanly and the present townsmen* febey 6 1080

And wharas Daniell Porter [and] Thomas richason mack complaint that they are in want of Land to improue we grant liberty to the towne to add to what they haue acording to their good discrestion and what shall be alowed by the towne shall be lay^ out [to] them by Benjamin Judd and John stanly and also to lay out what belongs to the mille and miler febey 5 1G80

Joh Stanley, it seems, was unfortunate in his allotments, and prayed for more land in the way of com]3ensation. The committee consented and advised the grant.

4:2 HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY.

Upon the petion [petition of] sergent Jo stanly that he may be acomadated with four or fiue acrs of medow land up the river allthoug itt be four or fiue miles oif from the towne in considaration of the meannes of his Alotments we the comity doe aduis the inhabitants to a complyance tharunto: The forgoinge con- clution signed feb 7th 16S2

John Talcott John wadsworth Nicho Olmsted

After the committee had withdrawn from an active parti- cipation in the aflairs of the plantation, the proprietors con- tinued to make special grants of land whenever occasion call- ed for them. At first, these grants were somewhat sparingly made, but they gradually became common, till at length the lands were given away with a profuse liberality. Often the object was to encourage some undertaking, or business, or trade, calculated to be beneficial to the people ; such as the erection of a saw mill, or fulling mill, or tan yard. "When there was no purj)ose but to distribute the land as fast as it could be improved, among those to whom it belonged, there was an endeavor to preserve a sort of equality — to regard the different and just claims of the recipiants. Land, however, was abundant and not sufficiently valuable or in demand, to make generosity a difficult virtue. A main design was to en- courage the settlement of the town, and extend the borders of agriculture. A wilderness was to be subdued, and workers were wanted. If a man proposed to take up a tract of land and cultivate it, he was considered as offering a fair equivalent for it. All were benefited by his labor. If a person follow- ed some trade, considered as of first importance in the new plantation, as that of a blacksmith or clothier, he was regard- ed with special favor, and a grant to him was allowed to be a good investment. If an individual, not an inhabitant, who would make a good citizen, could be induced by a few acres for jDasture, or a tract of boggy meadow, to settle in the town, the proprietors thought they made a profitable bargain.

Jan. 21st, 1689-90, there were grants of land to many of the proprietors, seven acres to each, the lots to be improved as "hogfields" or hog enclosures. Into these the swine ap-

HISTORY OF WATEKBUEY. 43

pear to have been turned, in the snmmer season, to root the ground, to pick up the nuts and thus obtain their living. Tliese " iiekls " seem to have been east of the town, on and near Farm- ington road, in the neighborliood of the long wigwam. Hog Pound, or Beaver Pond Brook, and Turkey Hill. I quote a passage from the record :

At the same meeting the proprietors granted to samuell hiekox s'' seauen a cers of hind on the hill on the west side of hoog pound broke on the same condition riehard porter had his jan 21 1689

One would naturally suppose that this use of land for keei^ing swine was the origin of the name Hog Pound, by which the district was known till a very recent period. But it will be observed that some of the tracts are located on Hog Pound Brook, showing that the name was in existence at an earlier period. Most likely, however, the lands had been em- ployed, in some instances, for a similar purpose, previous to the date of the grants named. Tlie district is now known by the more decorous name of East Farms.

At first it was not usual for the proprietors to attach any conditions to the grants of land, except they were " not to pre- judice highways and former grants." At length, however, in- dividuals who had resided long enough in the town to se- cure their estates, began to show a disposition to leave. Jo- seph Ilickox removed in 1685, Tliomes Ilancox in 1687, and many others soon after. The course was then, to a considerable extent, changed. Those who were not proprietors, but the sons of those who were, no longer received unconditional grants. Sometimes they were to build a portion of the common fence as a consideration. Usually they were required to reside in town, not off and on, but "in a steady way," four years, often five, and occasionally even six years. Sometimes, particu- larly if they received house-lots, they were " to build a tenant- able house according to articles."

Sometimes the proprietors themselves were subjected to conditions. For instance, Jan. 3d, 1686-7. Abraham An- druss, Sen., had five acres of land given him on Little Brook, which were to be forfeited if he went away in four years.

44 HISTORY OF WATEEBURT.

Isaac Bronson and John Welton bad grants in 1694-5, whicli were to hold good only on condition they remained in the town fonr years. Similar restrictions were imposed in other cases. There was a distrust even of the fathers of the settle- ment. Many were gone away, and others were preparing to follow. These, taken in connection with other things to be noticed hereafter, occasioned, very naturally, the greatest dis- couragement.

The frequent refusal of those who had signed the articles to comply with the conditions which they prescribed, and the laggard movements and long delays of those who intended ultimate compliance, were the cause of much dissatisfaction and early complaint on the part of the planters, and of strin- gent action by the committee. I quote : —

Att a metting of the comite for mattatuck: on the 26 of nouembcr 1679: whereas we haue receiued information by some of the inhabitants belonging to that place that [some] of the propriators to whom alotments ware granted haue hitherto neglected the settlement of them selues and families there to the great discouragment and weakening of the hands of those: that are Alredy upon the place with their famelys

We haue thought meet to determine and resolue that all such propriators as shall not be personally with their famelies inhabiting att mattatuck by the last of may next: enseuing and ther to abide shall forfitt all their title property and interest in any alotments granted to them att mattatuck to be disposed by the comity to such other as they shall aproue off

Also we doe further determine that all such inhabitants as shall not erect a ■ mantion hous by the last of may come twelue month Acording to a former article to that purpose shall forfit all their right and title in lands att mattatucke aforsaid.

Soon after, an order was passed designed to secure prompt action and faithfulness to engagements on the part of new subscribers.

Further itt is agred by vs that in case any doe apere desiring alotments ther [they] shall subscribe to original articles and ingag allso to erect a dwelling hous acording to dementions [required by] said articles within one year after sub- scription and settle with his or their famelies vpon the place within that time oth. erwis to forfit all their grant of land and right therin: to be disposed to such others as the comity shall Judg meet feb 5 1680

Still there were hesitation and procrastination on the part of many proprietors. Some neglected to build, others to reside

HISTORY OF WATERBURT. 45

in the place, and others to bring their families. Tlie com- plaints became londer and more frequent. The committee, for a long time reluctant to act, were finally obliged to take decisive measures. They passed the act known as the " Act of Feb. 6th, 1682." It declared the allotments of several de- linquent proprietors, Benjamin Judd, Samuel Judd and Thomas Hancox, " to be condemned as forfeited," uncondi- tionally. The same sentence was passed upon the allotments of Timothy Stanley, Joseph Gaylord, John Carrington, Abra- liamAndruss, cooper, Thomas Newell, Daniel Porter, Thomas Warner, Thomas Richason, Obadiah Richards and John Scovill; but upon condition of "their submition and ref- ormation with their cohabitation upon the place one complete yere as a dision all [additional] to the four yers Injoined " by the articles, their rights were to be restored. It also required new subscribers to reside in the place " the full term of four yers in a stedy way and manor with their famelies," and all persons accepted as proprietors, after its date, were to sign the act. Thomas Hancox signed it as a new subscriber. A few others, afterwards admitted, did the same.

We wliose [names] are under writen doc siibscribe to a faithful! submition and obseruation of the act of the comity one the other side of this leafe fcbuary 6 1G82:

subscribed this 4 of June 83 Thomas hancox

genuary 10: 83 Thomas Judd Jun»

May 26 S-t Robert porter

June 13 BY philip Judd

Timothy Stanley and the nine others whose names are men- tioned in the same connection, " submitted and reformed," and thus regained possession of their land.

The act of removal to a new settlement in the time of which I am writing was a solemn thing. It was undertaken only after certain formalities and much prayer. The Bible was consulted, and the aid of the church sought. There was much and earnest endeavor to ascertain the indications of Providence. Then, as now, however, it was generally found, at last, that the finger of Providence pointed in the same di-

46 HISTORY OF WATERBUKT.

rection as the inclinations of those who sought guidance. By this remark, however, I do not mean to impugn the motives or question the sincerity of our forefathers, or the good men of our day.

The extract given below, is from the Farmington church record. It is an answer to an application for advice. The paper is very shrewdly written, and contains much wordly wisdom, to say nothing of its strong religious sentiment. We can see why the church was so reluctant to part with William Judd, though the very man the new settlement stood in need of. The record bears no date, but there are indica- tions that the time was as early as the spring of 1677-8.

The Church having considered the desires of their brethren William, Thomas, John and Benjamin Judd, as also John Standly, Jun. touching their removal from us to Mattatuck, agreed as foUoweth :

1 In general, that considering the diverse difficulty and inconueniency which attend the plan toward which they are looking, and how hazardable it may be, for ought that appeareth, that the house and ordinances of Christ may not, for a long time at least, be settled among them —

The Church doth advise the brethren, to be wary of engaging far until some comfortable hopes appears of being suited for the inward man, in the great things fore mentioned.

2. Particularly to our brother William Judd, that it having pleased God to deal so bountifully with him — that not many of the brethren with us have so large accommodations as himself, they see not his call to remove, on the account of Btraitness for outward subsistance, & therefore counsel him, if it may be with sat- isfaction to his spirit, to continue his abode with us, hoping God [will] bless him in so doing.

3. To the rest, though we know [not how] much they will be bettered as to land, all things considered, by there removal, especially .John and Benjamin Judd, and therefore cannot much encourage, yet if the bent of their Spirits be strong for going, and the advice fore given, touching the worship of God be taken, we shall not trouble, but say the will of the Lord be done.

Of the above mentioned persons, only two, Thomas Judd and John Stanley, Jr., lived up to the articles and became proprietors ; though the others, particularly William and Ben- jamin Judd, found "the bent of their spirits to be strong for going," and apparently tried hard to like the enterprise, but finally gave it up, finding perhaps that they had misread the teachings of duty.

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 47

CHAPTER Y.

THE COMMON FENCE AND COMMON FIELD.

OxE of the first things to be attended to in the new settle- ment, was the building of fences for the protection of the crops and the meadow lands. The committee gave this sub- ject their early attention. I quote from their acts under date Jan. 15,1677,(1677-8):—

We order the comon fenc one the este sid the riuer for securing the medows shall be made sufitiently by the last of may acording to the number of acrs of raedow land ecth propriator is seized of and we desire and apoint willum Judd, Thomas Judd and John Stanly to proportion the said fenc and lay out ecth person his just dues and being soe layed out: ecth person that shall neglect macking his just proportion shall be finable acording to the law of this colony.

There was another order made regarding the " common fence," bearing date March 11th, 1678-9. By this, a new and additional division, it would seem, was to be erected, and the proprietors were required to make their respective proportions by the first of May, then ensuing.

Wharas there is a mile of fence tharabouts yet to be erected: for securing thos lands that are under improuement from spoill of catle and swine wee doe aduise and order that willum Judd Thomas Judd and John Stanly Jun shall proportion and stacke out to ecth propriator his proportion with all sped conueni[ent]

We further order that ecth propriator doe erect a sufisent fence vpon thoss re- spective places apointed [to him] for defenc of that land that no damage to either corne or gras by cattle or swine [be done] which fence shall be done betwixt this and the first of May next:

Late in the spring of the next year, orMay22d, 1680, there was an order issued, signed by John Talcott and John Wads- wortli, for the building of three hundred and fifty rods of ad- ditional fence " forthwith ;" and each proprietor who neglect- ed his work till the first of June was to pay sixpence per rod, and for longer delay, sixpence per week. Further action upon the same subject was taken the succeeding year. Un-

48 HISTOKT OF WATERBURY.

der date of Feb. 8, 1680, (1680-1,) tlie committee directed a portion of fence to be constructed by the first of April.

The meadow lands np and down the river, on which the early settlers mainly depended for tillage and fodder, were regard- ed as particularly valuable. They were distributed in the be- ginning, but the lots lay in common ; that is, they were not separated by division fences. Fences were expensive and could not be afforded ; besides, on the low grounds they were liable to be swept away by the frequent floods. For the pro- tection of the meadows (as may be gathered from the preced- ing extracts and remarks) a "common fence" was erect- ed running along on the high ground, east of the river and west of the village, and extending a distance north and south. It was called " common," because it was for the equal benefit of all and was built and maintained by all. At this period, as no inhabitants dwelt upon the west side of the river, and no cattle were kept there, this single line of fence was deemed sufficient for the protection of the meadows. It was erected, in the first instance, and supported afterwards, by the propri- etors in proportion to the land each had to be inclosed — a given number of rods and feet to each acre. A man's partic- ular portion of fence was determined by lot. Beginning at the Mill River (Mad River) and running north, each man's position in the line was decided by the number drawn, num- ber one standing first, number two second, and so on. This being done, each person's portion of the work was measured and " staked out."

In the first Proprietors' Book, so called, in the beginning of the volume, is the following entry :

The first diuision [of fence] begins at the made riuer and soe runs northwards: till itt butts on the banke of the riuer: against stells [Steels'] meadow as itt falls by lott:—

Then follow the names of the proprietors, beginning with Thomas Richason, in the order apparently in which the num- bers were drawn, with the length of fence, in " rods," " fete " and " inches," assigned to each, the amount of fence being, in every instance, proportioned to proprietorship. There are

^l^Z^^^^'^ ^.-v?^^

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 4:9

twenty-six names in this list, including three "grate lotes," the latter having thirty-three rods and fifteen feet each — the proportion for £150 propriety. The entire length of this divis- ion of fence appears to have been two hundred and eighty- four rods, nine feet and ten inches, or seven-eighths of a mile. It was doubtless that portion which was first built, (in the spring of 1677-8,) it being more immediately necessary than other portions.

This catalogue of names, on the record, is followed by a second division of fence, beginning at the north end of the last division and running northward. Then come thirty names, including the three great lots, and a line of fence amounting to two hundred and fifty-eight rods, one foot and three inches, or over three quarters of a mile. It was probably erected in the spring of 167S-9. The third division began at the Mill River and ran south three hundred and four rods, twelve feet and nine inches, or nearly one mile, and was par- celed out to twenty-seven proprietors, inclusive of the great lots, and seems to have been built in the spring of 1679-80. The fourth division continued the line south two hundred and seven rods, twelve feet, seven inches, or over three-eighths of a mile, and was distributed among thirty-seven proprietors, counting tlie great lots. It appears to have been made in the spring of 1680-81.

The four divisions of common fence spoken of, (erected in the early parts of the four first years after the settlement,) two north and two south of the Mad River, in their whole length, measured a little over three and a quarter miles, the two northern divisions making somewhat more than half of the whole. A fifth division is spoken of in 1686-7. At any rate, additions were made to the fence from time to time, either way, as circumstances required. At an early period (before 1700) it seems to have reached Long Meadow Falls, about two and a half miles below the village, on the south ; and on the north, to have extended as far as Mount Taylor, four miles from the center. Before 16S5-6, it had crossed llancox Brook, as appears from the record which follows:

4

50 HISTORY OF WATEEBUEY.

Mattatock march y® last 16S5-6 y« town by uoat detrmined y* tho3 men yt haue fenc ouer hancox brook and northward from y« town be brought ouer to y« east s<* y« brook and set in y« rang on as good ground as they now stand for fencing y' is on y« rang y' is determined furder to fenc for y« securing of y« meadows.

This removal offence seems to have been in pursuance of a plan for protecting the lands farther np the brook, and so crossing perhaps at a higher point. The lands to be thus se- cured were about to be divided among the proprietors, and brought under cultivation. It seemed to be the design to in- clude within the common fence all the lands which were most valuable for meadow and tillage. A lot at "Pine Hole," so late as 1733, is described in a deed as within the "common field," and as bounded east on the common fence.

Near the village the common fence ran as follows : Be- ginning at Mill Kiver a little above the manufiictorj of the Hotchkiss and Merriman Manufacturing Company, at a point (where "it was agreed," March 31st, 1709, " by a mager uott to cat the fens cros the mad riuer in the comon line seauen rod") at the southeast corner of Abraham Andruss, Sen's house lot of three and a half acres, it ran northwesterly along the brow of the hill between said Andruss' land and the Mill Plain fifteen acre lot, (sometimes called Hopkins' Plain,) till it reached Union street, at " Union square." Thence it continued along the south side of Union street and the north side of the Plain above mentioned to the hill just west of Elm street, where there were bars and an entrance to the common field. Thence I can find no early traces of it till we come to the south meadow gate at the southwest corner of Bank and Grand streets. Probably, at the bars in Union street, it con- tinued westerly, in the line of that street, to the point named in Bank street, thus including within the common field the house lots of Stephen Upson, Samuel Scott and Richard Porter. Here it ran, at so late a period as 1790.*

* This appears from a deed, dated Feb. 10th, of that year, from Thomas Porter to his son Phineas Porter, convej'ing, for £78 ISs. lawful money, a tract of land in the " common i3eld," e.stimated at seventeen acres, lying between Union street and the old roads running, one south- westerly from the Plain bars, the other southeasterly from Bank street. The boundary line is described in the i. eed as follows : " Beginning about two rods east of David Pritchard's

IIISTOKY OF WATERBUEY. 51

From tlie corner of Bank street, the fence extended west in the south line of Grand street and in front of Stephen Upson's and John Welton's land and the burying yard to the Little Pasture (parsonage lot) and Willow street. Thence it passed up Willow street, on the westerly side, (leaving Benjamin Jones' and Dea. Judd's houses on the left) to West Main street and the "common gate." Thence it continued past John Scovill's in the west line of Willow street, up the hill and into the woods above. Afterwards, it appears to have borne off" more to the west till it reached the river's bank, opposite Steel's meadow, seven-eighths of a mile from the starting place at Mad River. A little farther on, it left the Naugatuck and extended in a more easterly direction, so as to include the better lands east and south of Hancock's Brook.

In the above description, I have considered the home lots of Benjamin Jones, Dea. Judd and John Scovill as lying within the common field. This was undoubtedly the fact, although I do not find the circumstance alluded to in any con- veyance, or by any direct or incidental remark.

The fence spoken of above was removed from time to time, farther westward, till it came to inclose the meadows, proper- ly so called, only. A portion of it, in the form of an old, broken stone-wall, may still be seen, standing where it was placed, after this process of removal was begun, up Willow street, north of the village, a little west of the road.

East of the Mad Biver the common fence ran south and southwesterly, keeping on the west side of the mill lot of eight acres, and below occupying the high ground at some distance from the river.

Soon after 1700, when people began to settle on the west side of the river, more frequent complaints were made of dam- age done to the common fields by cattle. In ITOl, the town resolved that all horses, cattle or swine found running at large

dwelling house, [on the southwest corner of Bank and Grand,] extending eastward to the highway that goeth into the common field at the mill plain bars, then southward by the high- way till it comes to the highway that goeth to Salem, then by said highway to the firat corner, butting all sides on highway." At the date of this deed, and afterwards, the land on the borders of the Great Brook, lying within this tract, and for a considerable distance above, was an alder swamp.

52 HISTOKY OF WATERBURY.

west of the river might be impounded. The following vote has relation to this subject : —

April 6, 1702, y« propriators by uoate agree that who soeuer shall haue liberty to Hue on y^ west s"! y* fence or great riuer within our bounds shall submit to y* order of y« propriators as if they liued y^ east s*" y« common fenc as to our agreement of fencing or [our] meadows y* by reson of them we be not under nesesity of fencing on y« west s^ our meadows but y' theyr creators be pound fesent in any of our meadows, and they oblidged to keep theyr creators out of our feild, as if they were fenced round and he y' gos to Hue on y" west sid to subscrib this act in testimony of his submiting to it and he y' refuses to submit to this order not to be alowed to Hue on y^ west s^

It became more apparent, however, from year to year, that it would be necessary to construct a fence on the west side of the river, running down to and crossing it at each end, so as completely to encircle the common field. Some, however, so late as 1704, were in favor of extending the line on the east side south as far as Beacon Hill Brook, the southern boundary of the town, and of being content, for the present, with the additional security which that extension would afford. I copy the vote of the proprietors to show how this subject was dis- posed of : —

[Voted] to fenc from y* east end of y* mountain against mount taylor on y« west s"* y® Riuer and so to y« falls in y« Riuer at y« lor end of y* long meadow and to make y« fenc good and substanchall aganst al orderly horses and cattell and sufficiant aganst too yeir olds and y« fenc to be uewed by the fenc-uewers. deak Tho judd Left Timothy Stanly Jo" Hopkins sen'' benjamin borns sen' &Tho. judd ju' was Chosen a com~ty to modeU y« land* in s<* feild and proportion y« fenc of s^ feild to each man acording to his propriaty & lay out to each man his part — y« lands on which y« fenc is to be laid is all y' is fit for plowing or mo- ing in s^ feild hauing Respect to y« fenc already layd out each man to keep his fenc alredy layd out to him and there being much land spoyled with y« flood y« oners of such land to be considred and abated in this diuition y' y« whol Rang of fenc of s"* feild may be equally proportioned to each propriator accord- ing to his benifit of lands in s^ feild as near as they can desemb"" 12 1704

Y« propriators agreed to leaue a mile at y« north end of y« loyn wher they began to measure on y" west sid where they intend to set y« fenc to be dun by y* propriators in a genaral way to be layd on y^ land yet undeuided as it shall be taken up march y« S"* 170-|

* "To modell ye land " — to appraise the land, or rather to determine its relative value or quality, in order that an apportionment of fence on this basii might be made among the owners. I infer this to be the meaning of the phrase, from the connections in which it is used in the record.

HISTORY OF WATERBUEY. 53

Tliis last part of the fence was to be done by the propri- etors in their collective capacity until the undivided lands spoken of were taken up, when it was to be distributed among the owners of such lands according to usage.

But the vote which I have given, dated December 12th, 1704^ and which determined the princij)le on which the new fence was to be divided among the proprietors, gave much dissatis- faction. At a subsequent meeting, April 10th, 1705, a modi- fication of the principle was sought and obtained. It was then determined —

Y' y6 whole Rang of fenc quit round sd feild shail be equally diuided on y* acer alike of all sorts of land With in s'^ feild booth of plowing nioing up- land and paustor y' is allready layd out or giuea to any man and each man to maintain his fenc so layd out to him but the fenc already layd on y® east s"* [side] to remain and belong to them y* it belongs to not to remoue them but to be counted as part of their diuition as fare as it will go y® former act by this made uoid in exempting pastor lands considering waste land & modalizing

This uoat was full but four or 5 acted aganst it and doctor porter one of them did protest aganst it.

But there was delay in making the fence, and much mur- muring at the injustice of the last vote. By that vote, it will be noticed, each man's proportion of fence was to depend, as it did in the beginning, by order of the grand committee, on the number of acres he owned in the common field, without reference to the value of the land ; so that a person having twenty acres of valuable " moing " land had to build no more fence than he who had twenty acres of upland or " paus- tor," or who had a large proportion of waste lands barely worth fencing. But the argument was not all on one side. It would cost as much to fence the poor as the good land. An acre of the second or third quality increased the size of the field to be inclosed as much as an acre of the first quality. If a man's lands had been damaged by floods it might be claim- ed that it was his misfortune and not his neighbors' ; unless, indeed, the neighbors chose to share it with him. There was then some show of right in a per acre distribution of the fence. But those who claimed this at last yielded the point. Our fathers were friends of peace, and bore each other's burdens.

54 HISTORY OF WATEKBUKY.

In order " for to attain a peicable preceding" the proprietors again agreed "to model y® land," " proportioning y" fenc to each propriator according to liis benifit," " abating for paustor lands, waste lands and lands spoyled with the flood." In fact, the vote that was passed on the 12th of Dec, 1704, was, with some slight alterations of orthography, &c., again adopted. This was on the 17th day of Dec. 1706. A new committee — Thomas Jiidd, Jr., John Hopkins, Sen., and Dea. Judd — was appointed " to model y land in sd feild & denid y^ fenc," while " Stephen ubson sen, John welton sen'' and abraham an- druss " were chosen " a com~ty to model y^ lands " of the first named committee.

But this west fence was long in getting itself bnilt. The truth is, it was a great work for the people, considered as an addition to their other necessary labor, in their then weakened condition. But our fathers were men of pluck. Votes were taken and committees appointed, the land measur- ed and "modeled," and the work apportioned "according to interest and benefit ;" and at last a sort of board of relief was selected " to Regulate mistackes if any be and if any are over charged to haue it taken off and they y* want to haue it [;] but if any haue not enough fenc and it be not in y® loyn [line] staked out to takeitby sucsesioiiat y^ nortliend, y^ south ward to be first so sucsesiuely [April 12, 1708.]" The fence upon the west side, like that upon the east, was designed to inclose all the lands most valuable for culture which could be conveniently done. It ran along npon the high ground, in many places at a distance from the river, and the remains of it are still met with at certain points, in tlie form of a broken wall of stone.

The whole quantity of divided lands included in the com- mon field, soon after the west side fence was built, when the entire common fence was apportioned, seems to have been six hundred and eighty-one acres. How much land there was un- divided, or which had not yet been taken up, may be gathered from the circumstance that one mile offence at the upper end, on the west side, was left, by the act of March, 1704-5, " to be done in a general way," and to be afterwards distributed to

HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY.

65

those who sliould come into possession of the inclosed undivi- ded lands. One mile of fence may therefore be considered as the just proportion of the prospective owners — as the propor- tion which the undivided bore to the divided lands. As there were twelve miles of fence in the whole, six miles on each side the river, and as eleven miles represented six hundred and eighty-one acres, one mile should represent sixty-two acres. These sums added together, give seven hundred and forty-three acres as the entire contents of the common Held, at the time indicated.

To show who were the owners of the divided lands in the common field, how they were distributed and how the fence was apportioned, at the period of which I am speaking, I give an extract :

An aecountt of the number of the acurs of land cch man has to fens for generall feild as it was raesured by us: in march 1709

			Thomas Judd
			Steun ubson
			John scoidl
Abraham Andruss	27	Jeremiah Peck		30
Wid. Andruss	14	Doct. Porter		26
Benjamin Barnes	21	Richard Porter		10
Serg. Bronson	17	Thomas Porter		6
Isaac Bronson		Obadiah Richards		10
John Bronson	9	John Richards		18
Wid. Bronson	8	Thomas Richason		13
Mr. Bull	4	John Richason		7
John Carrington	5	John Scovill		21
Joseph Gaylord	4	Edmund Scott		19
Benjamin Hickox		George Scott		16
William Hickox	21	Jonathan Scott		1
Thomas Hickox	19	David Scott		11
Ebenezer Hickox	i	Mr. Southmayd		21
John Hopkins	22	Lt. Timothy Stanley	38
Wid. Jones	11	Samuel Stanley		29
John Judd	25	School Land		1
Philip Judd	15	Stephen Upson		24
Thomas Judd Jr.	23	Thomas Warner		6
Dea. Judd	47	Daniel Warner		2
Benjamin Judd		John Warner		1
Mill Land	19	John Welton		18
Thomas Newell	1	Stephen Welton		11
Parsonage	18	Thomas Welton		1

56 HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY.

The common fence was variously constructed according to the nature of the ground and the convenience of materials. It was made of rails laid in the form of the " worm fence," or of logs and poles, with the help of stakes. If stones were more abundant than anything else, these were laid into a wall. I find the hedge fence spoken of, its strength being increased by stakes. In some instances, a ditch was dug, and its effect augmented by rails or a hedge upon the embankment.

The following order relates to the " suificiency " of the common fence.

March: 20: 1691: an ordor What shall be counted soficien fenc for our meadows

Rayl fenc to be: 4: foots high not exseeding: 6: inches between y« Rayls: too foots from y* ground upward — heg fenc: four foots and a half high: 5 stakes to each Rod and well Rought — ston fenc, three foots and nin inches in height — log or pool fenc four foots in height and well Rought — dich, too foots wid and Rayls or heg four foots in height from y* bottom of y® ditch to y* top of y* fenc and well Rought —

And if there be any aduantag by resin of the land or plac where y« fenc is it is to be left to y« judgement of y« fencuewers what shall be soficant —

By order of y* tounsmen abraham andrus John hopkins — aprill: y«: 6: 1692: this order to stand for y® fenc uewers to go by till y® town see cans to alter it

Thomas Judd

In the spring season, when vegetation began to start, it be- came the duty of each proprietor to put in good repair his portion of the common fence. The proprietors each year, in meeting, fixed upon the day beyond which the work should not be neglected. The day cbosen was usually between the tenth and fifteenth of March.

Immediately after the expiration of the time for these re- pairs, the fence viewers, who were annually appointed by the town, were required to make a careful examination of the fence, to decide whether it was conformable to law, and an ade- quate protection for the lands inclosed. If they found it in- sufficient in any place, they gave notice to him to whom it belonged, requiring him to make it good in five days, accord- ing to the statute. In case this notice was neglected, it became the duty of the fence viewers to make the necessary repairs, and to charge the delinquent double the cost of the work, to be collected by warrant. If they were not able to make tJie

HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY. 57

repairs, or " hire sufficient help to do the same, so that the common field may be timely secured," they were authorized by law

To make complaint to the next Assistant, or Justice of the Peace ; and it shall be in tlie power of such Assistant or Justice of the peace, to issue out his warrant to the Constable of said Town, in which such common field is situate, or to the fence viewers, to impress men and teams sufficient to repair such defective fence, who shall be paid by such fence viewers for their labor, as they can agree, or as shall be determined by such Assistant or Justice of the Peace. [Acts and Laws, printed 1715.]

Early in the spring, annually, there was a vote passed by the proprietors " to burn about the common fence." I give an example :

March 6th 1709-10 The propriators agreed by uoat that the beating the Drum through the town ouer night shall be warning that the fence on the west side is to be burnt about the next day and on the east side the day following.

In obedience to this summons, all the owners of the common fence sallied forth, each, I suppose, to look after his own. Wherever the fence was made of combustible material, they set fire to the dry leaves, grass and other rubbish in its imme- diate ncighborhod, preventing, by great watchfulness, its spreading to the woods, or destroying the fence. This being done, the woods and fields were burnt over without concern for the purpose of improving the pasturage. In this way, too, the damage which might have resulted from accidental fires, not infrequent, was prevented.

Sometimes the firing of the woods was forbidden for a season, in order that the young trees might attain some growth. For instance, December 13th, 1713, '-it was voted that the east woods should not be fired for seven years," and " if any person shall fire the above woods, he shall pay 20s."

Early in the history' of the town, there were two gates on the east side the river, frequently referred to, opening a pas- sage through the fence from the village to the common field. One of these M-as in Bank street, near Grand, and was called the south gate. It was not removed till recently — some twenty years ago. Tlie other was near the west corners of

58 HISTORY OF WATERBURT.

Willow and West Main streets, and was known by the name of the west or common gate. This, it seems, was removed, at the date mentioned below, to a point farther west, some ten or twelve rods probably, and the common fence extended on either side down to it. The record, it will be noticed, does not convey a very clear idea.

Genuary 25. 1*70^ y® town ordered y' y« west gate and fenc belonging to y* towp should be remoued belo deac judds barn to be directed by y^ towns men in seting of it down and John scouell to set y' part of his common [fence] y' frunts y» highway clos in y' highway where y® gate is to be set deac judd and John scouill hauing consented to haue theyr fenc next s"* highway from y^ common fenc doun to s"* gate to be accounted common fenc and proceded in y' respect by y* fencuew- ers as such.

On the west side of the river there were no gates, but four sets of bars. The "west bars" were on the Woodbury road west of the present covered bridge. The " south bars " were on the way to Town Plot by the present K. E.. depot, crossing the river near the new bridge. The "Long Meadow bars "were on the road to Judd's Meadow, below the "riding place" at the lower end of Mad Meadow. "Isaac's Meadow bars " were on the road which ran up Manhan Meadow, crossing the river near the present fording place, and so on west through Steel's Meadow and over Steel's Brook towards Elon Clark's.

For many years after the settlement of the town, there were no private fences except those which inclosed the home lots. Individuals relied on the common fence to protect their crops. Lands lying without this fence were for a time undivided. They were used by all for wood, timber, stone, pasturage, &c., and were called the " commons." The cattle, in the pasturing season, were kept in herds which were watched by a herdsman. I find an " order" of the committee relating to this subject :

Wharas we receiued a paper signed by sarg' Thomas Judd Isaac bronson and benjamin Judd in refaranc to herding of cattell we doe order and apoint for the futur that the inhabitants att a towne meeting the maigor of the inhabitants so meete shall haue full pouer to resolue and determin the way and method for herding and to statt what shall be charged for keeping of cows and what shall be leuied one dry cattle

april 5 1682.

The sheep of the town were put under the care of a shep-

HISTORY OF WATEKBUEY. 69

herd, and thus kept from miscliief. I discover, liowever, no action on this subject earlier than ITOS.

Att sheep meeting in waterbuey marcli=29=:17t 8 deac Judd John scouell and John Richason was chosen sheep mastors for this yir to order y^ prudensials of y® sheep and to hire a sheepord and see him pay"* as y* law directs by y^ owners of y« sheep

The meadows and the lands near the river were convenient, required little clearing or expensive preparation, and were easily worked. On these and their home lots, the people re- lied for their crops. In consequence of the value of the lands Mdiich it embraced, the common field was an important in- terest. The proprietors gave much of their time to its concerns. They framed such regulations as were for the good of all. A major vote governed ; not a major vote of the proprietors, but of pounds of propriety. The Colonial Assembly granted general powers, and prescribed the mode of exercising them.

After the fence had been " done up " in the spring, and the fence viewers had attended to their duty, seeing that every thing was fast, the haywards were sent out to impound such cattle, horses, sheep and swine as were found within the com- mon field. The owners of the imprisoned beasts were obliged to pay the poundage ; but if it appeared that the fence was more at fault than the beasts, those who had thus paid their money could oblige the delinquent fence owners to bear the loss.

Here are regulations concerning the common gates or bars, the " baighting " of cattle, &c. :

Dec. 12th, 1704, "the propriators by uoate agreed y' he y' lefs [leaves] opin y* com~on gates or bcrs [bars] in y« com~on feild should pay al y« damag y' is dun thereby and y' no man shal stak horses* in y« moing land in said feild or baight cattell after y« first of aprill till combing timef except they are at work by y" [them] and the fenc of s"* feild to be kcept up al y« yeir and hogs pound fesiaut al y« yeir

* A horse was gtakedby making him fast to astalie driven into the ground, by means of a rope or cord several yards in length. He could thus be safely left to feed around for the distance which the rope would permit him to go. When the grass was cropped short in one place, the Btake was removed to another.

t Coramoning time was the time fixed upon in the fall, after the crops had been removed, when all the owners in the common field turned in their cattle and horses for pasture.

60 HISTORY OF WATEKBURY.

Jan 7*'' l706-'7. The propriators agree y* when s** feild shall be opened to turn in cattell it shall be but one moneth and then y« cattle kept out and pounded as in y« sum~er and y* men shall turn into s'^ feild according to their intrist in it and no man to baight or stake in s'' field at no time but on his own land and takeing care of them and all yi brake this order to haue their cattle pounded or delt with as trespasors.

Four years afterward, (or March 5th, 1710-11, " it was grd [agreed] on by note" tliat moneth^ (a common orthography of the day,) in the above record, " is intended for munth and with that amendation the act so stand yearly til the propriaters se cas [cause] to alter it."

Verily, our fathers were getting critical ! The former clerk had left town, and a wiser one had succeeded to his place. The orthography of Thomas Judd, the schoolmaster, is cor- rected by his cousin, Thomas Judd, the smith !

Y« propriators [Dec 12th, 1704] granted liberty to any y* see cans to inclos in prticulor [to inclose his own land] for wheat or other corn

This right was secured by statute. Any man might fence in his own land and thus improve it exclusively ; but he must in- close it at his own expense. If a man adjoining him chose to do the same thing, the division fence must be built by both in just proportion.

Desemb. the 8 1707 it was uoated that nither hors nor cattel shold be baited or staked within the feeld from the fifteenth of april until the medows are clear furder it was noted that each propriator shold put in cretures according to ther propotion of fence.

In the fall season after the grass had been cut and the crops removed from the common field, it was the custom to turn in the " cattle, horses and sheep " for pasture. It w^as the practice to name the day on which the fields should be " cleared," and when the people might turn in their cattle, &c. This was late in September or early in October. " Com- moning time " was looked forward to with great interest. At the appointed time, early in the morning, or immedi- ately after sundown, the whole town was astir. All the four footed beasts that lived by grazing were brought out, driven in long procession to the meadow gates, and " turned in " to

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 61

crop tlie fresh herbage. There they remained luxuriating and gathering fatness till the late autumnal frosts. The writer's recollections, extending back forty years, furnishes him with some refreshing scenes connected with the opening of the common field. Eoys who used to drive the cows a mile to pasture, hailed the time with lively feelings.

There was a law of the Colony, at an earl}^ date, requiring every town and plantation " to make and maintain a sufficient pound or pounds for the impounding and restraining of all such swine, horses, cattle and other creatures, as shall be found damage feasant, and swine found unringed or unyoked." But the first record of the "setting up " of a pound in Waterbury is the following:

Genuary: 'io'*": 1702-3 y« town uoted y' there should be a pound set up in y« South highway sum where neare y* south gate y* spot where to be set out by y« townsmen

The next year a pound was ordered near the west or common gate, and Deacon Thomas Judd, who lived hard by, was ap- pointed pound keeper.

Decembr y« 12=1704 y« propriators gaue juds meadow men leaue to setup a pound for ym selues on their own charg for impounding their own cattel and such as are left out in y« field when men are at worck with them there

In 1735, the inhabitants of Korthbury (now Plymouth) were authorized by the town to erect a pound at their own ex- pense ; and in Dec. 1749, Northbury and "Westbury (Water- town) had each " liberty to build a pound at town charge." In February, 1753, Andrew Bronson, who lived on the southwest corner of West Main and Willow streets, obtained the consent of the town to remove the pound near his house, " farther westward in the lane," he being at the expense.

There must have been pounds, or yards, for the confinement of cattle, &c., before the early dates above mentioned, as the law required. Hay wards were appointed by the town in 1681. The pounds ordered to be set up in 1702-3 and 1704, were probably designed to take the place of one or more of more ancient date, which had gone to decay.

HISTORY or WATERBUKY.

CHAPTER YL

INDIAN PURCHASES : INCORPORATION OF THE TOWN : SEQUESTER LANDS.

On the 29th day of April, 1684, certain Farmington Indians, (nine in number, including two squaws,) "in consideration of nine pounds already received, or good security for that pur- pose," granted to Serg. Thomas Judd and John Stanley, in the name and behalf of the proprietors of the township of Matta- tuck, an addition to the land which they formerly sold to Major Talcott, Mr. "Wadsworth, &c., and lying north of it. It extended north from the rock called Mount Taylor and an east and west line, to a tree marked by Captain Stanley and John Norton, Senr., being eight miles. The grant butted east on Farmington bounds, south on the former grant, (upon that which was formerly the Spinning Squaw's land,) west by a north and south line, which if extended south would run "four score rods from the easternmost part of Quasepaug Pond," north on the wilderness, an east and west line.

This deed purports to have been given by " Patuckquo in the name and behalf and by order of Atumtockquo, Wa- wowas, Taphow, Judas, Mantow, Momantow's squaw, Mercy, Sequses (squaw,) and Quatowquechuck (Taphow's son.)"

In the same year, on the second day of December, John Acompound, Hackatowsock and his squaw, Mantow, Warun- compound, Atumtocko, Spinning Squaw, Patuckco (squaw,) Sebockett, the same persons, for the most part, who are the grantors named in the deed of 1674, for " nine pounds in hand received or security sufficiently given," conveyed to the same party " one parcel of land at Mattatuck situated on each side of Mattatuck River, to extend from the said river three miles towards Woodbury," butting north on the rock called Mount Taylor, and a line running east and west from that point, east

HISTORY OF WATEEBUKY. 63

on Fcarmington bounds, the line running from the rock called the " Ordinary " south to Beacon Hill Brook, or Milford, or New Haven bounds, south on Beacon Hill Brook and Pau- gasset, west on Pootatuck and Pomperaug.

The tract of land here conveyed, it will be noticed, is tlie same, with a little more definite limits, as that granted in the deed of 1674. It was common in those times for the native proprietors to make claims to the lands wliich they had once sold, on the ground that they had been inadequately paid, or that they did not understand the import of their acts.

Feb. 28th, 1684, (1685, new style,) Conquapatana (sagamore,) Awawas, Curan, Cocapadous, Tataracum, Kecasahum, Wen- untacum, Cocoeson, "Wechamunck and Werumcaske (Cocoe- sen's sister,) Arumpiske (Curan's squaw,) Notanmnck (Qur- an's sister,) twelve in number, of the Paugasset or Milford tribe of Indians, as I suppose, deeded to Thomas Judd and John Stanley, " per order and in the name and behalf of the pro- prietors of Mattatuck," " for divers causes and considerations thereunto moving and for the sum of six pound in hand," twenty parcels of land, " nine parcels on the east side of Naiiga- tuck River southward from Mattatuck town, which comprises all the land below, betwixt Beacon Hill Brook and the hither end of Judd's meadows, called by the name of Sqontk, and from Naugatuck Piver eastward to Wallingford and New Haven bounds, with all the low lands upon the brook formen- tioned; and eleven parcels on the west side of the first parcel," having certain relations not easy to understand, to Cedar Swamp, the middle of Toamtick Pond, Qnasepaug Pond, and "Woodbury bounds ; at the north part, butting east on " Nau- gatuck or Mattatuck Eiver," and at the south part, east on the lands fii-st mentioned. These twenty parcels of land seem to have been contiguous tracts, each having a distinct Indian name given in the deed, and lying in the southern and south- western parts of the township. They are included, it will be observed, in the first and third purchases from the Farming- ton Indians ; but were also claimed, it appears, by the Derby Indians. Without inquiring very particularly into the justice of the claim, it was thought expedient to extinguish it by pur- chase.

64 HISTORY OF WATEEBURY.

On the 28tli day of June, 1711, Cockapatane, Sagamore of " Saugosset " and Tom Indian, his son, for twenty five shillings deeded to the proprietors of Waterbury "a small piece of land " north of Derby bounds, west of Naugatuck River and south of Toantick Brook,

Thus the limits of ancient Waterbury, as described by the several deeds from the Indians, extended from north to south eighteen miles, and from east to west, nine miles towards the northern line and six miles towards the south.

The territory in question was all honestly purchased, most of it twice, and some of it three times. And it was bought not with baubles, but with hard cash. However it may have been in other cases, our ancestors did not get possession of their lands by robbery, or finesse. They were neither " filli- busters " nor cheats. What they had of this world's goods, which was but little, they paid for. Doubtless, those who conveyed their lands did not obtain possession by a method equally just. But it has been claimed that the Indian own- ers or occupants of the soil did not know the significance of a deed by which they parted with their titles, and could not comprehend the consequences of their acts.* But they did know what a sale meant. They did know in our case, (as there are the best reasons to believe,) as they signed the deeds with " marks uncouth," that they were selling their lands, and thus giving up the right of possession. And as for consequences, even the white purchasers had but the dimnest notions. Were they to wake up from their long sleep, and see what our eyes behold in the year 1857, their astonishment would be unmeasured. Nor w^as the price paid so entirely disproportionate to the thing bought. Sixty-three pounds — the amount of all the purchase money — was to the first planters of Waterbury, a large sum. It probably repre- sented as much wealth as the lands would have sold for at this day, had the country generally remained in the undisturbed possession of the savages.

Civilization, industry, skill and thrift have made the Nauga-

* Judge Church's Litchfield Centennial Address, p. 26.

Wild e r II f^ s s

tee/sisUrs ew Haven

THE OLD TOWT^SUIP OF ^ AT?: R BURT.

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. G5

atuck valley what it is. The wealth which exists here to clay has been created by their agency. The soil has been snbdued and improved, its incnmbrances removed and its capacities developed. Fences, bridges, roads, railways, mill-dams, mills, factories, store houses and dwellings have been built. Quar- ries have been opened, swamps drained, stones removed and trees felled. Farms have been stocked with hoi-ses, horned cattle, sheep and swine. Superior grasses have been introduc- ed and orchards planted. The Indians did none of these things — transferred none. Tliey conveyed the naked soil, (much of it literally naked,) without any improvements, and totally unfitted in its then natural state for the abode of civil- ized men. Tliey sold that of which they had a superfluity, and which they were incapable of putting to profitable use. It was the smallest fraction of a continent running to waste, awaiting a purchaser and the application of capital. The value which po23ulation and cultivation, labor, skilled and un- skilled, invention, science, capital and commerce have given, should be kept distinct from natural and inherent value. The former our fathers did not purchase, and did not obtain, and for which it did not behoove them to pay. The latter they bought, and like honest men, paid for it. Tliey thought they gave a fair equivalent — more indeed, perhaps, than they would have been willing to give, had it not been for their ignorance of better lands, at cheaper rates, farther west, and in other localities. If they took advantage of the ignorance of the natives, they lost more, it may be plausibly said, by their own lack of information. At any rate, for many long years they apparently considered their bargain a hard one ; and most likely, had it not been for their improvements, would have abandoned the settlement. Many did so, glad to escape at any necessary sacrifice.

The wild Indian is not the precise being he is represented in many works of romance. He has been painted as possess- ed of certain manly traits, and the truth of the likeness, illus- trated by certain examples. But his general character is quite the reverse. lie is given to lying, cheating, thieving. He is lazy, thriftless, faithless, bloodthirsty. He lives like a rob- ber and a vagabond. His cunning and his courage are like

5

66 HISTORY OF WATEKBURY.

tliose that belong to certain beasts of prey. The only restraints he knows are those imposed by indolence and fear. Brought into contact with a civilized people, he learns all their vices, but not one of their virtues. He becomes a drunkard — an outcast. Every persistent attemj^t to civilize and Christianize him has resulted in the annihilation of the race. He is essentially, as is now generally admitted, untamable, as much so as certain wild animals. Attempts to improve him, do violence to his nature, and in a few generations sweep him out of existence. His character is essentially defective. He appears to lack the moral sentiments necessary to a higher life. These the appli- ances of civilization are inadequate to supply. I admit there is a diiference in different tribes, and that various degrees of partial improvement, among certain Indian races, have some- times resulted from the efforts of philanthropists. Neverthe- less, that the general fact is as stated, is undeniable.

The Indian titles to the lands proposed to be included in the township being secured, the inhabitants of Mattatuck were prepared for a town patent, or act of incorporation. They presented a petition to the General Court at the May session of 1685, praying for "a Patent for the confirmation of their lands unto the present proprietors." They chose Serg. Thomas Judd and Serg. John Stanley " Patentees to take out a Patten for the townshijD." Other names, however — those of Robert, Porter, Edmund Scott, Isaac Bronson and John Welton — are inserted in the instrument itself.

Probably the application was made at this particular time on account of the critical condition of the Colony. James II had ascended the throne of England and nothing good w^as expected from his reign. There was some delay, however, in obtaining the patent. In the mean time, three successive writs of quo warranto* were served on the Governor and Com- pany of the Colony, and it became evident that the Charter was doomed. The inhabitants of Connecticut were of course greatly alarmed. The people of the dififerent towms and settle- ments were in haste to get their land titles and town franchises secured by a patent from the local government, in anticipation

* A warrant requiring the party summoned to appear in court and show by what authority the powers of government were exercised.

HISTORY OF WATERBUKY, 67

of its dissolution. Thus they hoped to save themselves from the extortionate demands of royal governors. The General Court had authorized the governor and secretary of the Col- ony, in May, 16S5, " to give patents and deeds to the proprie- tors of every township of all lands and rights," &c. All the towns then existing availed themselves of the privilege, and the new plantation seized the opportunity to gain a similar grant.

Mattatuck was invested with town privileges, in the usual way. May, 1686. Here is the form : —

This Court Grants that Mattatuck shall be and belong to the county of Hartford and the name of the plantation shall for the future be Waterbury. [May 13, 1086.]

The new town took the name of Waterbury on account of its numerous rivers, rivulets, ponds, swamps, " boggy mead- ows " and wet lands. Bury is another way of spelling borough orburg, and signifies a dwelling phice. It is a pity the beau- Tiful oIcTTndiaii name of Mattatuck was not retained. But our Puritan ancestors regarded these native words as heathen- ish, and were in haste to discard and forget them. Latterly, they have been in some cases revived and applied to the new^ towns, to corporations and various local institutions and objects. Our friends down the river showed their good sense when they called their new town Naugatuck, (another beautiful name,) where the second settlement in the valley was made.

Sir Edmund Andros, of charter memory, arrived in Boston, Dec. 1686. A7aterbury's patent was issued soon after, bearing "date Feb. 8th, 1686-7.

Whereas the Generall Court of Connecticut liaue formerly Granted unto the inhabitants of Waterbury all those lands within these abutments viz upon New Haven in part & Milford in part & Derby in part on the south & upon Woodbury in part & upon the comons in part on the west & upon Comon land on the North: & east in part upon farmington Bounds & in part upon the comons & from the South to the north line extends Thirteen Miles in length & from farmington Bounds to Woodbury about nine Miles breadth at the North & some what less at the South end the sayd lands hauing been by purchass or otherwise lawfully ob- tayned of the native proprietors, And whereas the proprietors Inhabitants of Wa- terbury in the colony of Connecticut in Newengland haue made application to the Governor & company of the sayd colony of Connecticut assembled in Court the fourteenth of may one Thousand Six Hundred & Eighty fine that they may haue a patent for the confirmation of the afoarsavd lands as it is Butted & Bounded

68 HISTORY OF WATEKBUKY.

afoarsayd unto the present proprietors of the sayd Township of Waterbury -which they haue for some years past enjoyed without Interruption Now for more full confirmation of the premises & afoarsayd Tract of land as it is butted and Bound- ed afoarsayd unto the present proprietors of the Township of Waterbury Know yoe that the sayd Gov & company assembled in Generall Court according to the commission granted to them by our late Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second of the blessed Memory in his letters patent bearing date the Three & Twentyeth day of April in the fourteenth year of his Sayd Ma''«' Reigne haue given and Granted & by these presents doe giue grant rattify & confirm unto Thomas Judd John Standly Robert Porter Edmund Scott Isaac Brunson John Wilton & the rest of the proprietors Inhabitants of the Towne of Waterbury & their heirs & assigns forever & to each of them in such proportion as they haue already agreed upon for the diuision of the Same all that a foarsayd Tract of land as it is butted and Bounded together with all the woods uplands arable lande meadows pastures ponds waters Riuers fishings foulings mines Mineralls Quarries & precious Stones upon and within the sayd Tract of lands with all other profits and comodities tnere- unto belonging or in any wise appertaining & we doe also Grant unto the afore named Thomas Judd John Standly Robert Porter Edmund Scott Isaac Brunson John Wilton, & the rest of the p'sent proprietors Inhabitants of Waterbury there heirs and assigns foreuer, that the foresayd Tracts of land shall be foreuer hereafter deemed reputed & be an Intire Township of it Selfe to haue & to hold the sayd Tract of lands & premises with all & Singular their appurtenances together with the priviledges, Immunities & franchises herein given & granted to the sayd Thomas Judd John Stanly Robert Porter Edmund Scott Isaac Brunson John Wilton & others the present proprietors Inhabitants of Wa- terbury their heirs assigns & to the only proper use and behoofe of the sayd Thomas Judd John Standly Robert Porter Edmund Scott Isaac Brunson John Wilton & the other proprietors Inhabitants of Waterbury their heirs & assignes forever according to the Tennore of his Ma^'^s Manor of East Greenwich in the County Kent in the Kingdom of England in fee & common' soccage & not in capitee nor Knight seruice they yeilding & paying therefore to our Soverigne Lord the King his heirs & successors onely the fifth part of all the oare of Gold & Silver which from time to time & at all times hereafter shall be there gotten had or obtained in Lue of all rents services dutys & demands what- soever according to the charter in witness whereof we have here unto affixed the seal of the Colony this eighth of febuary in the Third year of the reign of s"* Soueraigne lord James the Second by the grace of God of England Scotland france & Ireland King defender of the fay the of o^ Lord 1686: Pr order of the Generall Court of Connecticut

John Alltn Secret'y

At the May session of the General Court, in 1703, the Wa- terbury patent, as well as the patents of the other towns in the Colony, was confirmed in the following act :

Whereas the Court did authorize May 14, 1685, the Governor & Secretary of the Colony to give Patents or deeds to the proprietors of every township [&c] of all lands & rights [&c] & did ratify all sequestrations, and donations, [&c.] it is hereby enacted that the several above mentioned lands with all the rights [&c.]

HISTORY OE WATERBURY. 69

contained in the above mentioned Pattents shall be & remain full & clear estate to the Proprietors of the respective towns mentioned [&c.] & the lands sequestered & given to pubUc and pious uses shall remain forever for the same, [&c.]

At the October session of 1720, the proprietors of Water- bury petitioned that a new " deed of release and quit claim of and in the lands within the town may be granted and be signed and sealed by the Honorable the Governor and the Secre- tary." The petition was granted and a patent furnished in a m(5re approved and ample form.

One reason for this new deed appears to have been the neg- lect to enter the names of all the proprietors, the grantees, in the former deed. Other reasons were probably found in the irregular practices and informal proceedings of the pro- prietors in disposing of their lands, hereafter to be noticed. Tlie original patent, in the hand writing of Mr. Soutlnnayd, (except the date and signatures,) is in the writer's possession :

To all people to whom these presents shall come, the Governor and Company of the English Colony of Connecticut, in New England in America, send. Greeting, &c.

Know Ye, that whereas all the lands contained within these abutments, Viz.

beginning at a certain chestnut tree marked and stones about it, which is Water- bury's south west corner and Woodbury's south east corner, thence running north- ward thirteen miles to a small white oak tree marked with divers letters, and a heap of stones about it, which tree is Waterbury's north west corner and Woodbury's north east corner, thence running east eight miles till it strikes Farmington bounds, thence running south to the south west corner of Farmington bounds, thence east till it comes upon Wallingford bounds, and from thence a straight line to a certain chestnut tree, known by the name of the three sisters, which tree is Waterbury's south east corner, & Wallingford's south west corner, New Haven's north west corner, and Milford's north east corner, thence westerly a mile and six score rods to Milford's north west corner, thence south to Beacon Brook, thence westward as the brook runs, to a great rock marked on the west side of Naugatuck River, thence a straight line to the twelve mile stake, thence west to forementioned tree which is Waterbury's south west corner and Woodbury's south east corner, and is about five miles and a half in breadth at the south end of the bounds, butting west on Woodbury, north in part on Litchfield and in part on country land, to the east in part upon Farmington and in part upon Wallingford, to the south in part upon Milford and in part upon Derby. — Were purchased and lawfully obtain- ed of the Indian native proprietors, and have been possessed and improved, for the space of more than forty years, by the persons whose names are hereafter mentioned, being present inhabitants and proprietors of Waterbury, in the Coun ty of Hartford and Colony of Connecticut aforesaid.

And Whereas King Charles the second, our late sovereign lord of England, &c., by letters patent, under the great seal of England, by writ of privy seal, bearing date the twenty eight day of April, in the fourteenth year of his reign, did give

70 HISTOEY OF WATEKBUKT.

and grant and confirm unto us the said Governor and Company all the lands with- in the Colony aforesaid, in which those lands are included, and the said Governor and Company did in the year one thousand six hundred and eighty five. May the fourteenth, grant letters patent for the land above s"^ to Thomas Judd, Esq., John Stanley, Edmund Scott Isaac Bronson, and John Welton, and others the then in- habitants of Waterbury, whose names should have been then enrolled but were not, — For this and other reasons and good causes, the said Thomas Judd, Esq., and other the inhabitants, proprietors of Waterbury, now moving to us the Gov- ernor and Company in general court assembled, for the more sure making and firm establishing of the rights to us given of the lands aforesaid unto them accord- ing to the several descents, devises, grants, divisions, agreements, to them fallen, given, made, concluded, purchased, or purchases by them made or procured, ac- cording to, or as are, to be found in their town records, from time to time, as they come to the said Thomas Judd, and all other the inhabitants, proprietors of Wa- terbury, whose names are hereafter declared, and whereby their several rights, proprieties and properties and proportions are distinguished whether holden by them in fee simple or fee tail, or considered for life, or lives, or years, in severalty, or as tenants, joint-tenants, or as partners —

Now Know Ye that we the said Governor and Company in General Court assem- bled, by virtue of the letters patent, to us given by our sovereign lord King Charles the second, of happy, blessed memory, have granted, remised, released and quitted claim, and by these presents, do fully and absolutely for us and our successors, give, grant, remise, release, and altogether for us and our successors, quit claim, ratify, approve and confirm in the quiet and peaceable and firm seizin and posses- sion of the said Thomas Judd, Esq., John Stanley, Edmund Scott, Isaac Bronson, John Welton, Capt. Thomas Judd, Esq., John Southmayd, Timothy Stanley, John Hopkins, Abraham Andruss, Sen., John Richards, Edmund Scott, the heirs of Abraham Andruss, Jr., the heirs of John Newell, the heirs of John Carrington, the heirs of Daniel Warner, John Scovill, Sen., Thomas Judd, the heirs of Joseph Gaylord, the heirs of John Bronson, Daniel Porter, Sen., the heirs of Philip Judd,' Thomas Newell, Jeremiah Peck, Jonathan Scott, Sen., Richard Porter, Stephen Upson, Sen., the School, the Parsonage, Samuel Stanley, Isaac Bronson, William Hickox, Thomas Hickox, Samuel Scott, Ephraim Warner, Thomas Upson, Thomas Andruss, John Bronson, Thomas Richards, Sen., John Barnes, Benjamin Warner, Thomas Bronson, Ebenezer Bronson, Samuel Porter, Obadiah Scott, the heirs of Thomas Welton, George Welton, the heirs of Stephen Welton, Ebenezer Hickox, Jr., Stephen Upson, Jr., the heirs of John Richards, Jr., Thomas Barnes, Samuel Warner, Sen., John Scovill, Jr., Ebenezer Richason, Thomas Clark, George Scott, Jr., David Scott, Sen., Jonathan Scott, Jr., John Welton, Jr., the heirs of John Richason, Stephen Hopkins, Joseph Lewis, WiUiam Judd, Daniel Porter, Jr., the heirs of John Judd, Timothy Hopkins, George Scott, Sen., Joshua Peck, Richard Welton, Benjamin Warner, Sen., Daniel Shelton, Joseph Prime, Josiah Piatt, James Fenn, Moses Blachly, [Blakeslce,] John Prout, Thomas Furney, [Turney,] Joseph Moss, Israel Moss, Richard Bronson, the heirs of Samuel Howard, Eliza- beth Wilson, Joseph Birdsey, the heirs of Thomas Richason, John Read, James Brown, the heirs of Serg. Jamuel Hickox, Hezekiah Rew, Ebenezer Hickox, Sen., Samuel Mix, Silvanus Baldwin, James Blachly, [Blakeslee,] Samuel Barnes, James Poisson, Samuel Warner, the heirs of Obadiah Richards, the heirs of Obadiah

HISTORY OF WATEKBURY. 71

Scovill, John Stanley, the whole right, title and claim which we have in or unto all the above said tract of land, bounded as abovesaid, with all the buildings, fences, orchards, trees, wood, timber, underwood, stones, precious stones, quarries, mines, minerals, lands, uplands, pastures, marshes, arable lands, meadows, swamps, rivers, brooks, creeks, ponds, springs, waterings, islands, upon or within the above said tract of land, and with the rights, members, appurtenances, hereditaments, and the rever- sion and reversions, remainder and remainders, royalties, privileges, whatsoever, of into, within and out of the premises, and any and every part and parcel of the same, to them and every of them, their heirs and assigns forever, according to their and each of their several parts, portions, proportions, shares, rights and interests, in, of and unto the lands above described, to be distinguished according to their several descents, devises, grants, divisions, agreements, and purchases, as of record appcareth, and by records of said town of Waterbury may be seen, (reference thereunto being had,) in this instrument — To have and to hold, to them the said Thomas Judd, Esq., John Stanley, Edmund Scott, Isaac Bronson, John Welton, Capt. Thomas Judd, John Southmayd, Timothy Stanley, John Hopkins and all others, the inhabitants, proprietors of Waterbury, whose names have been above declared, and to their and each of their heirs, according to each one's several proportions aforesaid, to their proper use, benefit and behalf for ever.

And whereas, there is in the actual seizin and possession of the said Thomas Judd, John Stanley and others, the inhabitants and proprietors of Waterbury, sundry lands within the limits above described, called and known by the name of sequestered lands, sequestered by vote of the town of Waterbury and reserved for the town's use, intended to be improved and used by the inhabitants of said town as commonage, for the common and general feeding of cattle, for firewood, timber, stone, and any and all other the profits and conveniences thereof, without any regard to the distinction of shares, rights, proportions of interests, or property in the said lands — therefore upon motion made to us by the said present proprietors of Waterbury — We the Governor and Company of the English Colony of Connect- icut, in New England, in America, in General Court assembled, do for ourselves and our successors, fully, freely and absolutely, remise, release, quit claim, ratify, approve and confirm, in the quiet and peaceable and firm seizen and possession of the said Thomas Judd, John Stanley, Isaac Bronson, John Welton, Capt. Thomas Judd, John Southmayd, Timothy Stanley, John Hopkins, and all other the pres- ent proprietors, inhabitants of Waterbury, as have been before named — the whole right, title and claim that we have had, or have in or unto the said sequestered lands above described, limited and bounded, as the records of the town of Wa- terbury will more fully show, (reference thereunto being had,) To have and to hold, to them the said Thomas Judd, John Stanley and others the proprietors above named, their heirs, successors and assigns, in equal proportion, as town commons, to be ever improved, used and occupied by them, the parties above named, their successors and assigns, in the way and manner above set forth, (which was the design and intent of the first sequestration,) without any distinc- tion and particular Hmitation of the yearly and constant profits arising therefrom to the several proprietors among themselves, and never to be impropriated, grant- ed, divided, or taken up in severalty, until three quarters of the proprietors, inhabit- ants of Waterbury, shall agree thereunto.

The whole of what is in this instrument above released, quit claimed and con- firmed, To holdoi his Magesty, his heirs and successors, according to the tenor of

7ii HISTORY OF WATEKBUEY.

his Magesty's Manor of East Greenwich, in the County of Kent, in that part of the Kingdom of Great Britian formerly called England, in free and common soc- cage, rendering, yielding and paying therefor to our sovereign lord the King, his heirs and successors, for ever, only the fifth part of all the oar of gold and silver which, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, shall be gotten and obtained, in lieu of all services, duties and demands whatsoever, according to the charter of us the said Governor and Company granted, without any manner of claim, chal- lenge, or demand whatsoever, to be had or made by us, or our successors, in any manner of wise —

In witness whereof, we have caused the seal of the said Colony to be hereunto affixed, this twenty eighth day of October anno Domo. one thousand, seven hun- dred and twenty, in the V*** year of the reign of our sovereign lord George of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King.

G. Saltonstall Gov'.

Hez. Wyllys. Secretary.

It is manifestly the intention of the above deed to enumer- ate, as grantees, either individually or as the heirs of certain persons, ail those who, at the time, were owners of land, (or who had titles of land,) divided and undivided, in the town of Waterbury. Viewed in this light, the catalogue is full of in- terest. The five patentees of 1686 are mentioned in the begin- ning. Three of them were deceased. With the exception of these and of those persons whose " heirs " are referred to, the individuals named were living at the time. Several of them (most of those bearing unfamiliar names) were non-resident landholders. The following persons were not (and never had been) residents of the town :

Silvanus Baldwin of Milford, Joseph Birdsey, James Blachly of New Haven, afterwards of Litchfield and Waterbury, Moses Blachly of New Haven, afterwards of Waterbury, Richard Bronson of Woodbury, James Brown of New Haven, after- wards of Waterbury, James Fenn of Milford, Samuel Howard (heirs,) Samuel Mix of New Haven, Israel Moss of Derby, Joseph Moss of Derby, Josiah Piatt of Milford, James Poisson, Joseph Prime of Milford, (Capt.) John Prout of New Haven, John Reed of " Lonetown," Fairfield County, Hezekiah Rew of Milford, Daniel Shelton of Stratford and Ripton, Thomas Turney of New Haven, Elizabeth Wilson of Hartford, (who held a mortgage on land of John Welton, Jr.)

The patents, it will be observed, make Waterbury thirteen miles in length. As for breadth, that of 1686 describes it as nine miles at the northern part, and somewhat less at the south ; while that of 1720 speaks of it as eight miles broad at the north, and five and a half at the south end. These descrip- tions very essentially curtail the limits of the town, as they

HISTOKY OF ^VATERBURY. 7d

are set forth by the Indian deeds. Probably it was the inten- tion of tlie grantors, in thus describing the boundaries of the town, to avoid the possibiHty of encroaching on adjoining grants. It bordered on neighboring towns the limits of which had not yet been certainly determined. In truth, nobody knew, at the early dates of which I am speaking, how much territory there was that lay north of the Derby line and be- tween the Farmington and Wallinglbrd bounds on the east and the Woodbury bounds on the west. As the limits of Wa- terbury were finally settled, the town extended from north to south, on a meridian line, seventeen miles, and from east to west, at its broadest part, nine miles. Towards the southern extremity its sides approached, so that on the Derby and Mil- ford border it was but about five and a quarter miles across. Its average length may have been sixteen miles, and its aver- age breadth, eight and one third miles. It could not have contained less than one hundred and thirty-three square miles, or eighty-five thousand acres. These, divided equally among the thirty-six original proprietors, would have given twenty- three hundred and seventy acres of land to each — a pretty fair landed estate.

The limits of the old town, as above defined, comprehend the present towns of Waterbury, Watertown and Plymouth, half of Wolcott, a small part of Oxford, the greater por- tion of Middlebury, more than a third of Prospect, and nearly the whole of Naugatuck. This tract of territory, which a com- mittee of the colonial government estimated as suflicient to maintain thirty families, now contains a poj)ulation of (say) fourteen thousand souls.

In consequence of the lack of fixed landmarks, in the original deeds and patents of the township, AYaterbury was involved in frequent, protracted and expensive controversies, (which M'ere sometimes carried to the Assembly or the courts,) with the bordering towns. Throughout its entire boundaries, in fact, there seem to have been but three points which were fixed, and assented to from an early period. These were the " three sisters," (the southeast corner,) the mouth of Beacon Hill Brook, and a point " four score rods from the eastermost part of Quassepaug Pond," on the Woodbury road. The length of

74 HISTORY OF WATEKBUKY.

but a single line, (and that a short one,) was given, till after the patent of 1720. This line ran " westerly " (that is, in some direction, towards the west) one mile and six score rods. It began at the " three sisters," a point which had been settled as the Waterbury southeast corner before 1720.

The following extracts from the colonial and town records show (in part) what was done, from time to time, in way of settling the boundaries between Waterbury and other towns :

May ys; 18: 1680: thes presents may srtefy y^ gen'i Court or whom it may con- sern y' we y^ agents of derby being desired and appointed by y^ inhabitants of our town y« 30"^ of aprill (1680) hauing full pour to conclude a loyn place or pla" ces of bounds: depending betwixt mattatock and derby and malce a final issue of ye matter before it corns to y« generall court and we y« agents of mattatock Wil- liam iudd Thomas Judd and iohn standly iur: being appointed by our committy to gain a complyance with our freinds ioseph haukins and able gun according to y^ tenor of y« premises so fare as it concerns these two plantations we do agree y' so ye generall court may giue their sanction upon it, do by theis presents determine betwein us as follows, y' y^ south bounds of mattatock do begin at a stack at derbe twelue miles end and from y' stack to extend a west loyn where derby and mattatock shall meet Woodbury bounds and from y' stake afores'' att the end of derbe twelue miles to go with a straight loyn to a ston marcked with: m: on ye north sid and: d: on y^ south sid lying on ye west s"* nagatock or mattatock riuer and from y' ston to ye mouth of becon hill brook where it falls into nagatock or mattatock riuer and y' brook to be ye deuident loyn east ward between mattatock and derby and this agreement is a finall issue or a full setteU ment of ye s"* bounds of mattatock and derby which is to all intents and purposes binding to them their heirs assigns and sucsesors as witness our hands ye day and date aboue men- tioned.

derby agents Mattatock agents

Joseph hawkins William iudd

Able gun: Thomas iudd

John standly iur

To all whom it may concern be it known y' we herevnto subscribing as agents in ye behalf of ye Plantations of woodbury and mattatock by y® motion of hon- ourable freinds and weighty arguments as hereunto inducing haue had a meeting upon ye 29''' of iune 1680: in order to ye setling of boundarys betwein ye s^i two plantations and do fully and unanimosly agree and consent as foloweth uiz that there be a loyn run du east from ye westermost part of ye bounds agreed and concluded between mattatock and derby to mattatock riuer and so y' loyne to be run from y® s"* riuer too miles and twelue scor rods due west and then a loyn from ye eastermost part of ye great pond commonly called or known by ye name of quassapaug from such a part of ye pond as by us already agreed on four score rods due east and then a straight loyn from ye four score rod to ye a fore sd west corner betwein derby and mattatock and from ye afore sd coner or four scor rod due east from y® forsd pond ye bounds is agreed and concluded to run due north

HISTORY OF WATEKBUEY. 75

to ye extent northward of each plantations bounds and yt this our niutall agree- ment and firm settellment of y* deuident bounds betwein our plantations as aforesd is signified by our subscribing hereunto this twenty ninth day of iune in y^ yeir of our lord sixteen hundred and eyghty.

Thomas Judd John Minor

Isriell Curtis William Judd

John Standly iur Joseph Judsou

May 1681. This Court haue granted that the bounds for the plantation of mat- tatuck shall runn eight miles north from the town plott, as their stated bounds and doe confirme and rattify the boundaryes agreed upon by Mattatuck and Wood- bury plantations and the boundaries agred upon between Mattatuck and Derby inhabitants, which more at large is sett down in their subscribed papers by the hands of the committees appoynted by each plantation and Mattatock bounds on the east shall be upon Farmiugton bounds.*

i\.prill^j'''=1703. Wee agree as followeth for boundrys betwein derby and Waterbury to run west ward from ye marked ston or y® west sd y^ riuer to a stone or rock on y" straight mountain with stones layd on it and to run a straight loyn to ye twelue mile stake and then run west from s^ stake by marked trees and sta- tions T a red oak with stones layd at y^ botom 2 ly a white oake 3" ly a red oake at ye noreast s*" of to antick pond 4 ly a white oake on a long redg of rocks south west from toantick pond

for Waterbury for derby

Timothy Stanly Ebcnczer Johnson

John hopkins henery Woster

obadiah Richards Edward Rigs

We hereunto subscribing agents for Woodbury and Waterbury met together March 26th, 1744, and began at the known boundary east of Quassepaug pond and ran a line north two degrees west a straight line up to a stake with a heap of stones about it the north east corner of Woodbury bounds, and the north west corner of Waterbury bounds, and haue erected monuments in about eighty rods distance on s'' line, which monuments are described by marking trees near to them with 44

Ephraim Minor ^ Agents Samuel Hickox ) Agents for

Thomas Knowls > for William Judd ) Waterbury

Timothy Hinman ) Woodbury

April the 23^, 1765. We whose names are hereunto subscribed, being by the towns of Milford and Waterbury appointed to settle the north and west lines be- tween the towns of Milford and Waterbury, with the assistance of two county surveyors for the County of Xew Haren — we began at the three sisters New Haven north west corner, Milford north east corner, Waterbury south east [corner] with Milford and from said corner we ran a due west line one mile and six score rods and made monuments once in eighty rods and at the end of said line we made a heap of stones by a white oak staddle, then southward forty eight rods to Derby north east corner, the south side of Beacon Hill River, which hnes we do agree

* Copied from Cothren's Woodbury, Vol. I, p. 53,

ib HISTORY OF WATEKBUKY.

and establish to be the lines between the towns of Milford and Waterbury. Sign- ed in Waterbury, upon the above date, by us

John Lewis \ ^^^ , David Baldwin ^

o. 1 TT T ( Waterburv xx .. i t, , ( Milford

Stephen Upson, Jr. V Aath' iarrand >■

„. , , \ Committtee -du- i, t> i \ Committee

George Nichols ) Phinehas Peck ;

March 27, 1768, the selectmen of Derby and Waterbury met at the twelve mile stake, and measured easterly to Beacon Hill Brook and westerly across Toantick Pond to the Wood- bury line, giving distances and points of compass.

It was customary with the old towns, in obedience to the statutes provided in such cases, to appoint a committee of two or more persons, annuallj^, whose duty it was, in concert with adjoining towns, " to perambulate the bounds," in the month of March or April, and " to renew the monuments," or bound- marks, which were usually heaps of stones at the corners, and once in eighty rods in the lines. It was usual also to mark the trees and sometimes the stones, as guides to those who might follow. Tlie penalty for neglect to perambulate was five pounds. During the controversy with Farmington, about the dividing line, Waterbury passed a vote that it would not perambulate with her, but preferred to pay the fine. This was in April, 17-i8.

Previous to February, 1680-81, all legitimate authority in the affairs of the settlement centered in, and emanated from, the grand committee. At this time, however, they relieved themselves of some of their responsibilities, and conferred certain powers and privileges, relating to local administration, upon the people themselves.

A meeting of the comity for mattatuck febey 5 1680 att farmington itt was then determined by vs that thos towne ofesers that are chosen by the in habitants of sd mattatuck shall execut their respectiue ofeses and that for the futur the inhabit- ants of the place being orderly called and conuened by their maj'' voat shall haue liberty to chus their Tounsmen Constables suruayors fence viewers and haywards or any other siuel ofesers from time to time without any further order from the Comity.

In 1682, the committee farther determined that the inhab- itants should have power to make regulations concerning the imj)Ounding o± cattle.

After these dates, the committee, having got the infant town upon its legs, as they conceived, gradually withdrew from the

HISTORY OF WATEKBURY. Y7

management of its aifairs. They now " advised," in cases in wliicli they formerly " ordered." They continued, however, to make proprietors, to regulate the conditions of preprietor- ship, to determine questions of forfeiture, and to make special grants of land for the common good, &c. The acts of the proprietors relating to these matters had no force until approv- ed by them. Their powers did not terminate, nor were their duties entirely at an end, till the incorporation of the town. In October, 1685, their numtjer had been reduced by death to two, a minority of the original committee. The General Court authorized the survivors to continue their functions, as follows :

Oct. 1085. This Court appoint Major Talcott and Mr. Wadsworth to continue their powers as Committee for Mattatuck, notwithstanding the death of some of their number.

The last official act of the committee which I have met with on our records is one relating to " the way of raising rates for defraying of the public charges," dated Dec, 26, 1685. It is an " order," signed only by Major Talcott, though it runs in the name of " we." There is, however, a " request and desire," signed by the " friend and servant [of the proprietors] John Wadsworth," dated Sept. 9, 1687, which asks that an oversight in laying out land may be corrected.

At an early period, the proprietors, noticing that their lands, whicli were most valuable and conveniently situated, were gradually passing into the hands of individuals and beyond the control of the people at large, determined to provide against tiie possible evils which might result. They reserved certain large tracts for future occasions and the common good.

Geneu: S"" 86 y^ Town by uoate granted y' all y" bogey meadows east from y* town fence too miles north and southward from y* town shall be sequestered for common lands and too miles east from \ « afore sd fenc.

Another vote appears afterwards to have been passed, on the same day, which sequestered all the lands in the limits mentioned, making them common lands.

Gen: 3: 86 y« town detrmined y' all y^ land on y" east sid y« fenc Round to y« Mill Riuer so to y* east mountain we say to dauids brook and to y^ east mountain all ye land in y' compas to be and belong as common land

Several years afterwards, still another vote was passed, de- signed apparently to extend and explain the preceding.

78 HISTORY OF WATERBURT.

Genuory y« (j'^=l1(

miles from t« going down of y« hill beyond Thomas hikcox* hous east and then from it too miles north and too miles south and then to run at each end west to y« common fence.

These votes gave origin to the terms sequester and seques- tered lauds, on our records. Tlie territory described lay east of the village, being two miles broad from east to west and four long. It was not regularly surveyed till April, 1716, when Lieut. Timothy Stanley and William Hickox were appointed to lay it out. It was set aside, irrevocably, for public uses, its benefits to be enjoyed by the inhabitants in common, without any reference to proprietory ownership. In the divisions and grants that were made, from time to time, no one had a right to locate his lands within its boundaries. It furnished pastur- age, fire-wood, timber, stone, &c., for all, as they stood in need. In several instances, when the public interest was likely to be promoted, grants of it were made to individuals on conditions.

In process of time, it was found that lands layed out, on the supposed sequester line, overlapped and encroached upon the sequestered territory, thus giving origin to conflicting claims. To settle the difficulty, the proprietors voted, in 1Y63, that all lands laid out near the reputed line of sequester, should remain good.

The sequester lands were kept sacred for many years, or were granted in small parcels for a common good. At length, ' however, they acquired value, and it was not so easy to keep the hands off tliem. Eight acres were distributed to each proprietor in 1715. In 1733, a vote was passed to have a reg- ular division ; but at a subsequent meeting, it was tbought " likely to be very prejudicial to the town " and " very imprac- ticable ;" so the former vote was reconsidered. In January, 1738-9, however, it was again concluded by the proprietors, to have a division of the sequestered land. One quarter of an acre on each pound propriety was distributed. This oj^eration was repeated in 1759 and afterwards, till the reserved lands were exhausted. I have not succeeded in finding the evidence that these acts of the proprietors were in conformity to the

* Thomas Hickox's house stood on East Main street, near the house of the late Dr. Joseph Porter.

HISTORY OF WATERBUET. T9

Assembly's confirming cact of 1703, and to the town patent of 1720. By the confirming act "the lands sequestered and given to public and pious uses [were to] remain forever for the same ;" while the patent declared that the sequestered lands, so called, should " never be impropriated, granted, divided, or taken up in severalty, until three quarters of the proprietors shall agree thereunto." In the recorded votes ordering the divisions which have been referred to, nothing is said about " three quarters of the proprietors " being in the major vote.

Other tracts of land were sequestered at difl:erent times, to prevent a too rapid appropriation by individuals. There was a large tract in the northwest quarter, next the Woodbury line, at a place which became known as " the Village," and after- wards as " Garnsey Town," which was thus reserved, (I know not when.) It embraced some of the more valuable lands of the town. It was finally divided among the proprietors, the first division being in l^ov. 1722.

March 13th, 1733, a tract of land in the northwest quarter, " one mile and a half each way from the centre," was seques- tered for the town's use. The tract embraced the present vil- lage of Watertown. Soon, however, the restriction was taken oft' this territory.

CHAPTER YII.

MILLS.

In all new settlements, mills for grinding grain and sawing logs are considered as things of the first necessity. Tbey are a part of the labor-saving machinery which civilization in- vented at an early period. They perform the w^ork of many men, and do it more perfectly than it can be done by hand.

80 HISTOKY OF WATEKBURY.

Food and shelter are the first things to be provided for in a new country, and these mills are almost essential in the pre- paration of the materials. Corn can be pounded in a mortar, or crushed between stones ; but it is a severe task, and none but a primitive people will long submit to it. Dwellings can be made mainly of logs prepared by an axe, with the assistance of clay and straw for the roof; but boards and other "sawed stuff" are almost essential for floors, dooi-s, &c. Our fathers, when they first came to this place, must needs go to Farming- ton for all their mill-work. They must travel a distance of twenty miles through a pathless wilderness, or waste their la- bor in imperfect attempts to supply their wants at home. The only way to escape from this alternative was to provide mills of their own.

The State's committee, at an early period, took this matter into consideration, and under date of l^ov. 2Tth, 1679, advised as follows :

We doe advise the inhabitants to build a sufficient com mill for the vse of the towne and keepe the same in good reparation for the same for the worck and servis of grinding come and for incoragment we grant such persons shall haue thirty [acres] of land layd out and shall be and remain to them and their heirs and Asigns for euer he or they maintaining the said grist mille as aforsaid for ever.

Soon after, Stephen Hopkins of Hartford, erected a mill on Mill River (so called from this use of it) "for grinding corne." It stood where the Scovill Manufacturing Company's rolling mill now is, where a grain mill has ever since remained until within the last twenty-five years or so. The mill being built, the committee awarded to Hopkins the grant w^hich he had become entitled to, and added to it a house lot of two acres, a three acre lot and a £100 allotment. I quote from the record, under date of Feb. 5th, 1680, (1681, K S.)

It is further concluded that steuen Hopkins who hath builte a mile att that plantation [mattatuck] shall haue that thirty acrs apointed and intailed in a former order to such as shall erect a mille theare and so much more land aded to the sayd thirty acrs as may aduance the same to be in value of one hundred pound alotment

There is allso a house lott containing in estimation to acrs granted steuen Hopkins as conuenantly as may be to suit the mile and the for said Thomas Judd and John Stanly and the present townsmen to lay itt out to him and allso a thre acre lott: acording as the other inhabitants haue granted to be layed out by these same persons for him

:

C'^^^^-i^6

HISTORY OF WATERBURY. 81

Aferwards, (Aug. 8, 1682.) the town, in order to carry out the intentions of the committee in relation to tlie " hundred pound allotment,"

Granted to Stephen Hopkins that alotnient which was Decon Langton's with the prouision that one half of the said alotnient shall be intailed to the mill as the thirty acres is, in case the committy grant the same, causing the said Hopkins to subscribe as other inhabytants haue don : prouid [ed] also this grant fre us from all former iniagments respecting the miliars Lott

This action of the proprietors was ratified by the committee, February 6th, 1682, (1683 N. S. ;) but John Hopkins, " the present miller," who was the son of Stephen, was named as the grantee. This is the record :

In referance to what lands are granted by the inhabitants of mattatuck to John Hopkins the present miller we do well aprove of and in case they shall see cause to ease the intaile of any part the £100 Alotnient we shall not object: against itt

The result of all this action was, John Hopkins, " his heirs and assigns," became entitled to the original grant of thirty acres, the sole condition being that " he or they maintain a grist mill for ever." He also became the owner, by grant, of Dea. Lankton's propriety and allotments, without conditions, except that a two acre lot and a three acre lot were entailed to the mill in like manner " as the thirty acres are." To remove all doubt and misapprehension in relation to the tenure by which the Lankton allotments were held, a vote was passed, after the town was incorporated, of which the following is a copy:

Att a town meeting at waterbury december : 30'' : 1687: y* town granted John hopkins y* alotnient now in his possesion which was formerly deac langtons freely and absolutely to him and his heirs foreuer exsepting y' allotment in Isaacs meadow containing three acers and y' too acer alotnient in hancox meadow, which still abids intayld to y® mill as appears by y* town act febeur 13: 1682: we say theis too lots are intayled to y* mill as y« 30 acers was intayld by y® com- mity. [Pro. Book. Vol. I, p! 13.]

Several years later, a misunderstanding or difficulty appears to have arisen between the miller and the town, possibly in conserpience of the dam being carried away by the floods, and a claim made upon the town to rebuild it. The result was a compromise and an agreement signed by Hopkins on the town book, " in y« presents of y* town." 6

82 HISTORY OF WATEEBURY.

Att a town meeting in waterbury genuary 30* 1699 or 700 y« town by uoat ingaged to make and maintain y« mill dam from y« east s"* of y* cornmill to y® hill on y« east sid y* Riuer for teen yeirs on theis conditions y' y® miler make and keep ye corn mill in good Repayer to do y« towns worck in grinding for them fifteen yeirs and maintain y^ dam from y* east sid y« mill to y* hill on y« west sid of y* mill extriordinarys exsepted.

Boath on ye towns part and millers in y* presents of y® town I acsept tbeyr act and they doing what they promis I ingage to do min in makeing and main- taining the mill as witness my hand John Hopkins

But the causes of misunderstanding were not yet all remov- ed. In less than three years a new compromise became ne- cessary, and John Hopkins signed another agreement on tlie town book " in presents of the town." This relates to the mill- place.

Att a town meeting sep': 14: 1702: where as there has bin sura dificulty a bout ye mill place for a finall issue on y^ same y* town and miller agree y' y* property of ye mill place be and remain to him and his heirs foreuer as ye mill land is he maintayniiig a mill to do ye towns worck for euer but if ye miller fayl to maintayn a mill to do ye towns work in grinding theyr corn well corn being sutable to grind then ye property of ye mill place to return to ye town and priuiledges of it only they are to giue ye miller a resonable price for what is his own on ye mill place and if ye town and miller cannot agree to be prised by indefrent men in tes. timony of my complyance with ye town i have in presents of ye town set </