THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
Thomas Hooker 
 
THE 
 
 COLONIAL HISTOEY 
 
 OF 
 
 HAETFOED 
 
 GATHERED FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORDS 
 
 Illustrated 
 
 BY 
 
 Rev. WILLIAM DeLOSS LOVE, Ph.D. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 
 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 
 MDCCCCXIV 
 
'-•■ 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 191 4, BY WILLIAM DELOSS LOVE 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
 
 LIMITED EDITION 
 
 THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY COPIES 
 
 PRINTED FROM TYPE 
 
 NUMBER. 
 
 19. 
 
 THE-PLIMPTON-PRE8S 
 NORWOOD'MASS-U'9-A 
 
TO 
 
 JOHN JAY CORNING 
 
 A DESCENDANT OF THE FOUNDERS OF 
 
 HARTFORD 
 
 THIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The town of Hartford has passed the two hundred and 
 seventy-fifth anniversary of its settlement, and, in a few 
 years, it will have completed three centuries of history. 
 The early town that the founders knew has long since 
 disappeared. Features that were familiar for generations 
 have been swept away by the ravages of time. Only a 
 few landmarks now remain. Within the area of what was 
 formerly a country town, a large city has grown into vigor- 
 ous life. To the sons and daughters of Hartford, the story 
 of this development during colonial times, is of interest. 
 It may also serve a patriotic purpose, by helping her citi- 
 zens to maintain a fellowship with the forefathers, and by 
 awakening in her children of foreign descent a loyal regard 
 for her traditions. In the hope of rendering such a service 
 to the city, for which the author confesses a strong personal 
 affection, this volume has been written, in the course of a 
 study of the records, extending over many years. 
 
 Students of Connecticut records have occasionally ac- 
 knowledged their doubt whether certain fundamental facts, 
 which concern both our local history and the founding of 
 the Colony, have been correctly conceived. Views have 
 become current, and have been passed on from one authority 
 to another, which appeal for their warrant largely to records 
 that have been lost, and are not in harmony with those that 
 are extant. Such is the opinion that three organized towns 
 created the Commonwealth. The records prior to 1639 
 that have disappeared, were those of three plantations, 
 which were constituted as such and bore the names of the 
 three Massachusetts towns from which their inhabitants 
 emigrated. We have, fortunately, the early records of 
 Springfield, at first united with them, to disclose the nature of 
 their government. Hartford, alone, has documentary evi- 
 dence of any town organization before the Commonwealth 
 was formally established. Its own records show that the 
 
vin PREFACE 
 
 legality of their premature organization and its acts was 
 derived from the authority of the General Court of the 
 colony. There has always been, moreover, an inconsistency 
 between the theory of a commonwealth, created by three 
 towns, and the claim of Connecticut, to have inaugurated 
 modern democracy in her government. Neither the terms 
 used in the Colonial Records, nor the language of the Con- 
 stitution, declaring that it was the fundamental law of the 
 "Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and 
 Wethersfield," support the belief that they participated in 
 this act as organized towns. It was the constitution of the 
 people. Thus the zeal of historians, in advocating a tradi- 
 tional theory, has blinded them to the discovery of the initial 
 establishment of democracy and the practice of its principles 
 from the beginning of the Colony, as taught by the founders 
 and, in due time, declared in a written constitution. It is 
 not a sacrilege to dig about the roots of the vines to dis- 
 cover the truth. One method only is open to the historian 
 under these circumstances — that of thorough research in 
 the original records, which the truth must perfectly harmo- 
 nize. Conclusions have thus been reached that were not an- 
 ticipated and are at variance with the traditional belief; 
 but the evidence seems to the author to warrant no other. 
 As briefly stated, these conclusions are as follows: that, in 
 the settlement of the River Plantations under the Warwick 
 Patent, a compromise was effected, by which the govern- 
 ment was made over to the colonists; that this was expressed 
 in the Commission for a provisional government, which 
 left them full liberty at its expiration; that the founders of 
 Hartford considered that they had thus secured a right to 
 the lands which the Dutch claimed; that the three original 
 settlements were established as plantations, like Springfield, 
 and so continued in their relation to the General Court 
 until after the adoption of the Constitution, January 14, 
 1638-9, the legal inhabitants being represented by commit- 
 tees; that even the prior choice of townsmen by the North- 
 side and South-side plantations of Hartford, for the sake 
 of unity in their own affairs, did not give it participation, 
 as a town, in the adoption of the Constitution, nor consti- 
 tute legal standing as a factor in the government; and that 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 these plantations were authorized, by the General Court of 
 the colony, October 10, 1639, to organize their town gov- 
 ernments, which they effected before the next Court of 
 Election, April 9, 1640, when their representatives were 
 recognized as such and are called "Deputies" in the records. 
 
 The nature of these studies of original authorities has 
 made it impossible to write a popular history. Such a 
 volume, if it embodied current opinions concerning many 
 early events, such as the pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker, 
 would be of little permanent value; and if our deductions 
 from the records had been so used, without detailed evi- 
 dence, the volume would be discredited. The author has 
 been content to adjust some of the foundation stones of our 
 colonial history, and to build thereon with the materials 
 which the records themselves provide. The town of Hart- 
 ford has occupied such a place in the Commonwealth that 
 this has been considered the greater service. Nor has it 
 seemed necessary to continue this study into the last cen- 
 tury. In 1883 and 1884 a series of articles on the "First 
 Hundred Years of the City of Hartford," by Mr. John W. 
 Stedman, was published in the Hartford Sunday Journal. 
 About the same time the reminiscences of some aged citi- 
 zens on "Old Days in Hartford" were preserved in the 
 columns of The Connecticut Post. Many historical papers 
 have also appeared in The Hartford C our ant and The Hart- 
 ford Times. These, with The Memorial History of Hartford 
 County and certain monographs, magazine articles and 
 church histories, have amply covered the field, and are cited 
 in references. 
 
 It has been necessary to use antiquarian methods in 
 solving some problems presented. In the absence of recorded 
 statements, some conclusions do not admit of documentary 
 proof. The householder, having lost his door key, believes 
 that the one he finds on the steps, which fits the lock, is his 
 own; but he has no absolute proof. Such beliefs rest upon 
 the strength of probability. Thus many historical state- 
 ments, now generally received as true, were at first estab- 
 lished. The author has endeavored to make clear this 
 distinction, and to qualify any matters of personal opinion 
 or interpretation. 
 
x PREFACE 
 
 We make grateful mention of Mr. William S. Porter, 
 whose laborious researches in the Hartford Land Records, 
 in 1839, have in some respects lightened our labors; and 
 of the local historians of the river towns. As the inception 
 of this study was due to the printing of the first volume of 
 Hartford Toivn Votes, in 1897, we express our indebtedness 
 to Mr. James J. Goodwin, who, through the Connecticut 
 Historical Society, made that publication possible. These 
 records, with the book of Original Distribution, recently 
 printed through the same agency, constitute the classics 
 of Hartford's early history. It is hoped that the author's 
 work will bring out into the light some facts hitherto con- 
 cealed in their pages. The latter publication is cited in 
 references, although most of the research was done in the 
 manuscript volume some years since. 
 
 To the several officials of the city and state, acknowledg- 
 ment is made for every courtesy in the examination of pub- 
 lic records; to Mr. George S. Goddard, librarian of the 
 State Library for access to many manuscripts in the ar- 
 chives; to Mr. Albert C. Bates, librarian of the Connecticut 
 Historical Society, for material that has been helpful; 
 and especially to Mr. Albert L. Washburn, surveyor, and 
 an expert in our land records, for his generous cooperation 
 and assistance. 
 
 WILLIAM DeLOSS LOVE 
 Hartford, Conn., February 23, 1914 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 The Pioneers of Hartford in 1635 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Removal from Newtown. — Some Hartford Settlers arrive from England. — 
 Six Agents sent to Connecticut. — Their Report of Suckiaug. — Scarcity 
 of Land in Newtown. — Who were the Pioneers? — Thomas Shepard's 
 Arrival. — The Meeting at Stone's House. — Recording and Selling 
 Homes. — Elder William Goodwin's Party. — Their Departure Oc- 
 tober 15th. — Windsor's Disaster. — Arrival at Suckiaug. — Settle- 
 ment on the North-side. — Clement Chaplin. — Some Return for 
 the Winter. — North-side Plantation established. — Winter Hardships . 1 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 Settlement Under the Warwick Patent 
 
 The "Warwick Patent." — Dissensions at Windsor. — Many Return to 
 Dorchester. — Representatives of the Patentees. — They Challenge the 
 Emigrants. — Under Whose Jurisdiction? — Conferences of the Winter. 
 
 — Patentees need Colonists. — Emigrants want Land. — The Com- 
 promise embodied in a Commission for Government. — The Patent 
 and Dutch Claims. — Purchase from the Indians necessary. — The 
 Dutchmen's Boundaries. — A Springtime Party. — Was Samuel Stone 
 its Leader? — Patent Rights asserted. — The Dutch Protest referred 
 to Winthrop. — South-side Plantation begun. — Obligations to John 
 Winthrop, Jr 17 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 The Pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker 
 
 Distinctive Features of Hartford's Settlement. — Hooker's Relation to 
 Earlier Parties. — Delay of Departure. — Members of Hooker's Com- 
 pany. — Winthrop's Account. — Mather's Narrative. — He is Fol- 
 lowed by Hutchinson. — Error in Details. — The Compass Legend. — 
 Early New England Travel. — The Path in 1636. — Evidence of the 
 Route. — Pilgrims in the Wilderness. — The Encampment. — Recent 
 Discoveries of the Path. — The Sabbath Rest. — Way to Quabaug. — 
 Arrival at Agawam. — Records of the "Country Road" to Hartford. 
 
 — Where it crossed Namerick Brook. — Arrival at Newtown 30 
 
xii CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 Organization of the Town- 
 page 
 The Town in Connecticut. — Organization hindered by Conditions. — The 
 River Settlements were Plantations. — Governed by Legal Inhabitants. 
 
 — Agawam an Illustration. — Hartford's Plantations have Separate 
 Organizations. — Advantages of Dual Settlement. — William Spencer's 
 Service. — Critical Study of Town Votes. — First Election of Towns- 
 men in 1G;>7. — Union its Purpose. — Unauthorized Choice of Town 
 Clerk. — Townsmen and a Town Court. — Windsor's Plantation. — 
 Organization after General Court's Action. — Proof in Town Records. 
 
 — Wethersfield's Enigma. — Tripartite Agreement. — Dissensions re- 
 sult from Town Organization 47 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 Connecticut's Early Government 
 
 Antecedents of Democracy. — Provisional Government. — Created by the 
 Emigrants. — Early Courts. — The Inhabitants elect Magistrates. — 
 Popular Election Impracticable. — Representation by Committees. — 
 Their Legislative Year. — General Courts. — Agawam withdraws. — 
 Preparing the Constitution. — The Sermon of Thomas Hooker. — 
 How the Fundamental Orders were adopted. — The Will of the People. 
 
 — No Town represented. — A Dramatic Scene. — Operation of 
 Colonial Government delayed. — New Factors created. — Final Ac- 
 tion October 10, 1639. — Authority given for Town Organization. — 
 Deputies of Towns displace Committees of Inhabitants 64 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 Indian Forts in Hartford 
 
 The River Indians. — Sequassen's Village at Suckiaug. — Allies in the 
 Pequot War. — Removal to the South Meadow. — Indian Neighbors 
 of the Dutch. — Land of Manorolos and Sequassen. — Fight with 
 Uncas. — Sequassen's Land divided. — An Indian Fort. — Heirs of 
 Manorolos. — Pequot Heads. — Pesiponck, a Native Bath House. — 
 Fort Hill at Hockanum. — Stronghold at Podunk. — Incidents in its 
 History. — Scene of Miantinomo's Death. — Burning of Major Rich- 
 ard's Buildings. — A Son of Miantinomo. — Ten Hostages given. — 
 Massecup in Prison. — Removal to Farmington 81 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 The Dutch and their Hocse of Hope 
 
 English Colonist and butch Trader. — West India Company. — Trade of 
 the Pilgrims. — English Claims. — Early Ventures on Connecticut 
 River. — House of Hope. — Holmes's Expedition. — Dutch Opposition. 
 
 — Purchase from the Pequots. — English Settlement. — The Dutch pro- 
 
CONTENTS xin 
 
 PAGE 
 
 test. — DeVries intercedes. — Dispute over Rights. — The English , 
 fence their Lots. — An Encounter. — Impounding Dutch Cattle. — 
 Winthrop's Statement. — Arbitration sought in Holland. — Boswell's 
 Advice. — William Kieft. — Agreement of 1650. — Seizure by Captain 
 Underhill. — Tracts of Dutch Land. — Location of the House of Hope. 
 — The "Redout." — Its Ruins. — Site partly owned by the City 98 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 Proprietors of Hartford 
 
 Extensive Lands wanted. — Indian Conveyances. — The Territory included. 
 
 — Five-mile Purchase. — Proprietorship. — "Original Proprietors in 
 1639." — Grants by the Town's Courtesy. — Their Proportions vary. — 
 Rates assessed on Lands. — All Grants are Conditional. — Speculation 
 is excluded. — Settlers are rewarded. — General Court's Action con- 
 cerning Undivided Lands. — Who were the Owners? — Committee to 
 determine. — The Rule of Division. — List of Proprietors. — Additions 
 to Town's Courtesy Class. — Inequalities adjusted. — East-side Division. 
 
 — Rule used in 1674. — Inhabitants divide Five-mile Tract. — The Con- 
 test of 1754. — Ancient Proprietors win 116 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 Plantation Divisions 
 
 Lost Plantation Books. — Principles of Allotment. — "Original Distribu- 
 tion." — Early Settlers anthorized to Sell. — Practice in recording 
 Lots. — Dividing Line. — House-lots. — Little Meadow. — North 
 Meadow. — South Meadow. — Cow Pasture. — Neck. — Little Ox Pas- 
 ture. — South-side Ox Pasture. — Upland Divisions. — East-side Mead- 
 ow. — Westfield. — Venturers' Field. — Pinefield. — Middle Ox Pas- 
 ture. — Old Ox Pasture. — Highways Westward. — West Division. — 
 Bridgefield. — Town Common. — Soldiers' Field. — Original Grantees. 
 
 — Additional Soldiers. — The Missing Men. — House-lots the Greatest 
 Reward. — North-side Soldiers' Row. — Similar Row on the South-side. 
 
 — Conclusions 131 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 Growth of the Town 
 
 View of the Settlement in 1640. — Increase of Population. — A Rural Com- 
 munity. — Changing Appearance. — Their Building Operations. — Pre- 
 paring Timbers. — Stone Quarries. — Bricks. — Agricultural Labors. — 
 Fencing. — Activities determine Development. — Highways. — Work on 
 them Compulsory. — Causeways. — Encroachments. — Pounds needed. 
 — Centinel Hill. — Filling for Main Street. — Hill graded. — An Open 
 Area. — Bartholomew Barnard's Homestead. — Fortified Houses. — 
 Talcott's Warehouse. — Removal of Pound. — Barnard's Ponds. — 
 Process of Transformation 151 
 
xiv CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 Along the Great River 
 
 page 
 The Naming of Hartford. — First City Seal. — Indebtedness to the Con- 
 necticut River. — Early Channel. — Bird's Island. — Land east of the 
 Creek. — The Scott-Cadwell Lot. — Thomas Cadwell's Warehouse. — 
 Jonathan Gilbert's Enterprise. — Environs of the Landing in 1678. — 
 Other Warehouses. — Improvements on the East-side. — Establish- 
 ment of the Ferry. — Early Ferrymen of Hartford. — Licensed to keep 
 Taverns. — Use of Revenues. — Wharves. — Front Street in 1775. — 
 "Haynes's Pasture." — Early Houses and Shops east of Front Street. — 
 "Cheapside." — Old Ferry Street. — "Jones's Landing." — The North 
 Shipyard. — Traffic from the East-side 166 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 The Banks of the Riveret 
 
 The Riveret of the Forefathers. — Its Various Names. — Allyn's First Mill. — 
 His Second Mill. — The Town's Competition. — Allyn and Bidwell. — 
 History of the Upper Mills. — Badger's Road. — Early Bridges. — 
 Hopkins's Mill at the Falls. — The Town Mill. — Later Owners. — 
 Destruction of the First Bridge. — Differences as to Location. — Bridge 
 burned in 1672. — Change of Place. — "Town Bridge" and "Great 
 Bridge." — Some Landmarks on its Banks. — Tanneries. — Islands of 
 Early Times. — The Armory Tract. — Flaxseed Oil Mill 181 
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 Ancient Meeting Houses 
 
 The First Meeting House. — Some Notable Assemblies. — Meeting House 
 of 1638. — Location and Size. — The Porch Chamber. — Later Improve- 
 ments. — The Broken Bell. — Sequel to the Church Controversy. — 
 The South-side Congregation. — Location of their Meeting House. — 
 Evidence of its Size. — Lawsuit over the Site. — Whiting's Loyal Sup- 
 porters. — Proposed Union of the Churches. — Third Meeting House 
 of the First Church. — Fixing a New Site for the Second Church. — 
 Two Steeples. — Edifices on the East-side. — West Hartford Edifices. 
 — Colonial Beginnings of other Denominations 197 
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 
 Some Public Buildings 
 
 Early Court Sessions. — The Custom in England. — Thomas Ford's Inn. — 
 Jeremy Adams his Successor. — His Agreement with the Colony. — The 
 Court Chamber. — Zachary Sandford the Host. — Andros and the 
 Charter. — The Charter Oak. — General Assembly convenes in the 
 Meeting House. — Governor Saltonstall proposes Court Houses. — Old 
 Court House. — Erection of the State House. — Bulfinch the Architect. 
 
CONTENTS xv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 — Original Appearance. — Reception to La Fayette. — Old City Hall. 
 
 — Early Town Officers. — Beginnings of Post Service. — Newspapers 
 
 and Post Riders. — Postmasters of Hartford 215 
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 
 Social Resorts and Life 
 
 Acquaintance with Colonial Society. — Inns as Social Resorts. — The 
 Typical Landlord. — Scenes in Adams's Inn. — Transmission of News. 
 
 — "Black Horse Tavern." — Some Other Resorts. — Taverns near the 
 Ferry. — South-side Hosts. — Drinking Customs. — Visiting. — The 
 Social Side of Military Trainings. — Election Day. — Transformation 
 of the Puritan. — Succeeding Generations. — Changing Fashions of 
 Dress. — An Indication of Social Life. — Jewelry. — Inventories of 
 Apparel. — An Early Trader. — One of the Proprietors. — The Colonial 
 Gentleman. — A Wealthy Dame. — The Lady of Fashion 232 
 
 CHAPTER XVI 
 
 Early Schools of the Town 
 
 Laying the Corner-stone. — John Higginson. — Other Schoolmasters. — 
 "The Town House." — "Goody Betts." — Desired Improvements. — 
 The Unnamed Friend. — Laws of 1650. — Elder Goodwin represents 
 Governor Hopkins. — The Greenhill Lot. — Suspension of Grammar 
 School. — The Hopkins Bequest. — Opposition to the Trustees. — 
 Hartford's Proportion. — Hopkins Grammar School. — Caleb Watson. 
 
 — Elementary Schools. — Erecting a School-house. — Homestead of 
 Thomas Seymour, Esq. — Parish Schools. — Formation of Districts. — 
 Later History of the Grammar School 251 
 
 CHAPTER XVII 
 
 Phases of Criminal History 
 
 Criminal Courts of Colonial Times. — The Particular Court and its Judges. — 
 Laws. — Penalties. — Contempt of Court. — Various Offenses. — Ref- 
 ormation and Probation. — Defamation of Character. — Social Im- 
 morality. — Servants a Menace. — Marriage and Social Virtue. — 
 Divorces. — Civil Cases. — Treatment of Witchcraft. — Hartford's Exe- 
 cutions. — Punishments near the Meeting House. — Early House of 
 Correction. — Building of 1698. — Establishment of the Colony Work- 
 house. — Transfer to the County. — Hartford Gaol. — Old Jail of 1793. 
 
 — Relief of the Poor. — Workhouse and Almshouse 276 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII 
 
 Trade and Shops 
 
 Dependence on Trade. — Markets and Fairs. — Traffic with the Indians. — 
 Export Trade. — Vessels owned in Hartford. — Hopkins and Whiting. 
 
 — Richard Lord. — John McKnight. — Methods of Exchange. — 
 
xvi CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Trade at the Ferry. — Early Shops. — Artisans. — Evolution of the 
 Store. — The Appearance of Main Street. — South-side Residents and 
 their Shops. — North of Shepard's Corner. — " Unicorn and Mortar." 
 
 — Development of the Stanley Lot. — Green and Watson. — Hudson 
 and Doolittle. — The Burying Ground. — Mookler's Barber Shop. — 
 " Heart and Crown." — West of the Court House. — State Street Mer- 
 chants. — Along Queen Street 295 
 
 CHAPTER XIX 
 
 Houses of Colonial Times 
 
 The English Colonists' Ideal of Home. — Early Development. — The Bliss 
 Homestead. — Houses of the First Settlers. — Arrangement of Rooms. 
 
 — Size of Houses. — Materials and Construction. — Changes of Type. 
 
 — Various Uses of Rooms. — Interior Furnishings. — The Whiting- 
 Bull-Burr Homestead. — Home Lot of Governor Hopkins. — James 
 Richards's Manor House. — Later Occupants. — Captain Thomas Sey- 
 mour. — Home of Isaac Sheldon. — History of a Homestead in the 
 Meeting House Yard. — Captain Jonah Gross. — His Brick House. — 
 The Morrison Mansion. — Home of Thomas Green 319 
 
 CHAPTER XX 
 
 Incorporation of the City 
 
 Connecticut's Incorporation Movement in 1784. — Its Beginning in New 
 Haven. — Hartford during the Revolutionary War. — The State im- 
 poverished. — Agitation of the Impost. — "Policy of Connecticut." — 
 Governor Trumbull favors Incorporation. — Municipal Government 
 necessary to Progress. — Opposition of the Farmers. — Hartford's 
 Favorable Action. — The Remonstrance. — Second Memorial. — 
 Charter of Hartford. — Limits of the City. — Court of Common 
 Council. — City Court. — The First Election. — Progressives in Power. 
 — Colonel Wadsworth. — Services to the City. — Improvements disclose 
 Former Conditions. — City Streets. — Solomon Porter's Survey. — 
 City By-Laws. — Up-River Trade. — Commercial Interests. — The 
 State House, a Memorial of the City's Incorporation 343 
 
 Index 359 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Thomas Hooker Frontispiece 
 
 From a picture of the statue on the State Capitol, in " The Sculpture of 
 Charles Henry Niehaus." 
 
 The North-side Plantation, 1635 10 
 
 Sketch showing the house-lots of the pioneers at Suckiaug. 
 
 Governor John Winthrop of Connecticut 18 
 
 From a copy in the State Library, painted by George F. Wright, after the 
 original portrait in the possession of Mrs. Robert Winthrop of New 
 York. 
 
 The Pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker 32 
 
 From an engraving by Seth H. Clark, in Scaeva's "Hartford in the Olden 
 Time." 
 An Early Camping Place on the Bay Path, Fisk Hill, Sturbridge, 
 
 Mass 42 
 
 From a photograph taken in 1913. 
 
 The Country Road at Namerick Brook, used before 1662 42 
 
 From a photograph taken in 1913. 
 
 The Adoption of the Fundamental Orders 76 
 
 From the mural decoration by Albert Herter, in the Supreme Court Room, 
 State Library. 
 
 The Departure for the Pequot War 84 
 
 From a study by J. Massey Rhind, Sc, made for the Department of Public 
 Parks, Hartford. 
 
 The South-side Plantation, 1636 108 
 
 Sketch showing the lands of the Dutch and Indians, with the house-lots of 
 their English neighbors. 
 
 Hartford in 1640 120 
 
 " Prepared from the Original Records by Vote of the Town, and drawn by 
 William S. Porter, Surveyor and Antiquarian." 
 
 Plantation Divisions of Hartford 134 
 
 Drawn by Albert L. Washburn after the Author s map. 
 
 View of Hartford from the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, 1849 152 
 
 From a lithograph engraved by E. Whitefield, in the collection of Morgan B. 
 Brainard. 
 
 Coat of Arms, after the City's Seal adopted in 1852 166 
 
 The First Seal of the City of Hartford, 1785 166 
 
 Fire at the Foot of Ferry Street 170 
 
 From the engraved heading of the Hartford Fire Insurance Company 
 Policy No. 80, 1811. 
 View of Hartford form the East Side of Connecticut River, 1841 178 
 From a lithograph "printed and engraved by Rob* Havell," in the col- 
 lection of Morgan B. Brainard. 
 
xviii ILLUS TRA TIONS 
 
 Little River about 1854 190 
 
 From a lithograpk, drawn by J. Ropes and published by E. C. Kellogg, in 
 the collection of Morgan B. Brainard. 
 
 The Meeting House of 1638 200 
 
 From a sketch based upon the records and drawn by Edward T. Hapgood, 
 architect. 
 
 The Stuart Homestead and the Charter Oak 218 
 
 From a painting by Henry Bryant, in the possession of Miss Ellen M. 
 Stuart. 
 
 The State House of 1719 222 
 
 From a sketch drawn by Edward T. Hapgood, architect, after an illustra- 
 tion in "Geer's Directory." 
 
 Moses Butler's Tavern 238 
 
 From a drawing in the Connecticut Historical Society, after the original 
 sketch made by William Roderick Lawrence in 18$8. 
 
 House of Thomas Seymour, Esq., 1750 268 
 
 From a photograph taken in 191$. 
 
 The Old Jail, Erected in 1793 292 
 
 From a photograph in the Connecticut Historical Society. 
 
 The Isaac Bliss Homestead 820 
 
 From a painting in the Connecticut Historical Society. 
 
 The Amos Bull and Joseph Whiting Houses 330 
 
 The Whiting-Bull-Burr House was erected in the second half of the sev- 
 enteenth century and torn down in 191$. The Amos Bull-Edwin 
 Spencer House is on the left. From a water-color sketch painted 
 before 1828 by George Francis, in the collection of Morgan B. 
 Brainard. 
 
 The Richards-Sheldon-Woodbridge House 336 
 
 From a photograph in the collection of the late Samuel Taylor. 
 
 House of Captain Jonah Gross 340 
 
 Survivor of a fiomestead in the original meeting-house yard. From a 
 photograph taken in 191$. " 
 
 House of Dr. Roderick Morrison, 1750 340 
 
 In 1767, the home of Thomas Green, the founder of " The Connecticut 
 Courant," and George Goodwin his apprentice. From a photograph 
 taken in 191$. 
 
 The State House of 1792 352 
 
 From a sketch made after various early pictures by Charles L. N. Camp 
 for Mrs. Emily S. Holcombe, President of the Connecticut Society 
 of Colonial Dames, and representing the edifice about 1835. 
 
The 
 Colonial History of Hartford 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 
 
 The reasons that moved the people of Newtown, under the 
 leadership of Thomas Hooker, to remove from Massachu- 
 setts to Connecticut, and thus become the founders of 
 Hartford, have been fully discussed by historians. Agita- 
 tion of the project began prior to May 15, 1634, on which 
 date the General Court gave them permission "to seeke out 
 some convenient place," promising to confirm it to them, 
 provided the place chosen was not prejudicial to any planta- 
 tion already settled. A removal outside of the jurisdiction 
 of Massachusetts was not then contemplated, nor such 
 permission intended; but subsequent events led them to 
 interpret this action as liberty to go whither they desired. 
 When a vote was taken, later, concerning the removal of 
 Dorchester and Watertown, they were restricted to con- 
 tinue still under Massachusetts government. The Newtown 
 emigrants may have thought that the place to which they 
 were going was within the Bay Colony, but no such condi- 
 tion was ever imposed upon them. This early vote gave 
 them more time and greater liberty to seek out a suitable 
 location. It is important to follow the sequence of events 
 after this action of May 15, 1634, for two years intervened 
 between it and the pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker's company. 
 Shortly after they received the above permission, they 
 sent men to Agawam and Merrimack "to find a fit place." 
 They may have considered favorably the former location, 
 for they "gave out they would remove"; but, even as they 
 were reconnoitering, Rev. Thomas Parker and his com- 
 pany, just arrived from England, went thither to settle, 
 and they were shut out. 
 
2 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 At that time two ships, at least, were on the ocean, 
 among whose passengers were original settlers of Hartford. 
 They had sailed from Ipswich, England, about "the last of 
 April," and because they had a pleasant voyage, arriving 
 early in June, and very likely, also, because several of the 
 passengers went to Agawam to settle, they changed its 
 name to Ipswich. One of these ships was the Elizabeth, 
 with Thomas Scott, William Blumfield, Robert Day, and, 
 some say, Nathaniel Ely and John Clarke. The other was 
 the Francis, with William W'estwood, John Barnard, Nicholas 
 Gennings and W T illiam Holton. In one of the six ships 
 that had arrived in May, William Pantry, Samuel Greenhill, 
 Timothy Stanley, and probably Thomas Stanley, were 
 passengers. The distribution of lands at Newtown, August 
 4, 1634, may indicate that the following new-comers were 
 also passengers in one of the "fourteen great ships" that 
 arrived in June: Joseph Easton, James Ensign, John 
 Hopkins, Thomas Judd, Stephen Post and George Stock- 
 ing. These accessions quickened the desires of Newtown 
 for more extensive fields. 
 
 We are not surprised, therefore, that within a few weeks 
 of their arrival, or early in July, Winthrop records the fact 
 that "Six of Newtown went in the Blessing, (being bound 
 to the Dutch plantations,) to discover Connecticut River, 
 intending to remove their town thither." These men were 
 agents of Newtown. Perhaps some of the new arrivals 
 were among them. Hubbard says: "The place which those 
 that went from Cambridge had by their agents chosen to 
 settle upon, was by the Indians called Suckiaug, where 
 some of them began the plantation in the end of the year 
 1635, Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone, the ministers of the 
 church, engaging to follow them the next year, which they 
 did and called it Hartford." 1 We have none of the names 
 of these six agents. They doubtless accomplished their 
 
 1 Hubbard's History of New England, pp. 306, 307. Mather has the following 
 passage in the Magnolia (1:81): "It was in the year 1635, that this design was 
 first formed; and the disposition of the celebrated Mr. Thomas Hooker, with his 
 people now in Cambridge, to engage in the design, was that which gave most life 
 unto it. They then sent their agents to view the country, who returned with so 
 advantageous a report that the next year there was a great remove of good people 
 thither." 
 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 3 
 
 purpose and visited Suckiaug, but we have no account of 
 their experiences. 1 They were the first Hartford men to 
 discover Suckiaug, unless some of the traders of 1633 visited 
 the place and afterwards settled there. They returned home 
 during the summer with a favorable report of the land. 
 
 The next General Court met September 3, 1634, and its 
 main business was the removal of Newtown to Connecticut. 
 Mr. Hooker urged the " f ruitfulness and commodiousness 
 of Connecticut," as one who was speaking upon the informa- 
 tion of their agents. The point was made, in reply, that 
 they would expose themselves to evident peril, both from 
 the Dutch and from the Indians. The result of this con- 
 troversy was that an enlargement of Newtown's bounds 
 was proposed and outwardly accepted. This compromise 
 temporarily delayed their removal. 
 
 The fact is — and it is evident upon a close study of the 
 conditions in Newtown at this time — that the town had 
 received some new settlers in the ships of 1634, who were 
 unwilling to locate permanently under such uncertainty. 
 Either Newtown must remove, or these and other prospec- 
 tive settlers would go elsewhere. Grants of land were made 
 to most of them, but their lots were inferior, and the town's 
 bounds were limited. There is evidence in the Cambridge 
 land records that some of the new-comers did not erect 
 upon their lots houses worthy of being so named. Thus 
 they passed the "winter of their discontent." 
 
 In the emigrant ships of 1635, others of the founders of 
 Hartford arrived. The Elizabeth and Ann from London 
 brought Clement Chaplin, John Holloway and Thomas 
 Lord, while Mathew Marvin, William Ruscoe and John 
 Warner were passengers in the Increase. Eight ships arrived 
 during the first week of June. Some, who were early 
 settlers in Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, and who 
 
 1 They were entertained, doubtless, by Jonathan Brewster, resident agent of 
 the Plymouth Company at Windsor; and perhaps they visited the Dutch at the 
 House of Hope. From the latter they would have received no encouragement. 
 Brewster, in his letter of July C, 1635, speaks in a confusing way of a party — 
 perhaps Windsor pioneers — which he assisted with canoes and guides. "They 
 got me to goe with them," he says, "to ye Dutch, to see if I could procure some 
 [land] of them to have quiet setling nere them; but they did peremtorily withstand 
 them." Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 339. 
 
4 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 have left no trace of an earlier residence in Massachusetts, 
 probably came in these ships. Arriving at a time when the 
 Connecticut fever was at its height, they were ready to 
 join in an enterprise that had among its leaders some of the 
 best men in the Colony. 
 
 Who were the brave pioneers of Hartford in 1635? When 
 did they remove to Suckiaug, and where did they build 
 their huts? No attempt has ever been made to answer 
 these questions in detail. It is only possible to establish, 
 in some particulars, a strong probability, based upon the 
 harmony of correlated facts; but even such an answer may 
 be worth while. 
 
 On October 5, 1635, Rev. Thomas Shepard and his com- 
 pany from England, arrived at Newtown. This is his 
 statement: "Monday October 5, we came (being sent for 
 by friends at Newtown,) to them, to my brother Mr. Stones 
 house. And the congregation being upon their removal 
 to Hartford, at Connecticut, myself and those that came 
 with me, found many houses empty, and many persons 
 willing to sell, and hence our company bought off their 
 houses to dwell in." 1 There were, therefore, if this statement 
 is taken literally, "many houses empty" on October 5th. 
 Were these vacancies caused by the removal of families to 
 Connecticut, as Shepard seems to imply? An answer to 
 this question is found in the Cambridge land records. 
 
 The Massachusetts General Court, on April 1, 1634, had 
 ordered that all houses and lands be recorded within six 
 months, and such record was to constitute evidence of 
 estate. Hence this was necessary before an inhabitant 
 could make a legal transfer of his home. At Newtown, 
 they did not begin making such entries until May 1, 1635. 
 Between that date and October 10th following, nearly all 
 the emigrants to Connecticut complied with this order. 
 Of these, twenty-four had done so before the arrival of 
 Shepard; but on October 5th, nine did so, and on the 10th, 
 nineteen. Only one is proved, by these records, to have 
 sold before the above meeting at Samuel Stone's house — 
 John Steele, who recorded his house and lands on August 
 20th and sold on the 28th. There were, however, some, 
 
 1 "Thomas Shepard's Memoir," in Young's Chronicles of Mass., p. 544. 
 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 5 
 
 who removed to other Massachusetts towns, that had done 
 so; and others apparently removed and sold afterwards. 
 In view of these circumstances, we conclude that the empty 
 houses had not been occupied by emigrants to Connecticut. 
 On the other hand, it seems, on the face of the record, that 
 some of the latter had made their entries because they had 
 agreed to sell, and that others were preparing to do so. 
 Thomas Scott sold on the very day of Shepard's arrival. 
 Stephen Hart recorded his lands on the 5th and sold on the 
 7th. Others, who are thought to have removed to Con- 
 necticut in 1635, probably did the same. Shepard testifies 
 that he found many "willing to sell." Johnson, in his 
 Wonder-working Providence, puts the case thus: "And 
 therefore they onely waited now for a people of ftronger 
 Faith then themfelves were to purchafe their Houfes and 
 Land . . . and accordingly they met with Chapmen, a 
 people new come, who having bought their poffeffions, 
 they highed them away to their new Plantation." 
 
 It is unfortunate that the records do not give the date 
 when each emigrant sold his Newtown home, for the pre- 
 sumption is that he removed at that time, or soon after- 
 wards. However, we have, by inference, a record of those 
 who had sold before February 8, 1635-6, and presumably 
 did not spend that winter in Cambridge. On that date, 
 the town took action restricting these sales, except on 
 certain conditions. A list was then made of those who 
 had houses that were accounted "houses of the town." l 
 We find that those concerning whom we have evidence of 
 a removal in 1635, are missing from it, and that those who 
 are known to have accompanied Thomas Hooker in 1636, 
 still retained their old homes. If we compare this list of 
 householders with the former of recorded homes, we have 
 another list that presumably includes all the house owners 
 who removed to Suckiaug permanently in 1635. From 
 this, we can erase the names of several who remained at 
 Cambridge during the winter, or who were never North-side 
 inhabitants of Hartford. We have thus a list, derived 
 from the Cambridge records, composed of ten Hartford 
 settlers, who are assumed to have emigrated thither in 
 
 1 Records of the Town and Selectmen of Cambridge, 1901, pp. 17-19. 
 
6 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 1635. Their names may be arranged in the following 
 order: Elder William Goodwin, John Steele, William 
 Westwood, Thomas Scott, Stephen Hart, William Pantry, 
 John Barnard, William Butler, William Kelsey and Nathan- 
 iel Ely. We should add to this list, however, any who 
 had only recorded land at Cambridge, and of whose removal 
 in 1635 there is other evidence. Nicholas Clarke had only 
 a small lot. He had sold or forfeited it and left Newtown 
 before the above date. He is known to have spent the 
 winter at Suckiaug. Richard Webb, Richard Goodman and 
 Edward Elmer had recorded no houses. They are added 
 upon evidence derived from the Hartford records. Two 
 others may be added for the same reason. Mathew Marvin 
 was a recent arrival, and we have no trace of his residence. 
 Sergeant Thomas Stanley of Lynn was a deputy to the 
 General Court, September 2, 1635, when the removal was 
 decided. He was later fined at Lynn for absence. Let us, 
 for the time, consider these sixteen early settlers of Hart- 
 ford, as a tentative list of the pioneers of 1635. 
 
 On the other hand, there is positive evidence, derived 
 from records and correspondence, that some of these men 
 did remove in 1635 to Suckiaug. Elder William Goodwin 
 was evidently an enthusiastic advocate of the emigration. 
 He was present at the General Court, September 3, 1634, 
 when it was under consideration. Although he was "a 
 very reverend and godly man," says Winthrop, he was so 
 interested that he indulged in "some unreverend speech" 
 in the discussion, for which he "humbly acknowledged his 
 fault," but was, very likely, more than ever determined to 
 change his residence. In his letter, written from Suckiaug 
 to John Winthrop, Jr., on June 22, 1636, he says in a post- 
 script: "I suppose you here by our brethren of the arriueal 
 of our pastore," implying his own previous residence. In 
 1639, moreover, he was one of those chosen to gather up 
 for record the passages of God's providence that had been 
 remarkable since the "first undertaking" of the plantation. 
 Presumably he was thought to know about the experiences 
 of 1635-6. 
 
 The records of the General Court, held at Newtown, 
 September 2, 1635, have the following entry: "William 
 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 7 
 
 Westwood is sworne constable of the plantacons att Connec- 
 ticott till some other be chosen." The same court granted 
 liberty to every town at Connecticut to choose constables 
 and authorized magistrates to administer the oath of office. 
 It also provided guns and ammunition for the plantations. 
 Evidently this appointment of William Westwood was in 
 anticipation of a removal to Suckiaug in the near future. 
 Constables were then the proper civil officers for guard 
 and defence. The emigrants had every reason to think 
 they would be needed. 
 
 The Commission for a provisional government of Con- 
 necticut, issued in March 1635-6, rehearses the fact that 
 some of the settlers were from Newtown and states that 
 "divers are there already." The representatives of Suck- 
 iaug were John Steele and William Westwood. If certain 
 persons were already there, men of that number would 
 certainly have been chosen for this service. 
 
 Let us sum up our deductions, as we are about to leave 
 Newtown with the pioneers. We know, from Shepard's 
 statement, that the congregation there were, on October 
 5, 1635, "upon their removal," a phrase that means, in other 
 instances, "about to remove"; that the land records do not 
 warrant the opinion that any of them had as yet set out; 
 that, immediately upon Shepard's arrival and a meeting at 
 Stone's house, some were in haste to record their houses 
 and lands, which was necessary in order to sell; that some 
 did sell at once, and a certain number had sold before mid- 
 winter; that some of these had for a month been preparing 
 to remove; and that certain of their leaders in church and 
 state did actually go to Connecticut in 1635. If now we 
 read in the journal of a contemporary historian that a 
 party set out for Connecticut shortly after these prepara- 
 tions and sales, and we find the settlers of our tentative 
 list in the Hartford land records, living side by side in the 
 oldest part of the plantation, which certainly was settled 
 in 1635, we may fairly consider the case to be proved, as 
 far as the circumstances admit. 
 
 We come thus to that paragraph in Winthrop's journal, 
 which has always been a bone of contention among the 
 three river towns. Under the date October 15, 1635, he 
 
8 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 says: "About sixty men, women and little children, went 
 by land toward Connecticut with their cows, horses, and 
 swine, and, after a tedious and difficult journey, arrived 
 safe there." J In view of the above examination of the 
 records, there are good reasons for the claim, which we here 
 make, that this entry refers to the Hartford pioneers. Such 
 has been the opinion of some of our most accurate local 
 historians, formed even without the above study of the 
 original records. Historians of Windsor, however, have 
 claimed that most of this company "were Dorchester people, 
 joined by a few from Newtown and Watertown." 2 
 
 The Dorchester people supplanted the Plymouth Com- 
 pany, which had been at Windsor since September 16, 
 1633, and which they bought out May 15, 1637. The 
 pioneer party under Roger Ludlow arrived late in June, 
 1635, or early in July. The Stiles party sailed from Boston 
 June 26, 1635. On July 6th, Jonathan Brewster wrote from 
 Windsor thus: "Ye Massachusetts men are coming almost 
 dayly some by water & some by land." 3 He doubtless 
 referred to these two parties. Besides some stragglers, there 
 was another Dorchester company, which removed late in 
 the season. Winthrop says their arrival was so late that 
 some of their cattle "could not be put over the river," 
 which was frozen up the 15th of November. 4 They had sent 
 their provisions around by water in "barks," to which they 
 endeavored to retreat when famine stared them in the face; 
 "but not meeting them, they went aboard the Rebecka," 
 which was frozen in the ice towards the river's mouth. 
 
 This narrative relates to Windsor settlers, but it could 
 hardly have referred to the emigrants who started on Oc- 
 tober 15th, and "arrived safe there." The Windsor party 
 did not arrive until after November 15th, when the river 
 was frozen. The journey of the former company could not 
 have required a month, especially as the lateness of the 
 season urged them to haste. Thomas Hooker, with his 
 encumbrances, only needed a "fortnight." If the Dor- 
 
 1 Winthrop's History of New England, I, 204. 
 
 2 Memorial History of Hartford County, I: 221; Stiles's History of Wethersfield, 
 I: 21; Stiles's History of Windsor, I: 52 n. 
 
 J Bradford's History, p. 338. 
 
 * Winthrop's History, I: 208, 209. Cf. p. 219. 
 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 9 
 
 Chester company started late in October, there was time 
 to make ready for winter under ordinary conditions of the 
 weather, for they had reason to expect that the pioneers 
 had provided ample shelter, and they had sent forward 
 abundant provisions. In both expectations, they were 
 disappointed — hence their disaster, in which there is no 
 evidence that the pioneers of Hartford participated. 1 All 
 these perplexing passages in Winthrop's narrative are 
 harmonized by the conclusion — which we can hardly 
 escape — that there were two companies that removed to 
 Connecticut that autumn — one, from Newtown, starting 
 October 15th, and another, later, following the Natick path, 
 from Dorchester. This is confirmed by circumstances 
 hereafter related. 
 
 The membership of the pioneer company from Newtown 
 is interesting and an important factor in the case. Nearly 
 one-half of them were recent arrivals from England. The 
 majority were young men, and several were unmarried. 
 Their families were small. Judged by their after lives, 
 they were a hardy and courageous company. Among 
 them, were several who were classed later as wealthy settlers. 
 Their religious leader was the elder of their church, a per- 
 sonal friend of Thomas Hooker and a man to whose judg- 
 ment large concerns in church and state were intrusted. 
 John Steele and William Westwood were considered suitable 
 men to be made magistrates, and proved themselves worthy 
 of the honor. In the judgment of the wise, it was necessary 
 for some to go forward to prepare the way, and there was 
 at least a tacit agreement, to which the ministers were a 
 party, that others would follow the next season. Surely 
 this company had some qualifications for the task to which 
 they devoted themselves. As those who had severed their 
 relations with Newtown probably took their families with 
 them, there were in this party, to the best of our knowledge, 
 about fifty persons — men, women and children. 
 
 1 The pioneers of Windsor were doubtless handicapped by their land difficul- 
 ties, and so were prevented from securing winter fodder for their cattle and build- 
 ing more than a few "dug-outs." It is believed that they did not begin to lay out 
 their first lots until September. Mathew Grant testified, April 21, 1675, that he 
 measured and set out their lots "from our [their] firft beginning," which "come 
 nixt September is 40 yere." State Archives, Private Controversies, I: 138. 
 
10 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 It was doubtless during the last days of October that 
 the pioneers of Hartford reached their destination. They 
 found at Suckiaug only a group of Indian wigwams north of 
 the Little River, and the Dutch at the House of Hope. 
 The former were located, it is believed, on the tract of land 
 west of the North Meadow creek. The Little Meadow 
 extended westward from the Connecticut River to the line 
 of the woodland. 
 
 The first English settlers at Suckiaug seem to have done 
 the most natural thing in arranging their house-lots. Be- 
 ginning at the northern end, they made divisions along the 
 border line of the woodland as far south as the Little River. 
 There, it is thought, the Indian trail ran. The houses 
 eventually erected upon these lots thus faced the open 
 meadow, with the Great River beyond. Along, in front 
 of their homes, they soon widened the trail into a roadway. 
 This highway was called the "Road from the Little River 
 to the North Meadow." It was the first stage in the 
 development of Front Street. The ridge of the hill behind 
 their houses, was some distance westward and ran about 
 parallel with their road. At its northern end was a mound 
 or hill, coming gradually to a summit, which, very likely, 
 had been used by the natives as a lookout, or for defence. 
 It was called by the English "Centinel Hill." A path would 
 naturally run from the Indian village up the slope to it, 
 which became the "Road from Centinel Hill to the North 
 Meadow," our present Village Street. At first it ran 
 through Robert Day's lot. From this hill, they made a 
 roadway southward along the ridge to the Little River, 
 where they designed to erect their palisado or fort. Perhaps 
 they found an Indian trail leading from the hill to the falls, 
 which must have been a famous fishing place for the natives 
 and offered the whites a mill site. This highway was called 
 the "Road from Centinel Hill to the Palisado," and is now 
 Main Street. About midway, they arranged for a public 
 field or square, where to build their meeting-house. A 
 road ran thence eastward, which was called the "Road from 
 the Meeting House to the Little Meadow" or "to the 
 Great River." This was the extent of their occupation and 
 development. It was sufficient for their immediate needs. 
 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 11 
 
 There is no doubt that this section is the oldest part of 
 Hartford. It was the Suckiaug of the pioneers. Here 
 they built their first huts or "dug-outs," and spent the 
 winter of 1635-6. 
 
 Who were the original owners of house-lots within this 
 section? The land records tell us. The answer is found on 
 Porter's "Plan of Hartford in 1640." If we go southward 
 along Front Street from the Indian village, using our type 
 to point out the sixteen pioneers, the owners were: Mathew 
 Allyn, Nicholas Clarke, Mathew Marvin, Stephen Hart, 
 William Weshvood, John Barnard, William Butler, John 
 Stone, Timothy Stanley, Edward Stebbins, Thomas Scott, 
 William Pantry, James Olmsted and Richard Webb. In 
 like manner, going southward along Main Street, the 
 owners were: William Kelsey, Robert Day, Nathaniel Ely, 
 Edward Elmer, John Talcott, William Lewis, Richard Good- 
 man, Clement Chaplin, John Steele, Sergeant Thomas Stanley 
 west of the highway, and Elder William Goodwin east of it. 
 Two lots facing Little River seem to have been reserved for 
 their ministers, Thomas Hooker and Samuel Stone. 
 
 Most of these names are familiar. Here are all the 
 sixteen pioneers of our tentative list. We have some 
 reasons to believe that they were a company of emigrants 
 seeking a new home in Connecticut; and here we find them 
 at Suckiaug, settled close together in a compact body for 
 mutual assistance and defence; on the one side, their 
 Indian friends, and on the other, their palisado, beside an 
 abundant stream, offering a serious warning to the Dutch- 
 men living south of it, in the House of Hope. 
 
 There are, however, among these pioneers, nine others 
 who are new acquaintances. They had not sold their 
 homes at Newtown February 8, 1635-6. It is believed 
 that all of them were in the company of Thomas Hooker 
 in 1636. Several of them are known to have been in Cam- 
 bridge during the winter or spring. How then, if our theory 
 is correct, did they apparently secure these house-lots thus 
 early, interspersed as they are, at random among the lots 
 of the pioneers? We can only offer a conjectural answer 
 to this question, for which, however, there are some good 
 reasons. They accompanied the emigrating party of 1635, 
 
12 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 to assist in establishing them, intending to return before 
 the winter set in, and, being present or represented at the 
 first meeting of Suckiaug planters, they received an allot- 
 ment with the others. 
 
 There is no doubt that the Hartford land records recog- 
 nize certain Newtown emigrants as "Adventurers." This 
 term is probably applied here, as in other instances, to those 
 who, through an occupation earlier than the town's legal 
 title, secured a right to land. A tract in Hartford, compris- 
 ing about thirty-five acres, and hereafter located, was 
 divided among certain settlers and was called in the records 
 "Adventurers' Field." The original owners were: John 
 Steele, William Westwood, Thomas Scott, Stephen Hart, 
 William Pantry, John Barnard, Richard Webb, Richard 
 Goodman, Mathew Marvin, Thomas Stanley, James Olm- 
 sted and John Talcott. Nathaniel Ely was the original 
 owner of the Brick-kiln lot of six and one-half acres, virtually 
 a part of this tract. The mill tract south of it was given 
 to Mathew Allyn. The first six of these names immediately 
 follow that of William Goodwin in our tentative list of 
 pioneers. The next four win their title to a place in it by 
 their grants in this tract. James Olmsted and John Talcott 
 were householders in Cambridge during the winter. The 
 former may have been represented among the adventurers 
 by his son Nicholas Olmsted. John Talcott was in Cam- 
 bridge early in the spring. His house at Suckiaug, however, 
 was erected in the winter of 1635-6. The memorandum 
 book of his son, Lieutenant-Colonel John Talcott, has the 
 following entry: "The kitchen, that now stands on the 
 north side of the house that I live in, was the first house 
 that my father built in Hartford, in Conn, colony, and was 
 done by Nicholas Clark, the first winter that any English- 
 man rought or built in Hartford, which was in the year 
 1635." 1 This evidence indicates that John Talcott may 
 have accompanied the pioneers, secured his lot, arranged 
 for the erection of a house and returned later in the season. 
 Nicholas Clarke, however, had no grant in Adventurers' 
 Field, or the two special tracts south of it. Neither had 
 Goodwin, Butler, Kelsey and Elmer of our tentative list, 
 
 1 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 263. 
 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 13 
 
 nor six others who are supposed to have secured house-lots 
 in 1635. These also would have had a right of prior occu- 
 pation and an adventurer's proportion. As Talcott and 
 Olmsted were also adventurers, others may have been. 
 We conclude, therefore, that this particular tract, being of 
 limited extent, did not provide for all. Across the highway 
 northwest of these lots, was Little Ox Pasture. The original 
 grantees in its eastern tier of lots, beginning at the high- 
 way and going north, were: William Butler, William 
 Hayden, Richard Goodman, Edward Elmer, Robert Day, 
 Nicholas Clarke and Nathaniel Ely. Perhaps some of the 
 adventurers preferred these larger lots. The name of 
 William Hayden in this company may indicate that he 
 also was a pioneer, for he had a house-lot near them. Wil- 
 liam Goodwin received an extensive grant in the South 
 Meadow, which was an exception to the rule of distribution, 
 as he was a North-side inhabitant. Edward Stebbins and 
 W T illiam Kelsey were original owners in a large tract called 
 "Middle Ox Pasture." John Stone removed early to Guil- 
 ford and Clement Chaplin settled in Wethersfield. No 
 one of those early settlers lacked for land, but what special 
 grant may have been made to them, we do not know. A 
 large latitude of choice was certainly allowed them, to suit 
 their needs. 
 
 There seems, also, to be confirmatory evidence that the 
 above solution is correct in the case of Clement Chaplin. 
 He secured one of the best house-lots among the pioneers, 
 but he did not settle upon it. During the winter he was 
 at Cambridge, being present at a town meeting in February, 
 and probably removed in Hooker's company, but went 
 directly, it is believed, to Wethersfield to settle. In 1639, 
 he was one of those chosen by the General Court to make 
 a record of the "first undertaking" of the plantations. 
 On January 14, 1639-40, the town of Hartford, on account 
 of his absence, appointed a committee to "Deall w th m r 
 Chaplin aboute his [lands, that] are fforfeted into the Towns 
 hands," but without any results. They were recorded to 
 him in 1644, and afterwards sold by him or his widow. 
 We can only account for this unusual procedure on the 
 assumption that he claimed to have secured a right by 
 
14 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 occupation in 1635, before the inhabitants had any* title 
 under the Warwick Patent, as they thought, or had pur- 
 chased the lands from the Indians. As the pioneers, albeit 
 they were adventurers, were all squatters, this was too 
 delicate a matter under the circumstances to argue with a 
 dissenting party. 1 The town likewise made exceptions in 
 the cases of William Butler and Nicholas Olmsted. The 
 latter inherited his father's house-lot. 
 
 There was a company of men, whose names are unknown, 
 who returned to the Bay late that autumn. Under the 
 date November 26, 1635, Winthrop made the following 
 entry: "There came twelve men from Connecticut. They 
 had been ten days upon their journey, and had lost one of 
 their company, drowned in the ice by the way; and had 
 been all starved, but that, by God's providence, they 
 lighted upon an Indian wigwam. Connecticut River was 
 frozen up the 15th of this month." 2 This party started 
 to return on the 16th, the day after the river was frozen 
 up. It could not, therefore, have been composed of Dor- 
 chester people, who arrived too late to get their cattle 
 across, unless we suppose that they immediately abandoned 
 their herds and started back overland. Nor is it likely 
 that any Windsor pioneers would set out to return on the 
 eve of expected arrivals and the coming of barks loaded 
 with provisions. This party was composed wholly of men. 
 That is a significant fact. We do not believe that there 
 were any men in Windsor, who would desert the women and 
 children of that plantation under circumstances that so 
 soon resulted in disaster. It is here claimed, without any 
 hesitation, that this party of men was composed of New- 
 town emigrants, who had accompanied the pioneers to assist 
 them in preparing winter quarters and erecting a palisado 
 for defence in need, with the prior intention of returning 
 
 1 Clement Chaplin is one of the personal enigmas of our local history. He was 
 evidently a leader and a man of ability. In Wethersfield he became the "proud 
 and wealthy ruling elder" of the church, and was a cause of much trouble. His 
 desertion of the Newtown company, and his subsequent experiences, lead one to 
 suspect that he was an ardent champion of ecclesiastical rights and privileges, which 
 may have been a reason for his settlement in Wethersfield and the factional dis- 
 putes in which he was engaged. 
 
 2 Winthrop's History, I: 207. 
 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 15 
 
 to their former homes. On the day after the river was 
 closed, they set out in haste, taking too little provision 
 from the pioneers' store. One of the unlucky thirteen — 
 perhaps a servant and unknown by name — was drowned 
 in attempting to cross somewhere on the ice. Along the 
 trail, they lost their way and were rescued by the host of 
 an Indian wigwam. 
 
 If there were, as Winthrop states, "about sixty men, 
 women and little children" in the original pioneer com- 
 pany, the number of those who returned, with the fifty 
 already accounted for, would make the party complete. 
 An opinion as to the identity of those who remained at 
 Suckiaug during that winter of hardship, can only be based 
 upon the assumption that those would be most likely to do 
 so who had sold their homes in Newtown or had no ties to 
 call them back. Upon the best evidence that the records 
 afford, their names are included in the list of sixteen who 
 are called pioneers. 
 
 It was doubtless during the interval between the arrival 
 of this company and the return of their friends, that the 
 formal beginning of the North-side Plantation was made. 
 If we assume that they proceeded in the usual way, they 
 met, chose a moderator of the meeting and passed such 
 votes as their present needs required. They would, natu- 
 rally, vote that every inhabitant should have a house-lot, 
 and a due proportion of meadow, pasturage and woodland. 
 Probably they made a division of house-lots only that season. 
 Thus they began their plantation. 
 
 The first labor of these pioneers was to prepare their dug- 
 outs in the hillside and provide some rude shelter for their 
 cattle. This was not a great task for hardy woodsmen; 
 nor were such homes uncomfortable. 1 Probably they did 
 not suffer from the cold during the winter. They had fire 
 
 1 The following description of a settler's dug-out has been given by Mr. Jabez 
 H. Hayden of Windsor: "Beginning a few feet below the brow of the hill, they 
 excavated a space the size of the proposed house, throwing up the earth at the 
 sides and west end. On the embankment thus made, they laid a plate, on which 
 they rested the foot of the rafters. Where stone was convenient, a wall was laid 
 under the plate, but as stone was scarce here they must have dispensed with it. 
 Instead of shingle, the roof was thatched with a course of wild grass. The east 
 end was probably made from 'clove' boards, i.e., boards cloven or split from short 
 logs and hewn into shape. Only the east end and roof of these structures appeared 
 
16 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 pits within and plenty of wood. The flood of the spring, 
 however, brought some of them trouble. Stephen Hart 
 and Mathew Marvin, who had located at the northern end 
 of Front Street, found themselves inundated, if we may 
 so interpret their early selection of other house-lots on the 
 "Road to the Neck." 1 Their great hardship arose from 
 the scarcity of food for themselves and fodder for their 
 cattle. Provisions had, no doubt, been provided in advance 
 and sent around by water, as the custom was. 2 Such supplies 
 usually prove to be insufficient. The pioneers of all the 
 river plantations suffered for lack of food, as they did also 
 for several winters thereafter. Some subsisted upon acorns. 
 Still they had many reasons for thankfulness. The two 
 great dangers, with which their removal had been threatened, 
 did not arise. The Indians were friendly and helpful, and 
 the Dutch were peacefully hibernating in the House of Hope. 
 So the palisado, which they had made on the bank of the 
 Little River, whither to seek refuge in an attack, was never 
 a memorable place of warfare about which the whoop of 
 the savage was heard. No event in Hartford's early history 
 was ever associated with it. There it lingered for a few 
 years, on its way to decay. The only fancy we can enter- 
 tain concerning it is, that there within its log house, as 
 their only public meeting place during the wearisome 
 winter, Elder William Goodwin, their leader, standing in 
 the place of his friend Thomas Hooker, gathered those brave 
 pioneers to conduct the simple Puritan service of worship. 
 At last, the scattered snow melted on the hillsides. 
 Around their huts, the bluebirds were seen. The flood 
 of the Great River came, and it was spring in Connecticut. 
 Then they came forth into the reviving hope of a new 
 world. 
 
 above ground." Stiles's Hist, of Windsor, I: 33. See also Early Connecticut 
 Houses, by Isham and Brown, pp. 12, 13. 
 
 1 Stephen Hart had, when his land was recorded, "One parcell on which his 
 dwellinge house once stood," and also "One parcell on which his dwellinge house 
 now standeth with other outhouses, yards and gardens." Original Distribution, 
 p. 190, in Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll. Vol. XIV. Mathew Marvin had, beside the lot on 
 which his dwelling house was standing, "one parcell for a house lott in the necke of 
 land." Ibid., pp. 89, 90. 
 
 2 Winthrop's History, I: 207. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 
 
 The title "Warwick Patent" has been applied to that 
 patent which Robert, Earl of Warwick, has been thought 
 to have received from the Council for New England, by 
 virtue of which he made a grant, March 19, 1631, to certain 
 lords and gentlemen of England, of the territory now in- 
 cluded in Connecticut. The discussion of the patent itself, 
 and its validity, is left to others. 1 We are concerned, 
 merely, with the use the founders of the river plantations 
 made of it. There is no doubt that, late in the winter of 
 1635-6, an understanding was effected between the emigrants 
 and the representatives of the Warwick patentees, for the 
 establishment of the river towns under the patent's favor. 
 This agreement resulted, not only in some conditions 
 affecting Connecticut's early government, to be considered 
 hereafter, but also in certain plans and proceedings in the 
 settlement of Hartford, which it is now our purpose to 
 bring out into the light. 
 
 The season of 1635 at Windsor had been one of contention 
 between the Dorchester pioneers, under Roger Ludlow, the 
 Plymouth Trading Company, and the party of Francis 
 Stiles. The traders of Plymouth had been tenants of the 
 land since 1633, and claimed rights of prior settlement. 
 The Stiles party came to occupy the land in behalf of the 
 patentees. They were virtually crowded out by the aggres- 
 sive pioneers. The patentees protested when they learned 
 the facts. Lord Saye and Sele wrote that the emigrants 
 had "carved largely for themselves," and would repent 
 when they saw what helps they had deprived themselves of. 
 He was doubtless right. At least, they did recede from the 
 position they had taken in the early ardor of their venture. 
 
 1 The Warwick Patent, by Dr. Charles J. Hoadly, Acorn Club Publications, 1902; 
 Connecticut's Warwick Patent, by Forrest Morgan, 1910; Connecticut Colonial 
 Records, I: 568-572; Connecticut as a Colony, I: 65 ff. 
 
18 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Most of them, as it happened, driven out by starvation, 
 returned to Dorchester in the Rebecca, arriving there on 
 December 10th. There they had occasion to reconsider 
 their hostile course. 
 
 The patentees had also, on July 8, 1635, commissioned 
 John Winthrop, Jr., to build a fort and erect houses at the 
 mouth of the Connecticut River. He was empowered to 
 be the governor of their territory for one year. 1 He arrived 
 at Boston in the Abigail early in October. Within a few 
 weeks, he sent a party to Saybrook to begin the design, 
 just in time to anticipate the Dutch. The governor himself 
 did not go thither until the next spring. 
 
 There had come with him from England, Mr. Henry 
 Vane, Jr., son of the King's comptroller, and Rev. Hugh 
 Peters, a somewhat famous minister, who was the step- 
 father of Winthrop's wife. These three had been con- 
 stituted the representatives of the Warwick patentees. 
 They had orders from Lord Saye and Sele, to treat with the 
 Massachusetts magistrates and "those who were to go to 
 Connecticut," as to the relation of the river plantations to 
 the patentees' authority and plans. The pioneers of Suck- 
 iaug had set out in haste shortly after Winthrop's arrival, 
 before anything was done, going thither without any other 
 government than was provided in the choice of a constable. 
 As Thomas Hooker, and other leaders of Newtown, had 
 not as yet removed, the circumstances were favorable for 
 all parties to consider matters involved in the general 
 emigration that was contemplated the following season. 
 This discussion was continued at intervals during the 
 winter of 1635-6. 
 
 One fact, of paramount importance to the river planta- 
 tions, thrust this subject upon their attention. The pa- 
 tentees then positively declared that the river settlements 
 were outside of the Massachusetts patent and within the 
 territory they themselves claimed. Their representatives 
 — Vane, Peters and Winthrop — put the following ques- 
 tions to all the emigrating towns, and especially to the 
 Dorchester people: 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, I: £02, 203; Trumbull's History of Connecticut, I: 497, 
 498. 
 
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 19 
 
 "Imprimis, whether they do acknowledge the rights and 
 claims of the said persons of quality, and in testimony 
 thereof will and do submit to the counsel and direction of 
 their present governour, Mr. John Winthrop the younger, 
 established by commission from them in those parts." 
 
 "Secondly, under what right and pretence they have 
 lately taken up their plantations within the precincts fore- 
 mentioned, and what government they intend to live under, 
 because the said country is out of the claim of the Massa- 
 chusetts patent." 
 
 "Item, what answer and reasons we may return to the 
 said patentees, if the said towns intend to intrench upon 
 their rights and privileges, and justify the same." 1 
 
 This declaration of the patentees' jurisdiction placed the 
 emigrants in a very embarrassing position. They could 
 not deny the claim. Already, they had themselves suspected 
 that they were outside of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, 
 and were glad to believe it. There were, moreover, 
 no good grounds upon which they could justify the 
 rights and privileges that their pioneer companies had 
 already assumed. Yet they were challenged, somewhat 
 peremptorily, for an answer. No doubt important and 
 interesting conferences followed. If they were conducted 
 according to the expressed wishes of the representatives, 
 they were "with as much secrecy as may be." Points were 
 certainly raised that could not be settled, except by corre- 
 spondence with the patentees themselves, who were in Eng- 
 land. Dr. Hoadly says that "Hooker corresponded with 
 Lord Saye and Sele." It surely developed that the patentees 
 were not hostile to the emigration. At one time, says the 
 same authority, Sir Richard Saltonstall himself "proposed 
 to build at Hartford and join with Mr. Hooker, who, as he 
 knew, was intending to remove thither." This correspond- 
 ence was not finished in March when the Commission for a 
 provisional government was issued, as that document itself 
 states. The representatives were sufficiently assured, how- 
 ever, of the patentees' wishes to proceed to an agreement 
 with the emigrants to Connecticut. 
 
 The leaders among the removing towns must have seen, 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, I: 477, 478. 
 
20 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 at once, that they could only secure title to their lands 
 under the Warwick Patent. It was inevitable under the 
 circumstances. This of itself was not so objectionable to 
 them. It was rather a "help," as one of the patentees had 
 stated. The sequel proved it to be such. If we may 
 reason, however, from the conclusion, there was one condi- 
 tion, pointedly stated in the above declaration, to which 
 objection was made. It was the required submission to the 
 government, set up by the authority of the patentees. 
 Allegiance was required to a governor, unobjectionable in 
 himself, in the choice of whom the settlers had no voice. 
 We cannot imagine that Roger Ludlow would accept any 
 such provision. He would rather remain in Massachusetts. 
 The flaunting of this claim of governmental rights in his 
 face at Windsor, had doubtless been one reason why his 
 company had carved so largely for themselves. Much less 
 would this principle have been acceptable to Thomas 
 Hooker. It would have destroyed all present hopes of 
 securing such a government as he is supposed to have already 
 seen in his visions. Surely it was radically opposed to his 
 ideas subsequently expressed, and embodied in Connecti- 
 cut's early constitutional government. This feature, it is 
 believed, was the leading subject of correspondence with 
 the patentees. There are indications, too, that their views, 
 when ascertained, were found to be in harmony with those 
 held by the settlers. It seems impossible that a settle- 
 ment could have been made, as it was, had they been 
 opposed. 
 
 Thus an understanding was arrived at, late in the winter 
 of 1635-6. A tentative agreement was made between the 
 parties, which was embodied in the Commission for a pro- 
 visional government, as hereafter set forth. This agree- 
 ment was, in fact, a compromise, in which the emigrants 
 agreed to settle under the Warwick Patent, and the patentees 
 made over to the colonists their rights of government. 
 Under this, both parties acquired benefits. The patentees 
 needed colonists to make good their claim to the lands. 
 They were far-sighted enough to see that actual settlement 
 would be recognized as the strongest support of their patent 
 claims, as, indeed, the sequel proved. They were not so 
 
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 21 
 
 particular about government. Certainly they had no reason 
 to be, if they knew that what they had, if anything, was 
 only "a deed of feoffment" in the lands. On the other 
 hand, the emigrants from Massachusetts, since they were 
 going outside of that colony's patent, needed some legal 
 standing in their claim to the lands they intended to settle. 
 To secure it, they were willing to take what was offered by 
 the lords and gentlemen in England, so long as it left them 
 free to conduct their own government. By this compro- 
 mise, therefore, each party secured what was considered 
 most advantageous to its own interests. 
 
 As to the fact that the removal of 1636 was conducted 
 under the patronage of the patentees, there is no doubt. 
 Concerning these settlers, Johnson, in his quaint history, 
 says: "Being out of the Mattachufets Patten, they erected 
 another Government, called by the Indian name, Canectico, 
 being farther incouraged by two honorable perfonages, the 
 Lord Say, and Lord Brookes." x On June 7, 1661, when 
 the Colony sought the favor of Lord Saye and Sele in secur- 
 ing a charter, it addressed him in a letter as follows: "The 
 former encouragements that our fathers, and some of their 
 yet surviving associates, received from your honor to trans- 
 plant themselves and families into these inland parts of 
 this vast wilderness, where (as we have been given to under- 
 stand) your honor was, and as we conceive and hope are still 
 interested, by virtue of patent power and authority, doth 
 not only persuade us, but assure us of your patronage and 
 favor." 2 
 
 This need of a patent right to the lands was especially 
 urgent, in view of the future relation of Newtown's planta- 
 tion to the Dutch, at the House of Hope. It gave them, 
 as they believed, a good title to the lands they wanted. 
 Perhaps they thought that they would thus acquire some- 
 thing more in the privileges, which patents were sometimes 
 supposed to include. It would, at least, bring them under 
 the protection of England and be good as colonists, as 
 against the claims of the Dutch. Perhaps special interest 
 attaches to Winthrop's record, that, in January, "one went 
 
 1 Johnson's Wonder-icorkmg Providence, p. 76. 
 
 2 Trumbull's Hist, of Connecticut, I: 513, 514. 
 
22 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 by land to Connecticut and returned safe." Was he a 
 messenger to the Suckiaug pioneers, carrying information, 
 which it was important they should have, before they had 
 committed themselves to the Dutch? No man would have 
 taken that journey alone, and in the dead of winter, except 
 in an emergency. Hitherto, the settlers from Newtown 
 had not entered upon the land south of the Little River, 
 which the Dutch claimed. There is no evidence that they 
 intended to do so. The pioneers of 1635 had established 
 their plantation, laid out their house-lots and planned 
 their divisions of land, apparently with the expectation that 
 the main body to follow would be associated with them. 
 The acquisition of rights under the patent entirely altered 
 and greatly improved their prospects. They had thus 
 secured a reasonable ground for claiming the land south of 
 the Little River. They had only to enter in and possess it. 
 This, then, was the situation that presented itself to the 
 Newtown emigrants in the spring of 1636. 
 
 There was one other matter that compelled their im- 
 mediate attention. It was general among New England 
 colonists to purchase their lands from the native owners. 
 The pioneers had entered upon their claim without any 
 such purchase, though perhaps they had made a verbal 
 treaty with the Indians. A conveyance was necessary. 
 They would be at a disadvantage without it, notwithstand- 
 ing the patent, if they attempted to occupy any part of the 
 land claimed by the Dutch. Lord Saye and Sele has him- 
 self mentioned the object of such a purchase. He has 
 also stated the fact in the following language: "Many of 
 the English (his Majesty's Subjects) having been incor- 
 porated by his Majesty's letters patent, and having, in 
 order to obviate all difficulties, purchased the land from the 
 natives, the acknowledged and right owners thereof, es- 
 tablished divers factories on the river." ! His lordship 
 made this statement in connection with the controversy 
 with the Dutch; nor could it have applied to any other 
 plantation than Newtown. It seems, therefore, to have 
 been the plan of Hooker's company, having effected an 
 arrangement with the patentees, and secured a Commission 
 
 1 "Holland Documents," in Doc. Rel. to the Colonial History of Xew York, I: 1£8- 
 
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 23 
 
 for a provisional government, to purchase the land from 
 the Indians. They could then assert their right by patent 
 and purchase to all the land between Windsor and Wethers- 
 field, including that occupied by the Dutch. The sequel 
 shows that such a claim was made before Hooker arrived, 
 and, in due time, the majority of the settlers of 1636 located 
 on the land south of the Little River. 
 
 The counter claims made by the Dutch will be examined 
 more minutely hereafter. It is sufficient, here, to define 
 their boundaries. As stated in their own records, they 
 claimed the "flat extending about one league down along 
 the river, and one-third of a league in width to the high 
 land, and beyond the hill upwards, being a flat extending 
 to the next adjoining little stream." * Another version 
 informs us that the "one league down along the river," was 
 measured "across through the wood." In this direction 
 were their "bouwerie" or garden, hay land and wood lot. 
 The "next adjoining little stream" was Folly Brook. It 
 was "about one league" from this brook northward to the 
 "Kill" [creek] or Little River. Beyond this the tract 
 extended a "musket shot" up Connecticut River, thus 
 including the land projecting southward, since known as 
 "Dutch Point." This low land was directly east of the 
 House of Hope. The northern boundary of the Dutch- 
 men's claim, therefore, was the Little River, and a line 
 projected eastward from its bend across to the Connecticut 
 River. 
 
 The original conveyance, from the Indians to the founders 
 of Hartford, has long since disappeared. The deed by 
 which Sequassen's successors, in 1670, confirmed it, contains 
 one statement that has an important bearing on the sequence 
 of events and the settlement that was made under the 
 Warwick Patent. It states that the original purchase was 
 made by Mr. Samuel Stone and Mr. William Goodwin 
 "about the yeare sixteen hundred thirty-six." Dr. Trum- 
 bull says "in 1635 or 1636." The English repeatedly 
 asserted, in their controversy with the Dutch, that they 
 had purchased the disputed lands before their settlement 
 upon them. There is no reason to deny this statement. 
 
 1 Ibid., II: 139, 140; Mem. Hist. oJHartford County, I: 13. 
 
24 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 The above words of Lord Saye and Sele confirm it. If 
 we admit it, however, the query is suggested, in view of 
 the circumstances, whether this purchase was not made 
 early in the spring, just before or just after the begin- 
 ning of the year, old style. If it was, then Rev. Samuel 
 Stone removed to Suckiaug early that season, perhaps 
 with the intention of making such a purchase before 
 the arrival of Hooker's company, his associate in that 
 business, Elder Goodwin, being already there. Let us 
 consider the circumstances that are reconciled by this 
 supposition. The reader must judge whether the evidence 
 warrants its acceptance as a fact. 
 
 There was a Newtown party that removed to Suckiaug 
 early in the spring of 1636. Historians of repute have 
 made this statement. The documentary evidence concerns, 
 principally, John White and Samuel Wakeman. The 
 former was a prominent settler. He was, later, chosen 
 ruling elder of the Second Church of Christ. He sold his 
 home at Newtown, October 20, 1635, and was then of that 
 town. When he executed a conveyance of land, however, on 
 May 30, 1636, he was "of the New Towne vppo Quinetuc- 
 quet River." As Thomas Hooker's company did not start 
 until May 31st, John White certainly removed before that 
 date and probably early in the season. Samuel Wakeman 
 was sworn constable of Newtown plantation, April 26, 
 1636. There is no trace of his presence among the pioneers. 
 He was probably a recent arrival. As to Samuel Stone, 
 he had sold his Newtown home before February 8, 1635-6, 
 to Roger Harlackenden, Esq., of Shepard's company. 
 Although we know of no evidence of his subsequent resi- 
 dence there, he doubtless spent the winter in Cambridge, 
 in the performance of his duties. Winthrop does not 
 mention his departure with Thomas Hooker's company, 
 nor does Goodwin note his arrival with the pastor. Yet he 
 was actively connected with the emigrants' plans in the 
 removal. At his house the meeting with Shepard's com- 
 pany was held, and, on several occasions later, he repre- 
 sented the settlers in an executive capacity. This is 
 admitted to be negative evidence, of little value considered 
 alone. It surely would have been a natural and wise pro- 
 
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 25 
 
 cedure, under the circumstances, to send Samuel Stone 
 early in the spring to Suckiaug, with John White, Samuel 
 Wakeman and perhaps others. They intended to inaugurate 
 the provisional government at once. Its first court was 
 held April 26th. John Winthrop, Jr., set out in March, to 
 assume his responsibilities at Saybrook. It must have 
 been evident that the declaration of their rights under the 
 patent could not wait upon their convenience. The issue 
 with the Dutch rested entirely with the Newtown emi- 
 grants. Neither Windsor nor Wethersfield had any claim 
 to advance to the land south of the Little River. The 
 pioneers were well settled on the north-side. It naturally 
 devolved upon some one from Newtown, with a show of 
 authority, to advance their claim under the patent, and, 
 "to obviate all difficulties," the purchase of the land from 
 the natives was necessary. 
 
 These are not the only circumstances that lead to such a 
 conclusion. We have evidence that the English had, 
 before Hooker's arrival, asserted their patent rights, and 
 had presumably taken such action under them that the 
 Dutch made a formal protest against them as trespassers. 
 On June 22, 1636, Elder William Goodwin, dating his letter 
 from Suckiaug, wrote to Governor John Winthrop, Jr., 
 at Saybrook fort, as follows: "I am requested by our 
 neighbores the Dutchmen to mind you of what you willed 
 me to tell them, viz., that if they thought good to call to 
 you as they went out [of the river] with ther sloope (and did 
 desire so much of you) you would then giue them answer in 
 wryteing to ther protest. The Sirgion is now going to ther 
 plantation [Manhattan] and meaneth to come to you about 
 it, and desired me to signifie so much vnto your worship, 
 which is all I haue at this tyme." The postscript of this 
 letter advises Winthrop of the arrival of Hooker. 1 
 
 It is clear that the protest of the Dutch had been made 
 some time before Goodwin wrote as above. He and Win- 
 throp had met at Saybrook or Suckiaug, or information 
 concerning the protest had been transmitted to Winthrop, 
 and an answer had been returned. Apparently also the 
 Dutch had been waiting some time, for a convenient occa- 
 
 1 k Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VII: 44. 
 
26 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 sion to call at Saybrook fort as they went out of the river 
 in their sloop. Moreover, the protest had doubtless been 
 called forth by some overt act of settlement on the part of 
 the English. It would seem that they had entered upon the 
 land that the Dutch claimed, and had justified their act on 
 the ground that they had rights there under the Warwick 
 Patent, and by purchase from the Indians. This situation 
 alone would have made it proper for the Suckiaug settlers 
 to refer the matter to Governor Winthrop, the regent under 
 the patentee, and for the Dutch to seek from him an answer 
 to their protest, in writing, to be forwarded, no doubt, on 
 their arrival at Manhattan, to their superiors of the West 
 India Company. The Dutch had made no protest against 
 the occupation of the land north of the Little River. It 
 was outside of their bounds. Entrance by another party 
 upon their land, held for years by occupancy and purchase, 
 was quite a different matter. It seems almost to have been 
 a part of the program, previously arranged between the 
 settlers and Governor Winthrop at Saybrook, that the 
 issue should be forced early in the season — an issue foreseen 
 and unavoidable, if their rights under the Warwick Patent, 
 in which, we do not doubt, they honestly trusted, were of 
 any value. 
 
 Is there any evidence of an overt act of settlement upon 
 the Dutchmen's land, which would call forth this protest? 
 The Hartford land records seem to give us an answer. If 
 John WTiite and Samuel Wakeman were like all other plant- 
 ers, their first concern was to secure eligible house-lots for 
 themselves. They could have done so among the pioneers 
 north of the Little River. There was land enough and to 
 spare, as desirable as any that had been chosen. We do 
 not find them there. As already stated, one of the princi- 
 pal highways of the pioneers' settlement was the "Road 
 from the Little River to the North Meadow," now named 
 Front Street. At its southern end, there was a fordway, 
 crossing the Little River. It is here that we find the two 
 emigrants, who had arrived in the spring of 1636, settled 
 on the South-side, making a beginning of that plantation. 
 John White is on the east side of the path or road to Weth- 
 ersfield, and Samuel Wakeman on the west side, beyond 
 
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 27 
 
 William Hills, who occupied the corner lot. Apparently, 
 these adventurous scouts had boldly, and with design, 
 crossed the Little River, and settled on the Dutchmen's 
 land. They doubtless believed that they had a lawful 
 right there, and considered it their own promised Canaan. 
 Samuel Wakeman was soon sworn constable. Under the 
 circumstances, it was a suitable residence for an officer of 
 defence. We may even suspect that it was his post of 
 danger, in case of trouble with the Dutch, that suggested 
 his appointment. Yet this settlement on the Dutchmen's 
 land was precisely what some of Thomas Hooker's company 
 intended to do, and did, upon their arrival. It did not mat- 
 ter how soon the issue was made. They could not settle 
 under the Warwick Patent and avoid it. 
 
 If, therefore, these two settlers did locate their lots 
 within the Dutchmen's claim, with William Hills and 
 possibly others, in the spring of 1636, thus giving good 
 reasons for the above protest, and it is true, as the English 
 afterward asserted, that they had purchased the land from 
 the Indians before any such settlement was made, then 
 Samuel Stone, who, with William Goodwin, bought the 
 land, must have been a member of this springtime 
 company. 
 
 The reader, who has a sense of the humorous, can hardly 
 suppress a smile at this exhibition of the traditional shrewd- 
 ness of the Connecticut Yankee, in the character of our 
 forefathers. The patentees had forced them into a position 
 where they were obliged to accept settlement under the 
 Warwick Patent. They did so, without incurring any 
 obligation of allegiance to the patentees' governor. And 
 yet, these settlers, either by design or chance, at once made 
 an issue with their neighbors, that could only be defended 
 on the ground of a superior patent right. When the Dutch 
 made a protest against them as trespassers, they received 
 it with equanimity, and referred them to His Excellency at 
 Saybrook fort, while they went calmly about their business 
 of ploughing and sowing the Dutchmen's fields. 
 
 The English occupied and divided among themselves the 
 land south of the Little River, where they founded the 
 South-side Plantation. They allowed their neighbors to 
 
28 THE COLOXIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 continue in possession of such parcels as they had put to 
 use. There the matter was allowed to rest for a time. 
 We do not know of any better statement of the case than 
 has been given by an early Dutch writer in the following 
 language: "It finally came to pass that they [the English] 
 arrived on the above-mentioned river in the years 1635 and 
 1636, with numbers of families and cattle, established them- 
 selves there, far and near, even on the land situate around 
 and by our fort, and belonging to us, which land they have 
 divided among themselves, endeavoring to prescribe laws 
 to us, because they, having built a house or two at the mouth 
 of the river pretended thereby to have the key thereof." l 
 
 Here we lose sight of their differences, until 1639, and 
 our story is continued in a later chapter. The patentees 
 were not allowed to forget their responsibilities toward the 
 river plantations. In 1642, Lord Saye and Sele, Sir Richard 
 Saltonstall, and the Earl of Warwick, came loyally to the 
 assistance of the colonists in the defence of their rights. 
 If we only had some reminiscences by the younger Governor 
 Winthrop, it is probable that our chapter would not lack 
 a most entertaining conclusion. His authority dwindled 
 very rapidly. In the latter part of March, his honored 
 father addressed him as "Governour of Conecticott." 
 Within a month, he changed the title to "Governor of the 
 new Plantation upon Connecticutt," which was sufficiently 
 indefinite. In June, however, when Thomas Hooker's 
 company were well on the way, he had become simply 
 "Governor of the Plantation upon the mouth of the Con- 
 ecticot." These changing titles furnish a good illustration 
 of what actually took place. Winthrop came to Connecticut 
 to represent the patentees. He gave the settlers such stand- 
 ing and defence as he could; but he quietly turned over to 
 them the authority of government. We cannot doubt that 
 in doing so, he was conforming to the known wishes of his 
 superiors. He soon relinquished his post, returned to 
 Boston, and, with grace and honor, withdrew from such 
 perplexing responsibilities, concluding, no doubt, that the 
 river plantations could look after their own interests. We 
 have a strong conviction that he fully understood, from the 
 
 1 "Report and Advice," in O'Callaghan's Hist, of New Nrthcrland, I: 421. 
 
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 29 
 
 first, the purpose of the play that had thus been put upon 
 the stage, and enjoyed the role that had been assigned to 
 him, as the friend of the colonists. He served them well. 
 After the curtain had fallen, they were glad to have him 
 settle down at Pequot and participate in the blessings that 
 the Warwick Patent, which has yet to be discovered, had 
 been the means of bestowing upon the people of Connecticut. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 
 
 The distinctive features of the settlement of Hartford were: 
 the wisdom that characterized the removal of its founders, 
 the dual establishment of the plantation, and its early 
 organization of town government. In these respects, 
 Hartford has a right to claim honor among her sister towns, 
 though she must yield to Windsor and Wethersfield in prior- 
 ity of settlement. 
 
 It is clearly an error to speak of the company that Thomas 
 Hooker personally conducted as making the beginning of 
 the Suckiaug plantation. It was begun in 1635. The 
 Newtown emigrants did not trust to the fortunes, which 
 one party might expect to encounter in the wilderness. 
 After two companies had gone forward to prepare the way, 
 the main body followed. In the larger sense, they may 
 all be included in Hooker's company. Each party was 
 chosen to fill an honorable place in our history. 
 
 Nor did the success of the removal depend upon any one 
 man. Thomas Hooker seems to have been most concerned, 
 personally, with the larger interests of the movement. When 
 great principles were under discussion — such as their right 
 to remove, and the organization of government — he looms 
 up like an ancient prophet. He had inspired the emigration. 
 As a minister he was its attracting force. Yet, in carrying 
 out their plans, he trusted to others, who shared his con- 
 fidence. Samuel Stone, on several occasions, was the man 
 of practical affairs. Other settlers, such as Goodwin, 
 Steele and Westwood, were well fitted for the service to 
 which they were appointed. Many others, whose names 
 are familiar, contributed to the success of their venture. 
 Still a master-mind was in control of the movement, through 
 the sway of personal influence. This was the great and 
 merited honor due Thomas Hooker. 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 31 
 
 In the spring of 1636, there was general anxiety among the 
 main company to hasten their departure. Aside from the 
 natural rivalry between emigrating towns, there were urgent 
 reasons for haste in the season's labors. 1 The settlers had 
 to clear away the forest, break up the virgin soil, gather 
 fodder for the winter and prepare shelter for themselves 
 and their cattle. Yet they experienced delays. In a letter 
 of April 26th, Winthrop says: "Mr. Hooker and his com- 
 pany intend to set forth three weeks hence." Their date 
 then was May 17th. Some of them did not sell their homes 
 before that month. Perhaps they were also delayed in 
 securing transportation by water for their goods. Of that 
 season, Lion Gardiner at Saybrook wrote: "Heare hath 
 come many vessels with provision to goe vp to the planta- 
 tions." We surmise, however, that they may have thought 
 it wise to make their journey during the pleasant days of 
 summer. There were gentle women among them, unac- 
 customed to hardships in the forest, and mothers with their 
 little children. None of our modern conveniences for 
 camp life were known to them. They were to cook and eat 
 their humble fare by the wayside; find shelter from dew 
 and rain under overhanging boughs, and go to their rest 
 in the ominous darkness, on the matted needles of ancient 
 pines. Surely the shepherd that led forth that flock may 
 have wisely sought the favor of nature's best season. 
 
 The day of their departure was Tuesday, May 31, 1636, 
 Winthrop places it under that date in his history. In a 
 letter, also, of June 10th, he distinctly says: "Mr. Hooker 
 went hence upon Tuesday the last day of May." 
 
 How many were numbered in this company, and of whom 
 did it consist? The only statement we have as to their 
 number is that there were "about an hundred persons." 
 This expression, if we accept its authority, is indefinite. 
 It may mean some more than one hundred. In the writer's 
 opinion, the company did considerably exceed that. Such 
 
 1 The Dorchester people returned early to Windsor. "A great part" of their 
 old church had "gone to Connecticut" by April 1st. Pynchon's company from 
 Roxbury went early to Springfield. They planned to ship their goods on the 
 Blessing "as soon as she can be laden" after April 14th. Their records at Agawam 
 begin with May 14th. Winthrop's History, I: 218, 219, 465. 
 
32 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 a party could not have included, by a liberal estimate, 
 more than thirty-five settlers, the remainder being wives, 
 children and servants. This centenary number must have 
 had the room that the Mayflower is said to have given to 
 furniture, to accommodate all the ancestors for whom the 
 honor has been claimed. The list of Newtown house- 
 holders, February 8, 1635-6, must be the basis of a census. 
 The location of settlers' house-lots at Hartford is also of 
 value, for the majority who came in 1636, settled on the 
 South-side. As a rule, arrivals after that year had lots in 
 the suburbs. The following list of those who were members 
 of the Newtown congregation, and are thought to have 
 removed in Hooker's company, makes no pretense of being 
 other than what a careful and unprejudiced study of the 
 records seems to the author to warrant. It includes those 
 who probably secured lots at Suckiaug in 1635, and returned 
 to Newtown. The order follows the list of proprietors of 
 Hartford, except as to Thomas Hooker himself. 
 
 Mr. Thomas Hooker, Mr. Mathew Allyn, John Talcott, 
 James Olmsted, William Wadsworth, William Lewis, Tim- 
 othy Stanley, Edward Stebbins, John Pratt, William 
 Ruscoe, James Ensign, John Hopkins, George Steele, 
 Stephen Post, Thomas Judd, Thomas Lord, Sen., John 
 Stone, Richard Lord, John Maynard, Jeremy Adams, 
 Samuel Greenhill, Robert Day, Nathaniel Richards, Joseph 
 Mygatt, Richard Butler, John Arnold, Thomas Bull, 
 George Stocking, Seth Grant, Richard Olmsted, Joseph 
 Easton, Clement Chaplin, Thomas Lord, Jr., John Olmsted 
 and Samuel Whitehead. 
 
 There were others, however, who came from Massachu- 
 setts towns, or soon after their arrival from England, and 
 doubtless became settlers of Hartford in 1636. Such were 
 Thomas Welles — who is said to have come from Saybrook 
 — John W r ebster and W T illiam W T hiting. The location of 
 lots gives reason to believe that the following came that 
 season — perhaps some of them with Hooker : Andrew 
 Bacon, John Baysey, George Grave, William Hyde, Richard 
 Lyman, John Marsh, John Moody, William Parker, John 
 Skinner, Arthur Smith, Nathaniel Ward, John Wilcox and 
 Gregory Wolterton. Thomas Stanton was in Connecticut 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 33 
 
 in 1637, and perhaps secured his lot earlier, through his 
 father-in-law, Thomas Lord. A number of young men, 
 also, arrived late in 1636, or early in 1637, for they were 
 soldiers in the Pequot War. William Gibbons, steward of 
 George Wyllys, who followed in 1638, is said to have arrived 
 in 1636, "with twenty men," to erect Wyllys's house and 
 prepare his fields. Our inability to identify any of this 
 company awakens the suspicion that some of them may 
 have been among the soldiers of 1637, and later may have 
 received land by the town's courtesy. Some of the most 
 prominent members of Hooker's congregation were detained 
 at Newtown. Benjamin Burr and Thomas Hosmer seem to 
 have been there June 6, 1636, but probably followed that 
 season. William Andrews, William Blumfield, John Clarke, 
 John Haynes, Thomas Spencer and Andrew Warner removed 
 early in 1637, and W 7 illiam Spencer in 1638. Edward Hop- 
 kins had an early reservation of a house-lot, but arrived in 
 1637. Surely the number that came to Hartford in 1636 
 has been underestimated. In view of this conclusion, we 
 can better appreciate the effect of declining emigration, 
 and the protest of Thomas Hooker, in 1638, at the efforts 
 of some at the Bay to discourage the movement. 
 
 There are only two original authorities as to the details 
 of Thomas Hooker's pilgrimage. These demand a critical 
 examination. In the course of time, they have received 
 such embellishments that the present popular impression of 
 that journey is unworthy of credence. Winthrop's story 
 is confined to the following paragraph: 
 
 "Mr. Hooker, pastor of the church of Newtown, and 
 most of his congregation, went to Connecticut. His wife 
 was carried in a horse litter; and they drove one hundred 
 and sixty cattle, and fed of their milk by the way." 1 
 
 In one of Winthrop's letters, we have this additional 
 information : 
 
 "With that company, viz — by Tho. Bull and a man of 
 mine own, I sent six cows, four steers and a bull." 2 
 
 These cattle were to be sent on to his son at Saybrook, 
 and were doubtless delivered there soon after the company 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, I: 223. 
 
 2 Ibid., I: 468. 
 
34 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 arrived. 1 The details of this narrative are valuable, and 
 worthy of entire confidence. 
 
 Our second authority is Cotton Mather, who wrote, in 
 the Magnolia, as follows: "Reader, come with me now to 
 behold some worthy, and learned, and genteel persons going 
 to be buried alive on the banks of Connecticut, having been 
 first slain by the ecclesiastical impositions and persecutions 
 of Europe. . . . Accordingly, in the month of June, 1636, 
 they removed an hundred miles to the westward, with the 
 purpose to settle upon the delightful banks of the Connecti- 
 cut River; and there were about an hundred persons in 
 the first company that made this removal; who not being 
 able to walk above ten miles a day took up near a fortnight 
 in the journey, having no pillows to take their nightly rest 
 upon, but such as their father Jacob found in the way to 
 Padan-Aram." 2 
 
 Cotton Mather was the original authority for the embel- 
 lished narrative, which Governor Thomas Hutchinson re- 
 corded in his history, published in 1764. From the latter 
 historian, our popular misconceptions of Thomas Hooker's 
 pilgrimage have been derived. 3 Hutchinson's version is as 
 follows: 
 
 "They did not take their departure until June the next 
 year, and then about an hundred perfons in the firft com- 
 pany, fome of them had lived in fplendour and delicacy in 
 England, fet out on foot to travel an hundred and twenty 
 or thirty miles with their wives and children, near a fort- 
 nights journey, having no pillars but Jacob's, and no canopy 
 but the heavens, a wildernefs to go thro' without the leaft 
 cultivation, in moft places no path nor any marks to guide 
 them, depending upon the compafs to fteer by, many 
 hideous fwamps and very high mountains, befide five or 
 
 1 Probably the men who delivered this herd were the "bretheren," referred to 
 in Goodwin's letter of June 22nd to Winthrop. 
 
 ■ Mather's Magnolia, edn. 1855, I: 81, 342. 
 
 3 Dr. Samuel Mather wrote a letter, in 1784, to his son Samuel, in which he said, 
 of certain manuscripts, "I lent [them] to your careless Uncle, Mr. Hutchinson, 
 and, as I suppose, they are irrecoverably lost and gone: I furnished him, as I 
 suppose you know, with most of the Materials, of which his History was composed: 
 And I am sorry that he made no better use of them: For he has misrepresented and 
 misapplied Beveral Things, <>f which I had given him better Information" — Ma- 
 ther's History of King Philip's War, 18G2, p. xxii. 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 35 
 
 fix rivers, or different parts of the fame winding river (the 
 Chickapi) not every where fordable, which they could not 
 avoid." 1 
 
 It will be evident to any one who compares these narra- 
 tives, that Hutchinson added several details, which he doubt- 
 less considered true, one of which was wholly false. That 
 he said the company crossed the Chicopee river five or six 
 times, was a natural error, as he evidently thought their 
 route was as the "new way" ran, which was discovered in 
 1648 and used in his own time. 2 But when he stated that 
 there was "in most places no path, nor any marks to guide 
 them," and that they journeyed "depending upon the 
 compass to steer by," he wrote as one entirely ignorant of 
 the early customs of travel in New England. The school- 
 boy who knows the primeval forest, will hardly believe that 
 this company of intelligent men, skilled in woodcraft, en- 
 cumbered by burdens of goods and provisions, driving one 
 hundred and sixty cattle, with sheep and swine and fowls, 
 having in charge an invalid's litter and mothers with tod- 
 dling children, took their journey through a pathless forest, 
 
 1 Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, 1 : 45. 
 
 2 This "new way" went through Watertown and Waltham, diverged from the 
 "old way" in Weston, led west through Wayland, across Sudbury marsh and river, 
 through Sudbury, Marlborough, Worcester, Brookfield and Brimfield to the Qua- 
 baug or Chicopee river, which it crossed "four or five times," passing through 
 Palmer on the north side of the river, across it again to the south side, and on to 
 Springfield. Nashaway planters petitioned for a way across Sudbury river in 1645 
 (Mass. Arch. CXXI: 5). In 1648, Winthrop wrote: " This year a new way was 
 found out to Connecticut, by Nashoway, which avoided much of the hilly way" 
 (Winthrop's History, II: 396). John Eliot probably discovered it, and in 1649 
 followed it to Quabaug (3 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., IV: 123, 125). John Pres- 
 cott, of Lancaster, worked on the eastern section two seasons (Mass. Arch., CXXI: 
 31). Farms were laid out along it in 1662 (Mass. Arch., XXXIII: 22; XLV: 
 107; Proprietary Rec. of Worcester, pp. 21, 23). The General Court ordered high- 
 ways in the eastern section in 1653 (Mass. Col. Rec, III: 303). In 1673 the County 
 Court, on Marlborough's petition, ordered a highway laid out westward to Qua- 
 baug, which was done in 1674 (Middlesex County Court Records, 1671-1680, pp. 
 77, 101; Mass. Arch., CXXI: 92) In 1700 it was "the stated Rhode to Conet- 
 ticot, especially Betwixt Wooster & Brookfield," but hazardous (Mass. Arch., 
 CXXI: 101). On March 7, l?31-2 the Hampshire County Court ordered it laid 
 out as a highway from Springfield to Brookfield, and the layout was reported May 
 16, 1732 (Hampshire County Court Records, II: 143, 149, 165). It was the main 
 road to Boston from Springfield until recent times. Gov. Hutchinson's uncle, 
 Edward, owned a tract of land on the Quabaug river, and he probably knew the 
 road (Mass. Acts and Resolves, XI: 423, 727; XXII: 252). 
 
36 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 "depending upon the compass to steer by," especially as 
 they did not then know the course to Hartford. It would 
 have been a foolhardy undertaking, quite impossible of 
 accomplishment. Only imagine Thomas Bull, with "six 
 cows, four steers and a bull," endeavoring to find a course 
 for his charge, west southwest, up hill and down dale, around 
 fallen trees and through tangled undergrowth, halted 
 abruptly by a fordless river and running head on into an 
 impenetrable swamp! Does any one suppose that Goody 
 Grundy could have steered her pigs, by a compass, to 
 Hartford in a fortnight? That instrument was sometimes 
 used to show the right path where they diverged, or the 
 traveller was lost, but rarely, except by surveyors, to navi- 
 gate the New England forests. The herd followed one 
 another, as they would soon learn to do, in a beaten path. 
 It had been trodden that season by several other com- 
 panies with cattle. Along such a way it would have been 
 comparatively easy for a horse litter to travel, nor would a 
 litter have been altogether uncomfortable. 1 There were 
 landmarks, too, some of them known to this day. Indian 
 villages were located here and there, providing food and 
 shelter in need, as many an early pilgrim to Connecticut 
 had reason to know\ In Hooker's company, there were 
 doubtless a half dozen or more men, who had made the 
 journey several times. There were friendly Indians to 
 guide the party, if necessary. Hutchinson was justified, 
 however, in the purpose that led him astray — the lauda- 
 tion of the heroic features of this pilgrimage. It was an 
 arduous journey. Their path led them over "high moun- 
 tains" and through "hideous swamps." It was long and 
 rough, the travelling of which, even now, augments our 
 respect for the physical endurance of those pilgrims, who 
 followed it so long ago. 
 
 In order to appreciate the experiences of Thomas Hooker's 
 company we must imagine ourselves to be living in the 
 conditions of his time. There were then few country roads 
 
 1 A horse litter was framed of "two long ash poles, with slats fastened across the 
 middle, the forward ends attached to the horse's saddle-girths, and the hind ends 
 dragging on the ground or fastened to the girths of another horse." Daniels's 
 Hist, of Oxford, p. 81. 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 37 
 
 in the Bay Colony, and those connected settled commu- 
 nities. The only overland ways to distant regions were by 
 Indian paths. Most of these had long been used by the 
 natives. In some places, they were worn deep in the earth. 
 Such paths offered the white man great advantages. They 
 were not only a sure guide to his destination, but they also 
 followed the higher land, keeping clear of swamps, where 
 it was possible, and leading to ford ways across the rivers. 
 Along these paths, the Indians brought news of distant 
 localities, desirable for settlement. At first, a few daring 
 adventurers followed them into the wilderness to explore. 
 Then, white families, singly or in small parties, pushed out 
 toward the frontier, and built in some favorable place their 
 log cabins. As their settlement grew, the path was widened. 
 It soon became a road, along which civilization went and 
 came. The story of its development is told by the very 
 names applied to it. First, it was a mere "trail"; then, an 
 Indian "path"; by and by, the "country road" of the 
 pioneers, and, at last, the "highway" of a settled township. 
 It was the custom to locate early grants of land along these 
 Indian paths, the tract being bounded, frequently, by the 
 path on one side. To this fact, we owe most of our knowl- 
 edge of their course. Some of them have been accurately 
 determined, and the ancient path or road, which would 
 otherwise have escaped observation, has been discovered. 
 
 The Indian path to the Connecticut River, in 1636, was 
 familiar to the English. There cannot be any doubt that 
 along it Thomas Hooker's company made their journey. 
 Wahginnacut, "a sagamore upon the River Quonehtacut," 
 sachem at East Windsor, probably followed it when he 
 visited Boston, in 1631. He informed Governor Winthrop 
 that it was "not above five days' journey by land" to his 
 country. 1 Along this path, John Oldham went and came 
 several times. In 1633, he and "three with him went over- 
 land to Connecticut to trade." 2 "He lodged at Indian 
 towns all the way." His route is identified, in part, by that 
 fact, and the statement that he brought back some speci- 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, I: 62; De Forest's History of the Indians of Connecticut, 
 p. 73. 
 
 2 Winthrop's History, I: 132. 
 
38 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 mens of black lead, "whereof, the Indians told him, there 
 was a whole rock." This could have been none other than 
 Leadmine Hill, in Sturbridge. The General Court, in 1644, 
 made a grant to John Winthrop, Jr. of "y e hill at Tantousq, 
 about 60 miles west ward, in which the black lead is." * 
 On his journey the following year, when he intended to go to 
 Mohegan "by the way of Tantiusques, to the black lead 
 mine," he missed his way, and found that he was "going 
 in a direct course towards Agawam." 2 His descendants 
 doubtless regretted the grant, as they buried a deal of 
 money there, mining black lead. 
 
 In 1642, Nathaniel Woodward and Solomon Saffery, 
 surveyors, in their work of establishing the southern bound- 
 ary of the Massachusetts patent, made a map on which their 
 route to Connecticut is indicated by a line. This shows 
 their general course, and at several points, they recorded 
 data as to their location. These coincide with the conclu- 
 sions of antiquaries, sufficiently to prove that these sur- 
 veyors travelled along this familiar path, and that it passed 
 certain identified landmarks. 3 The course of these surveyors 
 led them to the earliest crossing of the Connecticut River, 
 at Bissell's old ferry, in Windsor. 
 
 This ancient Indian path received, in early times, two 
 names. One was given to it by the English, on Connecti- 
 cut River. It was the "Bay Path." The inhabitants of 
 Springfield, in 1646, voted to give liberty "to gather candle- 
 wood in ye playne in ye Bay path." In 1647, they ordered 
 "a Horse way over the meddow to ye Bay path." The 
 other name was the more natural designation of the English 
 about Boston. It was the "Connecticut Path." After 
 the "new way" was discovered, the former was sometimes 
 distinguished as the "Old Bay Path," or "Old Connecticut 
 Path." In 1674, Major Daniel Gookin described Hassa- 
 nemesit [Grafton] as lying "about two miles to the east- 
 
 1 Mass. Col. Rec., II: 82; Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc., New Ser., XIV: 471 ff. 
 
 2 2 Scr. Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, VIII: 7-12; The Hartford Courant, Dec. 22, 1892. 
 
 3 "Woodward's and Saffery's Map of 1042" — Mass. Archives. Published in 
 Ammidown's Hist. Coll., I: 294; and Bowen's Boundary Disputes of Conn., p. 19. 
 See "Interpretation of Woodward's and Saffery's Map," by Levi B. Chase, of 
 Sturbridge, in N. E. Hist, and Gen. Reg., April, 1901; and Quinabaug Hist. Soc. 
 Leaflets, Vol. I., No. 7. 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 39 
 
 ward of Nipmuck [Blackstone] river and near unto the old 
 road way to Connecticut." Confusion has arisen from the 
 indiscriminate application of these names to all of the three 
 main routes, of later years, between Boston and Connecticut 
 towns. 1 In 1636, the path that Thomas Hooker's company 
 followed was the only one used by the English, and so 
 continued for a dozen years. It was the "ordinary way" 
 that Ludlow and Pynchon took to Boston in 1637, when 
 Hooker and Stone went by the way of Providence, along 
 the "Pequot Path" from the Connecticut River. There 
 was no better authority on this subject in early times, 
 than Rev. John Eliot, the "Apostle to the Indians." In 
 1650, he wrote of Springfield as follows: "And this towne 
 ouerland from the Bay layeth: 80: or: 90: myles South- 
 west, and is the roade way to all the townes upon this river, 
 and [that] lye more Southward." 2 It is with this "Old 
 Bay Path" that the journeys of the founders of Hartford 
 must be associated, and when we consider that a dozen or 
 more parties had already travelled it, we realize the ab- 
 surdity of supposing that Thomas Hooker's company would 
 attempt to follow an untrodden course through the forest. 
 
 1 The third route, via Woodstock, inherited the name "Connecticut Path." 
 It was not an early through route, but was developed for such travel, partly out of 
 sections of older paths, and became the main road from Hartford to Boston. Men- 
 don was laid out on both sides of the Nipmuck path. Such a direct route was 
 possibly in mind, in 1644, when the Commissioners of the United Colonies ap- 
 pointed Edward Hopkins "to fynd & lay out the best way to the Bay," but the 
 "new way," via Brookfield, being soon afterwards discovered, the purpose was not 
 accomplished. {Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 25; X: 108; Mass. Arch., CXXI: 31). 
 Ephraim Curtis, in 1675, conducted Uncas on his way to Mohegan through Natick, 
 Marlborough, Hassanemesit [Grafton], Manshage [Oxford], Mayenecket [Dudley] 
 and across the Quinabaug river to Senexit Meadow in Woodstock (Mass. Arch., 
 LXVII: 214). The settlement of Wabbaquasset, designed in 1682, made a road 
 thither necessary, and apparently suggested "a better & nearer way" to Connec- 
 ticut, which the General Court, March 30, 1683, empowered Major Pynchon to 
 "lay out and mark" (Mass. Col. Rec, V: 394; Mass. Arch. CXXI: 61). On its 
 part, Connecticut took similar action for a road to the uplands, and in 1705, there 
 was such a road from Woodstock to Hartford in general use, as shown by Chand- 
 ler's map (Mohegan Case, p. 49). It passed through Ashford and entered the 
 Connecticut valley through Bolton Notch.. Judge Samuel Sewall came that way 
 to Hartford, in 1718 (5 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VII: 195). In 1724, the Con- 
 necticut General Assembly ordered a highway "laid out and markt" on the most 
 convenient ground and straightest course from Hartford towards Boston" (Conn. 
 Col. Rec. VI: 506). This was thereafter and until recent times the "Old Connecti- 
 cut Road." 
 
 2 2 Ser. Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, II: 49; Green's Hist, of Springfield, p. 4. 
 
40 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 We purpose now to attend Hooker's company on their 
 pilgrimage from their Newtown home to Hartford. At 
 last, their appointed day of departure arrived. All were 
 ready. We may think of them as gathered at the sunrise 
 hour on the north bank of the Charles River, where their 
 pathway began. Perhaps the conch shell blew a signal, or 
 some hardy guide fired his trusty rifle into the air: but, if 
 we may judge them by their tearful farewells to old Eng- 
 land, or their practice only a year later, when their pastor 
 gave them his blessing, as their bravest warriors pushed 
 their shallops out into the current of the Connecticut, the 
 excitement of departure was hushed, and they stood with 
 bowed heads, as their reverend leader commended them to 
 the direction of Jehovah, who had guided a trusting Israel 
 through the wilderness. 
 
 It was a long and straggling procession that took the 
 road westward, through Watertown. Some stalwart pioneer 
 on horseback led the way, and guides with him made up 
 the vanguard. Perhaps the cattle and flocks came next, 
 driven by herders, Thomas Bull very likely in command. 
 Then, in families or groups, as they chose, they followed 
 one another — chivalrous husbands helping their mates, 
 children in laughing parties, the lady's horse litter attended 
 by her maids, their pastor with staff and pack, the elders in 
 his company, and, in the rear, the lingering young men, 
 who plucked many a flower by the wayside, to gladden 
 loving eyes. We can see them now, and hear the music of 
 the cow-bells and cheer of their voices, as they move along 
 arrayed in their homespun of simple Puritan fashion — as 
 noble a company as were ever guided by the star of empire. 
 
 Of their Watertown neighbors, some had gone before. 
 There would be messages committed to the pilgrims, to 
 carry to friends at W f ethersfield. The road for some miles 
 was "the way into the country" that many of them knew. 
 Here and there farms had been already granted. By and 
 by, the log cabins were few, as they passed out of inhabited 
 bounds into the wilderness. If the company journeyed 
 about ten miles a day, as Mather suggests, it was somewhere 
 near the western border of Waltham that the guides halted 
 beside some spring or brook, and began to prepare their 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 41 
 
 camp. The cattle were gathered in some natural enclosure, 
 and the herders began their milking. Then the parties 
 arrived, one by one, weary, footsore and hungry, and made 
 ready the sylvan chamber of their choice. Out of the 
 kettle that hung over the blazing camp-fire, they received 
 into great porringers of milk their "corn meal mush," which 
 must have been their staple fare; and all were satisfied. 
 Then, as the shadows of the forest enshrouded them, their 
 pastor lifted his voice in grateful prayer, the watch was 
 set, their laughter subsided into whispers — it was night 
 and the pilgrims slept. Thus the days and nights followed 
 one another with their favors. 
 
 The Connecticut Path, avoiding the lowlands along 
 Sudbury River, led through Weston, Wayland and Framing- 
 ham, passing north of Cochituate Pond. Then it turned 
 southward through the present borders of South Framing- 
 ham, Ashland, Hopkinton and Westborough to Grafton. 1 
 Here was Hassanemesit, an Indian village of Eliot fame. 
 In early times, it was a favorite lodging-place. Governor 
 John Winthrop, Jr., spent the night there in 1645. Two or 
 three miles further the path crossed "Nipnet" or Blackstone 
 River, one of the points that Woodward and Saffery marked 
 on their map. Following on through the present town of 
 Millbury, north of Singletary Pond, it entered the bounds 
 of Oxford, turning to the westward at the Center, and going 
 through Charlton, where its ancient name was the "Quabaug 
 Path." 2 
 
 1 Hudson's Hist, of Sudbury, pp. 5-7; Temple's Hist, of Framingham, pp. 80-82, 
 87, 89; Daniels's Hist, of Oxford, p. 9; Benedict's Hist, of Sutton, pp. 18, 21, 22. 
 Another way led through Newton, diverging from the Dedham road, crossing the 
 Charles River at the Upper Falls and passing through Needham and Natick to 
 Grafton, where it joined the Connecticut Path. The surveyors of 1642 seem to 
 have gone that way. It was nearer for the Dorchester emigrants. It was "the 
 molt convenient paffage toward Conecticute," says a Dedham petition, "for all 
 y e Plantations beyond Neponfit." It was thought about 1652 that "it will prove 
 the beft way from Boston to Nafhaway & other plantations to be erected in those 
 parts as alfo for the Southerne plantations Northward" (Mass. Arch., CXXI: 
 26, 226, 231). The later use of this path was increased by Eliot's Indian village 
 at Natick. 
 
 2 Along this section for some miles, stone markers have been set by the Quina- 
 baug Historical Society, where Mr. Levi B. Chase of Sturbridge has discovered the 
 path by the means of land records. These markers are inscribed "Bay Path 1633." 
 On certain hillsides and at fordways, the old road is distinctly visible. See Chase's 
 
42 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Along this path Thomas Hooker's company journeyed, 
 day after day, until the Sabbath offered them a much 
 needed rest. No place on their route seems more likely, 
 in a computation of their progress, or more pleasing to the 
 imagination, as their forest sanctuary, than the western 
 slope of Fisk Hill in Sturbridge. Hither their path cer- 
 tainly led, and here tradition locates an ancient camping 
 place. It may be fitly named "the shadow of a great rock 
 in a weary land," for two fragments of an immense boulder, 
 five feet high, were probably in early times the side walls of 
 the traveller's hut. On a rise of ground, there once stood 
 a wide-spreading tree. Not far away, is a never-failing 
 spring. An Indian path diverging here to the southward, 
 led through Woodstock to Mohegan. In the near view to 
 the southwest, is Leadmine Hill, for this is Tantiusque, the 
 ancient Indian gateway to the west. Here, also, in 1715, 
 Governor Gurdon Saltonstall located the corner of his 
 grant of two thousand acres, running his lines to take in 
 all the best land of this beautiful valley. Far away on the 
 horizon, is Steerage Rock, which the pilgrim company must 
 pass as they descend to the Quabaug River, which leads 
 them on to Springfield. To the northward, is the "Hilly 
 Country," which this path has turned southward to avoid. 
 It was so named on the surveyors' map in 1642. On that 
 Sabbath in 1636, the view on all sides was draped in many 
 tints of summer green, and, underneath the cathedral arches 
 of the forest, perhaps with friendly Indian attendants from 
 nearby villages, this Puritan company worshipped, with 
 prayer and praise, their Jehovah who had led them hitherto. 
 
 The path leads on down the slope westward, over the 
 brook, along the foot of Cemetery Hill, across "Old Tan- 
 tiusque Fordway" and up the valley through Fiskdale. 
 It passes the southeast corner of John Eliot's grant of four 
 thousand acres, called "Potepog." Here he proposed to 
 establish another Natick of "Praying Indians." Their 
 prayers were interrupted by King Philip's War, but that 
 did not invalidate the apostle's title to the land. Along 
 this section of the way, there were once many Indian vil- 
 
 " Early Indian Trails through Tantiusque," etc., in Quinabaug Historical Society 
 Leaflets, Vol. I, No. (i and No. 7. 
 
-\^V«vy, 
 
 ,. t»'j*jfc~ . ' 
 
 '^m r ^% 
 
 An Early Camping Place on the Bay Path 
 Fisk Hill, Sturbridge, Mass. 
 
 The Country Road at Namerick Brook 
 Used before 1664 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 43 
 
 lages. The path passed north of Little Alum Pond, where 
 the records fix it, on to "Little Rest," and north of Sherman 
 Pond. Here was that famous Indian stronghold, known as 
 "Quabaug Old Fort." As the path passes north of Steerage 
 Rock and descends the slope, the Quabaug or Chicopee 
 River is seen, winding its way through the valley westward. 
 Here the "old road" has been traced by land grants, and 
 the site of Richard Fellows's tavern, established in 1657 as 
 "a house for travellers," has been marked. We can imagine 
 the Newtown pilgrims, inured to travel and hardship, 
 hastening onward with reviving spirits, as they drew near 
 to Agawam. They scented with delight the aroma of the 
 trees, as they passed over the "Pine Plains" which the sur- 
 veyors of 1642 noted, and ere long they reached the sum- 
 mit of the hill where the path broke from the forest's 
 shade into the plantation's clearing. Thus the glories of 
 the Connecticut valley, of which they had so often dreamed, 
 burst upon their view, and they were among their friends of 
 Roxbury. 
 
 The portion of Hooker's route, that is of greatest interest 
 to his company's descendants, is that from Springfield to 
 Hartford. Here there can be no doubt as to the location of 
 the Bay Path. It passed through the usual stages of 
 development, from an Indian trail to the "country road," 
 and finally to a highway. 1 At the upper end of Long- 
 meadow where the shoulder of the hill is only a short distance 
 from the river, was "Longmeadow Gate." Through this 
 the path led southward. It was sometimes called "Long- 
 meadow Path." In 1682, the road to Freshwater River 
 was laid out on the upland and the old road through the 
 meadow was abandoned. The railroad now runs about 
 where the old path or road was, north of Longmeadow sta- 
 tion. South of this the railroad diverges to the west, and 
 traces of the old road can be seen on the east. In 1664, 
 the County Court appointed a committee to consider the 
 lay-out of this old road as a highway. The record of their 
 action specifies the route as follows: 
 
 "From y e lower end of Springfield to long Meddow gate, 
 running where it now doth, in breadth ffour rods, & from 
 
 1 The Bay Path, by Dr. J. G. Holland, pp. 401, 406, 407. 
 
44 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 y* long Meddow gate to the bridge y e lower end of by the 
 Rivers bank shal be in breadth two rods, & from y e lower 
 end of the Said Meddow into fresh water River, soe called, 
 as the way now runs, ffourr rodds, & from thence to Nam- 
 erick, where John Bissell had a barn standing, as now y* 
 way runs twenty rods, & from thence to Namerick brook 
 where will best suite for a bridge, two rodds, & from thence 
 to y e dividing lyne betweene the Collonyes, where y* horse 
 way now lyes, two rodds." 1 
 
 The latter part of this lay-out refers to the road within 
 the present bounds of Connecticut. At Namerick Brook, 
 the records and topography afford the best opportunity to 
 locate the way, into which the Bay Path was soon developed 
 by the early use of settlers' carts. It is most convenient to 
 trace it northward from Windsor, for so the records run, 
 and in that town the path was made a highway within six 
 years of the time Thomas Hooker travelled it. An extant 
 leaf of Windsor's original town votes has the following 
 record, dated February 21, 1641[-2]: 
 
 "Its ordered that the way betwixt Henry Styles & James 
 Eggleftons there homelotts downe to the greate riuer, 
 fhall be allowfed] for a publicke highway for horfe & droue[?J 
 to Agawam & the Bay, and from thence [southward] to the 
 bridge & foe by the head of Plimouth meade downe to 
 Harteford." 2 
 
 This road turned eastward from the present highway, 
 about sixty rods north of the Ellsworth homestead. It was 
 evidently laid out where the original path had been, leading 
 down to John Bissell's "old ferry." On Woodward's and 
 Saffery's map is the note: "Crossing Conecticott river at 
 Windsor fery place, the house of John Bissell being on the 
 west side and the Widow Gibbs hir house on the east side 
 of the river." In 1662, Mathew Grant, after an examina- 
 tion of the town records, gave a rather minute description 
 of this "country road" in the book of Town Ways of Wind- 
 sor. The ferry landed on the east side between the land 
 of Abraham Randall and Catharine Gibbs. The further 
 
 1 Burt's History of Springfield, I: 141. 
 
 - Windsor Town Votes, Ms. in collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. 
 The same lay-out is found in Windsor's old hook of Town Ways, pp. 14, 20. 
 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 45 
 
 course of the road northward, nearly half a mile, to Namerick 
 Brook is then given as follows: 
 
 "And then goeth up by the River to the uper side of 
 that which was Elias Parkmans Land, and there turns a 
 way from the River, turning toward the upland and runs 
 up as has been marked and set out to where the way was 
 ordered to go down the bank and pafs over the brook, and 
 so to pass a way through the uplands and over other brooks, 
 and on till it is paft the bounds of Windfor, and this was 
 to be maintained for a Country way." * 
 
 Having this description of the old road, one can hardly 
 miss it where it goes down the bank to cross the south fork 
 of Namerick Brook. Here it has been preserved from the 
 ravages of time. The road followed the river northward 
 for some distance. Then it turned "toward the upland," 
 in plain view, and traversed an elevated field, Here the 
 owner once ploughed up evidences of an old building. We 
 follow the course to the brow of the wooded ravine. There 
 it goes "down the bank," from west to east, as no way 
 from the meadow would have been made. It is evidently 
 an old cart road. It passes a copious spring, flowing from 
 a shaded nook in the hillside. We may fitly call it the 
 "Pilgrims' Spring," after those who doubtless drank of its 
 waters. Here would have been an ideal camping place. 
 The road crosses the brook at a convenient place for a 
 bridge. Then it climbs again to the upland, which it 
 traverses, and goes down the slope to cross the north fork 
 of the brook. Turning northward, then it passes, on a 
 knoll, the site of John Osborn's early home. Thence it led 
 along the upland hillside toward the northern bound of 
 Windsor, cropping out here and there, two rods wide as in 
 the record, and plainly visible where it goes through a wood- 
 land tract adjoining the river. This is without question 
 the ancient country road that was used in 1662, and the 
 records indicate that it was laid out where the older path 
 had been to Agawam and the Bay. The crossing of Nam- 
 
 1 Richard Oldage was the original owner of the lot next north of Parkman's. 
 It passed to his son-in-law, John Osborn, who acquired more land along and north 
 of Namerick Brook. From his grandson, Isaac Osborn, in 1727, John Prior bought 
 the land now owned by Mr. F. A. Hamilton and known as "Namerick Farm," 
 Station 83. 
 
46 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 erick Brook could not be avoided. There it was necessary 
 to turn eastward to escape the low land at the brook's 
 mouth, often flooded now as then. The topography in 
 connection with the description, therefore, does not admit 
 of any wide range of possibility as to the location of the Bay 
 Path which the pilgrims trod, where it goes "down the 
 bank" to cross Namerick Brook. 
 
 At Windsor, Thomas Hooker's company were among 
 friends. Crossing the river at the ferry as they could, they 
 straggled along the way southward, then a mere path with 
 scarcely a wheel track. The adventures of the wilderness 
 had altered their appearance into that of hardy pioneers, 
 and, after the delay of greetings, or perhaps a woodsman's 
 feast and a bivouac within a new palisado, they pursued 
 their journey, across the rivulet, along "the head of Pli- 
 mouth meadow," past the trading house, which Captain 
 Holmes had brought thither in his bark, under the threaten- 
 ing guns of the Dutchmen, onward into the North Meadow 
 of Suckiaug, and through it, to find themselves at last, 
 though pilgrims from Newtown, at home in another New- 
 town, on the banks of the Great River. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 
 
 The early organization of the three towns, Hartford, Wind- 
 sor and Wethersfield, is a matter of importance, both in 
 their own annals and in the study of constitutional govern- 
 ment. It is well-known that much has been claimed for 
 the Connecticut town as the unit of the state's political 
 system. That its colonial government, as originally estab- 
 lished under a constitution, was the creation of three towns, 
 already organized as "little republics," has been a tradi- 
 tion, which historians have blindly followed and in which 
 they have educated the towns themselves. The author, 
 who is interested solely in discovering the truth in the town 
 and colonial records, has been forced to adopt an entirely 
 different opinion. The subject is obviously one to be studied 
 — on the one hand, in the records of the towns, and, on the 
 other, in those of the Colony. There will be perfect accord 
 between the facts disclosed in each. Leaving the study of 
 the latter to another chapter, our present inquiries take us 
 back to an examination of the manner in which these early 
 communities were established, organized and governed. 
 The conclusions reached would better be here stated for the 
 reader. They are: that these pioneer Connecticut settle- 
 ments were at first established as plantations; that they 
 were governed by the votes of those who had propriety rights 
 in them, called "inhabitants"; that we have a particular 
 acquaintance with one of them, through the extant records 
 of Agawam; that, in Hartford, there were North-side and 
 South-side plantations; that the early orders of the former 
 were transcribed, in 1639, into the book of town votes; 
 that, in December 1637, their inhabitants chose townsmen 
 to further unity in their own affairs; that Hartford thus 
 anticipated the others in town organization; that such 
 action did not give it participation, as a town, in the adop- 
 
48 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 tion of the Constitution; that the three original plantations 
 were authorized by the General Court, October 10, 1639, to 
 form their town governments, which authority conferred 
 upon them legal standing as such in the Colony; and that 
 there is no evidence in the records of Windsor or Wethers- 
 field that either of them were any other than plantations, 
 until such legal organization was effected. 
 
 At the outset, let us give due weight to the fact that the 
 conditions under which these plantations were established 
 were not such as to hasten town organization. They had 
 removed, as elsewhere shown, under an agreement that 
 effectually disposed of the question of government for one 
 year. They were left thereafter to mature their own 
 designs at their leisure. Their principal need for some 
 time was an equitable method of making divisions of land. 
 That was the right of the legal inhabitants in each planta- 
 tion, afterwards formed into bodies of proprietors. It did 
 not demand town organization. If we take account of the 
 conditions and labors of pioneer life, with the extraordinary 
 strain of the Pequot W 7 ar, it seems quite likely that all their 
 attention was engaged in a struggle for existence. 
 
 These settlements were in the beginning, it is claimed, 
 only plantations. They were called "The River Planta- 
 tions." The word "town" was occasionally applied to 
 them, as in the Commission for a provisional government; 
 but it referred to them as inhabited geographical areas. 
 Such a designation did not necessarily imply the existence 
 of b town government. In common usage, the term "planta- 
 tion" was applied to an original settlement in a new coun- 
 try, where certain individuals, called "inhabitants," had 
 secured land rights. There was an important distinction 
 between such a settlement and an organized town, es- 
 pecially in the matter of government. Its affairs were 
 ordered in a meeting of these legal inhabitants. They met, 
 elected a moderator, passed votes, and appointed com- 
 mittees to carry them out. When a plantation arrived at 
 such a stage of organization that its inhabitants elected 
 certain of their number to conduct its affairs, and secured 
 legal standing in the colonial government, it became a town. 
 This was afterwards the method of procedure in Connecticut 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 49 
 
 settlements. In the records, both of the towns and the 
 Colony, the term "plantation" is generally used before the 
 date of perfected organization. Although it was sometimes 
 used thereafter, through habit of speech, it came gradually 
 to be displaced by the word "town." In the Constitution, 
 the latter term had a proleptic use, as towns were to be 
 the factors in their colonial government. If, therefore, the 
 land records show grants of land by the plantation, and 
 later similar grants by the town, the explanation lies upon 
 the face of the record — the settlement had passed from 
 one estate into the other. The General Court so far recog- 
 nized this distinction in 1640, as to suggest the manner in 
 which plantations might be made through the admission 
 of inhabitants, and to provide that when a plantation had 
 come to "be at chardge to mayntayne Officers w th in theselues 
 then other considerations may be had by the Courte." l 
 Thus some of their later settlements passed from the estate 
 of a plantation into that of a town. 
 
 The inhabitants of these plantations were termed such 
 in a legal sense. This word then had in all the New Eng- 
 land colonies the meaning given to it in English law. An 
 inhabitant was not merely a resident, but a householder, 
 actual or prospective, who had secured a right in the settle- 
 ment's affairs, either by participation in an original founders' 
 agreement, or by the votes of other inhabitants. To such 
 persons in Newtown, Dorchester and Watertown, the 
 Massachusetts General Court had given permission to re- 
 move. 2 As emigrants, they were so named in the Com- 
 mission for a provisional government. 3 Throughout the 
 period of their plantation estate, these inhabitants were the 
 constituent units of their political life. No one should in- 
 fer, however, that this right of an inhabitant was something 
 that they jealously reserved to themselves. On the con- 
 trary, they were anxious for its extension, provided the 
 new-comers were men of the proper sort. The inhabitant 
 was the germ of colonization, and all the plantations were 
 desirous of building up their communities. They restricted 
 it only so far as their common welfare demanded. There 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 59. 
 
 2 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 119, 146, 148. J Ibid., I: 170. 
 
50 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 were legal inhabitants, who did not remove to Connecticut, 
 and others, who soon removed thence, elsewhere. Against 
 the retention of this right beyond a reasonable time, the 
 plantations protected themselves by limiting the period 
 for removal or building upon the lots reserved for non- 
 residents. The inhabitants were, therefore, those in whom 
 the people found the expression of their opinions and pur- 
 poses. There was no term current in early colonial times 
 that had a more democratic meaning. Proprietorship was 
 exclusive in property rights, and freemanship in the exercise 
 of the franchise. The standing of an inhabitant was the 
 attainable privilege of every sober-minded and industrious 
 emigrant from over seas, who entered the river plantations. 
 In the author's opinion, it was partly the attachment of 
 these inhabitants to their simple democratic estate that 
 hindered the earlier development of the colonial govern- 
 ment. 
 
 We have in print fairly complete records of such a planta- 
 tion — those of Agawam or Springfield. It is singular that 
 this fact has been so generally overlooked by students of 
 Connecticut government. During the first two years of 
 colonial history, Agawam was one of the river plantations. 
 It was then supposed to be within the limits of Connecticut. 
 The other three plantations and the General Court recog- 
 nized it as an equal factor in their government. In the 
 Court that is supposed to have been largely engaged in 
 discussing the Fundamental Orders, Agawam was repre- 
 sented by committees, chosen at a meeting of its plantation 
 inhabitants. The presumption certainly is that the other 
 plantations had ordered their affairs in the same manner. 
 If it shall appear, moreover, that what is known of early 
 practices in Hartford, and its associated plantations, was 
 in accord with the same in Springfield, we may fairly con- 
 clude that we have, in the latter, an illustration of the 
 proceedings in the three towns whose earliest records are 
 lost. 
 
 The plantation records of Springfield begin with May 
 14, 1636, a month before the arrival of Hooker's company. 1 
 It was then that William Pynchon's company first met. 
 
 1 Burt's Hist, of Springfield, I: 153 ff. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 51 
 
 Apparently, their initial act was to make a plantation 
 agreement. It was expressed in thirteen articles, to which 
 two others were added on May 16th. The agreement was 
 then signed by the eight men, who were "al[l] of the first 
 adventurers & subscribers for the plantation." These 
 articles specify the particulars upon which they then agreed, 
 such as procuring a minister, giving to every inhabitant a 
 house-lot and a parcel of pasture and meadow, assessing 
 rates on the lands according to each man's proportion, 
 and rewarding with special grants those who had hitherto 
 prosecuted the plantation. A committee was appointed, 
 May 16th, to grant house-lots as ordered. Their unit of 
 authority for years thereafter was the inhabitant. The 
 franchise clause of their votes is expressed in varied language, 
 such as: "It is ordered w th y e consent of y e Plantation," 
 "by y e consent of the inhabitants," "by y e Plantation at a 
 general meeting," "by y e Joynt consent of y e Inhabitants 
 of y e Plantation," "with the generall consent and vote of 
 the Inhabitants" etc. These expressions meant the same 
 thing — that the inhabitants constituted the body politic 
 of their plantation estate. This body, by vote, granted 
 and distributed lands, passed orders, laid out highways, 
 made rates and fixed wages like a company of property 
 owners. When they bought land from the Indians, they 
 paid for it by a rate assessed upon their land. They had 
 no statedly elected officers. Their authority for the ap- 
 pointment of a constable was apparently derived from the 
 Massachusetts General Court. After they withdrew from 
 participation in Connecticut's government, they seem to 
 have been left entirely to the resources of their plantation 
 meetings, until June 2, 1641. Then, William Pynchon was 
 commissioned magistrate by the Massachusetts General 
 Court, with "full power & authority to governe the inhab- 
 itants at Springfield." With the assistance of this Court, 
 they continued until September 26, 1644. Then, "by 
 general vote of y e Towne," they laid aside their simple 
 democratic methods and elected, for one year, five men of 
 their number, who were given "power to order in all pru- 
 dential affairs of the Towne." These men were first called 
 "the five men." That was precisely the action taken by 
 
52 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 the adjoining Connecticut plantation several years earlier, 
 only Windsor chose "seven men." As the inhabitants 
 were sometimes termed "townsmen," those elected in 
 Springfield soon came to be called the "Five Townsmen," 
 and later simply "townsmen," "select townsmen," or 
 "selectmen." x It is fully proved by the records, therefore, 
 that one of the original river plantations, constituted of 
 inhabitants, governed themselves according to the simplest 
 principles of democracy, until the way was open for their 
 organization as a town. 
 
 We have seen that the emigrants from Newtown removed 
 to Hartford in several companies. The pioneers of 1635 
 settled north of the Little River, the land south of it not 
 being then open to them. This became the North-side 
 Plantation. The majority of the settlers who came in 
 1636, settled south of the river and became the South-side 
 Plantation. Our land records prove that each plantation 
 distributed its lands to its own inhabitants. When returns 
 of these were made to the Secretary of the Colony, as ordered 
 by the General Court, it was in two lists. One was of 
 North-side inhabitants, and the other of those on "the 
 South fide of the riverrett." 2 Each settler, with a few 
 exceptions, received his proportions on the side of his resi- 
 dence. These plantations held separate meetings. They 
 kept independent records. The town votes mention the 
 North-side book and, by implication, one was also kept 
 by the other. They were, in fact, two settlements, each 
 conducted like Springfield. 
 
 To one who is not familiar with the topographical condi- 
 tions, this dual estate may seem to have been unnecessary, 
 or to suggest a disagreement among the settlers. It was not 
 so. There is not the slightest indication of any jealousy or 
 dissension in early years between these two companies of 
 inhabitants. It was a plan into which they came quite 
 naturally, and for which there were good reasons. The 
 uncertainty as to their issue with the Dutch may have 
 influenced them. If they failed to make good their title 
 to the South-side lands, they would still have those of the 
 North-side. Probably, also, they contemplated from the 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 8, 23, 175, 187, etc. 2 Original Distribution, pp. xiv-xvi. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 53 
 
 first a final union in town government. Their principal 
 reason, doubtless, was the convenience of a near location of 
 their lands. This was favoured by the topographical con- 
 ditions. The Little River, as a dividing line, offered the 
 same water privileges to both. Along the Great River, 
 northward and southward, were extensive meadows. The 
 land across the river eastward, and the uplands westward, 
 presented equal prospects. The same was true of the tracts 
 at the north and south ends of their main highway. Such 
 being the conditions, a dual system of divisions would give 
 to each inhabitant his proportion of meadow, pasture and 
 woodland nearer the location of his house-lot. A general 
 division might have resulted in each having widely scattered 
 possessions. A farmer living at the north end, might have 
 received his allotment of hay and pasture land a mile or more 
 distant from his barns. This would have hindered develop- 
 ment. Many sales or exchanges would have been neces- 
 sary. Delay and confusion would have ensued. 
 
 The extent to which this dual government was carried 
 may be inferred from its persistence after the organization 
 of the town. Each plantation continued to pass orders 
 concerning its own welfare. They held separate meetings, 
 on occasion, at the same time and place as the town meeting. 
 Their acts are sometimes recorded with the town's votes. 1 
 From the beginning of town organization, these plantations 
 were equally represented among the townsmen and other 
 officers, though at first they were not so designated. 2 Each 
 had its constable, highway surveyor, hayward, fence viewer 
 and herder. On each side, there was a pound. Soon this 
 custom was so recognized that officers were named as repre- 
 sentatives of one or the other. 3 After 1650, the townsmen 
 are usually so designated in the records until 1687, and 
 sometimes later, when the East-side obtained a place among 
 them. 4 Nor was this dual representation a mere matter of 
 comity between the plantations. It was carried into the 
 management of the town's business and government. The 
 townsmen exercised a certain special jurisdiction or responsi- 
 
 l " Hartford Town Votes" (Vol. VI, Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll.), I: 34, 61, 74, 111. 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 4, 8, 41, 58, 64, 79, etc. 
 
 3 Ibid., I: 95, 97, etc. * Ibid., I: 285. 
 
54 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 bility over the affairs of the "Side" they represented. The 
 town fixed the rate of taxation, but each side collected its 
 own proportion, and kept separate accounts. 1 Indeed, it 
 is believed that it was largely this necessity they were under, 
 of doing business with the Colony as one settled community, 
 that led them to an early election of townsmen. 
 
 Did the North-side Plantation adopt some form of agree- 
 ment, like the founders of Agawam? The presumption is 
 that they did, and that the conditions of their distributions 
 were a part of it. Probably we have evidence of such an 
 agreement in the record of town votes. It begins with three 
 numbered paragraphs, followed by the statement: "Vppon 
 these Three Condycons all [the 1 ] Land that is given in the 
 Towne is given vppon." The heading is "Hartforde 1635." 
 As the town was not so named until February 21, 1636-7, 
 this was written at a later date. The handwriting is that of 
 William Spencer, who did not remove from Newtown until 
 1638, and died in 1640. The conditions themselves would 
 not have been so worded in 1635, referring to land as return- 
 ing "vnto the hands of the Towne agayne," when it was the 
 property of the inhabitants. In the author's opinion, the 
 explanation is, that late in 1639, they had occasion to 
 enforce the condition allowing title to land only after four 
 years' residence. 2 This made it desirable that the original 
 action should be incorporated in the town's records. Wil- 
 liam Spencer, therefore, made this summary from the North- 
 side book and entered it under the true date, "1635." If 
 this was the fact, the lost book of the pioneers' plantation 
 probably contained their original agreement, of which these 
 conditions were a part. 
 
 Let us pursue further a critical examination of Hartford's 
 book of town votes. William Spencer had been the efficient 
 and experienced town clerk in Newtown, Massachusetts. 
 Most of the early entries in this book are in his well-known 
 handwriting. 3 He was one of the committee appointed by 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 70, 92, 101, 112, 113, 116-118, etc. 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 13. 
 
 3 On the following pages of the printed volume, the added bracketed numbers 
 indicate the pages of the original volume which are in the handwriting of William 
 Spencer: pp. 1 [11], 2 [12], 8 [13], 10 [115], 11 [14], 13 [3], 14 [4], 16 [5], 17 [6], 19 [2], 
 20 [1], 21 [A], 23 [B], 25 [7], 27 [8], 28 [9], 30 [10], 32 [47, 1st half], 36 [50 Agreement 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 55 
 
 the General Court to review the laws and orders of the 
 Colony, in 1639. This would naturally suggest a similar 
 service for the town. On December 26th, at an adjourned 
 session of their first legal town meeting, Edward Hopkins, 
 Thomas Welles, John Steele and John Talcott were chosen 
 to assist the townsmen and "to Inquier w l ordrs stand in 
 forse w * 1 are of generall Concernm 1 w * 1 are not recorded." x 
 This was a further reason why William Spencer should 
 transcribe the above-named conditions. He also added all 
 important orders then in force, found in the North-side 
 Plantation book. Following the conditions, are four orders 
 without caption or date. The internal evidence, however, 
 indicates that they belong to the year 1637. 2 One provides 
 for a guard during public worship. This was a proper 
 precaution after the Pequot War. Another, orders each 
 inhabitant to have a ladder, to reach the roof of his house, 
 doubtless in case of fire. A third, forbids the taking of 
 stones at the falls, near the home of Thomas Lord. These 
 two orders were timely in 1637, when the settlers were 
 extensively engaged in house building. In that year, also, 
 Thomas Scott, owner of an adjoining adventurer lot, might 
 well have been appointed to keep in repair the bridge across 
 Gully Brook, leading to Allyn's mill. Following these 
 orders, he recorded, under January 1, 1638-9, the articles 
 conferring and limiting the powers of townsmen, and several 
 orders of November 16, 1639. These entries fill pages 11 
 and 12 of the original volume. On the next page, he began, 
 in proper form, the record of their town meeting, December 
 23, 1639. This is not the extent of our indebtedness to 
 William Spencer. He continued as townsman to keep 
 the records during the following months, when the inhabi- 
 tants were forming the body of proprietors as hereafter 
 related. His valuable service was then ended by his 
 death. 
 
 Our only method of determining the date of the organiza- 
 tion of the town of Hartford, is by a study of these town 
 votes. Let us trace their annual elections backward, from 
 
 of April 15, 1640]. Cf. photographed page in Records of the Town and Selectmen of 
 Cambridge, p. 9, and Hartford Town Votes, Vol. I, frontispiece. 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 10. 2 Ibid., I: 1, 2. 
 
56 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 the "Genrall Meeting of the whole Towne the 23 th Decem- 
 ber 1639." At that time William Westwood and William 
 Spencer, inhabitants of the North-side, and Nathaniel Ward 
 and John Moody, inhabitants of the South-side, were 
 elected townsmen. It was also voted : " That the sd Towns- 
 men should haue the same power that those had the year 
 before." There were, then, townsmen the previous year, 
 probably, with powers recently defined. The above town 
 officers served until January 21 [11?] 1 640-41. x On that 
 date, the next meeting was held, and January became the 
 stated month for several years. 
 
 The predecessors of these townsmen, we may assume, 
 were elected in December, 1638, and served one year. 
 Gregory Wolterton of the South-side, was one of them, for, 
 under date August 16, 1639, there is an account of money 
 paid to him as "townsman," and he was reckoned with as 
 "last Townsman," March 6, 1639-40. 2 William Wads- 
 worth of the North-side, was another. He had been " towns- 
 man," and rendered his account as such "desr this 10 th 
 1640," within the year customarily allowed. 3 We have no 
 hint of any others. Perhaps there were only these two, but 
 the last two articles, of January 1, 1638-9, giving them "the 
 power of the whole to order the Comon occations of the 
 Towne," seem to indicate that there were others. 4 
 
 We interpret the above action as to the powers of towns- 
 men, as showing that the town had been recently organized. 
 Still there had been two townsmen before those last named. 
 On August 16, 1639, John Talcott, of the North-side, and 
 Samuel Wakeman, of the South-side, discharged their 
 accounts, each for the period " when he was townesman." 6 
 As their terms had then expired, they must have served 
 during the year ending in December 1638. The natural 
 inference is that they had been in office the full term of one 
 year, and nothing appears to the contrary. If such was the 
 fact, they were elected in December, 1637. To that year, 
 it is believed, the above-named orders, recorded without 
 caption, belonged, and, if so, they are doubtless a fragment- 
 ary record of Hartford's first election of townsmen. 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 39-41. 2 Ibid., I: 4, 30. 3 Ibid., I: 7. 
 
 * Ibid., I: 2, 3. * Ibid., I: 4. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 57 
 
 It was not until the autumn of 1637, after the Indians had 
 been conquered, that the colonists felt secure of the future. 
 Then they found themselves burdened with a war debt. 
 In November, the General Court voted wages to the soldiers 
 for their service. Each plantation had its share of this 
 burden. Soon afterwards, it was apportioned. A colonial 
 treasurer was chosen, and collectors were named in each 
 settlement. In all its dealings with the Colony, Hartford 
 had been treated as one plantation. Nor could this dual 
 settlement have acted as it did, without some concerted 
 action among its inhabitants. We conjecture, therefore, 
 that, as they had such common interests, and were in fact 
 one people, they chose townsmen in December 1637, to 
 express this unity, adjust their taxes on an equitable basis, 
 and, perhaps, also to further such town organization as they 
 had already determined. Unlike any of the other original 
 settlements, Hartford could have such organization without 
 abandoning the plantation estate, which was most advan- 
 tageous for their unfinished distributions of land. That 
 there was early indifference among some to this action, may 
 be indicated by the town's vote, January 7, 1639-40, requir- 
 ing every inhabitant to attend the "general meeting," and 
 remain through its session under penalty of six pence. The 
 only responsibility these early townsmen actually assumed, 
 as disclosed in the records, was a financial one for their 
 respective plantations. Such officers were very different 
 in authority from those afterwards elected by vote of the 
 General Court to order the affairs of the town. 
 
 We come thus to consider what may be characterized as 
 the most sensational disclosure of these town votes. The 
 inhabitants of Hartford, having chosen townsmen for their 
 own purposes without authority from the General Court, 
 took further action, which can be best stated by placing 
 the original entries of their town votes and the colonial 
 records relating to it in chronological order. 
 "September 1639: 
 
 "It is ordered that Jo Steele shall be Regester of euery 
 mans lands in this towne." 
 
 Hartford Town Votes, I. 5, 7. 
 
58 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 "Octob r the 10 th , 1639: 
 
 "The Townes aforesayd shall each of them p r vide a 
 Ledger Booke, with an Index or alphabett vnto the same: 
 Also shall choose one who shall be a Towne Clerke or Regis- 
 ter, who shall before the Generall Court in Aprill next, 
 record every man's house and land already graunted and 
 measured out to him, with the bounds & quantity of the 
 
 Connecticut Colonial Records, 1 : 37. 
 
 "The 16th off Novembr 1639: 
 
 "Itis ordrd that John Steele shalbe Register or Towne 
 Clarke to record all [lands] in the Register booke according 
 to [the order of the] genrall Court [ ] is [ ] . . ." 
 
 Hartford Town Votes, I: 4. 
 
 "Aprell XI. 1640: 
 
 "Mr. Steele is returned Recorder for the Towne of Hart- 
 ford, and hath brought into the Courte 114 coppyes of the 
 severall p r cells of land belonging to & conserneing 114 
 
 k Connecticut Colonial Records, I: 48. 
 
 These entries in the records, taken in connection with 
 other facts, seem to the author to speak for themselves. 
 The election of a town clerk was, perhaps, the proper step 
 in the progress of Hartford's affairs, but, in September 
 1639, their premature town organization had no legal stand- 
 ing with the General Court of the Colony. In adopting the 
 Constitution, the inhabitants had made over to the Com- 
 monwealth all their rights. The General Court must first 
 authorize them "to choose their owne officers" and provide 
 for the election of such a clerk, which it did October 10, 
 1639. Then, and then only, did the town have legal stand- 
 ing and could proceed to such an election. Therefore, on 
 November 16, 1639, John Steele was reelected town clerk, 
 according to the order of the General Court. On April 
 11, 1640, that election was returned to that body with those 
 of Windsor and Wethersfield. The town of Hartford, like 
 a forward pupil, hastened to make its bow to the good dame, 
 who is supposed to preside over Connecticut's councils. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 59 
 
 It was "too previous," and was sent back to reenter her 
 royal presence as one of the three original towns. 
 
 The order of the General Court, October 10th, as to town 
 organization, was merely an authorization of such action. 
 It conferred the necessary power. No particulars of local 
 government were prescribed. The only officer each town 
 was ordered to choose was a town clerk. It was assumed 
 that they would appoint men "to order the affayres of the 
 Towne," and some of their duties as to the estates of dece- 
 dents were specified, but the details of such an election were 
 left to local judgment, in view of the conditions. The 
 General Court did, indeed, give power to each town to 
 choose three, five or seven of its chief inhabitants and con- 
 stitute them a town court for the trial of minor offences. 
 This, however, was optional. There is no evidence that 
 Hartford ever had such a court. This was clearly a plan to 
 provide communities that were inconveniently remote, with 
 the authority of a court. Hartford had no such necessity. 
 There were no reasons why a plantation could not proceed 
 under this act to choose three, five or seven men to order 
 the affairs of the town and, at the same time, constitute 
 them a town court. It is evident, therefore, that Hartford 
 was in a position, when the General Court acted, to proceed 
 at once with town organization. The claim is made that it 
 is the oldest organized town in Connecticut. 
 
 When did the other river plantations of Connecticut organ- 
 ize as towns? There are few original records to assist us 
 in answering this important question, but there are more 
 than has been generally supposed. Having now some ac- 
 quaintance with plantation government, we can better 
 understand familiar records. All the settlements were 
 plantations, but the conditions in Windsor and Wethersfield 
 were altogether different from those in Hartford. No dual 
 plantation life urged town government upon either of them. 
 They had been settled by different companies of inhabit- 
 ants. As owners of the land, each had full liberty to con- 
 duct its local affairs according to the prevailing opinions of 
 the voters. 
 
 In early records, we do not find any other terms used con- 
 cerning Windsor than such as were applicable to a planta- 
 
60 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 tion. On May 15, 1637, the agreement as to the purchase 
 of the Plymouth Company's lands names as the grantees 
 the "inhabitants of Windsor." ! They were the owners, 
 and the subsequent division was made among them. The 
 committee appointed to settle the differences between 
 Mathew Allyn and Windsor, concerning the reserved por- 
 tion of these lands, in its report dated January 4, 1638-9, 
 ten days only before the adoption of the Constitution, de- 
 clared that Mr. Allyn should be subject to the orders of the 
 "Plantation of Wyndsor." That report was signed by 
 John Haynes, Roger Ludlow, Edward Hopkins and William 
 Phelps. 2 Windsor's principal divisions of land had not 
 long been completed when the General Court ordered the 
 election of a Town Clerk or Register. The choice of Bray 
 Rosseter was returned to the Court April 11, 1640. He 
 began apparently to record those lands in the town's book 
 October 10th, perhaps making use of earlier plantation 
 records. On January 27, 1640-41, his first return was made 
 to the Secretary of the Colony. The formula used in both 
 instances was that a grant was made "fro the Plantation." 3 
 Some later grants are recorded in the town's book as "from 
 the towne." 
 
 There is not the slightest documentary evidence that 
 Windsor had chosen townsmen, or effected any town organi- 
 zation before the authorization of the General Court. It 
 had no good reason for such action. In the General Court, 
 it was represented by committees of the inhabitants, like 
 the other plantations. There are grounds to suspect that 
 this was altogether satisfactory to Windsor people. Their 
 sentiments were strongly democratic, probably because of 
 the influence of Roger Ludlow and other leaders among 
 them. They could not interrupt their plantation divisions 
 of land by town organization, without the prior formation 
 of a body of proprietors. This they were in no haste to do, 
 or Roger Ludlow would have been expeditious in ripening 
 certain court orders upon which such action depended. 
 He was a member of the committee appointed for this 
 
 1 Windsor Land Records, I: 227; Stiles's Hut. of Windsor, I: 34, 35, 41. 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 53, 54. 
 
 1 See Windsor Land Records, Vol. I., and Col. Land Records, Vol. I, 1640-1653. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 61 
 
 service, and naturally depended on by the others to 
 perform it. 
 
 That Windsor's town organization was based upon the 
 General Court's action in 1639, is proved by its own records. 
 A single leaf of its original town votes is extant in the collec- 
 tions of the Connecticut Historical Society. On its two 
 pages, twelve votes are recorded in the handwriting of Bray 
 Rosseter, elected town clerk between October 10, 1639 and 
 April 11, 1640. The votes are numbered from 28 to 39. 
 The date of the first is unknown, as it belonged to an earlier 
 meeting. Ten votes were passed at four meetings, held 
 October 4, 1641, November 5, 1641, February 21, 1641-2 
 and April 4, 1642. There is a single vote of another meeting, 
 held June 3, 1642. It is evident that twenty-eight votes 
 were recorded before October 4, 1641. Assuming that this 
 book was begun when the plantation changed to town 
 estate, more votes were probably passed at its first meeting 
 than the later average. By any reasonable estimate, it 
 does not seem that the first meeting could have been held 
 before the winter of 1639-40. The dates indicate that the 
 inhabitants intended to have bi-monthly meetings as pro- 
 vided in the Court's action. The last vote, dated June 3, 
 1642, is as follows: 
 
 "M r Hill, M r Gaylard, Tho: Fford, Bray Rofseter, 
 Tho: Thorneton, Henry Woolcott & John Moore ar chofen 
 to agitate the affayres of the towne [?] to the order and 
 power giuen by the Court, for the yeare enfuing. M r 
 Hill is chofen Moderator." 
 
 It is evident that Windsor, in organizing its town govern- 
 ment, proceeded under the Court's act empowering it "by 
 a generall consent" to constitute a town court, choosing 
 the same body to order the affairs of the town. It thus 
 had "seven men," a moderator and bi-monthly meetings. 
 Since these are so named in the earlier votes, there had 
 been at least one earlier election. The obsolete word "agi- 
 tate" meant that these men were to "act as agents for" 
 the town. In the preceding votes they had considered such 
 matters as were usually performed by townsmen. The 
 sequel is found in Windsor's town votes, ten years later. 
 They were then choosing seven men named "townsmen" 
 
62 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 "to order the afayers of the town," but this body was at the 
 same time holding court for the trial of minor cases. In- 
 deed, three of the seven men were the same persons, and, in 
 place of Bray Rosseter, was Mathew Grant their town 
 clerk. 1 Such a form of local government was well suited to 
 the conditions, Windsor being an inconvenient distance 
 from the courts held at Hartford. The same General 
 Court that gave authority for it appointed a committee 
 to urge the planters at Pequannock, whither Roger Ludlow 
 had gone, to adopt a similar government. 2 We may infer 
 that he was the father of this expedient. 
 
 We have fewer records to assist us in fathoming the 
 mystery of early organization in Wethersfield. An interpre- 
 tation of those we have, justifies an opinion. Three of the 
 four river settlements were first established as plantations. 
 There is no reason to believe that Wethersfield was an excep- 
 tion. The same terms were applied to its early estate 
 throughout the records. Their town clerk, Mathew Mitchell, 
 dated his first return of lands to the Colony February 24, 
 1640-41. It was of lands "belonging to y e Inhabitants" 
 of Wethersfield. About the same time, he began his entries 
 in the town's land records. This action had certainly been 
 preceded by a period of turmoil in Wethersfield, extending 
 back for more than a year. It had concerned the respec- 
 tive rights of certain parties in the land. In the autumn 
 of 1639, Mathew Mitchell came under the Court's displeasure, 
 for words spoken to or concerning Clement Chaplin, the 
 ruling elder of the church. 3 A difference also arose "about 
 the measure of some ground" between some of the inhab- 
 itants and Rev. Henry Smith, their pastor, whose fault is 
 later said to have been his "acting in the ciuell occations of 
 the Towne." 4 Two Hartford magistrates were sent thither 
 to adjust the matter. During this period, Mathew Mitchell 
 had been chosen town clerk. He was returned as such 
 April 11, 1640, on the same day as Bray Rosseter of Windsor 
 and John Steele of Hartford. Being under the Court's 
 censure, he was "found vncapable of the place." Nor 
 
 1 Windsor's Book of Town Acts, I: 4-11. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 36; II: 108; Orcutt's Hist, of Stratford, I: 79-81. 
 » Conn. Col. Rec, I: 40, 48, 51, 52, 55. 
 
 * Ibid., I: 44, 45, 86, 87, 90, 97, 98. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 63 
 
 was he accepted until July 2nd, after he had made his ac- 
 knowledgment to Mr. Chaplin. On that day, John Evans 
 was fined "for his contempte ag l the Townsmen." l A 
 month earlier, Richard Gildersleve had been before the Court 
 "for casteing out p r nitious speeches, tending to the detri- 
 ment & dishonor" of the Commonwealth. 2 It is evident 
 that there had been intense feeling. One party seems to 
 have represented the Church, and another the Town. We 
 are not surprised, therefore, at the disclosures of a record 
 dated April 10, 1640. 3 Then the Court had before it, for 
 interpretation, a certain agreement, between "The Thirty- 
 four Men," the Town and the Church in Wethersfield. 
 There are indications that it had been recently made. The 
 Thirty -four Men were the proprietors. The Church was 
 probably a party to it, because of certain tracts that had 
 been given to be used as glebe land for its maintenance. 
 The Town was concerned for its future interests. Subse- 
 quently, grants were made both by the Church and the 
 Town. The proprietors also conducted their own divisions 
 of new tracts. 
 
 There seems to the author to be only one explanation of 
 these conditions. The inhabitants of Wethersfield's planta- 
 tion, soon after the General Court authorized town organiza- 
 tion, formed their body of proprietors, as Hartford did, to 
 determine who were the rightful owners of the undivided 
 lands. These Thirty-four Men then made an agreement 
 with the Church, for the adjustment of certain prior rights, 
 and with the Town, that more recent inhabitants might 
 have a share in the lands. In effecting this agreement, 
 dissensions arose that were not easily settled. Indeed, 
 some of the town's best families removed elsewhere. The 
 town's earliest choice seems to have been of five men to 
 order its affairs. It subsequently varied the number. 
 These early townsmen may have exercised their right to sit 
 as a town court; but Wethersfield was nearer Hartford and 
 appears to have been in sympathy with its ideas of court 
 procedure. We know enough of the early discord in its 
 church to justify the inference that it made more difficult 
 the transition from plantation to town estate. 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 55. 2 Ibid., I: 51. 3 Ibid., I: 63. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 
 
 The avenue through which one should approach the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution of 1639, under which Connecticut 
 government was established, is that which was followed by 
 the founders of the Colony. It is marked by merestones 
 all the way. Of their own free will, they travelled it, seek- 
 ing to realize an ideal, the fundamental principle of which 
 they had definitely conceived, but which they had not 
 wrought into form in some of its features. Historians have 
 usually assumed that the democracy of this government 
 was without any logical antecedents, and due solely to the 
 inspiration of Thomas Hooker's sermon on constitutional 
 government, preached on May 31, 1638. This belief sug- 
 gests the query whether that eminent divine had only then 
 arrived at such opinions. It is here claimed that he and 
 some of his associates had adopted the fundamental princi- 
 ple of democracy before their emigration, that the Colonial 
 Records reveal its practice in Connecticut from the begin- 
 ning, and that his famous sermon commemorates the ex- 
 pected realization of their hopes in the adoption of a written 
 constitution. Connecticut government was a natural de- 
 velopment among a free people. It inherited no little vigor 
 from the Mother Colony. Massachusetts people had them- 
 selves deprecated some of those features in which it was a 
 new departure. The emigration movement to Connecti- 
 cut was due, far more than has been recognized, to the 
 legitimate causes of colonization. An inviting gateway 
 was opened westward, and the current of emigration flowed 
 through it. This being the case, however, a new oppor- 
 tunity was offered to establish a government in which the 
 dissent of some could find relief without division. Inde- 
 pendent opinions here found a field. Such as shared them 
 naturally removed thither. Thus the democratic principles 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 65 
 
 that were strong in the leaders were furnished with a con- 
 genial environment. The truth, which we can hardly say 
 they went into the wilderness to establish, increased in 
 popularity. At last they gave their ideal being. 
 
 The manner in which the agreement between the emigrants 
 to Connecticut and the agents of the Warwick patentees 
 came about has been already discussed. To state the fact 
 boldly — as a consideration for the former's settlement 
 under the patent, the latter made over to them the govern- 
 ment. This agreement was embodied in the so-called 
 "Commission for a Provisional Government" — a docu- 
 ment often neglected by historians, but very important in 
 tracing the course of Connecticut government. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 "A Comission graunted to seuall P r sons to governe the 
 People att Conecticott for the Space of a Yeare nowe 
 nexte comeing, an Exemplificacon whereof ensueth: 
 
 "Whereas, vpon some reason & grounds, there are to 
 remove from this o r comonwealth & body of the Mattachu- 
 setts in America dyv[ r s] of o r loveing ffriends, neighb r s 
 ffreemen & members of Newe Towne, Dorchest 1 ", Waterton, 
 & other places, whoe are resolved to transplant themselues 
 & their estates vnto the Ryver of Conecticott, there to 
 reside & inhabite, & to that end dyv rs are there already, & 
 dyv rs others shortly to goe, wee, in this present Court 
 assembled, on the behalfe of o r said memb rs , & John Win- 
 throp, Jun r , Esq, Goun r , appoyncted by certaine noble 
 personages & men of quallitie interesed in the said ryv r , 
 w° h are yet in England, on their behalfe, have had a serious 
 consideracon there[on], & thinke it meete that where there 
 are a people to sitt down & cohabite, there will followe, 
 vpon occacon, some cause of difference, as also dyvers mis- 
 deamean rs , w ch will require a speedy redresse; & in regard 
 of the distance of place, this state and goumt cannot take 
 notice of the same as to apply timely remedy, or to dispence 
 equall iustice to them & their affaires, as may be desired; 
 & in regard the said noble psonages and men of quallitie 
 have something ingaged themselues & their estates in the 
 planting of the said ryver, & by vertue of a pattent, doe 
 require jurisdiccon of the said place & people, & neither the 
 
66 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 mindes of the said psonages (they being writ vnto) are as 
 yet knowen, nor any manner of goiimt is yet agreed on, & 
 there being a necessitie, as aforesaid, that some present 
 goumt may be obserued, wee therefore thinke mee[te], & 
 soe order, that Roger Ludlowe, Esq, Wiflm Pinchon, 
 Esq, John Steele, Willm Swaine, Henry Smyth, Willm 
 Phe[lpes], Willm Westwood, & Andrewe Ward, or the 
 greater pte of them, shall have full power & aucthoritie to 
 hear & determine in a iudiciall way, by witnesses vpon 
 oathe examine, w l [ h in] the said plantacon, all those differ- 
 ences w ch may arise betweene ptie & ptie, as also, vpon 
 misdemean 1 ", to inflicte corporall punishm 1 or imprisonm 1 , 
 to ffine & levy the same if occacon soe require, to make & 
 decree such orders, for the present, that may be for the 
 peaceable & quiett ordering the affaires of the said planta- 
 con, both in tradeing, planting, building, lotts, millitarie 
 dissipline, defensiue warr, (if neede soe require,) as shall 
 best conduce to the publique good of the same, & that the 
 said Roger Ludlowe, Willm Pinchon, John Steele, Willm 
 Swaine, Henry Smyth, Willm Phelpes, Willm Westwood, 
 Andrewe Warner, or the great 1 " pte of them, shall haue 
 power, vnder the great 1 " pte of their hajnds], att a day or 
 dayes by them appoyncted, vpon convenient not[ice], to 
 convent the said inhabitants of the said townes to any 
 convenient place that they shall thinke meete, in a legall 
 & open manner, by way of Court, to pceede in execute[ing] 
 the power & aucthoritie aforesaide, & in case of psent 
 necessitie, two of them ioyneing togeather, to inflict corpall 
 punishm* vpon any offender if they see good & warrantable 
 ground soe to doe; provided, alwayes, that this coinission 
 shall not extende any longer time then one whole yeare from 
 the date thereof, & in the meane time it shalbe lawful for 
 this Court to recall the said psents if they see cause, and if 
 soe be there may be a mutuall and setled goumt condis- 
 cended vnto by & with the good likeing & consent of the 
 saide noble psonages, or their agent, the inhabitants, & this 
 comonwealthe; provided, also, that this may not be any 
 preiudice to the interst of those noble psonages in the s d 
 ryver & confines thereof within their seuall lymitts." 
 
 This document was recorded at the conclusion of the 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 67 
 
 proceedings of the Massachusetts General Court that met 
 at Newtown, March 3, 1 635-6. * John Haynes was then the 
 Governor. William Pynchon was an Assistant. Mathew 
 Allyn, William Spencer and John Talcott were present 
 as deputies from Newtown. This document is, obviously, 
 not fully described as a "Commission of Massachusetts." 
 It was such only in so far as the legal authority of its General 
 Court was used to constitute a Court of Magistrates for the 
 river plantations. In doing so, it acted in behalf of the 
 emigrants. The grantor, if such he may be termed, was 
 John Winthrop, Jun., "Governor," the regent appointed 
 by the Warwick patentees. By his own commission, he 
 held the right of jurisdiction in Connecticut. He thus 
 made over the government to the men named, for the period 
 of one year, subject to the approval of his superiors, who 
 had been consulted by correspondence. No government 
 was imposed upon the emigrants by Massachusetts; nor 
 did it claim any such jurisdiction for itself. "The Com- 
 ission of Go'm 1 Mencioned tacken from the Masachusets was 
 taken Salua Jury of the enterest of the Gentlemen whoe had 
 the patent of conectacut, that Comission takeinge rise from 
 the desier of the people whoe Remoued whoe judged it in 
 Conveniencie to goe away, w l hout any frame of Gou'm 1 ; 
 not from any Clayme of the Masachusets Juridictio o r them 
 by vertew of patent." 2 Of this Commission, Dr. J. Ham- 
 mond Trumbull has truly said: "It was, in fact, an agree- 
 ment, ratified in the presence of the Massachusetts General 
 Court, between the founders of Connecticut and the repre- 
 sentatives of the Earl of Warwick's grantees." 3 The 
 government provided in this Commission was the creation 
 of the parties who were to assume it. It took its rise from 
 their desires. They would naturally nominate the eight 
 magistrates. There were two from each plantation. Pyn- 
 chon and Smyth were of Springfield; Ludlow and Phelps of 
 Windsor; Steele and Westwood of Hartford, and Swaine 
 and Ward of Wethersfield. The unit of representation, 
 however, was not the plantation, but the inhabitant. No 
 
 1 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 170, 171. 
 
 2 Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 131; Mass. Col. Rec, I: 320, 321. 
 
 3 Historical Notes on the Constitution of Connecticut, 1901 edn. p. 7. 
 
68 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 other assembly is suggested, although it is in ambiguous 
 language, than one composed of the "inhabitants" of the 
 plantations. The magistrates had authority to "convent" 
 these upon convenient notice at any time or place. Other 
 than a few essentials, the Commission does not forecast 
 any manner of procedure. It carefully avoids establishing 
 precedents that might embarrass them, or raising points 
 unsettled as yet among themselves. It is a remarkable 
 fact that no feature of it required modification at the expira- 
 tion of the year. As they passed out of it, they left only a 
 trail so faint that it is difficult to follow them. Consider- 
 ing the circumstances, one can hardly doubt that this 
 provisional government was their own product. In this 
 view, it is the clue to an understanding of their procedure 
 to the adoption of the Constitution. 
 
 The one year period of this Commission began on or 
 about March 3, 1635-6. Their first court was held in 
 Newtown, April 26, 1636. Seven sessions were convened 
 during the year. The last was February 21, 1636-7. In 
 their proceedings, there was no departure from the strict 
 interpretation of the Commission. The Court's authority 
 was exercised in all criminal and probate matters, in em- 
 powering each plantation to appoint its own military 
 officer and in administering the oath to such constables as 
 the inhabitants had chosen. 1 During this year, Ludlow 
 Phelps, Steele and Westwood were present at every court. 
 Ward was absent from the last. Swaine did not attend the 
 first two, for he had not then arrived. He was made a free- 
 man of Massachusetts, March 3, 1635-6, and was a deputy 
 from Watertown May 25, 1636. Pynchon was present 
 November 1, 1636, and Smyth, his son-in-law, did not 
 attend at all. 
 
 At the expiration of this year, the plantations were at 
 liberty to make any alterations they desired in their govern- 
 ment. If it was not their own choice, one would expect 
 radical changes. Nothing of the kind occurred. A new 
 situation certainly arose. The terms of the magistrates 
 had expired. They could neither hold over, nor appoint 
 their successors. Indeed, there was only one thing they 
 
 1 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 159, 160. 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 69 
 
 could do, which they doubtless did before the end of the year, 
 thus giving "convenient notice" — exercise their right 
 under the Commission "to convent the said inhabitants" 
 at a convenient place by way of court. At all events, they 
 did meet March 28, 1637. It is claimed that they made 
 this a Court of Election and that the inhabitants then chose 
 their magistrates. The evidence of this statement is the 
 hitherto unnoticed fact, that among the magistrates then 
 recorded, the name of Thomas Welles is substituted for 
 that of William West wood. This change must have been 
 made by election. It was evidently in order that the 
 South-side Plantation of Hartford might be represented. 
 Both Steele and Westwood were North-side men. Thus 
 at their first meeting, they put into practice the principle 
 as to the choice of magistrates by the people, afterwards 
 embodied in their Constitution. So, also, it is believed, 
 they began to exercise the franchise, without any restric- 
 tion other than the estate which a legal and resident in- 
 habitant imposed. 
 
 The creation of this Court was an important step in their 
 government's development. Yet one serious objection 
 must have appeared, in such a general assembly of the 
 inhabitants for election. A disproportionate power was 
 given to the plantation where the court was held. Quite 
 naturally, as it convened at Hartford, there would be more 
 inhabitants present from that plantation. As authorized 
 in the Commission, the magistrates had appointed the 
 place of each meeting during the previous year. The first 
 was held at Hartford, the second at Windsor, and the third 
 at Wethersfield. The inconvenience of this rotation did 
 not suit them. Thereafter the Court met at Hartford, the 
 central town. So long as its functions were merely judicial, 
 this did not matter. In an election of magistrates, this 
 practice was unfair to Windsor and Wethersfield, to say 
 nothing of its practical exclusion of Springfield. Those 
 were times of danger from the Indians. The inhabitants 
 could not all leave their homes without protectors, and 
 make a trip to Hartford to vote. The idea is absurd. On 
 the other hand, they recognized all the plantations as on 
 an equality, not necessarily as permanent factors in govern- 
 
70 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 ment, but as the charter members of their infant colony. 
 Thus the problem they were really trying to work out was, 
 how they could reconcile in practice, the idea of the people 
 as the source of authority in electing their rulers, with the 
 conditions that made a fair representation of the inhabit- 
 ants in the plantations impossible. Their final solution is 
 given in the Constitution, but that contemplated organized 
 towns, each represented by deputies, and a body of freemen. 
 As yet no town governments had been formed; so they 
 decided, at this first court, after the expiration of the Com- 
 mission, that each company of inhabitants should be repre- 
 sented in their next court, by committees, three in number, 
 chosen by the inhabitants themselves, and that these 
 should, as such, elect the magistrates, sharing with them the 
 responsibilities of government. Thus, wherever the Court 
 was held, the inhabitants had a just, and in that day, 
 proportionate representation. At the same time, the 
 people were the source of authority in their elections. 
 
 The term "committee" was the proper designation for 
 such a representative. That word was then used in a sense 
 now obsolete. It signified that each man was an inhabit- 
 ant, to whom a charge, trust or function had been com- 
 mitted. An inhabitant so chosen represented the opinions 
 of other inhabitants. The term was presumably used with 
 design. Historians have generally considered that this 
 word was synonymous with "deputy." It certainly was 
 not. The deputy's office was one some of the settlers had 
 filled in Massachusetts. As there used and defined in the 
 records, the term "deputy" was applied to a representative 
 in the General Court, chosen by the freemen of an organized 
 town. 1 If the representatives in these early Connecticut 
 courts had been deputies, they would have been designated 
 by that familiar title in the records. They are so named as 
 soon as organized towns assumed their true function under 
 the Constitution. 
 
 The Colonial Records themselves should now be followed 
 with critical care, though it may be tedious. The founders 
 of Connecticut, having solved their problem for the time, 
 constituted the next General Court accordingly. It was 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 118. 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 71 
 
 convened May 1, 1637, and is famous as the court that 
 declared war against the Pequot Indians. The inhabitants 
 of each plantation were represented by committees, three 
 in number, and the same magistrates were elected. It is 
 not presumed, of course, that no other inhabitants were 
 present. Perhaps most of the leading settlers were there. 
 The committees, however, were the voting members for the 
 inhabitants. As no roll is given in connection with the 
 courts of June 2nd and June 26, 1637, it is thought that 
 they were adjourned sessions, according to subsequent 
 practice. 1 Their next court assembled November 14, 1637. 
 The roll calls attention to the fact that a new election had 
 been held. The companies of inhabitants are represented 
 by two committees from each plantation. One of each 
 delegation was a new man, and John Haynes fills the place 
 of John Steele as a magistrate. There was only one other 
 court held during this legislative year, February 9, 1637-8. 
 The word "p r sent" after the names suggests that some of 
 the members were not there, and that the roll is fragmen- 
 tary. At the close of this court, the following vote was 
 passed: "It is ordered y l the generall Courte now in being 
 shalbe dissolved and there is noe more attendance of the 
 members thereof to be expected except they be newly 
 chosen in the next generall Courte." Notwithstanding 
 other possible explanations, this vote is thought to indicate 
 that during the year they had held two elections, carrying 
 on the May court by adjournment to the election for the 
 November court, which, at the present adjourned session, 
 they vote to dissolve, intending to make a new beginning 
 with their third year. 
 
 Every court, whose proceedings are recorded, from May 
 1, 1637 to the adoption of the Constitution was a General 
 Court, though probably the magistrates held some Particu- 
 lar courts. 2 Most of these courts are designated as such in 
 the caption. Others are proved to have been such by the 
 language and proceedings. 3 They evidently used the title 
 current in Massachusetts. There a general court was one 
 composed of magistrates and deputies, convened for certain 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 27, 28, 30-34, 40-42. 
 
 2 Ibid., I: 16. ^ Ibid., I: 12, 16. 
 
72 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 purposes, such as election, the making of laws or the levying 
 of taxes. 1 
 
 The first court of the third year was held March 8, 1637-8. 
 In this, the inhabitants of each plantation were represented 
 by four committees. For the first time since the expiration 
 of the Commission, William Pynchon and Henry Smyth of 
 Springfield appear among the magistrates. Perhaps this 
 was rather by courtesy than right, as no committees were 
 present. This court seems to have adjourned to March 
 22nd and then dissolved. It is evident that the inhabitants 
 are now looking for a "settled order" of colonial govern- 
 ment. Their attention had hitherto been engaged in 
 fighting the Indians, military affairs, measures to secure 
 provisions and the payment of a war debt. In each planta- 
 tion they were under the necessity of making their divisions 
 of land, erecting their buildings and breaking up their fields. 
 We now notice an unusual procedure. The members of 
 their next court, April 5, 1638, which is known to have 
 been a Court of Election, are the same as those of the last, 
 with the addition of committees from Springfield. The 
 roll is as follows: 
 
 Magistrates — William Pynchon, Henry Smyth, of Spring- 
 field; Roger Ludlow, William Phelps, of Windsor; John 
 Haynes, Thomas Welles, of Hartford; Mathew Mitchell, 
 John Plumb, of W f ethersfield. 
 
 Committees — Jehu Burr, George Moxon, of Springfield; 
 Thomas Ford, George Hull, Thomas Marshall, John Mason, 
 of Windsor; Edward Hopkins, John Steele, John Talcott, 
 John Webster, of Hartford; John Gibbs, George Hubbard, 
 Thurston Raynor, Andrew Ward, of Wethersfield. 
 
 There was doubtless some special reason why it seemed 
 wise to the inhabitants of Windsor, Hartford and Wethers- 
 field to reelect the same committees, and why these should 
 reelect the same magistrates. That they had begun the 
 discussion of their Constitution seems most likely to have 
 been that reason. Only two committees had been chosen 
 from Springfield. We know that they were elected at a 
 meeting of the plantation's inhabitants. The record is: 
 "There was a free choyce according to an order from m r 
 
 1 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 117. 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 73 
 
 Ludloe by the plantation of two Goodmen, Committys for 
 the General court to be at Hartford the 4th of April, 1638. 
 The partys chosen are Mr. George Moxon and Jehue Burr." l 
 Other particulars concerning this court are found in Thomas 
 Hooker's letter to Governor John Winthrop, written during 
 the following autumn. "At the time of our election," he 
 says, "the committees from the town of Agaam came in 
 with other towns, and chose their magistrates, installed them 
 into their government, took oath of them for the execution 
 of justice according to God, and engaged themselves to sub- 
 mit to their government." 2 There cannot be any doubt, 
 therefore, as to the manner in which this General Court 
 was constituted. Springfield was then a plantation and 
 not an organized town. Its legal inhabitants were the 
 voters. They expressed the wishes of the people in the 
 choice made by the committees. Nor is there the slightest 
 evidence that the conditions were different in the other 
 plantations. The inhabitants of Hartford's North-side 
 Plantation were represented by Steele and Talcott, com- 
 mittees; those of the South-side Plantation by Hopkins 
 and Webster. When the committees had elected magis- 
 trates, they "installed them into their government." John 
 Haynes was of the North-side, and Thomas Welles of the 
 South-side. Probably it was because of a desire to give 
 each plantation the same voice in the decisions of this im- 
 portant court, that the committees were four in number. 
 So far as the founders of the Colony could devise means, 
 therefore, this General Court was constituted by the in- 
 habitants. 
 
 It has been suggested, with good reason, that this court 
 of April 5th adjourned to May 31, 1638, when Thomas 
 Hooker delivered before its members, many others being in 
 attendance, his famous sermon on constitutional govern- 
 ment. 3 The discourse itself has been frequently discussed. 
 We are now prepared to understand its historical relation 
 to preceding events. Thomas Hooker did not then pro- 
 claim as a new truth that "the foundation of authority is 
 laid in the free consent of the people." It is an injustice 
 
 1 Burt's Hist, of Springfield, I: 153. 
 
 2 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 13, U, 18. 3 Ibid., I: 19-21. 
 
74 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 to him to make such a claim. He had presumably held 
 such an opinion two years before, when he set out from New- 
 town. As the inhabitants had practiced that truth more 
 than a year in their government, we may fairly assume that 
 he had already taught it on more than one occasion, now 
 unknown. Nor was it a new truth, to his congregation, 
 that "the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the 
 people by God's own allowance." That was precisely the 
 principle the inhabitants of the plantations had practiced 
 from the first. These are merely premises, already estab- 
 lished in their experience. He is now engaged in enforcing 
 the timely deduction, that "they who have power to appoint 
 officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also, to set the 
 bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which 
 they call them." In other words, he is urging upon the in- 
 habitants a further step in their progress — the enactment 
 of laws according to which magistrates shall render judg- 
 ment. That was the issue. He is making the plea of the 
 ages for a constitutional government. It was the logical 
 outcome of the steps they had already taken. In that, 
 was the difference between the theories of many, as well as 
 the practice in the Mother Colony and the democratic 
 government that he and his associates were endeavoring to 
 establish on the banks of the Connecticut River. Governor 
 Winthrop, writing of his own Colony, says: "The people 
 had long desired a body of laws, and thought their condi- 
 tion unsafe, while so much power rested in the discretion of 
 magistrates;" but "the magistrates and some of the elders" 
 were not "very forward in this matter." 1 That was one 
 of the points discussed between Winthrop and Hooker in 
 their correspondence that season. 2 Thomas Hooker would 
 not have encouraged any other development of Connecticut's 
 early government, than one that tended toward the final 
 adoption of a constitutional government by the people, 
 which was doubtless his cherished ideal. 
 
 After the date when Thomas Hooker preached his sermon, 
 we have no records of any general courts, until January 14, 
 1638-9, when the Constitution was adopted. During the 
 
 1 Winthrop'a History, I: 388, 389. 
 
 2 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 1-18; Trumbull's Historical Notes, etc., pp. 8-10. 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 75 
 
 summer the confederation of the colonies was under con- 
 sideration. Their negotiations were interrupted by Massa- 
 chusetts' claim of jurisdiction over Springfield. These 
 affairs may have delayed action. The establishment of a 
 constitutional government, however, involved matters that 
 could not be hastily settled. It seems likely that whatever 
 general courts were held, would have been adjourned ses- 
 sions of that already elected. Otherwise, we should prob- 
 ably have had some record and a list of its members. If 
 other courts were constituted by election, they were com- 
 posed, it is thought, of the same committees and magistrates 
 that had been already twice elected, contrary to previous 
 custom, apparently because the framing of the Constitution 
 had been committed to them. 
 
 How was the Constitution of 1639 adopted? Interest 
 has gathered about this question, because it has been 
 thought that the manner of its adoption determines a fact 
 of large importance in our constitutional history. That, 
 we think, is not true. However the Constitution was 
 adopted, it was the act of resident inhabitants in three 
 Connecticut plantations. It originated with and was 
 adopted by the people. Some have believed that it was 
 adopted in a mass meeting of the "inhabitants and resi- 
 dents." Others have argued that it was adopted by the 
 representatives of three organized towns, convened in a 
 general court. The author claims that we are not restricted 
 to these two opinions. Neither of them is in harmony 
 with the Colonial Records, and yet there is truth in both 
 of them. 1 The advocates of the former view have appealed 
 to the language of the Constitution's preamble: "We the 
 Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and 
 Wethersfield, now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon 
 the River of Conectecotte." The phrase, "Inhabitants and 
 Residents," was then in common use in New England. It 
 meant simply "resident inhabitants," and excluded such 
 legal inhabitants as were non-residents. The Commission 
 itself had been issued to those who were to "reside and 
 inhabite" or "sitt down & cohabite" in Connecticut. The 
 
 1 New England States, I: 448 ff.; Connecticut Magazine, V: 86 ff.; Anniversary 
 of the Adoption of the Constitution, p. 26. 
 
76 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 preamble states the exact truth. The Constitution was 
 adopted by the resident inhabitants. That could be, 
 however, without a mass meeting. Such a gathering was 
 excluded by their own principle of having a fair representa- 
 tion. It would have been less dignified and orderly, to say 
 nothing of the improbability of such a meeting in times of 
 danger from the Indians and in mid-winter. Such a mass 
 meeting, convened in Hartford, would have been composed 
 largely of local inhabitants. Those who advocate the 
 second view have based it upon the assumption that there 
 were then three organized towns, represented as such by 
 committees. From this we dissent. They have, however, 
 correctly interpreted the Colonial Records. These do not 
 contain the least evidence of a general gathering of the 
 inhabitants. In the author's opinion, the Constitution of 
 1639 was adopted at a meeting of the General Court, and by 
 that body, which was constituted of committees and magis- 
 trates, representing, directly and indirectly, the resident 
 inhabitants of three Connecticut plantations. There was 
 a General Court convened at Hartford, January 14, 1638-9. 
 We have, in the records, one of its votes. There is no 
 reason to think that the founders departed on this occasion 
 from their established practice, nor that this Court was 
 constituted in any other way than was customary in carry- 
 ing out the will of the people. It seems most likely that 
 this General Court was composed of the committees and 
 magistrates already named in the roll of April 5, 1638, with 
 the exception of the representatives of Springfield, who had 
 withdrawn. In that case, the men who participated in 
 its action were all prominent inhabitants. Four of the six 
 from Hartford attained gubernatorial honors. Of the 
 remaining two, one became the Secretary, and the other the 
 Treasurer of the Colony. Other leading inhabitants were 
 doubtless present, the pastors, teachers and elders among 
 them. Their assembly is historically named a "General 
 Court"; but, in modern terms, it was rather a Constitutional 
 Convention. Hartford then had an immature town organi- 
 zation. Still it had no representation, as such, in that 
 body. The Constitution they had framed was the inspira- 
 tion of the people. It was adopted by the people, and its 
 
JL 
 
 The Adoption op- the Fundamental Orders 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 77 
 
 blessings were for the people. We can dimly see through 
 the mists their solemn assembly in the meeting-house of 
 Hartford, in their midst "the first written constitution 
 in the history of nations"; and it is as dramatic a scene as 
 the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 The attention of historians has been so largely directed 
 to the study of records preceding this event, that those 
 which follow it have escaped due notice. There we find the 
 solution of some of our enigmas. The vote of adoption did 
 not, in fact, put their government into immediate opera- 
 tion. That was impossible. Their plan had provided for 
 some factors that were not in existence. These had to be 
 created. As in setting up a machine, there were various 
 parts to be assembled. The inhabitants had founded a 
 Commonwealth. In so doing, they had vested the "supreme 
 power" in a General Court. Some of the rights they had 
 held were thus suspended until that Court acted. 
 
 The adoption of the Constitution modified their rights of 
 franchise. Under plantation government, the inhabitants 
 had been the voters in all local affairs and had chosen the 
 committees. Such as took the oath of fidelity, still had the 
 right to vote for deputies. To fill that office, however, 
 or to vote for the governor and magistrates, they must now 
 be made freemen. This standing was attained by vote of 
 the General Court and taking the freeman's oath. Hitherto 
 there had been no such class. Under these circumstances, 
 their government could only continue as before, until the 
 body of freemen was constituted. This was their first act. 
 We conjecture that the Court of January 14, 1638-9, ad- 
 journed to February 18th for that purpose. 1 Many in- 
 habitants were certainly made freemen at an early date — 
 all who served as magistrates or deputies. The average 
 standing of those admitted later indicates that the principal 
 inhabitants had already qualified. On April 11, 1639, 
 these freemen held their first election of governor and 
 magistrates. Still the plantations, not being as yet or- 
 ganized towns, were then unprepared to act under the 
 Constitution in the choice of deputies. The inhabitants, 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 30. Cf. pp. 41, 42. 
 
78 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 therefore, elected, as formerly, "committees," which fact 
 the records prove. 
 
 In their new Commonwealth, justice was to be adminis- 
 tered according to established laws. As yet, they had no 
 such code. Little opportunity had been given to become 
 acquainted with those laws that had been enacted. On 
 this matter the Court took action October 10, 1639. Wyllys, 
 Webster and Spencer were then appointed to review "all 
 former orders and lawes," record those of "publique con- 
 cernement," and deliver them to the Secretary to be pub- 
 lished to the towns. Within twenty days after the end of 
 the Court, he was to provide a copy of all the penal and 
 general laws "for the government of the Commonwealth," 
 deliver the same to the constables of each town, who were, 
 within four days, to publish them at some public meeting, 
 and then cause them to be written in a book to be kept for 
 the town's use, and read publicly every year. 1 Thus the 
 earliest code of Connecticut laws was prepared in manu- 
 script. 
 
 The inhabitants, moreover, had been the lawful owners 
 of the undistributed lands in the several plantations; but, 
 in the Constitution, they had explicitly made over to the 
 Court their right to "dispose of lands vndisposed of." 
 Their act was an effectual conveyance to the Colony, from 
 which they expected to receive later their title. This 
 suspended all distributions of new tracts until the Court 
 acted. Such was, in fact, its effect. We have found no 
 evidence in the records of any new distributions between 
 January 14, 1638-9 and October 10, 1639. On the latter 
 date, the General Court by an order gave to each of the 
 three towns the "power to dispose of their owne lands 
 vndisposed of, and all other comodityes arysing out of their 
 owne lymitts bounded out by the Court." - In order that 
 they might proceed in such distributions, however, it was 
 necessary to form the original owners into a body of pro- 
 prietors in each town, for later residents were not admitted 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 3(5, 39. Several manuscript copies of the Code of 1650, with the 
 addition of session acts to 1708 are extant. Windsor's copy is among the collec- 
 tions of the Connecticut Historical Society and Guilford's is in the Pequot Library 
 
 2 Ibid., I: 30. 
 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 79 
 
 to an equal participation in the inhabitants' property. 
 It was this situation that gave rise to the formation of "The 
 Thirty-four Men," or proprietors, of Wethersfield. In an 
 adjustment of claims, they made the agreement with the 
 Church and the Town, out of which their land disputes 
 arose. The inhabitants of Hartford began similar action 
 on December 26, 1639. Their procedure is traced in a latex 
 chapter on the proprietors. 
 
 Above all, the Constitution had provided for organized 
 towns as the local factors in their government. The in- 
 habitants had constituted the Commonwealth; now its 
 General Court must authorize the creation of towns. It 
 was from that supreme power, confirmed to the Colony in 
 the Charter of 1662, that all town rights emanated. As a 
 distinguished Connecticut lawyer, Hon. Henry C. Robinson, 
 once said, "Under the original fundamental orders, under 
 the charter and under the constitution of 1818, the towns 
 have had no power, except as it was given them by the 
 organic law or by the general court." The Constitution 
 provided that the three original towns should each have four 
 deputies, according to the historic principle of equality 
 among them as plantations, there being then about the 
 same population in each. It also provided, however, that 
 "whatsoeuer other Townes shall be hereafter added," 
 "they shall send so many deputy es as the Courte shall 
 judge meete, a reasonable p r portion to the nuber of Freemen 
 that are in the said Townes." l So that Supreme Power, 
 which the people had created, pledged itself to secure unto 
 its constituent communities a reasonable representation of 
 the people. 
 
 That the General Court experienced unexpected delay in 
 securing the passage of these orders is proved by its own 
 records. These inform us that, at their spring election, 
 on account of "the state of the present ty[me] and the many 
 occations that ly vppon men," it being their planting season, 
 the Court appointed a committee "to ripen orders formerly 
 in agitacon against [the] next meeting of the Court." 2 
 This committee consisted of John Haynes, governor; Roger 
 Ludlow, deputy governor; George Wyllys, Edward Hopkins, 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 24. 2 Ibid., I: 27, 28. 
 
80 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Thomas Welles, magistrates; and John Steele and William 
 Spencer, committees. The orders in question concerned 
 the adjustment of their Colonial government. At the 
 court September 10th, Roger Ludlow being absent, Hopkins 
 Wells, Steele and Spencer, were "intreated to ripen some 
 orders that were left vnfinished the former Court, as about 
 p r vition of settling of lands, testaments of the deceased, and 
 recording spetiall passages of P r vidence." 1 These orders 
 were voted at an adjourned session, October 10th. They 
 constitute action of vital importance in the solution of 
 Connecticut's historical enigmas. The only one that has 
 no known sequel is the last provision. If only Roger 
 Ludlow Esq., Captain John Mason, Rev. Samuel Stone, 
 Elder William Goodwin, Elder Clement Chaplin and Mr. 
 George Hubbard, who were appointed to this service, had 
 left us a symposium on the "spetiall passages of Providence" 
 in his dealing with the River Plantations, they would have 
 won the lasting gratitude of posterity. 
 
 Thus at their next Court of Election, April 9, 1640, the 
 committees of the inhabitants give place in the records to 
 the "Deputies" of three organized towns. The Ship of 
 State had crossed the bar, and, with the recognition of a 
 guiding Providence hitherto, it put out to sea. 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 34. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 
 
 The Indian paths that followed the Connecticut River 
 southward from Agawam, were much frequented. Here 
 and there along them, were the forts, favorite haunts and 
 planting fields of the natives. These River Indians were 
 all of one general tribe, called Sequins, but they were divided 
 into bands, according to their residence and sachemship. 
 In 1633, Natawanute had sold the planting field of the 
 Matianuck or Windsor Indians to the Plymouth traders. 
 At the time of the settlement of Hartford, Sequassen was 
 the sachem of the Suckiaug Indians. From his village, a 
 well-known trail led southward to Pyquaug. There, in 
 early times, was the residence of the chief sachem of the 
 Sequin tribe, Sowheag, who sold land to the planters of 
 Wethersfield and removed to Mattabeset, near Middle- 
 town. In their later residence, these natives were termed 
 "Wongunks," from their location at the river's bend, 
 "Wongunk" meaning bend. The Dutch called this sachem 
 "the chief Sequeen." Sequassen of Suckiaug was his son. 
 Other bands of this tribe resided east of the river. One of 
 these was the Hockanum Indians, who lived along the river 
 of that name in East Hartford. Another was the Podunks, 
 residing along the Podunk River, between East Hartford 
 and South Windsor, where they had a famous fort. The 
 Tunxis Indians are sometimes referred to as a sub-clan of 
 those at Suckiaug. Probably this relationship arose from 
 intermarriage and long association in their winter residence. 
 It is proposed to locate as nearly as possible the homes of 
 these aborigines within the bounds of early Hartford, 
 which now the white man inherits. 
 
 In his description of the view upon which the founders 
 looked on their arrival at Hartford, Stuart has the follow- 
 ing statement: "Here and there, scattered in open spaces 
 on the banks of the Great River, and along the Little River 
 
82 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 here and there, beneath tall and majestic trees or on little 
 cleared elevations in different parts of our present city, 
 the smoke rises from numerous wigwams." ! It is an in- 
 teresting picture. Acquaintance with Indian customs, 
 however, would lead to the conclusion that their wigwams 
 were gathered in one locality. Their practice was to retire 
 inland during the winter season, to more secluded vales 
 and forests, or to shut themselves within their elevated 
 strongholds. Their residence near the river would have 
 been at some favorite fishing-place. Some of these Indians 
 doubtless remained near the pioneers during the winter of 
 1635-6. They are thought to have furnished the whites 
 with food. In the springtime we shall find them in a vil- 
 lage of Indian wigwams, ready for the fishing. The name of 
 the Suckiaug Indians points to the river meadows. It was 
 derived from the word " sucki-auke," meaning "black earth." 
 Later authorities inform us that the North and South 
 meadows were partly wooded, with forbidding swamps in 
 places. The Little Meadow was, according to a tradition 
 that the land records favor, the Indians' planting-ground. 
 Their name seems most likely, therefore, to point to this 
 tract. It was between the Indian path and the river. In 
 that case, their village would have been near at hand. The 
 homes of the pioneers looked out upon this Indian field. 
 The native village could not have been south of them. 
 There the rivulet made a boundary between them and the 
 Dutch. There was a tract on the north, however, quite 
 similar in its features to those the Indians usually chose 
 for this purpose. It bordered upon the North Meadow 
 Creek on the east. The path from Matianuck led to or 
 near it. The creek emptied into the Connecticut River 
 at the landing-place. It thus afforded a harbor for canoes. 
 At times these could ascend it for some distance. In the 
 springtime it was a good fishing-place and has been to recent 
 times. Porter says of this location: "There is a tradition 
 that it was once an Indian camp ground, and Indian im- 
 plements of war have been found on the premises." 2 That 
 these natives continued in the neighborhood in 1637, and 
 
 1 Scaeva's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 18. 
 
 2 Porter's Historical Notices, No. £, p. £6. 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 83 
 
 were friends of the settlers, is certain. Their presence 
 exerted no little influence in the declaration of war against 
 the Pequots. Thomas Hooker himself wrote to Governor 
 Winthrop of their relations in this wise: "Though we feele 
 nether the tyme nor our strenght fitt for such a service, yet 
 the Indians here, our frends, werr so importunate with vs 
 to make warr presently, that vnlesse we had attempted some 
 thing, we had delivered our persons vnto contempt of base 
 feare & cowardise, & caused them to turn enemyes agaynst 
 vs. " ! Danger was encompassing the river settlements 
 like a prairie fire. A general uprising of the Indians was 
 threatened. Savages who had never tested English valor 
 naturally attributed inactivity to cowardice. Even their 
 friends were infected. Suddenly, on April 23rd, came the 
 Wethersfield massacre. It was a challenge they must accept, 
 or soon be overwhelmed. So, on May 1st, the General 
 Court declared an offensive war against the Pequots and, 
 ere long, their little fleet was afloat on the Great River. 
 "Agaynst our mynds" wrote Thomas Hooker, "being 
 constrayned by necessaty, we haue sent out a company, 
 taking some Indians for guides with vs"; and before they 
 set out their reverend leader gave them his blessing. 2 In 
 due time, they attacked the Indians' stronghold at Mystic. 
 The power of the most dangerous tribe in New England was 
 crushed forever. 
 
 If the Suckiaug Indians were on such friendly terms with 
 the English before the destruction of their traditional ene- 
 mies, the success of that war must have augmented their 
 obligations. A reward was suitable. The English wanted 
 their lands and did not want them for near neighbors. All 
 cleared land was very valuable. The Little Meadow ap- 
 pears to have been divided in 1636. Most of its lots were 
 small, as if for garden use. Some of these were bounded 
 eastward on the creek. They extended as far north as the 
 cow-yard. If there was still farther north another open 
 tract, it would have been a temptation to the early settlers. 
 Such land for immediate use was a necessity. 
 
 1 k Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VI: 388, 389. 
 
 2 Mason's "Brief History" in Mather's Early History of New England, ed. 
 1864, p. 156. 
 
84 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 It seems very probable, therefore, that the Soldiers' 
 Field was the original location of the Indian village, that 
 their wigwams were standing there when the pioneers 
 arrived, and that the natives did help them during the winter. 
 Upon the coming of Hooker's company in 163G, the natives 
 came under the protection of a considerable force. They 
 evidently did what they could to instigate war against the 
 Pequots. When this was forced upon the English, the 
 natives became their allies. Thus, when the little army 
 returned home, victorious beyond their hopes, it was a 
 natural thing for the Indians, in their gratitude over the 
 destruction of their enemies, to surrender to the English 
 the site of their village to be divided among the soldiers, 
 and themselves remove, as we know they did about this 
 time, to the South Meadow. There was never, so far as 
 we know, any Indian fort on this tract. Centinel Hill 
 may at some time have served such a purpose. These In- 
 dians, being a clan of the Sequins, would more likely seek 
 protection elsewhere in time of war. In fact, Governor 
 Hopkins said in 1640, that the Indian "owners had fled 
 away to seek assistance from their people." This was doubt- 
 less true, but it happened sometime before the occupation 
 of the land by the English, whose title the Governor was 
 then defending. 
 
 Our quest now takes us to the South Meadow, whither 
 Sequassen and his band went to make their last stand against 
 civilization. The land the Dutch claimed to have bought, 
 was situated, they said, "in the jurisdiction of the Chief 
 Sequeen," whose tribe had been subdued by the Pequots. 
 From the latter's sachem, as the conqueror, their purchase 
 had been made. This was done, as they said, "with the 
 free will and consent of the Sequeen." 1 The narrative 
 thus continues: "It is further expressly conditioned by 
 this contract and assented to by the aforenamed chief, that 
 the Sequeen should dwell with us, all at the request, and to 
 the great joy of the Sequeen Altarbaenhoot [Natawanute] 
 and all interested tribes. This has taken place, on the part 
 of the Sequeen, with the knowledge of Margaretinne [Mi- 
 antinomo] chief of Sloop's Bay" [Narragansett Bay]. In 
 
 1 Holland Documents, I: 543, II: 139. 
 

 ■ /\ 
 
 ;-y 
 
 A 
 
 
 H 
 
 %^ 
 
 
 &S< 
 
 V 
 
 '. *v 
 
 JL7V- 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 85 
 
 a Dutch report of their boundaries, written in 1649, there is 
 a similar statement. " For greater security," it says, "the 
 Sequeen and his tribe on the Conitte Cock, went to dwell 
 close by Fort Hope, which is also expressly conditioned in 
 the purchase of Conitte Cock, as can be proved by Son- 
 quassen the son of the late Sequeen, who is still living." l 
 Some have supposed that these assertions are untrue, having 
 been made in support of their claims to the land. Others 
 have thought that they refer to the settlement of Sequas- 
 sen's Indians in the South Meadow, as no other band has 
 been known to have lived there. It is here claimed that 
 the Dutch statements are not only true, but also that they 
 offer the only explanation of certain facts in our own records. 
 There is nothing improbable in the claim that the Dutch 
 purchased their land of a Pequot sachem. The Pequots 
 were given to such sales. Nor is it unlikely that the Dutch 
 offered protection to some Sequins, who consented to the 
 bargain. It was common for the Dutch to have Indian 
 neighbors in their wilderness life. If these Indians went to 
 dwell under the protection of the House of Hope, that event 
 occurred in 1633, soon after the Dutch made their purchase. 
 The erection of an Indian fort for protection against their 
 enemies, would have been their first undertaking. 
 
 That there was in early times an Indian fort in the South 
 Meadow, is established by our records. A Dutch map of 
 the Connecticut River, dated in 1666, has upon it the usual 
 sign for a fort south of the House of Hope. 2 This could 
 have been none other than an Indian fort. Whether it 
 was intended to locate this fort in the South Meadow or 
 at Wethersfield, is perhaps uncertain. Our earliest record 
 is of action at a town meeting, January 29, 1643-4. A 
 committee was then appointed to "inquier of [the] statt of 
 the land y* ded belong to the Indians aptayning to Soaquasen 
 or to him Sellfe & of that y l ded belong to manorolos 
 whether it doth belong to the towne or nott & if it do so 
 then it shall be desposed of by them by Letting of it for 
 the tounes vse." 3 This must mean that there were two 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 543. 
 
 2 Winsor's Narr. and Crit. Hist, of America, III: 333. 
 
 3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 68, 69. 
 
86 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 tracts or parts of the "Indian Land" in the South Meadow, 
 one that had belonged to Sequassen or the remnant of his 
 people, and the other to Manorolos, who it is here claimed 
 was a Sequin chief who had lived near the Dutch. This 
 record is significant at that date. During the previous 
 season, Sequassen had been at war with Uncas, who was 
 himself at enmity with Miantinomo, the Narragansett 
 chief. Various attempts had been made upon Uncas's life 
 by poison and sorcery, and had failed. "That being discou- 
 ered," the records say, "some of Sequassons company, an 
 Indian Sagomore allyed to, & an intimate confederate w th 
 Myantinomo, shott at Vncas as hee was going downe Con- 
 ectacutt Riuer w th a arrow or two." 1 According to the treaty 
 of 1638, Uncas appealed to Governor Haynes, who, having 
 been unsuccessful in effecting a reconciliation, because 
 Sequassen preferred war rather than sacrifice the friendship 
 of Miantinomo, left them to fight it out. This they pres- 
 ently did. Uncas soon attacked Sequassen on his reserva- 
 tion, "Killed seven or eight of his men, wounded 13, burnt 
 his wigwams and carried away the booty." 2 This event 
 occurred in the early summer of 1643, and the battlefield 
 was in the South Meadow. Miantinomo then took up the 
 conflict, that resulted so disastrously to him, as hereafter 
 related. It seems probable, therefore, that, after his defeat 
 and the destruction of his village, Sequassen deserted the 
 land he had occupied, and the English began immediately 
 to consider its future improvement. Soon afterwards, he 
 was suspected of a conspiracy against the English and 
 became a fugitive until 1650. He was then permitted to 
 return to Hartford. 
 
 No report of the above committee is recorded. The land 
 records indicate that soon thereafter the southwest portion 
 of the Indian Land was allotted among the English. In 
 1657, there were several owners who had bought of John 
 Crow land, which has been identified as part of this tract. 
 We have no record of the original distribution of it. The 
 explanation may be, that a tract of acreage unnamed, in 
 that "which was called the Indian Land," was given by the 
 town to Elder William Goodwin, in lieu of his land in the 
 
 1 Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 11. 2 Winthrop's History, II: 155. 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 87 
 
 North Meadow and for other service. This may have 
 passed to John Crow, his son-in-law. The land occupied 
 by Sequassen was mostly west of the highway to the "Forty 
 Acres." It was bounded on the west by the " Great Swamp " 
 lots. East of the roadway, there were several parcels ex- 
 tending to the Connecticut River, which then flowed not 
 far away. To these lots the change in the river's course 
 has added much land since. A tradition that was current 
 in the middle of the last century, locates Sequassen's wig- 
 wams on what is known as the Richard Brown lot. This 
 may be true. Indian land that has been traced was in that 
 locality. In that neighborhood certainly, the Indian chief 
 who first welcomed the founders of Hartford, was living 
 when he suffered a blow from which he never recovered. 
 
 Let us follow the history of Manorolos's land. It was 
 situated on the river, not a great distance from the Dutch- 
 men's land. Indians lived there for many years. The 
 acreage was ever decreasing in extent. In 1657, a new com- 
 mittee of the town was appointed "to enquire after thos 
 that now enjoy y e Indian Land," and to require rent of 
 them. 1 They reported the next year that there were eight 
 and a half acres in the possession of five persons. Among 
 these tenants was Lieutenant Thomas Bull, who had two 
 acres. The renting continued. In 1659, the town granted 
 to Lieutenant Bull his two acres, "as long as he himself 
 continnueth an Inhabitant in Hartford . . . and then the 
 land is to return unto y e Towne." 2 Twenty-five years 
 elapsed before his death. The condition of the grant had 
 probably been forgotten, and the land was considered as 
 his own. In his will, he bequeathed to his son Captain 
 Jonathan Bull his "Two Acar Lott Lying by the Indian 
 ffort by the great River's side." No one had better informa- 
 tion on which to base the use of such language than that 
 renowned Indian fighter. In 1663, the townsmen were 
 empowered to "dispose of that land called the indians land 
 in the south meadow vnto the antient natiues who have 
 lived amonge vs according to their best discreetion for this 
 yeare"; but, in 1683, the land, excepting that actually 
 occupied by the Indians, was divided between the First 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 120. 2 Ibid., I: 121, 126-128. 
 
88 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 and Second churches, for the maintenance of the ministry. 1 
 It has been traced in the town's land records to the present 
 time. That of the First Church is the tract of four acres 
 belonging to the "Heirs of John Barnard," as indicated on 
 a map accompanying the "Proceedings at the Dedication 
 of Charter Oak Hall" in 1856. It remained in the possession 
 of the church, excepting for the exchange of one acre in 
 1769, from the date it was received from the town to 1813. 
 It was then leased for 999 years, to John Barnard, he "pay- 
 ing therefor on the first day of January of each year during 
 said term a yearly rent of one pepper corn if demanded." 2 
 The land of the Second Church was next south of it, and the 
 two acres of Lieutenant Bull next north. The Second Church 
 retained its tract until 1825. The committee, as then author- 
 ized, sold it to Elijah Bibbins. 3 East of this land and the 
 meadow path, there was a tract of thirteen acres, also 
 called "Indian Land." It was known later as "The Sands." 
 This name correctly suggests the making of land on the 
 west bank of the river by the change in its course. In all, 
 there were originally about thirty-six acres in this northern 
 tract, formerly belonging to the Indians. 
 
 We should follow more in detail the most northerly 
 portion of this tract on the river's bank. Upon it the old 
 Indian fort once stood. It is part of the ten acres of Henry 
 Barnard on the above named map. It can now be best 
 located as near Colt's Ferry. As late as 1832, it was known 
 in conveyances as the "the Indian Lot." This land actually 
 remained in possession of the native owners until 1723, and 
 they are proved to have been kindred of those who dwelt 
 at Wongunk. In 1713, Sarah Onepenny, Indian woman, 
 in a nuncupative will, bequeathed her land in the South 
 Meadow to her grandson Scipio, a servant of Colonel Wil- 
 liam Whiting. 4 It was set off as 4 acres, 55 rods, "which 
 said piece of land is and has been reputed to belong to the 
 Indians for a great many years." This woman was a rela- 
 tive of Sarah Hopewell, an Indian of Wethersfield, who, in 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 141, 212. 
 
 2 Hartford Land Records, 13: 43, 60; 31: 170. 
 
 3 Ibid., 44: 447,530, 531; 47: 562; 48: 183,360,361; 51: 93,174. 
 
 4 Manwaring's Hartford Probate Records, II: 269. 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 89 
 
 1704, had bequeathed her estate to Robin Mashoot, Sarah 
 Onepenny and Munnumquask. 1 Another Sarah One- 
 penny, daughter of the first of that name, bequeathed her 
 estate, in 1727, to her nephew, Scipio Two Shoes, doubtless 
 the servant above mentioned. She refers particularly to 
 her "lands at a place called Wongogn near Middletown." 2 
 Thus it seems that the last and sole heir of these natives, 
 who had owned this northern tract of Indian land, was 
 Scipio Two Shoes, Indian servant of Colonel Whiting. In 
 1723 he sold this lot to his master, "being that whereon y e 
 Wigwams are now Standing." It is further stated that it 
 was the same land that had been given to him by his grand- 
 mother. Colonel Whiting conveyed this land in 1744. It 
 is then described as that "whereon the Wigwams were 
 formerly standing." 3 So the old home of the aborigines 
 was gone forever. There they had built their fort, in 1633, 
 when they went to live under the protection of the Dutch. 
 It had in time given place to the habitations of peace. One 
 by one, they had stolen out of those wigwams and departed 
 for the happy hunting-grounds of their fathers. At last, a 
 solitary Indian youth stood there, to utter the farewell of 
 his race. 
 
 The fort these Sequins erected was not a very substantial 
 structure. Of the like an early writer gives us this descrip- 
 tion: "These Forts, some be fortie or fiftie foote square, 
 erected of young trees, ten or twelve foote high, rammed 
 into the ground, with undermining within, the earth being 
 cast up for their shelter against the dischargements of their 
 enemies, having loope-holes." 4 Such a fort could not have 
 stood long against the spring floods. It was doubtless 
 repaired frequently until the need for such a defence had 
 passed. Then it was displaced by wigwams. 
 
 There is another tract of land in this neighborhood to 
 which some historic interest attaches. It extended along 
 the Connecticut River northward from the fort track, 
 and connected it with the Dutchmen's bouwerie. The 
 
 1 Ibid., II: 81. 2 Ibid., II: 557. 
 
 3 Hartford Land Records, 5: 9; 7: 76; 21: 536; 23: 29,30,142,364; 50: 117; 
 51: 169; 88: 359; Hartford Probate Records, 36: 83. 
 
 4 Wood's New England's Prospect, 1865 edn., p. 94. 
 
90 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 river has now washed away some of this land. A roadway 
 that ran from the House of Hope to the Indian fort, was its 
 boundary on the southwest. The lots into which this tract 
 was divided, are designated in deeds as lying at a place 
 called "Pequot Heads." It was an Indian custom, after 
 their victories, to tie the scalps of their enemies to the tops 
 of poles set up in a conspicuous place near their village, as 
 a defiance and warning. Each great chief had a pole, which 
 proclaimed his prowess. Sometimes the English were as 
 barbarous in setting the heads of Indians on poles. 1 We 
 conjecture that it was the practice of this custom by the 
 Indians that gave this tract its name, which it received at 
 an early date. It was admirably suited to the purpose, 
 being in full view of all who went and came on the river. 
 As Sequassen's tribe never had an opportunity to make 
 such a collection of bloody trophies, except in the Pequot 
 War, it seems probable and natural enough that, when he 
 removed immediately afterwards to the South Meadow, he 
 should dedicate this river's bank to that purpose. So these 
 scalps dangled from their poles in the breezes for many a day. 
 This incident led the English to name the tract "Pequot 
 Heads." It is now in part the land along the Connecticut 
 River, given to the City of Hartford by Mrs. Elizabeth Colt. 
 There were other places west of the river where the natives 
 sometimes set up their wigwams. All along the Little River 
 and its branches, they had their favorite fishing-places. 
 Near them they encamped at times. One of their resorts 
 in Hartford was known by the Indian name "Pesiponck." 
 It was near the intersection of Broad and Grand streets. 
 The fact is disclosed in the will of Captain Thomas Watts. 
 In 1683, he bequeathed to Martha Hannison "7| acres of 
 Land called by the name of Pesiponck." This was the 
 southern part of a lot that originally belonged to William 
 Andrews. The Rocky Hill brook ran through it. The 
 name "Pesiponck," or Pesuppauog in the Narragansett 
 tongue, means, literally, "they are sweating." It indicates 
 that there was once within the bounds of Hartford, probably 
 in the hillside ascending westward from the brook, one of 
 the Indians' peculiar bath-houses. Roger Williams gives 
 
 1 Trumbull's Hist, of Connecticut, I: 115. 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 91 
 
 the following description of one: "This Hot-houfe is a 
 kind of little Cell or Cave, fix or eight foot over, round, 
 made on the fide of a hill, (commonly by fome Rivulet or 
 Brooke:) into this frequently the men enter after they have 
 exceedingly heated it with ftore of wood, laid upon an heape 
 of ftones in the middle. When they have taken out the 
 fire, the ftones keep ftill a great heat: Ten, twelve, twenty, 
 more or leffe, enter at once ftarke naked, leaving their 
 coats, fmall breeches (or aprons) at the doore, with one to 
 keepe all: here doe they fit round thefe hot ftones an houre 
 or more, taking Tobacco, difcourfing, and fweating together; 
 which fweating they ufe for two ends: Firft, to cleanfe 
 their skin: secondly, to purge their bodies, which doubt- 
 leffe is a great meanes of preferving them, and recovering 
 them from difeafes efpecially from the French difease, 
 which by fweating and fome potions, they perfectly and 
 fpeedily cure: when they come forth (which is matter of 
 admiration) I have feene them runne (Summer and Winter) 
 into the Brooks to coole them, without the leaft hurt." l 
 It seems, therefore, that this was the first Turkish bath- 
 room in Hartford. 
 
 Let us cross the Connecticut River to East Hartford, to 
 locate the Indian fort of the Hockanum tribe, whose resi- 
 dence was within the ancient bounds of the town. Tradition 
 and the discovery of Indian relics fix the location of this 
 fort at a place long known as "Fort Hill." Concerning this 
 place, Goodwin says: "Traces of such an enclosure still 
 remain in Goodwin's pasture, one-fourth of a mile east of 
 the postoffice. . . . The steep hillside having been its de- 
 fence and outlook on three sides, and an embankment and 
 palisades upon the north." 2 This is north of the Hockanum 
 River and south of Burnside Avenue. The site is readily 
 recognized by the excavation of sand which composed the 
 hill. No place could have been more wisely chosen by the 
 Indians. Its elevation, proximity to a river once famous 
 for its fishing, and the adjoining swamp, were features con- 
 sidered desirable by the natives. 
 
 1 "Williams' Indian Key" in Narr. Club Publications, I: 211, 212; Trumbull's 
 Indian Names of Connecticut, p. 51. 
 
 2 Goodwin's Hist, of East Hartford, pp. 18, 23. 
 
92 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 The documentary evidence that this was once the site 
 of their Indian fort is found in the record of Sergeant Wil- 
 liam Buckland's home lot. He died in 1724, and left to his 
 wife Elizabeth and three sons, his "home lott between y e 
 country road and y e Pine Swamp or y e Indian Fort." The 
 younger sons deeded to William Buckland, who sold to 
 Colonel John Pitkin. This lot is mentioned in the town 
 votes in connection with the road that was laid out east- 
 ward in 1679. 
 
 The Indian history of this fort, if known, would probably 
 recite some stories of sanguinary warfare. The one-eyed 
 Tantonimo is thought by some to have chosen it as his 
 stronghold in 1656, when he had a quarrel with Sequassen 
 and Uncas. The natives who lived there were in reality a 
 band of the Podunks. Tantonimo was a sachem of one 
 part of this tribe. He had given refuge to a young Indian, 
 who had killed a sagamore living at Mattabeset, a kinsman 
 of Sequassen. The latter chief had then returned to Hart- 
 ford. Probably he was living at the fort in the South 
 Meadow, with the other Indians. He took up the quarrel, 
 and made an ally of Uncas who, also, had a grievance 
 against the Podunks. The General Court made an effort 
 to adjust the matter. It failed. The parties were then 
 allowed to fight, only it was stipulated that it should not 
 be on the west side of the river, nor to the injury of any on 
 the east side. The forces are said to have met near the 
 Hockanum River — a very advantageous place for Tan- 
 tonimo, with a stronghold near at hand. They did not 
 fight, however, for Uncas, fearing the result, contented 
 himself with a threat to bring upon the Podunks the dread- 
 ful Mohawks. He afterwards used their fear of this tribe 
 to effect his purpose by strategy. 1 With this episode, 
 Sequassen disappears from our history. He probably died 
 soon afterwards. 
 
 The chief seat of the Podunk Indians was near the northern 
 boundary of East Hartford. Here we locate another native 
 fort. Adriaen Block's narrative, in speaking of the Indians 
 along the river, makes the following statements: "In the 
 year 1614 they had a village resembling a fort for protection 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 304, 305; De Forest's History of the Indians, pp. 249-252. 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 93 
 
 against the attacks of their enemies. They are called 
 Nowaas and the Sagamore was named Moraheick. This 
 place is situated in latitude 41° 48'." As Block gave the 
 name of their sachem and their Indian word for bread, we 
 may infer that he had some intercourse with them or visited 
 their village. The place has been identified on the best 
 authority as Podunk fort. The name "Nowaas" in Dutch, 
 says Dr. Trumbull, was equivalent to "Nowashe," the 
 name borne in the native tongue by the land between the 
 Podunk and Scantic rivers. Stiles states that the early 
 records of Windsor indicate that the first settlers did not 
 call these natives "Podunk Indians," but probably "Mo- 
 hegans." They are so named in Tantonimo's deed of South 
 Windsor lands in 1636. "Podunk" means "place of fire." 
 Perhaps the stream was so called because of the proximity 
 of their village fires, and the English gave them the name of 
 their residence. There seems to have been some relation- 
 ship between these Indians and the Mohegans, antedating 
 the marriage of Arramamet's daughter, Songonosk, to 
 Joshua, the son of Uncas. 
 
 The site of their Indian village or fort is approximately 
 determined by the land records. The southern boundary 
 of the Podunk lands was south of the former mouth of the 
 river, and just north of a lot, granted in 1644 to Samuel 
 Ketchell. Here the town built a division fence in 1650. 
 From Tantonimo, Thomas Burnham and certain partners 
 bought a large tract of the Indian land. A controversy 
 arose concerning it. The southernmost strip of this tract 
 passed to William Williams, to whom the town confirmed 
 it in 1662. In the records, it is bounded "on land now 
 in y e management of Thorn: Burnam: wher y e fort stood 
 on y e North." The General Court finally made a division 
 of the land claimed by Burnham, among the Indians, who 
 sold their lots from time to time to English owners. 1 An 
 extant drawing of the western portion of this land, shows 
 that the Podunk River then entered the Connecticut farther 
 north than at present. 2 The Indian tract was mainly north 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 306; Windsor Land Records, 2: 100; Hartford Land 
 Records, 2: 103. 
 
 2 State Archives: Private Controversies, I: 42. 
 
94 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 of the stream, running to a point at the southwest end by 
 the river's side. In its course, the Podunk River, at its 
 most northerly point within the tract where the fort stood, 
 made a semi-circular curve southward. Its former channel 
 can now be traced by the swale. The land thus partially 
 surrounded by the river is high ground, and, without other 
 evidence, would seem to have been the location of the fort. 
 Here tradition also has located it. Indian relics have been 
 found on this site in great abundance. It is only about 
 one-third of a mile in a direct line to the Connecticut River. 
 The Dutch navigator could easily have seen this fort from 
 the deck of the Onrust. Part at least of the intervening tract 
 was a planting-ground. Block refers to their cultivation 
 of maize as if he had seen it. How long this Indian fort 
 remained can not be determined. It continued for many 
 years to be the site of their Indian village. Probably this 
 declined rapidly after King Philip's War, when some of these 
 natives sided against the English and went on the war-path 
 never to return. This site is not far west of the main high- 
 way in South Windsor. 
 
 Of all the Indian forts along the Connecticut River, this 
 of Podunk has the best title to fame. In prehistoric times 
 it was doubtless the stronghold of a large population. 
 They had been greatly wasted before the coining of the white 
 man. Thence, Wahginnacut went to Boston in 1631, to 
 invite the settlement of the English. In this fort, Nata- 
 wanute and Sequassen were often visitors. There the sachem 
 Arramamet spent some of his later years. At its councils, 
 the wilyUncas, and Foxen, his crafty adviser, plotted mischief 
 among the river bands. One of its last Indian owners was 
 Toto's squaw — Toto of Windsor, who is said to have revealed 
 to the English, in 1675, the plot against Springfield. 1 That 
 timely warning of danger saved the town from a massacre. 
 
 Unless we give unwarranted authority to tradition, we 
 must conclude that it was somewhere within these Podunk 
 lands that the greatest tragedy of our Indian history was 
 enacted — the execution of Miantinomo. It may almost 
 be said that this was the sequel to Uncas's destruction of 
 Sequassen's wigwams in the South Meadow, for the warfare 
 
 1 Hutchinson's History, I: 295; Stiles's Hist, of Windsor, I: 110, 118, 130, 1S1. 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 95 
 
 Miantinomo thereafter waged against Uncas did not cease 
 until the Narragansett chief was a captive in the fortress at 
 Mohegan. The victor brought his prisoner to Hartford, as 
 ordered. There the Governor and magistrates referred the 
 disposition of his life to the Commissioners of the United 
 Colonies, who met in Boston, September 7, 1643. Mian- 
 tinomo was a prisoner, meanwhile, in Hartford's jail. The 
 final decision arrived at by the counsel of five ministers 
 was, that "Uncas was advised to take away the life of 
 Myantenomo," but in his own jurisdiction and not in the 
 English plantations. "According to this agreement," says 
 Winthrop, "the commissioners, at their return to Connecti- 
 cut, sent for Onkus, and acquainted him therewith, who 
 readily undertook the execution, and taking Miantun- 
 nomoh along with him, in the way between Hartford 
 and Windsor (where Onkus hath some men dwell,) Onkus' 
 brother, following after Miantunnomoh, clave his head 
 with an hatchet, some English being present." * The 
 plan the commissioners had made was that Uncas should 
 be sent for to come to Hartford "with some considerable 
 number of his best and trusty est men." This he doubtless 
 did, lodging them among his kindred at Podunk. The 
 purpose was to provide against the rescue of Miantinomo 
 by his own people, which was feared. No other place 
 between Hartford and Windsor than Podunk could have 
 been referred to. That was, in a sense, within the juris- 
 diction of Uncas. Thus, at some unknown spot not far 
 from Hartford, the Narragansett chief, who occupies the 
 most conspicuous place in the romance of Indian heroes, 
 met his death. Those who review such events in the clearer 
 light of this age, can hardly think it strange that, when 
 John Eliot, the "apostle to the Indians," being in Hartford 
 at a council of ministers, assembled a congregation of 
 natives to hear his plea for the Gospel, and asked them 
 "whether they were willing to accept of Jesus Christ, the 
 Savior, as he had now been presented to them," the sachems 
 and old men scornfully and angrily answered, "No." 2 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, II: 155, 157-162; Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 10-12, 14, 15; 
 Caulkins's Hist, of Norioich, 1874 edn., pp. 34-37. 
 
 2 De Forest's History of the Indians, p. 252. 
 
96 
 
 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 An interesting incident of Hartford's Indian history 
 occurred in 1675. In the autumn, the warehouse and barn 
 of Major James Richards, on the south bank of the Little 
 River, were destroyed by fire. The property had originally 
 belonged to Governor Hopkins. The Indians were sus- 
 pected of setting the fire. In writing of the affair to Gover- 
 nor Winthrop, Major Richards states that Massecup had 
 been at his house shortly before the flames broke out. 1 His 
 letters also give us more interesting information. They 
 tell us that Massecup was Miantinomo's son and a brother 
 of the Narragansett sachem, who was Canonchet. The 
 records state that Sequassen was allied to and an intimate 
 confederate of Miantinomo. 2 In 1670, Massecup [Masseec- 
 kup] had been the first signer of the Indian deed to the 
 English, for which reason a Hartford street now bears his 
 name. It seems probable, therefore, that Miantinomo had 
 made a marriage alliance with Sequassen's family, and that 
 his son was, in 1670, the head of the tribe. As information 
 had been received that the Indians were planning an attack 
 on Hartford, and flankers near certain houses of the town 
 had been ordered, this incident created great excitement. 3 
 "The indian men were all commanded into the fchool- 
 houfe and a guard fet," wrote Major Richards, "for the 
 people were foe imaged that we had much a doe to keepe 
 them from falling upon them." The Indians sent word to 
 Canonchet of Massecup's captivity. Finally ten hostages 
 were given as a pledge of their loyalty. Massecup was 
 among them. One of the number escaped. The others 
 were confined for some time in a house provided for the 
 purpose, apparently Daniel Garrad's on the south side of 
 Pearl Street. 4 The authorities were convinced, later, of 
 the Indians' loyalty, but Massecup's confinement continued. 
 He was in the prison from 1677 to 1679. 5 Many of these 
 
 1 Winthrop Papers in MS. collections of Mass. Hist. Soc. 
 
 2 Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 11. » Conn. Col. Rec, II: 267, 375. « Ibid., II: 376-380. 
 6 There is some satisfaction, under the circumstances, in the following items 
 
 from John Talcott's Account Book, showing that this hostage received hospitable 
 treatment: "To a trucking Cloath coat being 2 yards delivered to Mafecup," 
 "Pair of britches for Mafecup in prifon," "To Mafecup pint liq rs ," "More," 
 "To Mafecup medifons in his sicknefs," "To one p 1 of Liq rs to Mafecup for 
 gripings, l d : mor p l l d ." 
 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 97 
 
 Hartford Indians enlisted in King Philip's War and did good 
 service. There were eight warriors under the command of 
 Captain Nassehegan, who did scout duty. To the loyalty 
 of the River Indians, the Colony owed much in those trouble- 
 some times. 
 
 All authorities agree that the remnant of the Suckiaug 
 tribe removed finally to Farmington. In 1725, there were 
 living in the South Meadow, it is said, about thirty or forty 
 natives who depended largely upon the charity of the inhab- 
 itants. At Farmington they were absorbed in the Tunxis 
 tribe. Nine Indians claiming rights in the Suckiaug land 
 had signed the deed of 1670. One of these was Wawarme, 
 "sister and only heir of Sequassen." Perhaps she was the 
 mother of Massecup. Another was Currecombe, the later 
 story of whose family can be followed in the history of the 
 Christian Indians, who removed from the West Woods of 
 Farmington to Brotherton, New York. Of the others we 
 have no trace. It is probable that there is an Indian bury- 
 ing-ground somewhere in the South Meadow, where many 
 of the natives, who once lived there, sleep. So the race, 
 whose wigwams were clustered underneath Hartford's 
 elms, has disappeared and left its memorials to the white 
 man. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 
 
 On the banks of the Little River, in the spring of 1636, two 
 types of European civilization met, to contest their rights 
 in the western world. One was the English colonist, with 
 all the ideals of his Puritan faith, seeking a new home for 
 himself and his children. The other was the Dutch trader, 
 satisfied with the liberality that is bred in an adventurous 
 life, a soldier of no mean fame and a clever merchant, seek- 
 ing the profits of the wilderness. Whether it be credited 
 to their virtues or faults, the fact is that these two were 
 unfitted by their character and training to live together as 
 good neighbors. One or the other must prevail. They 
 met like two adverse currents of the sea. One was moving 
 eastward from Manhattan, the other westward from Ply- 
 mouth Rock. There could not but be a surge in the waters; 
 and, this conflict, which is illustrated so clearly in our local 
 history, was, in reality, the same that then engaged like 
 elements elsewhere. It may seem to be insignificant in its 
 issues and petty in its details, but underneath all was the 
 vital question, whether the spirit and arms of England or 
 Holland were, in the end, to control the destiny of the 
 American colonies. That was not a matter that kings could 
 settle. It was determined by the genius of colonization — 
 that wonderful spirit which multiplies homes under adver- 
 sities and makes the wilderness blossom like the rose. Puri- 
 tan emigration soon overcame the advantages of early occu- 
 pation by Dutch traders. Whatever may have been the 
 right of their respective claims on the Connecticut River, 
 this spirit of colonization animated the Puritan governor, 
 when he told DeVries, the Dutch navigator, that "it was 
 a sin to let such rich land, which produced such fine corn, 
 lie uncultivated." These words were not offered as a justi- 
 fication for any unlawful act. From the colonists' point 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 99 
 
 of view, this was thought to be sufficient reason for insisting 
 upon their rights of ownership. The author will attempt 
 merely a recital of the facts involved in this controversy 
 between the Dutch and the English, leaving the reader to 
 exercise his judicial faculties, or to render a verdict, as most 
 writers have done, according to his prejudices. 
 
 The discovery of the Connecticut River has been generally 
 attributed by historians to Adriaen Block. In 1614, having 
 completed his yacht, the Onrust [Restless], he set sail from 
 Manhattan, to explore the bays and rivers to the eastward. 
 He ascended the river as far as the falls. Because of the 
 quality of its waters, he named it Versche Rivier [Fresh 
 River], though it was called in the Indian tongue Quinni- 
 tuk-ut [on long river]. The early settlers often spoke of it 
 as the "Great River," in distinction from the stream that 
 emptied into it, named the "Little River." To the west- 
 ward at Manhattan, through the voyage of Henry Hudson 
 in 1609, the Dutch had secured the rights of discovery 
 and trade. Accordingly, on October 11, 1614, the States 
 General had granted to the "Directors of New Netherland," 
 for a period of three years, the right "exclusively to visit 
 and navigate to the aforesaid newly-discovered lands lying 
 in America, between New France and Virginia, the sea-coasts 
 whereof extend from the fortieth to the forty-fifth degree of 
 latitude, now named New Netherland." 1 This privilege 
 expired by limitation and a renewal was refused. 2 Occu- 
 pation and exploration continued as before, until June 3, 
 1621, when the States General granted a patent to the 
 West India Company, investing it with rights of govern- 
 ment and trade between Newfoundland and the Straits of 
 Magellan. No parallels of latitude were specified, but New 
 Netherland was understood to be included. This company 
 became effective in 1623, and for many years was the repre- 
 sentative of Holland in the western world. 
 
 It is not known that any European visited the Connecti- 
 cut River for nine years after its discovery. 3 Then the 
 
 1 Brodhead's History of New York, I: 63. 2 Ibid., I: 89, 90. 
 
 3 Brodhead erroneously located the scene of Jacob Eelkens' ill treatment of an 
 Indian sachem, in 1622, on the Connecticut River near Wethersfield (Brodhead's 
 History, I: 146, 152, 168). The original account, in Wassenaer's Historie, states 
 that it happened at "Sickenames" (Doc. Hist, of N. Y., 8° edn. Ill: 45, 46). The 
 
100 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 West India Company began the location of fortified trading 
 posts in New Netherland. Several ports were built, and it 
 was afterwards claimed that in 1623 the Dutch took posses- 
 sion of the Connecticut River, and began the erection of the 
 House of Hope. 1 This is very doubtful; but, if true, it 
 was not a factor of any importance in the subsequent con- 
 troversy. The Dutch traders did visit the coast as far east 
 as Cape Cod, at intervals for years, and perhaps entered the 
 Connecticut River. 
 
 In 1626, the Pilgrims of Plymouth began to trade. They 
 soon established a southern port at Manomet, on Buzzard's 
 Bay, twenty miles from their plantation, all the distance 
 except a "carry" of five miles being a waterway. Here 
 they located a trading house and built a pinnace. 2 The 
 following spring they were surprised to receive a friendly 
 letter from Isaak de Rasieres, Secretary of the Dutch 
 government at Manhattan, the purport of which was an 
 invitation to trade. 3 In his reply, Governor Bradford, 
 while reciprocating their good wishes, expressly cautioned 
 the Dutch against trading within the territory granted by 
 his Majesty the King of England to the Council for New 
 England, which extended to the fortieth degree of latitude. 
 To this the Dutch responded, maintaining their right to 
 trade in those parts, which, they claimed, they had carried 
 on for twenty-six years. The Plymouth governor could 
 not be thus outdone, and replied that the English had begun 
 to navigate and plant thereabouts in the time of Queen 
 Elizabeth, "well nigh forty years ago as appeareth by her 
 patents and royal grants." This correspondence of 1627 
 culminated in a visit from the Dutch secretary in the autumn, 
 and at that time Governor Bradford urged upon the Dutch 
 the necessity of clearing their title to plant in those parts, 
 "lest it be a bone of division" between them. 4 
 
 historian identified that name with "Sequin," but it was the Indian designation of 
 Mystic River (Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 13). 
 
 1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., II: 276 and note; Holland Documents, I: 
 290; Doc. Hist, of N. Y., 8° edn. Ill: 49, 50. Cf. Brodhead's History, I: 151 n., 
 153 n.; Winthrop's History, I: 135. 
 
 2 Bradford's History, p. 2*1. 3 Ibid., pp. 222, 223. 
 
 * 1 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill: 51 ff.; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., I: 
 362 ff. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 101 
 
 The English evidently considered that they had legal 
 rights antedating those of the Dutch, and superior to theirs 
 within certain parallels of latitude. Bradford, like other 
 early historians, dated the discoveries of Englishmen from 
 the voyages of the Cabots, and their occupation from the 
 venture of Bartholomew Gosnold in 1602. l King James I 
 had by patent, in 1606, opened all the territory between the 
 thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees north latitude to two 
 companies, the southern being the London or Virginia Com- 
 pany, and the northern the Plymouth Company. On 
 November 3, 1620, seven months before the date of the 
 West India Company's charter, he had reconstituted the 
 latter, with extraordinary powers, as the Council for New 
 England, including the territory between the fortieth and 
 forty-eighth parallels. This was the parent corporation of 
 all early grants. The Pilgrims, and other English settlers 
 later, based their rights upon these facts, and they enter- 
 tained no intention of abandoning them, however they might 
 be involved in disputes with the Dutch at Manhattan or 
 elsewhere. 
 
 The subsequent conduct of the Plymouth traders is evi- 
 dence of this attitude. In the above intercourse with the 
 Dutch, they had learned, as probably also from the Indians, 
 of the existence and location of the Connecticut River. 
 The former had commended it unto them, says Bradford, 
 "for a fine place both for plantation and trade, and wished 
 them to make use of it." They had, however, been other- 
 wise engaged. Yet when they began their trading they 
 accepted these proposals, though not in the way of coloniza- 
 tion under the West India Company, which the Dutch had 
 desired. The sequel should be given in their historian's 
 own language: "And having now good store of comodities, 
 and allso need to looke out wher they could advantage them 
 selves to help them out of their great ingagments, they now 
 begane to send that way to discover y e same, and trade with 
 y e natives. They found it to be a fine place, but had no 
 great store of trade; but y e Indeans excused y e same in 
 regard of y e season, and the fear y e Indans were in of their 
 enemise. So they tried diverce times, not with out profite, 
 
 1 Bradford's History, p. 77; Hutchinson's History, I: 1. 
 
102 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 but saw y e most certainty would be by keeping a house 
 ther, to receive y e trad when it came down out of y e inland." 1 
 This passage clearly refers to early ventures on the Con- 
 necticut River, conducted, doubtless, by Edward Winslow, 
 and the most natural interpretation is that these visits were 
 made between 1627 and 1631. 2 Brodhead, the Dutch 
 historian, admits that Winslow made a voyage thither in 
 
 1632, and "pitched upon a place for a house." 3 The date 
 was certainly before the settlement of the Dutch in 1633, for 
 the Governor and magistrates of Massachusetts, when 
 examining the matter in 1643, received from Winslow him- 
 self the testimony that he had "discouered the said fresh 
 Riuer when the Duch had neither trading house nor any 
 pretence to a foot of land there," and the Commissioners of 
 the United Colonies made this declaration ten years later. 4 
 The Indians on the river, moved by the desire to secure 
 English allies against their enemies, and finding that the 
 Plymouth people were not "very forward to build ther," 
 solicited the help of Massachusetts. That was the purpose 
 of Wahginnacut's journey to Boston in 1631, in which he 
 was disappointed. Then the Plymouth traders, in 1633, 
 sought the partnership of Massachusetts in such a venture; 
 but, failing to secure it, they determined to make a begin- 
 ning themselves. 5 
 
 Such was the situation at the time the pioneers of these 
 two nations met on the Connecticut River. Each party had 
 its own view of rights secured by discovery and established 
 by patent. These were in dispute between their home 
 governments, and, in fact, were irreconcilable except by an 
 arbitration then uncommon, or the fortunes of war. The 
 Dutch were the first on the ground. Late in the spring of 
 
 1633, acting under the authority of Wouter van Twiller, 
 the newly appointed Director General of New Netherland, 
 
 1 Bradford's History, p. 311. 
 
 2 Prince's New England Chronology, 1826 edn., p. 434; Goodwin's Pilgrim 
 Republic, p. 371. 
 
 s Brodhead's History, I: 210; New England's Memorial, Davis's edn., App. 
 p. 395. 
 
 * Coll. Rec., X: 16; Trumbull's History, I: 30; Hutchinson's History, I: 43. 
 1 Bradford's History, pp. 312, 313; Winthrop's History, I: 125. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 103 
 
 Jacob van Curler with six others, sailed up the river, and, 
 having made a treaty with the Indians, June 8th, began to 
 erect a blockhouse on the southern bank of the Little River. 
 This they surrounded with a redoubt, and two cannon were 
 mounted for its defence. They named it the "Huys de 
 Hoop" [House of Hope], but for what special reason we are 
 not told. 1 The Plymouth authorities, returning home after 
 the disappointment of their visit to Governor Winthrop in 
 July, at once made preparations to establish their river 
 trading post. In the hold of their "great new barke," they 
 stowed the frame of a house, with boards and nails to com- 
 plete it, and such provisions as were necessary, and, under 
 the command of Lieutenant William Holmes, their resolute 
 expedition set sail. The house had been prepared partly 
 as a defence against the Pequot Indians, who, it was expected, 
 would be displeased because they were to carry with them 
 Natawanute, the exiled sachem of Windsor, and restore him 
 to his ancient domain. They arrived at the House of Hope, 
 probably, September 16th, not surprised to find the Dutch 
 located on the river, nor expecting any gracious welcome. 
 "When they came up y e river," says Bradford, "the Dutch 
 demanded what they intended, and whither they would goe; 
 they answered, up y e river to trade (now their order was to 
 goe and seat above them). They bid them strike, & stay, 
 or els they would shoote them; & stood by ther ordnance 
 ready fitted. They answered they had comission from y e 
 Gov 1 " of Plimoth to goe up y e river to such a place, and if 
 they did shoote, they must obey their order and proceede; 
 they would not molest them, but would goe one. So they 
 passed along, and though the Dutch threatened them hard, 
 yet they shoot not. Coming to their place, they clapt up 
 their house quickly, and landed their provissions, and left 
 y e companie appoynted, and sent the barke home; and after- 
 wards palisadoed their house aboute, and fortified them 
 selves better. The Dutch sent word home to y e Monhatas 
 what was done; and in proces of time, they sent a band of 
 aboute 70. men, in warrlike maner, with collours displayed, 
 to assaulte them; but seeing them strengtened, & that it 
 
 1 Other forms of the name that occur in early literature are: "Fort Hope," 
 "Fort Good Hope," "The Dutch House, the Hope," and "House of Good Hope." 
 
104 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 would cost blood, they came to parley, and returned in 
 peace." * Thus the first chapter of this conflict was ended. 
 
 The above incident brings into the light one fact that now 
 becomes important: the native inhabitants, to whom the 
 river lands had originally belonged, had found in the English 
 the allies they had sought. Some years before, this tribe 
 had been subdued by the Pequots, and made tributary to 
 them. Their cause had now been espoused by the English 
 in a most public manner, by the restoration of Natawanute. 
 Nor is it supposed that the visit of Wahginnacut to Governor 
 Winthrop had been entirely without results. In this course 
 the English may have been actuated by justice or policy. 
 Perhaps they were pleased to be prompted by both. The 
 Dutch, on the other hand, had for some years maintained 
 friendly relations in trade with the Pequots — ever since 
 1626, when Peter Barentsen overcame the prejudice caused 
 by Jacob Eelkens's treachery at Sickenames. As traders 
 it was naturally their practice to consider the advantages, 
 to be gained by their friendship. Now, therefore, in the 
 matter of securing grants of land from the Indians, the alli- 
 ances of each party were of great value. 
 
 We have no record of any deed signed by the Indians, in 
 which they conveyed Suckiaug lands to the Dutch. The 
 evidence the latter presented in a subsequent statement of 
 their case, was the record of a treaty made with the Indians, 
 embodying the rights of both parties and witnessed by the 
 Dutchmen who were present, as the practice was on some 
 other occasions. This record is as follows: 
 
 "Condition and Agreement entered into between Com- 
 missary Jacob van Curler and the Chiefs of Sickenames, on 
 the 8th of June, 1633 as follows: 
 
 The aforesaid Curler, and the sachem named "SVapyguart 
 or Tattoepan, chief of Sickenames river, and owner of the 
 Fresh river of New Netherland, called, in their tongue, 
 Conettecuck, have amicably agreed for the purchase and 
 sale of the tract named Sickajoock, a flat extending about 
 one league down along the river and one-third of a league 
 in width to the high land, and beyond the kill upwards, 
 being a flat extending to the next adjoining little stream, 
 
 1 Bradford's History, pp. 313, 314. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 105 
 
 on condition that all tribes might freely, and without any 
 fear or danger, resort to the purchased land for the purposes 
 of trade; and whatever wars might arise between them and 
 others, may be waged or carried on without any of them 
 entering on our said territory. It is further expressly con- 
 ditioned by this contract, and assented to by the afore- 
 named chief, that the Sequeen should dwell with us, all at 
 the request, and to the great joy of the Sequeen Altarbaen- 
 hoot, and all interested tribes. This has taken place, on 
 the part of the Sequeen, with the knowledge of Magaretinne, 
 chief of Sloop's Bay. The chief of Sickenames is paid for 
 the said land by Jacob Curler one piece of duffels, twenty- 
 seven ells long; six axes, six kettles, eighteen knives, one 
 sword-blade, one shears, and some toys. All which was 
 signed by Jacob van Curler, Frederick Lubbersen, Gillis 
 Pieters, Claes Jans Ruyter, Domingo Dios, Barent Jacobs 
 Cool, and Pieter Louwerensen." 1 
 
 It does not seem that there are sufficient reasons to doubt 
 the main fact set forth in this record. The English at 
 Hartford, and the Commissioners of the United Colonies, it 
 is true, challenged the claim, and asked to see the convey- 
 ance. Probably no Indian deed was given, or it would have 
 been produced then or later. Still, such a purchase was 
 inherently probable. There were then no reasons why the 
 Dutch could not have secured land from the Pequots, as 
 they repeatedly claimed they had done and the record 
 asserts, for that tribe were then their friends, though they 
 soon had a falling out, because the Dutch killed a Pequot 
 chief. 2 The sachem named as the grantor, Wapyquart, 
 was doubtless the same as WopigwoOit, who is thought 
 to have been the Pequot conqueror of the Sequins. 3 They 
 
 1 Holland Documents, II: 139, 140. See also Ibid., I: 128, 543; N. Y. Hist. 
 Soc. Coll., I: 271, 272; and Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 172, 175; X: 65, 66. 
 
 2 O'Callaghan's History, I: 157; Bradford's History, p. 349. 
 
 3 Wopigwooit was the son of Woipeguand, sachem of the Pequots, and grand- 
 son of Muckquntdowas, whose father was Tamaquashad the earliest known chief 
 of that tribe (De Forest's History, pp. 66, 67). The spelling "Wapyquart" is 
 nearer that generally used. Governor Stuyvesant has "Nepequate" (Ply. Col. 
 Rec.,X: 66); Hazard, "Nepaquate" (State Papers, II: 263); Trumbull, "Nepu- 
 quash" (History, I: 35); and Dr. Barnard "Nepaquash" (Armsmear, p. 18), 
 following Stuart (Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 245). The Connecticut records 
 spell the name "Nupequah," or "Nupequate" (Conn. Rec, New England, p. 124). 
 
106 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 may also have obtained the assent of the Narragansett 
 sachem, Magaretinne, [Miantinomo] to their neighborly 
 arrangement with a band of Sequins, dwelling probably 
 at the other end of the South Meadow, in Wethersfield. 
 It is very improbable, however, that Natawanute, if he 
 is the chief mentioned as "Altarbaenhoot," was a party 
 to this transaction. At the date of the record, he is believed 
 to have been in exile, having fled to the English for protec- 
 tion against the Pequots, and he was brought back by 
 Holmes in the autumn. Apparently Governor Bradford 
 did not doubt the Dutch purchase, for he says of the Plym- 
 outh traders: "They did y e Dutch no wrong, for they took 
 not a foote of any land they bought, but went to y e place 
 above them, and bought that tract of land which belonged 
 to these Indeans which they carried with them, and their 
 friends, with whom y e Dutch had nothing to doe." x As 
 for Sequassen, he testified in court, in 1640, that "he neu r 
 sould any grownd to the Dutch." 2 The evidence seems, 
 therefore, to justify the conclusion that the Dutch bought 
 from the Pequots their tract of land, which comprised the 
 South Meadow, extending westward to the upland, and 
 northward "a musket shot" distance along the river, to 
 include Dutch Point. On the other hand, the English made 
 their purchases of the Sequins, the ancient owners, and, in 
 so doing, they declared their opinion that the subjugation 
 of this tribe by the Pequots did not give to the conquerors 
 the rights of ownership in the river lands. Lord Saye and 
 Sele wrote in 1642 that the "Pequots had no just but a 
 usurped title." 3 This, however, was the English view of 
 the matter, and was earnestly challenged by the Dutch. 
 
 The representatives of these two nations now in disagree- 
 ment over both their territorial rights and Indian titles, 
 might, perhaps, have adjusted themselves to neighborly 
 relations, had it not been for the settlement of the English 
 under the Warwick Patent. The authorities at Plymouth 
 and Boston had learned in 1633 of the Dutch venture upon 
 the river. The former had sought to thwart it. Governor 
 Winthrop, unwilling to join with Plymouth, for reasons that 
 
 1 Bradford's History, p. 314. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 56. s Holland Documents, I: 128. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 107 
 
 must be a matter of conjecture, had, nevertheless, sent his 
 bark to Manhattan with a commission to signify to the 
 Dutch "that the king of England had granted the river and 
 country of Connecticut to his own subjects," and, therefore, 
 he desired them "to forbear to build there." He may have 
 referred to the lands included in the Warwick Patent. 
 Director van T wilier returned a courteous reply, but ex- 
 pressed the hope that the English would not intrude upon a 
 Dutch possession until the King of England and the States 
 General could adjust the matter. 1 He further protested in 
 writing on October 25th to the commander of the Plymouth 
 trading house, and sent an account of proceedings to his 
 superiors in Holland. 2 It was without effect. "John 
 Oldham and three with him" journeyed thither that season. 
 During the next summer the Newtown agents went to spy 
 out the land. Finally, in the autumn of 1635, the pioneers 
 of Hartford settled upon the land north of the Little River, 
 and, as already stated, the compromise of the following winter 
 cleared the way for occupation, under the Warwick Patent, 
 of those lands claimed by the Dutch. Thus in the year 
 1636, these traders of the West India Company found them- 
 selves surrounded by English colonists, who professed, and 
 doubtless honestly believed, that the Warwick Patent had 
 established their rights. 
 
 After the protest that the Dutch made to Elder William 
 Goodwin, which was referred to the younger Winthrop, 
 agent of the patentees at Saybrook fort, there was a lull in 
 the storm for some years. The Dutch expressed their 
 sentiments by protesting, and the English by ploughing. 
 On June 9, 1639, the Dutch navigator DeVries arrived at 
 the House of Hope, where Gysbert Opdyck was then the 
 commissary. He thus narrates his experience as a peace- 
 maker: "The commander gave me orders to make a protest 
 against them, as they were using our own land, which we 
 had bought of the Indians. Some of our soldiers had for- 
 bidden them to put the plough into it; but they had dis- 
 regarded them, and had cudgelled some of the Company's 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, I: 134; O'Callaghan's History, I: 152; Brodhead's His- 
 tory, I: 239. 
 
 2 O'Callaghan's History, I: 154, 155. 
 
108 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 soldiers. Going there, I was invited by the English governor 
 [John Hay nes] to dine; when sitting at the table, I told him 
 that it was wrong to take by force the Company's land, 
 which it had bought and paid for. He answered that the 
 lands were lying idle; that though we had been there many 
 years, we had done scarcely anything; that it was a sin to 
 let such rich land, which produced such fine corn, lie uncul- 
 tivated; and that they had already built three towns upon 
 this river in a fine country." ' 
 
 The next spring trouble began in earnest. On April 23rd, 
 by the new style reckoning of the Dutch, they told Governor 
 Hopkins of their intention to plough "a piece of land lying 
 behind Fort Hope," and forbade the English to interfere. 
 The usual dispute concerning Indian titles ensued. Hop- 
 kins said "Show your right: we shall show ours." As a 
 "bluff" that was about even, for in all probability the Dutch 
 had no Indian deed, and the English no patent to show. 
 The next day the Dutch began to plough the land in ques- 
 tion, which had been distributed either to James Ensign or 
 to Andrew Bacon, as these two lots were behind the fort. 2 
 Thereupon the English constable — who was most likely 
 Thomas Hosmer — living near, came with a dozen men 
 armed with sticks. With blows and shouts, they frightened 
 the horses so they ran away. An hour later the Dutch re- 
 sumed their ploughing, without hindrance. That night, 
 however, the English sowed corn in the field. Commissary 
 Opdyck protested in writing to Governor Hopkins, and 
 Governor Hopkins protested to Commissary Opdyck. Then 
 both parties resorted to a truce. On May 30th, one of the 
 Dutchmen's mares strayed upon an Englishman's land, to 
 feast on his green grass. Governor Hopkins's servant 
 impounded it, and Opdyck went to Manhattan with a 
 complaint. Three weeks later, "The English carried off," 
 according to Dutch authorities, "in the twinkle of an eye, 
 a cow and calf, and drove them to their pound." The 
 General Court, being then in session, promptly adjudicated 
 the matter as a case of trespass, for the cow and calf had 
 been in an Englishman's corn patch. The decree was that 
 
 1 "Voyages of DeVrics," in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., Ill: 86. 
 
 2 Original Distribution, pp. 222, 223, 240. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 109 
 
 the Dutch could have their animals by paying, within three 
 days, the damages and charges, and, if they did not the cow 
 and calf would be sold. There was further excitement the 
 next week, and the town had something to talk about. 
 On June 28, 1640, as the Dutch story runs, "An English 
 minister tooke [a load] of the hay which our masters ser- 
 vants had cut and made upon theire owne bought and paied 
 for and possessed lands; tooke it away and applyed it to 
 his own use without giuing any recompense or satisfaction." 
 Opdyck at once "served him with a protest, at the house of 
 the Governor who was not at home." It may be that the 
 clergyman got on the wrong land, as laymen have since in 
 the undefined lots of the South Meadow. Or, perhaps, the 
 load of hay was a donation from one of his parishioners. 
 If we must express an opinion upon such a delicate matter 
 between two ministers, it looks very much as if the offender 
 was Samuel Stone, who owned eight acres along the road 
 to the Indian Land, near the Dutchmen's bouwerie, perhaps 
 then considered by them a part of it. There was further 
 friction in harvest time, but at last they had winter and 
 peace for a season. 
 
 The conflict was renewed in the following year, by the 
 vote of the North-side inhabitants, February 26th, to join 
 doubtless with the South-side, to build a fence between the 
 Dutchmen's land and the adjoining owners. 1 It is believed 
 that this was the fence, a part of which, by Dutch testi- 
 mony, the English began to build May 24th, driving posts 
 in the ground around the fort, and with rails fencing it off 
 in such a manner that the garrison could not use the wagon 
 road to their wood and hay land. The Dutch at once tore 
 it down. The most serious encounter had occurred on 
 April 17th, when Peter Colet, Evert Duycking and Sybrant 
 Sibols, who were ploughing a disputed field about the fort, 
 were attacked by the English. They cut the trace ropes, 
 drove off the horses, threw the plough into the river, and 
 in the fracas knocked down and hurt one or more of the 
 Dutchmen. It can be said on Dutch authority, that Gover- 
 nor Hopkins had given warning to his violent countrymen, 
 which may have had some effect after such an encounter. 
 
 1 Hartford Toivn Votes, I: 43. 
 
110 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 At all events, it does not appear in Dutch testimony that, 
 after the summer of 1641, they had any ill-treatment to 
 complain of, except the English occupation of the lands they 
 claimed and the impounding of their stray animals, wherein 
 all inhabitants were treated alike. Such was the Dutch- 
 men's presentation of their grievances. 1 
 
 The English had a similar story. All their early complaints 
 arose out of the disputed title to the lands in the South 
 Meadow, which they had distributed among themselves. 
 They had left for the Dutch a comparatively small tract. 
 This was not fenced. Naturally, therefore, the Dutch ani- 
 mals strayed on the lands the English were cultivating. 
 To protect their crops, they sought to fence their lands, 
 which their Dutch neighbors would not permit, especially 
 as such fences surrounded much of their fort and cut off 
 access to their bouwerie. If a certain receipt for twenty- 
 eight shillings, dated June 3, 1641, which John Carrenton 
 gave to John Talcott, "for cetting vp of the rayles betwene 
 the town & the diuch grond," represents the whole or one- 
 half of the cost of this experiment, the English did not get 
 far with it. 2 At that juncture Governor Haynes wrote to 
 the Massachusetts authorities for advice, and Winthrop's 
 narrative states the situation. "Letters came," he says, 
 "from the governour, etc., of Connecticut for advice about 
 the difference between them and the Dutch. The Dutch 
 governour had pressed them hard for his interest in all 
 Hartford, etc., as far as one might see from their house, 
 alleging he had purchased as much of the Pequods, and 
 threatened force of arms. They of the river alleged their 
 purchase of other Indians, the true owners of the place, 
 etc., with other arguments from our patent and that of 
 Saybrook. We returned answer without determining of 
 either side, but advising to a moderate way, as the yielding 
 of some more land to the Dutch house (for they had left 
 them but 30 acres). But the Dutch would not be thus 
 pacified, but prepared to send soldiers to be billeted at their 
 house. But it pleased the Lord to disappoint their pur- 
 
 1 Holland Documents, I: 543 ff.; II: HI ff.; Ply. Col. Rec.,X: 66-69; N.Y. 
 Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., II: 276. 
 * Hartford Town Votes, I: 8. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 111 
 
 pose, for the Indians falling out with them, killed four of 
 their men at their fort Orange, whereof three were Eng- 
 lish, who had gone to dwell among them, whereby they 
 were forced to keep their soldiers at home to defend them- 
 selves; and Mr. Peter going for England, and being well 
 acquainted with the chief merchants in Holland, undertook 
 to pacify the West India company, but for want of commis- 
 sion from those of Hartford, the company there would not 
 treat with him." 1 
 
 These references are illuminating. The force of soldiers 
 Director Kieft had prepared to send to Fort Hope, consisted 
 of fifty men in two yachts, under the command of Johannes 
 la Montagne. 2 Thus, possibly, the battle of Hartford nar- 
 rowly missed taking place. Here, moreover, it appears as 
 the English asserted, that the land claims of the Dutch were 
 various and uncertain, covering sometimes all the river lands, 
 and, at others, only the South Meadow. More than the 
 latter tract, they had not bought from the Pequots, as their 
 own record shows. And here is stated the position of the 
 English, which was that they claimed under the Warwick 
 Patent emanating from the Council for New England, as 
 also by right of purchase from the original native tribe. They 
 never abandoned this right of ownership, acquired, they 
 asserted, "by purchase, patent and possession." So far 
 as their colonial authorities could settle the matter, they 
 were sustained after an examination by the Governor and 
 Council of Massachusetts and by the Commissioners of the 
 United Colonies. 3 
 
 It is true that Rev. Hugh Peters, one of the delegation 
 sent to England by Massachusetts in 1641, was asked to 
 seek some adjustment of these differences in Holland. He 
 was subsequently authorized by Governors Winthrop and 
 Haynes to do so. Edward Hopkins also going that season 
 to England, was empowered by the Connecticut General 
 Court to arbitrate the matter. The Earl of Warwick, Lord 
 Saye and Sele, and others in England, endeavored to assist 
 them. Little, however, came of this peaceful attempt. Sir 
 William Boswell, then ambassador at the Hague, suggested 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, II: 38, 39. 2 Brodhead's History, I: 322. 
 
 3 Winthrop's History, II: 155-157; Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 13, 175, 179, 182; X: 16. 
 
112 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 a plan of procedure, in a letter dated January 22, 1641-2, 
 which was probably brought back by Edward Hopkins. 1 
 Its concluding recommendation has furnished the text for 
 much censure of the English. He advised "that in the mean 
 tyme, th' English there doe not forbeare to put forward their 
 plantacons, and crowd on, crowding the Dutch out of those 
 places where they have [occupied] but without hostility or 
 any act of violence." The fact is, however, that the crowding 
 the English did, occurred before this letter was written; 
 and the most hostile acts of the Dutch, after the English 
 had abandoned violence and had attempted a peaceful 
 settlement. In 1650, the four arbitrators, two of whom 
 were chosen by each party, on examination of the English 
 complaints, found that "most of the offences or grievances 
 were things donn in the time and by the order and comaund 
 of Monseir William Keift the former Gou r ," in which they 
 were undoubtedly correct. 2 He was a man, as Dutch his- 
 torians have stated, who "hankered for war." Provoked 
 by repeated conflicts with the English elsewhere, and taking 
 advantage possibly of their abandonment of violence at 
 Hartford, he encouraged the Dutch garrison in hostile 
 measures for several years, so that, in 1646, they had 
 "growne to a strange & vnsufFerable boldnes." 3 They 
 were charged with putting their cattle in English corn- 
 fields, buying stolen goods and refusing to return them upon 
 equal satisfaction, persuading servants to run away from 
 their masters, releasing criminals and harboring fugitives 
 from justice, resisting and assaulting the watch with arms, 
 marrying some couples refused at the English plantations, 
 and finally, with receiving at the House of Hope an Indian 
 captive who had fled from her mistress, refusing to deliver 
 her up to the magistrate and consenting to her abuse and 
 defilement by a Dutch servant. 4 Of the last offence, the 
 agent himself had given information. It was a public affront 
 to the morality of a Puritan community that had long 
 been tried by their manner of garrison life. It kindled a 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec.,1: 565,566; Holland Documents, II; 150; Brodhead's History, 
 I: 324. 
 
 2 Ply.Col.RecX: 18. 
 
 3 Ibid., IX: 64. * Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 61, 64, 76-79, 181; X: 16. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 113 
 
 blaze of indignation at the licentiousness that often made the 
 Dutch trading post a curse. 1 
 
 In 1650, these charges were reviewed at the meeting be- 
 tween the Commissioners of the United Colonies, and 
 Peter Stuyvesant, then Director General of New Nether- 
 land; but William Kieft being then dead, they were referred 
 to the authorities in Holland, or, in other words, buried 
 with him. The decision of the arbitrators who made the 
 award was, that the Dutch should retain all the lands they 
 actually possessed at Hartford, and the remainder on both 
 sides of the river should be and remain forever to the Eng- 
 lish. 2 This was ratified by the States General in 1656. 
 Thus the occupation of the disputed lands by colonists 
 became the factor that determined the issue. Within a 
 few years, the mother countries being at war and colonial 
 relations strained, the House of Hope was deserted. Then 
 came Captain John Underhill, acting under a commission 
 to prosecute a predatory warfare against the Dutch, and 
 on the 27th and 28th of June 1653, he took possession of 
 the House of Hope and its lands. On the door of the block 
 house, he placed this notice: "I, John Underhill, do seize 
 this house and land for the State of England, by virtue of 
 the commission granted by the Providence Plantation." 
 He claimed afterwards to have done so with the permission 
 of the General Court, then in session at Hartford. This 
 was disallowed by the Court, April 6, 1654, when it seques- 
 tered the property "in the behalf e of the Common wealth 
 of England." 3 Three days later, peace was proclaimed 
 between the two nations, and by the terms of the treaty, 
 the English retained the property. 
 
 At this time the Dutch possessions consisted of four 
 tracts of land as follows: 1. Twenty-three and one-half 
 acres in the South Meadow, being their meadow, garden 
 and wood lot, and lying between the Great River on the 
 north, and the "highway from ye meadow gate to the In- 
 
 1 See Letter of Lord Saye and Sele, in Holland Documents, I: 129; "Hoeren 
 Eyland," Map of 1666, in Winsor's Narr. and Crit. Hist., Ill: 333; and cf. Porter's 
 Historical Notices, No. 2, p. 25. See also Bradford's History, p. 24; Wassenaar in 
 Doc. Hist. ofN. Y., Ill: 33, 41; Doc. Rel. to Col. Hist. ofN.Y.,l: 290; III: 342, etc. 
 
 2 Holland Documents, I: 611; Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 188-190. 
 
 3 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 254, 275; N. E. Register, VI: 369. 
 
114 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 dian Land " on the south. 2. One acre in the South Meadow, 
 which "abutteth on the landing place in Little River on 
 the eaft," and William Gibbons [James Ensign] and Gregory 
 Wolterton [Andrew Bacon] on the south, and the Little 
 River on the north. 3. Three acres, "lying on ye poynt 
 of ye little meadow," now Dutch Point. 4. Two acres, 
 "being an Island Lyeing near ye eaft Side of ye great river 
 over against ye Sowth end of ye little meadow." l Captain 
 Underhill laid claim to all this land by virtue of his seizure. 
 On May 17, 1655, he petitioned the General Court for per- 
 mission to sell and convey it. His request was refused. 
 Apparently the matter was adjusted, as he sold it, July 18th, 
 to William Gibbons and Richard Lord, reserving the State's 
 right. When a division was made, March 5, 1659-60, the 
 Gibbons share was twelve and one-half acres of the west 
 end of the bouwerie. The Lord share was Dutch Point, the 
 Island and nine and one-half acres of the "bouwerie" east 
 of the Gibbons lot. The State received the one-acre tract, 
 and the remaining one and one-half acres of the bouwerie, 
 both of which were sold, March 11, 1662-3, to John Gilbert. 2 
 There is no doubt as to the location of the House of Hope. 
 It was on the one-acre tract, beside the Little River and 
 adjoining the landing-place, from which a lane twenty-four 
 feet wide led to the "highway from ye meadow gate to the 
 Indian Land." 3 This road ran alongside of the bouwerie, 
 between which and the lane about eight acres had been 
 granted to Andrew Bacon and George Steele. Across the 
 stream, eastward of the fort, was the neck that connected 
 the low land of Dutch Point with the Little Meadow, so 
 that the House of Hope was not far in a direct line from the 
 Connecticut River. The mouth of the stream provided a 
 good harbor. DeVries describes this location in these 
 words: "This redoubt stands upon a plain on the margin 
 of the river, and alongside it runs a creek to a high wood- 
 land." 4 The map of the Great River in 1666, while its 
 
 1 State Archives: Tovms and Lands, I: 76-91; Original Distribution, pp. 131, 
 304, 500. 
 
 2 Original Distribution, p. 533. 
 
 3 See Albert L. Washburn's "Map of the Dutch Land," in The Hartford Times, 
 February 24, 1905, and Goodwin's Map of 1824. 
 
 * "Voyages of DeVries" in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., Ill: 86. 
 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 115 
 
 testimony may not have great weight in such a matter, 
 places the "Huys de Hoop" on the south side of the stream, 
 and not upon the Connecticut River. Moreover, this loca- 
 tion alone meets the conditions of the Dutch authorities, 
 who place the fort near the bouwerie, and yet where the 
 fence erected by the English cut it off from that tract. 
 
 The House of Hope was a fortified redoubt. Such struc- 
 tures among the Dutch were usually built of logs, with 
 stones or brick at the angles. Within there was a two-story 
 block house, of commodious proportions, having a large 
 Dutch fire-place at one end. About the house was an open 
 court, with a hard earthen floor. At Fort Orange the build- 
 ing was twenty-six feet and nine inches long. Underneath 
 there was a cellar. The first floor was divided by a partition. 
 On the second, which was reached by a ladder, there was a 
 court or storage room. Probably the House of Hope had 
 an enclosed yard, with sheds for their horses and cattle, 
 on the southeast side at the landing-place. In 1639, DeVries 
 found "forty to fifty cherry trees" about it. Of their fruit 
 he feasted the English governor, minister and chief men 
 with their wives at the fort, when he sought their favor in 
 securing a pardon for the minister's servant. The offender 
 had become drunk aboard a ketch in the river, and nar- 
 rowly escaped a flogging at the whipping-post. 
 
 The ruins of this historic station of Dutch soldiers and 
 traders survived for many a day. A burying-ground near 
 it was discovered by chance in 1852. It is thought to have 
 been the resting place of some of the inmates, who died 
 during those early years. In 1819, when Dr. Abiel Holmes 
 visited the place, he found there only some decayed timbers 
 and a few Dutch bricks, one of which is preserved among 
 the exhibits of the Connecticut Historical Society. In 
 time these bricks became scattered, and the finding of them 
 elsewhere has misled some, as to the fort's location. Wil- 
 liam Imlay, it is said, at last removed the mound of earth 
 and debris to fill a swale, on the north side of the stream. A 
 portion of this historic acre has passed peacefully into the 
 possession of the City of Hartford, where its people might 
 fittingly place a memorial to the buried hopes of their old 
 neighbors. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 
 
 The people of Connecticut have many good reasons to 
 praise the worldly wisdom of their forefathers. They were 
 men of human ambitions, and hence deeply interested in 
 getting on in the world. It does not detract from a high 
 estimate of their moral virtues and religious character if 
 we admit that they were sagacious, enterprising and far- 
 seeing men, who sought, and promptly accepted, a good 
 chance in the line of colonization. Like all emigrants to 
 New England, they wished to settle where they would soon 
 see the reward of their labors, and leave to their children a 
 goodly heritage. Among such a people, the quality and 
 extent of their lands were important. Thomas Hooker 
 himself was frank to say, in 1634, that his flock wanted more 
 and better land. Their attention had been turned toward 
 the raising of cattle. This was then considered a promising 
 venture, especially where there were large river meadows. 
 Our records furnish many indications that this pastoral 
 purpose directed the agricultural labors of the river planta- 
 tions for some years. They all had extensive hay and pas- 
 ture lands. Thus a considerable portion of the territory now 
 occupied by the city of Hartford was used in early years 
 for grazing and kindred purposes. 
 
 The original "writeing" in which Sequassen and his tribe 
 conveyed the Suckiaug lands to Samuel Stone and Wil- 
 liam Goodwin in 1636, specified "all the land from Wethers- 
 field bounds on the south, to Windsor bounds on the north, 
 and the whole bredth from Connecticutt river on the east 
 six large miles into the wilderness on the west." Our only 
 authority for this statement is the confirmatory deed of 
 1670. 1 The grantees of the lost conveyance were, probably, 
 the abovenamed and their associates, the " inhabitants " 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, I: 5, 6; Porter's Historical Notices, No. I, pp. 4-7. 
 
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 117 
 
 of the plantation. This grant "was afterwards upon further 
 consideration renewed and enlarged" by Sequassen, at the 
 desire of Mr. Haynes and the other magistrates. It then 
 conveyed to them Sequassen's land as far westward "as 
 his country went." As this occurred "severall yeares" 
 before 1640, it may have been a factor in the readjustment 
 of the relations between the English and the Indians fol- 
 lowing the Pequot War. If so, it doubtless provided that 
 Sequassen's people should occupy a part of the South 
 Meadow lands. This document, also, had disappeared 
 before 1670. The confirmatory deed refers to the "full 
 mention" of this grant in the conveyance of Pethus, sachem 
 of the Tunxis Indians, to the English about 1640. The 
 latter deed was of Farmington lands. It reserved a tract 
 for the natives. On July 5, 1670, the surviving Suckiaug 
 Indians confirmed these earlier grants. In this document 
 the terms of that time are used. The purchase of Stone and 
 Goodwin is referred to as having been made "in the behalfe 
 of the present proprietors." This was true, though these 
 proprietors were, in 1636, the legal plantation inhabitants. 
 The gantees of 1670 were "Mr. Samuel Wyllys, Capt. 
 John Talcott, Mr. John Allyn and Mr. James Richards, in 
 behalfe of the rest of the proprietors of the land belonging 
 to the township of Hartford, their heires and assignes 
 forever." Such was the title and extent of their lands on 
 the west side of the river. The western boundary in this 
 general description was six miles from the river, as measured 
 along the northern and southern lines. It was about five 
 miles from it at Hartford. When Farmington was incor- 
 porated in 1645, the latter distance was given, perhaps for 
 this reason. This territory included the present town of 
 West Hartford, except that portion west of the old moun- 
 tain road at Foote's Corners. This was added from Farming- 
 ton in several tracts, after having been included many years 
 in the West Division Society. The northern and southern 
 boundary lines were periodically matters of controversy 
 for many years, but the alterations were unimportant except 
 to adjoining landowners. 
 
 On the east side of the Connecticut River the Podunk 
 and Hockanum Indians were the native owners of the land. 
 
118 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 The English at once saw the advantages of possessing it. 
 The Windsor Plantation bought a tract opposite its territory 
 in 1636. 1 At an early date Wethersfield did the same. The 
 purchase of the latter plantation extended eastward from 
 the river three miles. 2 On February 21, 1636-7, the General 
 Court fixed the east side boundaries between those planta- 
 tions and Hartford. It seems probable therefore that some- 
 time in 1636, the inhabitants of Hartford's plantations made 
 a purchase from the native owners. Possibly this was de- 
 layed in completion, or a purchase was first made of the east 
 side meadows, and afterwards the upland was secured. The 
 former tract was one of the early divisions of the plantation. 
 The bargain was certainly completed and the upland was 
 secured before or in 1640. 3 This conveyance also is lost, 
 but references to the purchase are found in the records. The 
 lands east of these "Three-mile Lots" had not been bought 
 from the natives in 1672. Then the General Assembly, 
 exercising jurisdiction under the charter, extended the bounds 
 of Hartford eastward five miles. This tract was claimed by 
 Joshua, sachem of the Niantic Indians, who died in 1676. 
 A short time before his death he sold it to Major John 
 Talcott, but no deed was executed. Upon the town's 
 agreement to pay the stipulated sum to Joshua's executors, 
 they deeded this tract, May 13, 1682, to Cyprian Nichols, 
 Caleb Stanley and John Marsh, selectmen of Hartford. 4 
 Thus the original town came to include the territory between 
 Bolton on the east, and Farmington on the west, now divided 
 into Manchester, East Hartford, Hartford and West Hart- 
 ford. East Hartford was incorporated as a separate town 
 in 1783. From it, Manchester was set off and incorporated 
 in 1823. West Hartford was created a separate ecclesiastical 
 society in 1711, and incorporated as a town in 1854. 
 
 It is essential to an understanding of the early history of 
 Hartford, that a careful study be made of the formation of 
 its body of proprietors. The usual practice, in the settle- 
 ment of new regions, was for a number of associated indi- 
 viduals to buy a large tract of land, and divide it among 
 
 1 Stiles's Hist, of Windsor, I: 127, 128. 2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 7. 
 
 3 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 21, 22. 
 
 < Hartford Town Voles, I: 196, 205; Hartford Land Records, 1: 6, 7. 
 
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 119 
 
 themselves on the basis of the amount each had contributed 
 to the purchase money, or the initial expenses of the enter- 
 prise. Such persons were termed "proprietors." It has 
 always been assumed that this was the case in the settlement 
 of the river plantations, but the conclusion has never been 
 consistent with extant records. The inference is natural 
 that proprietorship is based upon sharing the cost of the 
 coats, hatchets, hoes and knives, which the English usually 
 paid the natives for their lands. It has also been thought 
 that proprietorship implies a participation in the original 
 establishment of a plantation. Some have attributed to it 
 a prominence among the founders of the river settlements 
 that was denied to others, who seem to have been of equal 
 or superior worth. These inferences are sometimes justified. 
 In their application to Hartford, however, and, so far as we 
 know, to its associated plantations, they have resulted in 
 error and confusion, both among historians and genealogists. 
 The claim here made may be summarized in the statement 
 that the establishment of Connecticut's colonial govern- 
 ment involved such a transition from plantation to town 
 estate, that it was necessary to revise the list of legal inhab- 
 itants, who had hitherto been, in fact, the original proprie- 
 tors, and this was accomplished by the formation of the body 
 of proprietors of 1639. 
 
 The common statement that has been made concerning 
 many an honored ancestor in Hartford, is that he was "an 
 original proprietor in 1639." What does that mean? Not 
 necessarily that a man shared directly in the purchase of 
 the town's lands from the Indians. It does not affirm 
 that he was surely among the first settlers of the plantation. 
 There is documentary evidence that some of the proprietors 
 were not. Nor does it prove that his social standing was 
 superior to that of some who received grants of land by 
 the town's courtesy. It means that in 1639, when, for rea- 
 sons herein stated, the body of proprietors was constituted 
 to determine who had a right to share in undivided lands, 
 the man named was found to have been a legal inhabitant, 
 and to have borne, by taxation upon his lands or estate for 
 a greater or less period, a share in the plantation's financial 
 burdens. He had thus become, in business terms, a stock- 
 
120 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 holder in the plantation and was entitled to a stock dividend 
 of land. The legal inhabitant, as already stated, was the 
 unit of the franchise. He was also the unit in early distri- 
 butions of land. As the first conveyances from the Indians, 
 where known, were to the "inhabitants" as grantees, or 
 to their body called the "plantation," so the lands acquired 
 were divided among such inhabitants. We do not read of 
 any proprietors in name, because these legal inhabitants 
 were the owners and grantors. Others than these received 
 grants of land in Hartford, both before and after the forma- 
 tion of the body of proprietors. Such settlers, however, 
 either because they had not been inhabitants for some reason, 
 or because they had arrived too recently to participate in 
 the plantations' burdens, did not secure the standing of 
 proprietors. Hence they had by right no share in the un- 
 divided lands when the time arrived for their distribution. 
 The grants such settlers received were by "the town's 
 courtesy." The other river plantations made the same dis- 
 tinction. Such was the practice elsewhere. In 1664, when 
 there were common lands to be distributed in Cambridge, 
 two lists were ordered to be made, one of those who had a 
 "just right," and another of those whose claim was "in a 
 way of free gift." 
 
 Leaving for another chapter the consideration of their 
 order of plantation divisions, the result of its application 
 was that the proportions of the inhabitants varied greatly. 
 Upon these lands, rates were assessed to defray all their 
 charges. The cost of the land purchased froni the Indians 
 was comparatively a small matter. One planter might 
 advance the sum, to be repaid later by the inhabitants. 
 William Pynchon bought such land at Springfield, and was 
 reimbursed by a rate assessed upon the lots granted to the 
 settlers. There were other and larger initial expenses. In 
 the river settlements their remoteness made these consider- 
 able. For their circumstances, the annual plantation and 
 colony rates were high. On February 9, 1637-8, the General 
 Court was forced to provide for the payment of a debt. 
 It was for £620, the "charges of the late designes of warr." 
 Of this amount £251 2s. were apportioned to Hartford, 
 to be raised by a rate probably assessed upon the acreage 
 

PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 121 
 
 of each. 1 Collectors were appointed in all the plantations. 
 Thus by their payment of successive rates, the inhabitants 
 were making investments in a corporation that had con- 
 siderable tracts of undivided land. At any particular time 
 the taxes each had paid during the period of his residence 
 would be the amount of his investment, and hence his 
 rightful share in the divisions. 
 
 All grants of land in the plantation divisions of Hartford 
 were conditional. This was an important factor in their 
 scheme of development. The first order, recorded by Wil- 
 liam Spencer under the date 1635, provided that if a settler 
 had a lot granted to him and removed within four years, 
 the lot should return to the town, the former owner receiv- 
 ing the worth of his labor upon it. If any person desired 
 to sell his lot or lots within that time, he was first to offer 
 them to the town for the valuation of his improvements; 
 or, upon the town's approval, to sell at such a valuation to 
 another. House-lots that were not built upon within a year 
 were forfeited to the town. Nor were such rules restricting 
 early sales peculiar to Hartford. They were made in Cam- 
 bridge, Springfield and other settlements. There is no doubt 
 that these rules were enforced. Some lots did return to 
 the town. The time of other grantees was extended. 2 The 
 town made offers to pay for improvements on some lots, 
 and purchasers of others were approved. 3 Probably the 
 lost plantation records contained evidence of such action. 
 On January 14, 1639-40, the townsmen were ordered to 
 examine all former bargains of land made by the inhab- 
 itants, and confirm or disannul the same. Planters as 
 prominent as William Gibbons and Nathaniel Ward were 
 fined for buying land in violation of the order, though their 
 purchases were confirmed. 4 Indeed, as hereafter shown, 
 the land records prove that sales were comparatively few 
 before the expiration of the four years, and immediately 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 12. After King Philip's war, the Colony rate was increased 
 from one penny on the pound to eighteen pence. The Court then appointed a 
 committee to "size" each class of lands. The valuation in Hartford was: Home 
 lots at 40 s. per acre; improved uplands 25 s. per acre on the south side, 20 s. per 
 acre on the north side; meadow, one half at 50 s., the other half at 40 s. per acre. — 
 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 237, 292. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 13, 29, 30. 
 
 3 Ibid., I: 15, 36, 42. 4 Ibid., I: 15. 
 
122 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 after the restriction was removed, they became numerous. 
 It is obvious, therefore, that more land than a settler could 
 improve or use was a burden to him. Such tracts were 
 unsalable property. The owner was compelled to pay taxes 
 upon them, but they yielded no income. Planters of large 
 means could afford to take such land, and hold it until it 
 could be sold. Others were satisfied to have them do so, 
 for thus the rich paid the burden of the taxes. By this plan, 
 all speculation in lands was for the time excluded. The 
 settler's chance of reward depended upon his enterprise 
 and labor. Apparent inequalities were thus righted. Hence 
 in all their plantation divisions of land, the inhabitants 
 were, in a sense, distributing only opportunities for improve- 
 ment according to each man's ability. The poor man who 
 employed his talent was rewarded. Those settlers of the 
 wealthier class, who invested their fortunes in the planta- 
 tion during a period of Indian warfare, received that return 
 which their loyalty merited. 
 
 If now these legal inhabitants of the plantation, as the 
 stockholders in a corporation, upon entering into a new 
 estate as an organized town in which new arrivals were to 
 participate, were forced to provide for future divisions of 
 their assets, they could only do so equitably by ascertaining 
 the amount of each man's investment. This was not a diffi- 
 cult problem, and the result would most naturally be ex- 
 pressed in the number of acres to be allotted to each pro- 
 prietor in every division. This was commonly called a 
 "rule of division." The early settler, who had paid rates 
 from the beginning, would thus have a larger share in the 
 land. This was justly due him. Another settler who had 
 come later might have the same share, because he had paid 
 a larger tax during his residence. A place would be given 
 to every inhabitant, whatever his estate, who had a pro- 
 priety right in the plantation. This explains the fact that 
 we find among the proprietors of Hartford, and other original 
 plantations, the names of arrivals in every year from 1635 to 
 1638. We have now to test this explanation of a long- 
 standing mystery by the records. 
 
 The reader is reminded that the inhabitants of the planta- 
 tions had in their Constitution, adopted January 14, 1638-9, 
 
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 123 
 
 made over to the General Court the right to "dispose of 
 lands vndisposed of." This was not a meaningless phrase. 
 Grants were afterwards made by the Court to various 
 persons, to whom titles can now be traced. On October 
 10, 1639, authority was given by the Court "to dispose of 
 their owne lands vndisposed of." That act was certainly 
 received by the inhabitants of Hartford as their warrant for 
 subsequent divisions. In 1721, when a dispute arose con- 
 cerning the ownership of land at Podunk, the town expressly 
 appealed to the settlement of bounds there in 1636, and 
 to this act of 1639, as the authority the inhabitants had for 
 dividing the Three-mile Lots east of the Connecticut River. 
 This was the tract east of the meadow lots. It is stated 
 that it was divided "about the year 1640 ... to and 
 amongst the then Inhabitants" of the town. 1 The case in 
 question seemed to threaten "dangerous consequences, to 
 the weakening and destroying of all the titles of the pro- 
 prietors" of the town and other towns in the Colony. This 
 was one occasion for an act confirming titles in 1723. 2 
 
 The months of the winter following the Court's action of 
 1639, were partly devoted in Hartford, and probably in 
 other river towns, to the settlement of this issue of owner- 
 ship. This was necessary in clearing the way for con- 
 templated divisions of land. On January 7, 1639-40, all 
 distributions by the inhabitants of the North-side or South- 
 side plantations were made thereafter void. Obviously 
 their former method of plantation divisions was to be sup- 
 planted by another, arising out of the whole body of legal 
 inhabitants. They had always acted on the basis of an in- 
 habitant's right of ownership. Such rights could not be 
 set aside, giving to every new resident thereafter a share in 
 the inhabitants' property. The Court did not intend any 
 such action. Hence the question necessarily proposed for 
 the town's consideration was this: Who are the inhabitants 
 that have secured a right in undivided lands, and in what 
 proportion shall they share? 
 
 At the annual town meeting, December 23, 1639, William 
 Spencer, William Westwood, John Moody and Nathaniel 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 21, 22. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, VI: 394-397. 
 
124 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Ward were chosen townsmen. This meeting probably 
 adjourned to the 26th, when a vote was passed as follows: 
 "Mr [Edward] Hopkins m r [Thomas] wells m r [John] Steele 
 and m r [John] Taylcot are desired to asist vs in exsameing 
 the devsions one either side the River & to rectify the same 
 also to see whoe are Inhabetants to haue proporcons in all 
 devesions & whoe not also to Inquier w* ordrs stand in forse 
 v^ h are of genrall Concernm* w^ are not recorded." * As 
 this record was made in William Spencer's handwriting, and 
 he was one of the townsmen, the intent of the vote was to 
 add the above inhabitants, two from each side, to the four 
 townsmen, thus constituting a committee of eight to ascer- 
 tain who were the proprietors of Hartford. The examina- 
 tion of the divisions and accounts of each plantation, 
 probably recorded in the North-side and South-side books, 
 would have disclosed the names of those who had received 
 proportions as inhabitants, and the amount they had paid 
 in rates. These would have been the proprietors. More- 
 over, they would thus gather the names of those whose 
 grants had been made by free gift. Apparently the com- 
 mittee reported at a meeting of the town, January 3, 1639- 
 40, and their report was adopted as "the rule for division of 
 lands." 2 The share of each was designated by a certain 
 number of acres. With their honorary titles and usual 
 spelling of names, these lists are as follows: 
 
 "The Names of such Inhabitants as haue Right in un- 
 divided Lands. 
 
 John Haynes, Esq., 160; George Wyllys, Esq., 150; 
 Mr. Edward Hopkins, 120; Mr. Mathew* Allyn, 110; Mr. 
 Thomas Welles, 100; Mr. John Webster, 96; Mr. William 
 Whiting, 96; John Talcott, 90; Andrew Warner, 84; Mr. 
 Thomas Hooker, 80; William Pantry, 80; William West- 
 wood, 80; James Olmsted, 70; Thomas Hosmer, 60; Na- 
 thaniel Ward, 60; William Wadsworth, 52; John White, 
 50; John Steele, 48; Thomas Scott, 42; Mr. William 
 Goodwin, 42; Thomas Stanley, 42; Mr. Samuel Stone, 40; 
 Stephen Hart, 40; William Spencer, 40; John Moody, 40; 
 William Lewis, 38; William Ruscoe, 32; Timothy Stanley, 
 32; Jonathan Ince, 30; Richard Webb, 30; William An- 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 10. 2 Ibid., I: 21-24. 
 
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 125 
 
 drews, 30; Samuel Wakeman, 30; Jeremy Adams, 30; 
 Richard Lyman, 30; William Butler, 28; Thomas Lord, 
 28; Mathew Marvin, 28; Gregory Wolterton, 28; Andrew 
 Bacon, 28; Richard Goodman, 26; Nathaniel Richards, 
 26; John Pratt, 26; Thomas Birch wood, 26; George Steele, 
 26; John Barnard, 24; James Ensign, 24; John Hopkins, 
 24; Stephen Post, 24; Edward Stebbins, 24; George 
 Grave, 24; John Clarke, 22; William Gibbons, 20; John 
 Crow, 20; Thomas Judd, 20; William Hills, 20; George 
 Stocking, 20; Joseph Mygatt, 20; Nathaniel Ely, 18; 
 Richard Lord, 18; William, Hyde, 18; William Kelsey, 
 16; John Arnold, 16; William Blumfield, 16; Richard 
 Butler, 16; Arthur Smith, 14; Robert Day, 14; John 
 Maynard, 14; Seth Grant, 14; William Hayden, 14; 
 Thomas Spencer, 14; Thomas Stanton, 14; John Baysey, 
 14; John Wilcox, 13; John Marsh, 12; William Parker, 
 12; Nicholas Clarke, 12; Thomas Bull, 12; John Higginson, 
 12; William Holton, 12; Edward Elmer, 12; Francis 
 Andrews, 12; Richard Church, 12; James Cole, 10; Zachary 
 Field, 10; John Skinner, 10; Joseph Easton, 10; Thomas 
 Hale, 10; Richard Olmsted, 10; Samuel Hale, 8; Richard 
 Risley, 8; Thomas Olcott, 8; Robert Bartlett, 8; Thomas 
 Selden, 6; Thomas Root, 6; William Pratt, 6. — Total, 95. 
 
 The Names of such Inhabitants as were Granted Lots 
 to have only at the towns courtesy, with liberty to fetch 
 wood and keep swine or cows by proportion on the common. 
 
 Thomas Woodford, 6; Ralph Keeler, 6; Thomas Lord, 
 Jun., 6; Thomas Barnes, 6; John Purchas, 6; William 
 Phillips, 6; Nicholas Desborough, 6; Benjamin Burr, 6; 
 Ozias Goodwin, 6; Daniel Garret, 6; John Hall, 6; John 
 Morris, 6; Nathaniel Bearding, 6; John Sable, 6; Richard 
 Watts, 6; William Westley, 6; John Holloway, 5; John 
 Bidwell, 4; Nathaniel Kellogg, 4; Robert Wade, 4; Henry 
 Wakeley, 4; Thomas Upson, 4; Widow Mary Betts, 4; John 
 Bronson, 3; John Olmsted, 3; John Pierce, 3. — Total, 26." 
 
 The committee of eight were also authorized to rectify 
 any errors or inequalities in previous divisions. Whether 
 or not they did so is uncertain. There was evidently some 
 dissatisfaction as to the proportions. Our interpretation of 
 the records is that some were found to have more and others 
 
126 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 less land than their investment warranted. Perhaps this 
 is the meaning of a vote, not fully deciphered, that was 
 apparently passed January 3, 1639-40, when the committee 
 reported. At all events, on January 14th, the following 
 action was taken: "Whearas their is some differents in 
 m[ens] Alotments some haveing moor then is according to 
 their due proporcon Itis therefore] orderd That m r Hopkins 
 m r Wells [m r ] Webster m r Steele m r Taylcot [Andrew] 
 Warner John Prat Tymothy [Sta]ndly John Clarke Joseph 
 Mygate w th the [towns] men shall Exsamen the same and 
 s[hall] haue power to Appoint Euery man [his] proporcon 
 according as in ther Judgfment] shalbe Just and Equall And 
 A[ppoint] the places wheer such ffurther [divisions?] of land 
 shallbee layde fforth as [also] Appoint w '* 1 off the Inhabetants 
 [shall have] Equall Right to all vndevided land w * 1 are 
 onely to take soe much as [they] shall in[rprove?] [faithf?] 
 ully and. . . ." l Presumably this committee of fourteen, 
 having full power, reviewed the former lists. It is believed 
 that they first considered the matter of propriety rights and 
 the claims of those who had been put in the town's courtesy 
 list. Their report is thought to be the lists that are found 
 in the records without proportions. 2 The names of the 
 ninety-five proprietors are the same, though arranged in 
 another order. Fifteen names were added, however, to the 
 earlier town's courtesy list. These, with their subsequent 
 proportions, are as follows: 
 
 John Warner, 6; William Cornwall, 8; Richard Seymour, 
 6; Benjamin Munn, 8; John Gennings, 6; Paul Peck, 8; 
 George Hubbard, 6; Thomas Bliss, 6; Thomas Bliss, Jun., 
 4; Edward Lay, 6; Thomas Gridley, 6; Giles Smith, 8; 
 Thomas Richards, 8; Thomas Bunce, 13; William Watts, 
 4. — Total, 15. 
 
 This committee apparently decided not to alter the pro- 
 portions already adopted, but to adjust any inequalities, in 
 the distribution of East-side upland lots then in contempla- 
 tion. This division was ordered January 11, 1640-41. On 
 February 18th, it was decided to run a line east and west 
 through this tract, distributing the land north of it to 
 North-side men, and that south of it to South-side men, 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 14. 2 Ibid., I: 16-20. 
 
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 127 
 
 excepting a few of the latter, who were to share with the 
 former. North of the line, the grantees were to have one 
 hundred and five acres for one hundred, and south of it, 
 one hundred for one hundred. The same ten inhabitants, 
 with the townsmen, were then authorized to prepare the 
 lists and determine the proportions for this division. 1 We 
 have these reasons, therefore, for assigning to this com- 
 mittee the third set of names recorded in the town votes, 
 according to which proportions the East-side division of 
 1666 was actually made. 2 In this list, the names are ar- 
 ranged as North-side and South-side residents. Some 
 proportions are greater than those in the rule of division, 
 and others are less. These proportions were used only in 
 the East-side upland division. The proprietors were the 
 same as in the earlier list, excepting that John Cullick had 
 acquired the right of Jonathan Ince, and a lot was sequestered 
 to that of Clement Chaplin. Since the former list, however, 
 seven others had secured a place in the town's courtesy list. 
 Their names and proportions are as follows: 
 
 James Wakeley, 4; Samuel Gardner, 4; Thomas Black- 
 ley, 4; James Bridgman, 8; John Latimer, 4; Thomas 
 Porter, 4; Richard Billings, 6. 
 
 Thus the town perpetuated the acquired rights of the 
 plantation inhabitants in the body of proprietors. If we 
 interpret the records correctly, John Cullick secured by the 
 payment of accumulated taxes the propriety of Jonathan 
 Ince, who did not settle permanently in Hartford. It was 
 given to him July 28, 1640, upon the same condition other 
 lands were given, he "To paye all y e Charges y l is exspeded 
 vpon it y e land: a Just account now given." 3 John Crow, 
 who received Bartholomew Greene's propriety at an early 
 date, doubtless made the same payments. He assumed a 
 proprietor's responsibilities and secured his privileges. 
 Apparently the taxes had been charges made against a 
 propriety. They must have been proportionate to an in- 
 habitant's interest in lands or estate. A careful study of 
 the land records shows that there was a general correspond- 
 ence between the proportions in their rule of division in 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 39, 42, 46. 2 Ibid., I: 49-55; Original Distribution, pp. 492-494. 
 3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 33, 34. 
 
128 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 1639, and the earlier grants that were made by the planta- 
 tions. We see, moreover, in the later application of this 
 rule, when they assessed a rate upon each man's propriety, 
 to raise funds for the purchase or division of lands, the 
 continuance of the same principle. 
 
 As already stated, the early Indian deeds of the West-side 
 lands having disappeared, the ancient proprietors of Hart- 
 ford secured a confirmation of this purchase in 1670. They 
 then paid the surviving natives "near the value the land 
 was esteemed at before the English came." At a propri- 
 etors' meeting, February 9, 1671-2, it was agreed to make a 
 rate of ten pounds upon the proprietors of January 3, 1639, 
 to pay for this purchase, the amount to be raised "upon 
 every man according to his propriety." It was therefore 
 their ancient rule that determined the proprietors' propor- 
 tions in paying for this land in 1670, as stated in the records. 1 
 They voted in 1672 to divide a mile and one-half along the 
 town's western bound. The remainder of this tract was 
 to be a " common " forever. The above lots were laid out in 
 November 1674. A committee of the proprietors was 
 appointed in 1677 to distribute the overplus south of the 
 Farmington road among such as had need of the land. 
 
 The same principle was applied in the division of the 
 Five-mile tract east of the Connecticut River. This was 
 distributed, however, among another class of owners. As 
 already stated, it had been purchased from Joshua's execu- 
 tors in 1682, by the "inhabitants." This term had assumed 
 its modern meaning under their town government. The 
 money to pay for this tract was raised by a rate assessed 
 upon the town's grand list of that year. The grantees were 
 not the ancient proprietors, but the selectmen of the town. 
 Hence it was divided among the "Inhabitants of the Town" 
 according to what each had paid for the purchase, and the 
 rate of 1682 was recorded as a rule of division. Three miles 
 and one hundred rods next to Bolton, were distributed in 
 1731. The remainder was held in common until its division 
 in 1753. 2 
 
 1 Original Distribution, pp. 549-552. 
 
 2 Hartford Toicn Voles, I: 201, 202, 205,252, 284, 309, 310; MS. Vol. II: 360 ff.; 
 Hartford Land Records, I, first pages; V, last pages; VII: 476 ff.; Mem. Hist, 
 of Hartford County, II: 244-246. 
 
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 129 
 
 Such was the standing of the ancient proprietors and the 
 proprietors — inhabitants, who made the year 1754 mem- 
 orable in Hartford by a famous contest over their rights in 
 the division of the West-side town common. 1 The former 
 body was composed of the heirs and assigns of the original 
 proprietors in 1639; the latter embraced the inhabitants, 
 who held the powers and shared the responsibilities of town 
 government in 1682-1685. One made a distribution accord- 
 ing to the rule of division adopted in 1639, already used in 
 1671-1674; the other followed the rule established for the 
 division of the Five-mile tract. The influential majority 
 had allotments in either case. Shares varied, however, 
 according as one owned a propriety or participated as a 
 taxpayer. Some in each class were excluded by the rule 
 of the other. Self-interest probably decided their party 
 allegiance. The fundamental question was one of owner- 
 ship. Their legal contest involved the interpretation of 
 the town's patent. In the time of Sir Edmund Andros, 
 the General Court, fearing that their rights were in danger, 
 had required each town to take out a patent from the 
 Governor and Company, the grantees under the Charter, 
 and had divided among them the western lands. 2 Such a 
 patent of the land within the town's bounds, was issued 
 May 26, 1685, to Major John Talcott, Samuel Wyllys, Esq., 
 Captain John Allyn, Mr. Richard Lord, Mr. John Haynes, 
 Mr. Thomas Richards, Mr. Cyprian Nichols, Lieut. Joseph 
 Wadsworth, Ensign Nathaniel Stanley, Mr. Stephen Hos- 
 mer, and the rest of the proprietors of the town, "sayd 
 parcell of land hauing been by purchafs or otherwise Law- 
 fully obteyned of the Indian Natiue proprietors." 3 Each 
 party considered itself the grantees under this patent. The 
 act of 1723 concerning titles, was supposed to confirm their 
 rights. 4 In 1753, these bodies began their divisions of the 
 
 Collections of Conn. Hist. Soc. — "Proprietors' Title to Lands," No. 283; 
 and "Proprietors' Papers," No. 284; County Court Records, Vol. T, No. 209; 
 Superior Court Records, Vol. XII (1754, 1755); State Archives: Division of Common, 
 Hartford: Proprietors' Votes, 1754-1786, City Clerk's Office; "Hartford Proprietors" 
 in Boardman Collection, State Library. 
 
 2 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 76-78; Andrews's The River Towns, pp. 40, 
 41. 
 
 8 Conn. Col. Rec., HI: 177,288; Colony Record of Deeds, III: 148,149. 
 
 * Conn. Col. Rec, VI: 394-397. 
 
130 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 common. Subsequent meetings increased the heat of their 
 controversy. Then the matter was taken to the County 
 Court, in the case of Samuel Flagg vs. John Ledyard and 
 William Hooker for the possession of a twenty-acre lot, 
 located on the "First Hill," south of Wadsworth's tavern. 
 The plaintiff represented the claims of the ancient pro- 
 prietors, having acquired the right of William Westwood. 
 At the trial, in April 1754, he was defeated, but appealed to 
 the Superior Court. There again, the verdict was first 
 sustained. A review was granted, and, in June 1755, the 
 matter received extended consideration. It was such a 
 marshalling of historical evidence as had never before been 
 known, and probably never since. They cited the purchase 
 of 1636, and its confirmation in 1670; the act of the General 
 Court October 10, 1639, authorizing town organization and 
 the distribution of undivided lands; the list of ancient 
 proprietors of 1639; their rule of division as used in 1671; 
 the sequestration of the town common for the perpetual use 
 of the inhabitants; the grant, purchase and division of the 
 Five-mile tract; the town's patent in 1685, and their grants 
 made in town meetings, confirmed by the act of 1723, when 
 the proprietors' rights in the remaining undivided lands 
 were recognized. The jury found that, if the law was such 
 that the purchasers of the said land were vested with the 
 fee thereof, as an estate of inheritance descendible to their 
 heirs and assigns, the verdict should be for the ancient 
 proprietors. The court decided that such was the law, and 
 execution was granted, June 18, 1755, to recover the land 
 with twenty shillings damages and costs of court. Other 
 actions involving this question of ownership, met the same 
 fate as this test case. The parties soon agreed to suspend 
 further controversy, and it is said that the ancient proprie- 
 tors' rights were purchased by the inhabitants, whose allot- 
 ments prevailed. Thus after an exciting legal contest, when 
 the shades of the forefathers walked abroad in our courts 
 and legislative halls, and the facts of our early history were 
 marshalled in grand review, the victorious heirs and assigns 
 of the proprietors of 1639, with becoming dignity, made 
 their bow to posterity and passed out of sight. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 PLANTATION DIVISIONS 
 
 The loss occasioned by the disappearance of the North-side 
 and South-side plantation books, can be repaired in part 
 by the study of the land records. We cannot recover their 
 early votes, the time when some settlers received their 
 house-lots, the dates of various divisions, the special reasons 
 for some grants and certain orders that would have solved 
 perplexities in the town's history. There is no question, 
 however, that the value of the lost books was depreciated 
 in the town's estimation, by the fact that their essential 
 data had been transferred to the town votes and land 
 records. This led, indirectly, to their disappearance. The 
 missing books are supposed to have contained some record 
 of their plantation divisions. When the General Court, 
 in 1639, required the register of each town to "record every 
 man's house and land already graunted and measured out 
 to him," both in the town's book and with the Secretary of 
 the Colony, it virtually ordered each inhabitant to make a 
 return of his plantation allotments. These records are, 
 therefore, a summary of earlier divisions. Unfortunately, 
 some inhabitants delayed their returns. Meanwhile they 
 had bought, sold or exchanged lots; and the ownership of 
 abutting lots had changed. So the names of original 
 grantees, or earlier owners, have in some instances been 
 lost. The plotting of some tracts has been made difficult, 
 if not impossible. Still the town's book of original distribu- 
 tion enables one, on the whole, to follow with reasonable 
 confidence the development of Hartford during the four 
 years of its plantation estate. In doing so, it may be 
 definitely stated that the same general rules as to propor- 
 tions that prevailed in Springfield and elsewhere were 
 adopted. To each inhabitant, and to some who were not, 
 there were given a house-lot and such a proportion of 
 
132 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 meadow, pasture and woodland as was mete for his circum- 
 stances. One's estate, social standing, occupation, family, 
 public service, convenience, and ability to improve the 
 land, were considered. As elsewhere, a larger proportion 
 of planting-ground was given to those who were agricul- 
 turalists. In distributing meadow and pasture, they re- 
 garded those who were engaged in raising cattle and had 
 the means for that venture. 1 As a rule, those who worked 
 at their trades had less land. The principle that governed 
 them in their plantation divisons was to supply the needs 
 of all, in such manner as would further the settlement's 
 development. 
 
 There is no doubt that the entries in the Original Distri- 
 bution, under the caption "Febr: Anno dom: 1639," made 
 by the first and second recorders — unknown by name, but 
 acting under John Steele, the official register — comprise 
 the returns made promptly in compliance with the Court's 
 order. 2 These lots, with a few exceptions, were original 
 grants. A lot secured by purchase or exchange is some- 
 times found among them. The reason for some of these 
 exceptions is known, as in the early sale of Soldiers' Field 
 lots. Presumably such transactions had usually the con- 
 sent of the inhabitants, as they were contrary to the 
 established rule. On February 18, 1640-41, this vote 
 was passed: "Its ordered y l euery man y* hath beene an 
 Inhabitant foure years shall haue power to sell all the Lands 
 that he is possessed of." 3 Perhaps there had been already 
 some sales by inhabitants of four years' standing, but this 
 vote removed the former restriction upon all such settlers. 
 Many lots were then bought and sold. It was a time when 
 each inhabitant could readjust his real estate to his means 
 and circumstances. This accounts for the fact that the 
 record of original grants, made by the first and second 
 recorders, is so often followed by entries, in John Steele's 
 hand, of lots acquired by purchase. It also supports the 
 conclusion that earlier entries were of lots received in their 
 plantation divisions. In certain instances, it is valuable 
 
 1 Burt's Hist, of Springfield, I: 158. 
 
 2 See Introduction to Original Distribution, by Albert C Bates. 
 
 3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 41. Cf. p. 1. 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 133 
 
 evidence that the prior owner was an early inhabitant — 
 that is, he must have been an inhabitant four years, or his 
 sale would have been illegal. Now, as the plantations had 
 not been competent to make any new divisions after the 
 adoption of the Constitution, until authorized by the 
 General Court, there are conclusive reasons for the claim 
 that these original grants had been made before January 
 14, 1638-9, and were, therefore, plantation divisions. In 
 other words, the first and second recorders, so far as returns 
 had been made, entered in the town's book the various 
 divisions of the North-side and South-side plantations. 
 They have thus given us the names that were early applied 
 to these tracts; lists of those who were inhabitants, or had 
 secured an inhabitant's right, probably before these tracts 
 were originally divided; some details as to the manner in 
 which their divisions were conducted; evidence that certain 
 settlers were, for various reasons, regarded with special 
 favor and not a little information as to the topographical 
 features of early Hartford. The order in recording these 
 lots may also indicate, in a general way, their progress in 
 developing the settlement. 
 
 In 1640, it was not customary to give detailed descrip- 
 tions of land. Under each settler's name is a list of his 
 various tracts. His house-lot is first. The general location 
 of his other tracts is usually given as in a section identified 
 by its name. We have also the acreage and abutting 
 owners, or bounds of the four sides. As no measurements 
 are given, the plotting of these tracts is laborious. Some- 
 times adjoining lots must be followed to a recognizable 
 landmark. The amount of land in any district or division 
 can only be ascertained by collecting all available data 
 concerning it. Upon the total area other conclusions are 
 based, such as the course of bounding highways, long since 
 abandoned. The task is like putting together the fragments 
 of a picture puzzle. Yet it is only by such tedious labor that 
 one can recover an historic representation of early Hartford. 
 
 The two plantations must have agreed in 1636 upon the 
 Little River as the boundary between them. Then or 
 later, they ran a line due west from the junction of its two 
 forks. This was the southern bound of Bridgefield, in con- 
 
134 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 nection with which it is termed "the deuiding lyne betwene 
 y e South & North side." This line is mentioned in quite 
 recent conveyances. House-lots were the first allotment. 
 These were intended to be about the same in size — "two 
 acres more or less." They were so generally more, that in 
 most sections there proved to be an excess of land. 1 House- 
 lots given by courtesy were usually of smaller extent and 
 were located in the same neighborhood. In the autumn 
 of 1636, all the inhabitants who had then arrived were 
 doubtless provided for. These house-lots have been plotted 
 from the records by William S. Porter, in whose plan of 
 Hartford in 1640 their location may be seen. In the older 
 parts of the town, this plan is equally applicable to the 
 plantations as they were in 1636. The division of other 
 tracts in each plantation was doubtless begun in that year. 
 Their immediate need of tillable land naturally turned 
 their attention, first, to the Little Meadow, lying between 
 Front Street and the river. It was the only tract on the 
 west side of that river in which the inhabitants of both 
 plantations participated as such, perhaps because the Dutch 
 had the best meadow land on the South-side. They divided 
 it into two sections, one lying north and the other south of 
 the road leading eastward through it, now the lower end of 
 State Street. The northern part contained about thirty- 
 five acres. It was distributed among as many North-side 
 inhabitants, four of the South -side being included with 
 them. The size of the lots varied from thirty perches 
 
 1 These lots were given out by estimate, which proved to be liberal. "In 
 every case where original lines have been determined," says Mr. Washburn, 
 "The amount of land within those lines has been proved to be from fifteen 
 to twenty-five per cent greater than was called for." This may be accounted 
 for by (the different chains then in use. Concerning this an old writer on 
 surveying says: "The stationary distance, or merings of ground, are measured 
 either by Gunter's chain of four poles or perches, which consists of 100 links; (and 
 this is the natural division) or by one of 50 links, which contains two poles or 
 perches: but because the length of a perch differs in many places, therefore 
 the length of chains and their respective links will differ also. The English 
 statute perch is 5£ yards, the two-pole chain is 11 yards, and the four-pole 
 one is 22 yards; hence the length of a link in a statute-chain is 7.92 inches. 
 There are other perches used in different parts of England, as the perch of 
 woodland measure, which is 6 yards, that of church-land measure, which is 
 7 yards, and the forest measure perch which is 8 yards." — The Theory and 
 Practice of Surveying, by Robert Gibson, page 145. See also Hartford Town 
 Votes, I: 72, 119. 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 135 
 
 to about two and a half acres. The highway to the 
 landing ran through this section, and there was a road 
 north and south in the southern part of it. The north 
 bound of this meadow was the two-acre lot originally used 
 for a cow-yard. Here the pioneers probably herded their 
 cattle. On the east was the creek where they were watered. 
 Just north of this lot was the road that crossed the creek by 
 a bridge into the North Meadow, now at the foot of Pleas- 
 ant Street. Here they maintained the meadow gate. The 
 cow-yard had fallen into disuse before January 11, 1640-41, 
 when the town gave it to Richard Olmsted in exchange for 
 his house-lot, then taken for a burying-ground, now called 
 the "Ancient Cemetery." The fact that this meadow lot 
 was entered among his lands by the second recorder, proves 
 that this scribe did not complete his work until after that 
 date, and presumably John Steele had not succeeded him 
 at the task. This lot was acquired later by Edward Steb- 
 bins and descended to his heirs. 1 The southern section of 
 the Little Meadow contained about twenty-seven acres. 
 It was distributed among twenty-three South-side inhabit- 
 ants. James Olmsted and Mathew Marvin of the North- 
 side also shared with them, perhaps because of a prior 
 occupation. The latter 's lot was an acre lying along the 
 Connecticut River, from the division roadway southward 
 to Dutch Point. West of this there was a row of small 
 lots. The others in the western part of this section ran 
 north and south, the larger ones being distributed to Haynes, 
 Hopkins, Wyllys, Welles and Webster. Three acres at the 
 point were then owned by the Dutch. All the participants 
 in this division of the Little Meadow are thought to have 
 had in 1636 an inhabitant's right in one of the plantations, 
 although some of them had not as yet arrived. The indica- 
 tions are that this tract was first used for corn-fields and 
 gardens. 
 
 The early settlers discovered at once the value of the 
 North and South meadows, annually fertilized by the spring- 
 time floods. The nearer portions of them were distributed 
 in 1636. Other divisions were not long delayed. The 
 North Meadow, or Long Meadow, extended from the gate 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 40, 41; Original Distribution, pp. 107, 190, 254, 255. 
 
136 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 at its entrance, northward along the Connecticut River to 
 Windsor. Its western boundary was the "Little River 
 falling out of the North Meadow," and, farther north, the 
 Soldiers' Field, the Neck and the upland. It was distrib- 
 uted exclusively among North-side inhabitants. At first, 
 the southern portion was divided in small lots. All the 
 original grantees are thought to have been legal inhabitants 
 in 1636. Later, there was another division of larger lots. 
 In both cases the allotments ran east and west. As dis- 
 tributed this meadow contained about eight hundred acres. 
 The land records indicate that about two-thirds of it were 
 sufficiently cleared to be described as "meadow." The 
 remainder was a thickly wooded swamp, lying largely along 
 its western side, whence the creek flowed. Parts of it were 
 named the "Dead Swamp." Here and there, other marshy 
 places and pools are mentioned. Trees were then scattered 
 over this meadow, but, if it was ever woodland, large open 
 areas had been cleared by Indian fires for planting fields. 
 The South Meadow offered the inhabitants on that side of 
 the Little River a large proportion of tillable land. It 
 extended from the Great River to the upland, and southward 
 to Wethersfield. The northern portion had a desirable 
 breadth. Some of this land had been already cultivated. 
 Lots here were very convenient, and it is not strange that 
 the settlers crowded the Dutch. They laid out a tier of 
 lots along the Little and Connecticut rivers, from Governor 
 Hopkins's house-lot to the Indian Land, reserving only the 
 site of the House of Hope and the Dutchmen's bouwerie. 
 On the southwest, these lots were bounded by the "Road 
 to the Indian Land." On the other side of this road, large 
 lots were granted to the principal South-side inhabitants. 
 In the meadow, farther south, there were at least four 
 divisions. For these they chose apparently the open areas 
 not occupied by the Indian reservations. There were 
 several forty-acre lots, some of which actually contained 
 considerably more than that amount. After the larger 
 divisions had been made, other tracts, as Porter says, were 
 taken up by "pitches." The records show that several 
 individuals were associated in the ownership of certain tracts. 
 There remained large areas of swamp. Some of these were 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 137 
 
 gradually cleared and cultivated. Haynes' Swamp became 
 in time Haynes' Meadow, and Ward's Swamp became Ward's 
 Meadow. Great Swamp was the largest, lying along the 
 river near Wethersfield bounds. There were also the Swamp 
 by the Great River, Dead Swamp, Clayboard Swamp, Dry 
 Swamp and Wet Swamp, with "Nod" near at hand. East 
 of the Dead Swamp was the Great Pasture. There was also 
 a Hangdog Pasture. Cole's Island, otherwise called Penny- 
 wise Island, Peck's Island or Standish Island, was at 
 Wethersfield bounds. It was involved in the town's bound- 
 ary disputes. Lots acquired later from the Indian Land 
 are usually so described. More than any section of early 
 Hartford, the South Meadow was altered in extent within 
 a few years. The lots of owners were increased or dimin- 
 ished, from time to time, by the fickle current of the Great 
 River. In the divisions of this meadow, Haynes, Hooker, 
 Stone and Goodwin shared with the South-side inhabitants. 
 It was utilized to a considerable extent in raising cattle. 
 Upwards of five hundred acres were early brought under 
 improvement. 
 
 One of the earliest needs of each plantation was pasturage 
 for cattle. Herders drove their cows to pasture in the 
 morning and returned them at night. The North-side 
 residents found a convenient place at the upper end of their 
 settlement. Here they set apart, at an early date, about 
 four hundred acres, and called it the "Cow Pasture." It 
 was bounded on the south by Westfield, Venturers' Field 
 and Pinefield. The northernmost lots in Venturers' Field 
 were those of Thomas Stanley and Richard Goodman, who 
 are named in the records as abutting owners. Probably 
 this tract was laid out before a highway, now Albany Ave- 
 nue, separated it from this field. The Cow Pasture was 
 bounded as one tract in the entries made by the early 
 recorders, and was held in common for some years. The 
 proportions, however, were known and are recorded. At a 
 later date, the common land on the north, to Windsor 
 bounds, was allotted, and the abutting owners of each lot 
 are given. This tract is also described as in the Cow Pas- 
 ture. The same is true of the land along Blue Hills, west 
 of the Little Ox Pasture, extending to the river, though 
 
138 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 lots there were named later after that locality. 1 At first, 
 this pasture land was heavily wooded. Here the early 
 settlers obtained much of the timber used in their buildings. 
 Thus it was gradually cleared. Some lots have been traced 
 in the deeds from woodland to pasture and then to fenced 
 farm land. Porter estimated this entire tract as containing 
 about one thousand acres. 
 
 East of this pasture was the Neck — a name then applied 
 to a narrow strip of land. It extended from Village Street 
 northward, along the hillside slope, to Windsor. On the 
 east was the North Meadow swamp for a long distance. 
 The common fence or road to Windsor was the western 
 bound, separating it from the Cow Pasture, on which earlier 
 allotments abutted. 2 There were two divisions in the Neck 
 among North-side inhabitants. It contained about four 
 hundred acres. 
 
 The Little Ox Pasture was west of the original Cow 
 Pasture. It was a tract of about one hundred and sixty 
 acres, divided into nineteen lots, lying on either side of a 
 highway running north and south through it, now Vine 
 Street. The land north of it was then common. South of 
 it was the road leading, in successive stages of development, 
 to the Common, Blue Hills or Simsbury, now Albany Ave- 
 nue. This pasture was an early division. It seems to 
 have been allotted to certain inhabitants who were omitted 
 in other divisions. All these north end tracts were used 
 at first for pasturage. 
 
 We do not know of any cow pasture held in common by 
 South-side inhabitants. They had, however, their Ox 
 Pasture of large extent, which was probably put to such 
 uses. It included the land from the South Meadow on the 
 east, to a north and south line running, says Porter, "on the 
 east side of the burying ground," now on Maple Avenue and 
 called the "South Burying Ground." On the north were 
 their house-lots. At first about four hundred acres were 
 distributed in large lots to the wealthier inhabitants. An- 
 
 1 Blew Hills was a frequent designation in early New England for hills having 
 that color when seen at a distance. The present spelling "Blue Hills" was rare 
 in those times, and became common later through French influence. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 163; Original Distribution, pp. 160, 132, 187. 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 139 
 
 other division later, extended this. pasture to the Wethers- 
 field line. The south-east section was sometimes called 
 "Southfield." Through these large lots the path, lane or 
 highway to Wethersfield ran. Poke Hill was west of it in 
 the second division. Much of this tract was marshy land 
 and was partly drained by a brook, which ran south in Hart- 
 ford and emptied into the Connecticut River in Wethersfield. 
 The Folly Brook channel eastward was cut through in 1726, 
 to further this drainage. The less prominent inhabitants 
 had liberal plantation allotments on both sides of the road, 
 from "George Steele's to the Great Swamp." This highway 
 originally ran along Lafayette Street, curving to the south- 
 east a little north of Park and reaching Washington near 
 Ward Street. West of it was the upland "Forty Acres," 
 a plantation division of small lots made among neighboring 
 residents of the town's courtesy class. On the north was the 
 highway over "Rocky Hill toward the Little River," called 
 later Baker's Lane, now Ward Street. It was an early road 
 to West Hartford. Zion Street led thence to the Stone Pits. 
 There were other divisions south and west of this tract. 
 They extended westward to Rocky Hill and continued south- 
 ward eventually to Wethersfield line. 1 West of Rocky Hill, 
 four hundred acres were divided in large lots. The Great 
 Swamp contained about the same amount. Much of it is 
 now included in Goodwin Park. The entries of some of 
 these upland lots were made by the second recorder. The 
 division was doubtless made at an early date. At first this 
 region was wooded and wild, but it was rapidly improved. 
 Cedar Mountain was a famous resort for wolves, which made 
 predatory raids upon the settlers' animals. Large holes 
 were excavated, baited and covered with brush to trap them. 
 These were called "wolf pounds," or "wolf pits." Jeremy 
 Adams willed his lot "at the wolfe pound" to his son-in-law, 
 Zachary Sandford. This was near Zachary's Lane, now 
 Vernon Street. Men were employed by the town to hunt 
 these wolves, and a reward was offered for killing them. 2 
 Early meadow divisions on the east side of Connecticut 
 
 1 Porter's Historical Notices, No. 2, p. 30; The Hartford Times, Aug. 8, 1890. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 11, 35, 58, 88, 159, 204; Original Distribution, pp. 
 196, 292, etc.; Conn. Col. Rec, I: 149, 283, 377, 561. 
 
140 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 River were made by both plantations. These were not 
 exclusively to the legal inhabitants. Residents of small 
 means, later arrivals and young men participated. As a 
 rule each plantation divided the land on its side of an east 
 and west line, but there were many exceptions. These 
 lots extended eastward to the Meadow Bank road. The 
 North-side tract was sometimes called Podunk; and Hoek- 
 anura was the name usually applied to South-side lots. In 
 the latter district large grants were made to the more promi- 
 nent settlers. This East-side land was used mainly for hay 
 and pasturage. When these early divisions were made, 
 the eastern bound was "upland," a tract held in common 
 by the proprietors of 1639 for many years, as already stated. 
 
 It is convenient now to begin at the square and note the 
 divisions westward. The first outlying tract to be appro- 
 priated for house-lots was Westfield. Some of these were 
 taken in the early summer of 1636, others in 1637. The 
 name suggests its location — west of the town-plot. Its 
 eastern boundary was Trumbull Street. The highway from 
 Centinel Hill to the Cow Pasture was on the north. This 
 road then continued beyond Tunnel Green toward Belden 
 Street, thence turning westward. A line running south- 
 ward from that point to the Little River was approximately 
 its western boundary, and afterwards the west bound of the 
 city. Following this line it separated Venturers' Field on 
 the west from a row of five Westfield lots, which abutted 
 east on the road from the Cow Pasture to Mr. Allyn's land, 
 now High Street. Some rods north of Church Street it 
 crossed the road to Venturers' Field or Brick-kiln, running 
 westward. South of this road were the remaining seven lots 
 of the above row, abutting west on the Birck-kiln lot, and 
 then Mr. Allyn's ten-acre swamp lying along Gully Brook. 
 On this lot the railroad station is now located. Westfield 
 was unquestionably a plantation division, but it was not 
 allotted by any rule, being reserved apparently for North- 
 side house-lots. 
 
 Venturers' Field was a rectangular tract, through which 
 there ran a north and south roadway from the Cow Pasture 
 to the Swamp, now approximately Edwards Street. On 
 the east side there were four lots, Nathaniel Ely's Brick-kiln 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 141 
 
 lot completing the tier. On the west side there were eight, 
 the southernmost owned by John Steele being poorer land 
 and nearly twice the size of the others. South of it was 
 William Wadsworth's swamp lot of eight acres. This field 
 contained about forty-one and a half acres, including Ely's 
 lot. It was distributed, as elsewhere stated, to adventurers 
 of 1635. 
 
 Pinefield bounded this tract on the west. A roadway 
 followed the ravine westward into it, continuing northwest 
 to the north fork of the Little River, otherwise called Ox 
 Pasture River, West River or Woods River. This road 
 intersected another passing through the tract from the Cow 
 Pasture to the Old Ox Pasture. The north boundary was 
 Albany Avenue. The road from the Mill into the Woods, 
 or into the Country, now Asylum Avenue, was on the south. 
 Its western boundary was an early road about where Sig- 
 ourney Street now runs. This probably followed an Indian 
 path northward from Rocky Hill, crossing Little River near 
 the upper falls and diverging to the northwest to pass over 
 Woods River near Albany Avenue, or to continue along the 
 ridge of Blue Hills. About seventy acres in Pinefield were 
 divided among twenty-seven North-side settlers, some being 
 of the town's courtesy class. The name was suggested by 
 the pine trees which grew in this section and are mentioned 
 in the records. In more recent times this section has been 
 called "Tower Hill," "Lord's Hill" and "Asylum Hill." 
 The last name is now often applied to the entire west section 
 of the city. 
 
 The Middle Ox Pasture extended westward from Pine- 
 field to common land or Woods River. This pasture is 
 bounded as one tract in the record of the original grants, 
 which was made by the second recorder. It appears to 
 have been given in certain proportions to six inhabitants, 
 about 1639, and to have been laid out later. Perhaps 
 it was a special allotment in recognition of some public 
 service. Here William Spencer acquired sixty-three acres 
 before his death, partly under the privilege of exchange. 1 
 
 1 The original grantees were William Spencer, Dea. Edward Stebbins, William 
 Kelsey, Serg. Thomas Spencer, William Parker and William Ruscoe. The 6rst 
 four lots were acquired by William Spencer, and were on the west side of the tract. 
 
142 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 The remaining North-side woodland, east of the north 
 fork of the Little River, was included in the Old Ox Pasture. 
 On the north was the road from the Mill into the Country, 
 and the tract extended southward to the river. This was 
 a plantation division made, it is believed, in 1638 or 1639. 
 The participants were the more prominent North-side in- 
 habitants, and their lots were large. Seventy-two acres 
 along its southern side and east of the cross-road near Sig- 
 ourney Street, were granted in one tract to Governor John 
 Haynes, Rev. Samuel Stone and Rev. Thomas Hooker. 
 Their respective shares, as laid out, were forty, twelve and 
 twenty acres. The Hartford Public High School is on 
 Governor Haynes's lot. Much of Mr. Hooker's is now in- 
 cluded in the Dixon place. The rest of this ox pasture is 
 also bounded in the records as one tract, the individual 
 proportions being given. Probably the lots had not been 
 laid out when the second recorder made his entries. A 
 few recorded later name the abutting owners. There were 
 about twenty original grantees who thus divided nearly 
 five hundred acres. The lots west of Sigourney Street ran 
 east and west. Mathew Allyn's was the largest and con- 
 tained sixty-four acres. Other original owners were Wads- 
 worth, Chaplin, Talcott, Pantry, James Olmsted, Westwood, 
 Steele, Marvin, Scott, Lewis, Hart, William Goodwin, 
 Thomas Stanley, Goodman, Richards, Webb and Grant. 
 Their proportions were in the order named. The lots at 
 the southern end of this tract, amounting to one hundred 
 acres, were acquired by Rev. Joseph Haynes and constituted 
 the "Nook Farm." It descended to his son John Haynes 
 and, at his decease in 1713, it was described as "in the Nook 
 of the River." Its value was then £100. Other lands 
 located in the bends of rivers bore this name. There was 
 a "nook" farther north, on Woods River. 
 
 The division and development of the land west of the two 
 forks of the Little River were materially affected by the 
 course of the highways leading thither. The earliest com- 
 munication with Farmington was by the Old Farmington 
 
 In 1684 William Edwards, who had married widow Agnes Spencer, conveyed this 
 tract to Thomas Lord (Land Rec, 1: 84). William Parker's six acres and William 
 Ruscoe's fifteen acres were sold in 1684 to Joseph Collier (Orig. Dint., p. 339). 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 143 
 
 Road along Retreat and New Britain avenues. This road 
 passed through the southern section of the Town Common. 
 North of it was Baker's Road, over Rocky Hill, which crossed 
 Hog River near Hamilton or Park Street, and ran through 
 the Common to John Seymour's, or Major's Corner. This 
 was an early highway to the West Division and was some- 
 times called the Middle Road to Farmington. Farther 
 north, was Gurney's Road. This was originally projected 
 as an extension of the road from the Mill into the Country, 
 to reach the Common. In 1686, Joseph Wads worth con- 
 veyed land to the town for that purpose, receiving in ex- 
 change a tract on Simsbury Road. 1 This extension was 
 accomplished later, through John Gurney's land to the river. 
 The bridge was known as Gurney's Bridge. In 1754, this 
 highway was laid out from the river to Prospect Avenue. 
 The same year a road from Wadsworth's, over the "First 
 Hill" southward, was opened. This route to West Hartford 
 was by Gurney's Road, along the above road southward to 
 Fern Street, where it turned westward. Still farther north, 
 was the Simsbury Road already mentioned. It crossed 
 the Little River at the Sheep's Bridge. The part just be- 
 yond, which passed the Wadsworth homestead, was some- 
 times called "Wadsworth's Road." It was also known as 
 the "Old North Road." In 1798, the General Assembly 
 laid it out as Talcott Mountain Turnpike. Nearer the 
 Windsor bounds there was another road. It was projected 
 in 1727, and was to run from the northeast corner of John 
 Pantry's lot on Blue Hills, westward to "Cole Pitt Plain," 
 then across Pantry's Brook, where there was a bridge, and 
 so to continue to the place where Nathaniel Jones first began 
 to make a dam. 2 In 1754 it was laid out through the 
 Common. It was little used and was finally discontinued. 
 This road is now the western portion of Tower Avenue. 
 There was probably in earliest times a cartway from the 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 1: 73; Hartford Town Votes, I: 259, 263, 265, 275, 283, 
 291, 319; MS. Vol. II: 91; State Archives: Towns and Lands, II: 79-84. 
 
 2 Nathaniel Jones married in 1713 Rebecca Pantry. They were the parents of 
 Pantry Jones. In 1719 the town gave Nathaniel Jones liberty to erect a fulling 
 mill on West River, and he was to hold the land while he had a mill there. Appar- 
 ently he abandoned his first intent. This road can now be easily traced to the 
 river, and the shoulder of Jones's dam remains, near a large oak tree. 
 
144 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Old Ox Pasture gate through the woods into the southern 
 section of the pasture. A highway to Haynes' Nook is men- 
 tioned in 1755. At the beginning of the last century, there 
 arose a demand for a direct road to West Hartford. The 
 General Assembly, therefore, in 1801 laid out Asylum Street 
 through lands then undeveloped, as a part of the Farmington 
 Turnpike Road. Thus Farmington Avenue, from the 
 junction westward, was established through the Old Ox 
 Pasture. 1 It passed through Mathew Allyn's original lot. 
 Part of this was acquired in 1818 by Joseph Morgan, when 
 he bought his farm on the north side of this road. His 
 farm-house stood on the elevation called in early times "Ox 
 Pasture Hill," near the site of the Cathedral. 
 
 All undivided lands in early times were called "commons." 
 This term was applied to various tracts in Hartford. One 
 of these was concretely named the "Town Common." On 
 January 30, 1672-3, the proprietors, who had recently ac- 
 quired by repurchase from the Indians a new title to the 
 lands west of those already divided, voted to distribute a 
 mile and a half of the west end the whole length of the town's 
 bounds. This was the West Division. The Mountain 
 Road was its west line. It was divided among the proprie- 
 tors according to the rule of 1639, in which proportion they 
 had been assessed for the recent purchase. They also voted 
 that the remainder, next to the lots already laid out, "Shall 
 be & remayn a common foreuer for the ufe & benifitt of 
 the Inhabitants of Hartford." 2 This tract was west of the 
 forks of the Little River, and east of the one and a half mile 
 tract. Its western bound was near Quaker Lane. On the 
 north it extended to Windsor, and, on the south, to Wethers- 
 field, now Newington. The only land in this Common that 
 had been already granted was Bridgefield. It was a rec- 
 tangular tract bounded south on the dividing line between 
 the two plantations, and east on the Little River. The 
 sides were two hundred rods east and west, and two hundred 
 and twenty-eight rods north and south. It contained two 
 
 1 See articles on Asylum Street and Farmington Avenue in The Hartford Times, 
 April 15, May 6, 1890, May 8, 1907, and March 9, 1909; and in The Hartford 
 Courant, May 21, 1887. 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 253, 254; MS. Vol. II: 54; Original Distribution, 
 pp. 551, 555. 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 145 
 
 hundred and eighty-five acres. Farmington Avenue now 
 divides this ancient field. In the records, it is bounded as 
 one tract. The earliest entries were made by John Steele, 
 indicating that it was not a plantation division. It was 
 laid out in 1697. 1 Among the original grantees were Haynes, 
 Hooker, Goodwin, John Allyn, Talcott, Stebbins, Wads- 
 worth, Goodman and Lewis. The names of some are un- 
 known. The John Knowles farm was in this field and 
 partly made up of Governor Haynes's lot. The development 
 of Bridgefield had been carried on many years before the 
 common land about it was divided. In its general char- 
 acter, the Common was woodland. It remained such for 
 many years. All the trees of the forest grew there. The 
 town frequently found it necessary to restrain the slaughter 
 of them. 2 Here and there, gigantic oaks are now standing 
 that escaped because they defied the woodsman's ax. This 
 Common was not altogether without activities. In 1732, 
 some acres of Pine Tree Hill were fenced for a sheep pasture. 
 It was land that Daniel Clark asked liberty to improve in 
 1699. Pine Hill, probably in the same neighborhood, was 
 a tract bounded on the west, north and east by West River. 3 
 In 1741, John Seymour Jr. leased from the town land in 
 the Common for tanvats. The name "Stone Pit Hill" was 
 applied to a tract bounded east, south and west by Woods 
 River, and north by Simsbury Road. 4 Here Timothy 
 Andrews and Nehemiah Cadwell received liberty to set up 
 a sawmill, in 1744. Presumably it was the same location 
 granted, in 1697, to Jonathan Ashley and John Marsh. At 
 the south end of the Common, near Piper's River, there 
 was another sheep pasture, probably for the South-side 
 inhabitants. At various times, the entire tract was put to 
 such uses. After about seventy-five years, however, its 
 career as a Common came to an end. 5 It had been en- 
 croached upon from the west. The rest of the land was 
 wanted for farm use. Its original projectors were dead. 
 
 1 Harfford Town Votes, I: 249, 254; Original Distribution, pp. 554, 555. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 220, 221, 271, 312, 321, 322; MS. Vol. II: 20. 
 
 3 Hartford Land Records, 3: 306; 5: 616; 7: 99; Hartford Town Votes, I: 
 256, 259; MS. Vol. II: 80, 114. 
 
 * Hartford Land Records, 20: 633; 28: 510; 44: 285. 
 
 * Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 4; The Hartford Times, June 5, 1893. 
 
146 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Still the "heirs and assigns" of the proprietors of 1639 were 
 alive and they owned it. At least the Court so decided, 
 after a memorable contest, as elsewhere related. In 1754, 
 the old Town Common was laid out in thirty-three tiers of 
 lots, and the tract was thus divided among the inhabitants 
 as preserved in the records. The list of participants fur- 
 nishes a valuable census of Hartford residents at that time. 1 
 The division of Soldiers' Field has been reserved for 
 special consideration, as it is generally admitted that the 
 original grantees of its lots were Hartford's soldiers in 
 the Pequot War. This tract extended from the road to 
 the North Meadow, now Pleasant Street, northward to the 
 swamp, and had the creek on the east. Its western bound 
 going north, was, in turn, the first Neck road, the swamp, 
 William Cornwall's lot and the Neck. There was an early 
 path or lane through it, from Mr. Allyn's house to the creek. 
 This was allowed to him, probably when the lots were dis- 
 tributed. South of it there were three one-rood lots. The 
 narrowest part of the tract was at its southern end. Its 
 width varied farther north. Porter reckoned the area of 
 this field as about fifteen acres. The calculations of Mr. 
 Francis H. Parker, based upon later ownership, make it 
 twenty-eight acres. 2 About one-half of its lots are recorded 
 as containing one rood. These were doubtless original 
 allotments. When the entries were made several had two 
 or three roods, and there were two four-acre lots. The 
 names of the twenty-nine owners recovered by Mr. Parker, 
 beginning at the north end, are as follows: Edward Elmer, 
 John Peirce, John Holloway, Nicholas Desborough, Benja- 
 min Munn, Nicholas Gennings, John Warner, John Purchase, 
 Thomas Root, William Pratt, Sergeant William Cornwall, 
 Richard Goodman, Zachary Field, Thomas Munson, Thomas 
 Barnes, William Phillips, Samuel Hale, Thomas Hale, Ser- 
 geant Thomas Spencer, Stephen Hart, John Bronson, 
 William Hayden, Thomas Olcott, Richard Olmsted, William 
 Blumfield, Jonathan Ince, George Steele, Nicholas Clarke 
 
 1 "Records of Hartford Town Common" in the State Library; "Town Common 
 Papers," in the collections of the Connecticut Historical Society; Hartford Land 
 Records, 8: last pages. 
 
 2 "The Soldiers' Field and its Original Proprietors," by Francis H. Parker, MS. 
 in collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 147 
 
 and John Clarke. It is known, however, that other Hart- 
 ford settlers served in the Pequot War, whose names are 
 not found in this list. 1 Several additional soldiers are 
 mentioned in narratives of the war. These are Rev. Samuel 
 Stone, Thomas Bull, Philip Davis, Nicholas Olmsted, Arthur 
 Smith and Thomas Stanton. The Colony also granted land 
 to others for such service. If all the following received their 
 grants for this reason, as some did, their names should be 
 added to the list: Peter Blachford (Col. Rec, II: 161), 
 Thomas Blatchley or Blakesley (Col. Rec, II: 133), Thomas 
 Bunce (Col. Rec, II: 154), John Hall (Col. Rec, IV: 276), 
 John Hills (Col. Rec, II: 161), Thomas Hurlbut (Col. Rec, 
 II: 161; V: 379), William Parker (Col. Rec, II: 196), 
 John Stone (Col. Rec, II: 100), Henry Walkley (Col. Rec, 
 II: 112), and Samuel Whitehead (Col. Rec, II: 150). 
 The Colonial Records also confirm the claims of twelve, 
 who had grants in Soldiers' Field. Various authorities, 
 presumably on good evidence, have added to these the 
 names of Benjamin Burr, Captain John Cullick, Robert 
 Sanford and John Stanley. In the three levies of the 
 Pequot War, Hartford was called upon for sixty-one sol- 
 diers. We have in the above lists the names of forty- 
 nine, and twelve are missing. Thomas Gridley and Edward 
 Lay are said to have enlisted from other towns, but being 
 later in Hartford, they may have been recognized here as 
 soldiers, by the town's bounty. 
 
 It is obvious that Soldiers' Field was not distributed before 
 1637. Reasons are given elsewhere for the opinion that 
 this tract was the site of the Indian village, and was sur- 
 rendered to the English after the war, probably for the 
 benefit of the soldiers. While the majority in the above 
 lists were afterwards proprietors, a considerable number 
 obtained their privileges by the town's courtesy. Most of 
 these are believed to have been recent arrivals when war 
 was declared. Some were young men, and perhaps had 
 emigrated in the service of older planters. It is noticeable 
 and significant, however, that only nine or ten of the lists 
 can be classed as South-side residents. That plantation 
 would certainly have furnished more than ten soldiers in 
 
 1 See Connecticut Soldiers in the Pequot War of 1637, by James Shepard. 
 
148 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 the Pequot War. We conjecture, therefore, that the 
 missing men were of the South-side, who had less use for 
 Soldiers' Field lots, and that they had at once sold their 
 rights to North-side soldiers, in whose proportions they are 
 included. To the latter, such lots were very valuable, 
 especially for garden use. John Bronson, William Hayden, 
 and others who lived near, may have thus acquired their 
 larger proportions. Soldiers' Field was of sufficient extent 
 to have provided a one-rood lot as a bounty for all of Hart- 
 ford's soldiers, with a larger grant to any who were officers 
 or had rendered special service. 
 
 The possession of these meadow lots, however, would not 
 have been the first consideration to any late arrivals or 
 young men of this victorious army. They needed, and 
 would have desired above all else, house-lots — that primary 
 grant of a plantation, which invited and established their 
 residence. The principle and practice of the inhabitants 
 in their divisions are strongly opposed to any gift of meadow 
 lots without a prior assignment of house-lots. Their 
 probable order of action was, that each plantation granted 
 house-lots to its soldiers, who were not already provided 
 for, and then the recently vacated meadow was divided by 
 a committee among all their soldiers. Let us look for these 
 house-lots. On the north side of the road from Centinel 
 Hill to the Cow Pasture, now North Main Street, there was 
 a row of such lots. Most of them were one-half acre in 
 size. The original owners going west were John Holloway, 
 Thomas Spencer, Thomas Fisher, Zachary Field, Thomas 
 Root, Benjamin Munn, Samuel Hale, Benjamin Burr, John 
 Warner, W 7 illiam Pratt, Nicholas Gennings, John Peirce, 
 Daniel Garrad, Nicholas Desborough and Richard Seymour. 
 All of these names are found in the above list of soldiers, 
 excepting Thomas Fisher, Daniel Garrad and Richard 
 Seymour. In 1640, the town gave Nicholas Gennings 's 
 lot in Soldiers' Field to Daniel Garrad. The house-lots of 
 Thomas Fisher and John Peirce had been sequestered for 
 them, but neither was sufficiently prominent to deserve a 
 reservation as a proprietor. 1 The latter surrendered his 
 and settled on the south side of the Little River. Across 
 
 1 Original Distribution, pp. 152, 157. 
 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 149 
 
 the road from this row of house-lots, were those of Thomas 
 Barnes, Thomas Munson, William Phillips, John Purchase 
 and Thomas Hale — all of them soldiers. John Bronson, 
 Sergeant William Cornwall and William Hayden lived 
 just below the hill on the east. Was there also a distribu- 
 tion of such house-lots in the South-side Plantation? Along 
 the road from George Steele's to the Great Swamp, now 
 Lafayette Street, we find another row of house-lots, prob- 
 ably allotted in 1637 or 1638. Most of these also contained 
 one-half acre. Their original owners going south were 
 William Holton, Paul Peck, Henry Walkley, Richard Watts, 
 William Watts, William Westley, Edward Lay, John 
 Olmsted, John Peirce, Richard Risley and George Steele. 
 This row overlapped, and Thomas Selden, Thomas Bliss, 
 Sen., and Thomas Bliss, Jr., had one-half acre lots in the 
 rear. Across the lane northward was the house-lot of 
 Thomas Bunce, and below the hill, was that of William 
 Blumfield. The names of six of these grantees are found 
 in the above list of soldiers. Captain Thomas Watts, the 
 renowned Indian fighter of 1675, was a son of Richard and 
 younger brother of William Watts. Dr. John Olmsted 
 was a surgeon in that service. Several of this group re- 
 moved at an early date to other plantations. Others died 
 before 1670. Thomas Selden forfeited his lot, but in 1640 
 the townsmen were authorized to make him an allowance 
 for his improvements. 1 Edward Lay had also then for- 
 feited his, by neglect to build upon it, but the town offered 
 to restore it upon the same conditions. Only five of the 
 entire number were alive, when the Colony made its grants 
 of land for service in the Pequot War, and Thomas Bunce 
 and Paul Peck were the only residents of Hartford. 
 
 These are the facts disclosed in an unprejudiced study of 
 the land records. They do not constitute historical evidence 
 upon which to base an affirmation, that all the original 
 owners of these two groups of house-lots did military service 
 in 1637. In the author's opinion, however, they make 
 such a conclusion seem quite probable. They at least 
 furnish thirteen new names for consideration. The missing 
 soldiers of the South-side quota should be sought among 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 42. 
 
150 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 the same class of inhabitants that furnished the majority 
 from the North-side. For an expedition into the enemy's 
 country, younger men and recent arrivals could better be 
 spared from the defenders of both plantations, which might 
 be assaulted at any moment. After this little army re- 
 turned victorious beyond all expectations, the inhabitants 
 of Hartford could do nothing less than receive their heroes 
 as residents of their plantations, and enroll their names at 
 least among the recipients of the town's courtesy, of which 
 class the soldiers in the Pequot War constitute a large 
 proportion. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 GROWTH OF THE TOWN 
 
 We invite the reader's company in the early springtime of 
 1640, as we stand together on the brow of Ox Pasture Hill 
 and look toward the rising sun, that we may view the 
 growing settlement of the proprietors of Hartford. All the 
 sights one sees to-day from the broad avenue that climbs 
 this hill westward, must be forgotten — the Capitol, the 
 park, the railroad, the high buildings and the teeming 
 thoroughfare. We are at the pasture gate, on the western 
 border of a pioneer settlement. The woodland is behind 
 us. A cartway, passing by a rude bridge over Brick-kiln 
 Brook and winding northward, leads up the partly cleared 
 hillside to our feet. A panorama is within our view, ex- 
 tending from the present Tunnel Park to the South Green. 
 Four years before, this tract was clothed with the forest. 
 An army of woodsmen has marched through it. Their 
 axes have left many scattered survivors, but everywhere 
 we see the logs and stumps that witness to their slaughter. 
 A limpid stream is visible on the south, flowing from the 
 woodland. Overhanging bushes border its banks. It en- 
 circles two or three islands in the lowland and, beyond, 
 tumbles over a fall and disappears from view. The land 
 we see is rough and hilly. To the right beyond the stream, 
 is a hill — now crowned with marble, which rises in stately 
 proportions to a gilded dome. Another hill, of conical shape, 
 is in the distance on the left, where, perhaps, we descry a 
 sentinel's lookout. In places, there are pools of water, or 
 patches of marsh grass. Just at the base of the hill, where 
 we stand, is a swamp, some acres in extent. It borders a 
 brook that flows down a gully from the northwest. Through 
 the leafless trees we can see, here and there, newly built 
 log-houses, and a few more pretentious. Some are in 
 process of erection. About them are plain out-buildings, 
 
 
152 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 strongly framed of unhewn logs, with fenced yards con- 
 venient for use, and gardens whose fertile soil hungers for 
 the tillage of civilization. In such a manner had these 
 settlers been accustomed to group the buildings that housed 
 their possessions in old England — even as the traveller 
 sees them to this day. At the eastern limit of our view, 
 these pioneer homes, separated by liberal intervals, seem to 
 have ranged themselves in a row from north to south, with 
 flanking rows from east to west, disclosing the location of 
 their main highways. Still farther east, down the slope, 
 is a parallel roadway. Its homes face a meadow, and 
 beyond is a great river. The stream that flows eastward 
 divides this settlement into two plantations. In some 
 measure, these topographical features directed the course 
 of their growth. 
 
 The area we have thus described, was largely the scene of 
 Hartford's development west of the river for about two 
 centuries, excepting only that of the agricultural interests 
 in the suburbs. Of this settlement in 1638, DeVries wrote, 
 it has "a fine church and a hundred houses." An examina- 
 tion of the entries of houses, made in the records in 1640, 
 shows that there were then at least sixty-three on the 
 North-side and fifty-three on the South-side, or one hundred 
 and sixteen in all. Some of the young men, or recent 
 arrivals, then recorded only "a parcel for a house lot." 
 Many of these houses were small habitations of the poorer 
 settlers. In 1654 the rateable persons in this pioneer com- 
 munity were only 177. Decades passed and added little 
 to its population. A census was made by the selectmen in 
 1761. It shows the increase of one hundred and twenty- 
 five years. There were then only 156 families on the 
 North-side, or 868 whites and 68 blacks. On the South- 
 side there were 720 whites and 41 blacks. East of the river 
 the population was 1588, and, in the West Division, 653. 
 Thus the total of the town's inhabitants was only 3938. * 
 This was a few hundred larger than the present population 
 of Suffield, which town may suffice to picture Hartford in 
 1761. Its list of estates that year was £39826 lis. 6d. 
 There were nine towns in the Colony that exceeded this. 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, XI: 574 n. 
 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 153 
 
 The census of 1756 gives Hartford a population of 3027. 
 This was surpassed by Windsor and Farmington. In 1774 
 the population had increased to 5031, and, in 1782, to 5495. l 
 The year before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, 
 the males in Hartford, from twenty to seventy years of age 
 inclusive, were 1022. In 1790, when Hartford was a newly 
 incorporated city, its population was 4090. Even so 
 recently as 1830, when nearing its bicentennial, its appear- 
 ance was that of a country town, with 9789 inhabitants. 
 An enumeration of its houses in 1786 gave the North-side 
 190, and the South-side 60, which was fifty less than Presi- 
 dent Ezra Stiles estimated were in the town. 2 
 
 The deductions from such facts are obvious. Our study 
 is concerned with a rural community. Compared with 
 modern times, the changes were few in the course of years. 
 Time slipped along and men were born, lived and died, 
 without witnessing any such alterations as every decade 
 now brings. Public improvements were forced by necessity, 
 rather than popular favor or artistic taste. No new vehicle 
 was invented that involved a revolution in the customs of 
 travel. The town's roads were repaired from time to time, 
 but the rider on horseback, and the farmer's cart, followed 
 the familiar trail of red mud for generations. Indeed, 
 about 1830 Mr. G. W. Kappell published a humorous paper 
 in Hartford, in which he narrated the experience of a citizen 
 who went to a hat lying in the street north of the State 
 House. He found a man under it. When he asked if 
 help was needed, the man replied: "No, I have a good 
 horse under me, and I guess I can get through." In colonial 
 times there was no demand for anything better than the 
 old dirt road. Grass grew along it, where the sheep and 
 cattle browsed on their way to pasture. The survivors of 
 the primeval forest, such as the Charter Oak, disappeared 
 one by one. Young trees were set out, or allowed to grow 
 up along the highways and about their homes. They came 
 to large proportions, but sometimes the descendants of 
 those who planted them still occupied the old homestead. 
 The first century saw no conspicious changes in the simple 
 architecture of their buildings. As a settler's means in- 
 
 1 Ibid., XIV: 485. J Diary of Ezra Stiles, III: 237. 266. 
 
154 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 creased, and saw-mills prepared abundant material, the 
 pioneer's log cabin gave place to a framed house. It was 
 many years before some of the original house-lots were 
 divided up, and the early groups of buildings were scattered. 
 Yet, little by little, the settlement of the founders was 
 transformed. The disorder of wilderness life disappeared. 
 Fields were cleared and seeded down. Stumps went to 
 decay. Hillocks were leveled. Swales were filled up. 
 Fences set bounds to their highways, and the trees spread 
 over them arches of shade. Such was the town in which 
 we are interested. To recover it from those early times, the 
 imagination must rebuild it, using such materials as the 
 ancient records furnish. 
 
 The early years of the settlers were chiefly devoted to 
 two spheres of labor, in the course of which the town was 
 developed without any special plan. These involved wide- 
 spread activities. The first was their building operations. 
 There were masons, carpenters and men of other trades in 
 the town, but most of this work was done by the settlers 
 themselves, with such supervision or assistance. Those 
 well built houses that have survived to recent times were 
 exceptions rather than the rule. One hundred houses of 
 the simplest type involved a deal of labor. If we compute 
 the number of trees required to erect them, with their out- 
 buildings and fences, we can readily understand how the 
 settlers would have cut off most of the available timber 
 within the town-plot before 1640. At first they dug "saw- 
 pits" where the trees had been felled. Over these they 
 rolled the logs. The familiar "whip-saw" was used, a 
 "top-man" working it from above and a "pit-man" from 
 below. Thus they prepared their timbers, planks and 
 boards. Their progress in erecting buildings may be 
 inferred from the fact that, on January 7, 1639-40, such 
 pits as were on public land, or not in use, were ordered to be 
 filled up, and all pits were to be protected by pales. The 
 regulations passed by the town the previous month indicate 
 that the settlers were even then seeking timber outside of 
 their limits on common land, and that they were "cleaving 
 and squaring" such timbers for the construction of better 
 buildings than they had at first. 
 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 155 
 
 Stones were in demand for underpinning and chimneys. 
 Their earliest supply was sought at the "falls" of the 
 riveret, near Thomas Lord's house-lot. It is only recently 
 that the removal of Daniels's dam disclosed signs of quarry- 
 ing, which was probably done there in those times. One 
 of their early orders, probably passed in 1637, forbade it 
 longer. They then opened a quarry at the lower falls, 
 where there is a ledge of red sandstone. It runs northwest 
 underneath the municipal building, in erecting which much 
 of it was excavated and placed along the banks of Park 
 River. Specimens of these early building stones are some- 
 times seen in old cellar walls, for, like oak timbers, they 
 often passed from an early building to its successor. Later 
 they took their stone from Rocky Hill. 
 
 Bricks soon came into general use. The brick-kiln was 
 established as early as 1637, in the hillside north of the 
 railway station. Clay was found there or in the neighbor- 
 hood, and the brook furnished a convenient supply of 
 water. Probably each settler made his own bricks. If 
 otherwise, the brickmaker's name is unknown. The kiln 
 was sufficiently patronized to demand a road thither. It 
 is believed to have been in operation for many years. In 
 1685, the town granted Evan Davy liberty to make a brick- 
 yard in the highway near Stephen Hopkins's lot, southwest 
 of the Capitol. Perhaps he had made bricks in that neigh- 
 borhood earlier, as he bought land there in 1681. A brick- 
 yard was conducted in 1702 by Wilterton Merrill, James 
 Easton and Richard Seymour. These bricks were of various 
 sizes from the first. The reason may have been that they 
 were put to different uses. Some were square and flat, as 
 if for paving floors or walks. Larger sizes would be more 
 suitable for chimneys; the smaller for filling in between 
 the studs of a house wall. An old brick, bearing the date 
 1672, and supposed to have been in the chimney of the first 
 Prior house in East Windsor, is 7 inches long, 3£ inches 
 wide and %\ inches thick. In the Richards house, the 
 bricks were 8 inches long, 4 inches wide and 2£ inches 
 thick, though the width and thickness were sometimes less. 
 Those in the Dorus Barnard house were 8^ inches long, 4 
 inches wide and 2§ inches thick. The Morrison house 
 
156 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 contains bricks of various sizes, probably because of its 
 rebuilt masonry. In 1685, the General Court, noting the 
 fact that there was a "variety of sizes used in the makeing 
 of bricks," ordered that "the length of all bricks shall be 
 nine inches and their bredth fower inches and a halfe and 
 that they be two inches and a halfe thick." 1 An act was 
 passed in 1770, making the size 8 inches long, 4 inches wide 
 and 2 inches thick. It was quite common for an early 
 brickmaker to put a date on one of his bricks, especially 
 when he made a quantity for some particular building. 
 Early handmade bricks can be found with the finger-prints 
 of the maker upon them. Yet these bricks, being laid in 
 clay and easily cleaned, frequently passed from one structure 
 to another, so that the date does not always give the correct 
 age of an edifice. Bricks of a later date were also used in 
 repairs. It is an error to suppose that bricks were brought 
 in any large quantity from England. 
 
 The second sphere of their early labors was agriculture. 
 There is ample evidence in the records that these were 
 arduous. Other than Indian corn, they had little grain to 
 consume for several years. Their limited supply of English 
 wheat, rye and peas was needed for seed. The natives 
 furnished much of their corn. At times this was scarce. 
 In 1638, the price was 5s. per bushel. It was reduced to 
 3s.. in 1641, and the next year to 2s. 6d., which was the 
 standard of value for several years. Wheat was then 
 4s. 4d. per bushel; rye and peas 3s. 6d. Grain was largely 
 their medium of exchange, so they planted their fields with 
 hard cash. As an example of the average planter, we may 
 cite Richard Lyman's estate. He had suffered in the loss 
 of cattle at the time of his removal. When he died in 1641, 
 his herd numbered four, besides three goats and eight hogs. 
 His inventory also shows that he had planted that year 
 five acres of Indian corn, three roods of peas and barley, 
 and an acre each of summer wheat, oats and meslin — a 
 mixture of wheat and rye. Presumably this shows the 
 progress of his agricultural labors after five years. James 
 Olmsted, who died in 1640, had besides three horses, a herd 
 of thirteen, the same number of swine and four goats. Of 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, III: 192. 
 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 157 
 
 Indian corn he had 160 bushels, 30 of summer wheat and 
 12 of peas. William Wadsworth was a prosperous farmer 
 of early times. At his death in 1675, he had 11 cows, 1 
 bull, 4 yoke of bullocks, 10 young cattle, 7 calves, 13 hogs, 
 4 young swine, 5 horses, 3 colts and a mare with her colt. 
 The raising of sheep increased in later colonial times. In 
 1671, the town ordered certain highways, then to be staked 
 out, "to bee Cleered for sheepe pasture." A shepherd was 
 in charge of the flock. Complaint was made in 1774, that 
 the sheep turned into the highways ate up the grass used 
 by the poor inhabitants. 1 At this time, Hartford was a 
 thriving agricultural community. A visitor in 1788 says, 
 "It is a confiderable rural town; the greater part of the 
 inhabitants live by agriculture; fo that eafe and abundance 
 univerfally reign in it." He also speaks of the "vaft 
 meadows covered with herds of cattle of an enormous 
 size." 2 During early years, the fields fit for cultivation 
 were limited. They had a large amount of provender to 
 provide for their cattle in winter. Many buildings were 
 required for shelter. This was surely an arduous task for 
 the hardiest English yeoman. The town's orders show, 
 also, that they needed many fences. Their yards and 
 gardens were enclosed with paling. This was made of 
 stakes driven into the earth, and fastened to one or more 
 horizontal rails. Pales were from three to six feet in length, 
 according to their use. They also fenced their cornfields 
 and meadows, often to no purpose, as frequent suits for 
 damages prove. On the side toward the town they fenced 
 their pastures. Swine soon became numerous in the settle- 
 ment. They were a necessity, but the forefathers were 
 almost plagued to death by them. As they were then given 
 the freedom of common lands at times, they naturally be- 
 came wild. They broke down the fences, and the settlers 
 suffered extensive damages. 
 
 If now we can imagine the inhabitants of this settlement 
 as busy as bees for some years in these employments, we 
 shall see how naturally the town grew. Their earliest 
 highways were not laid out by the town. They were de- 
 
 1 Ibid., XIV: 216. 
 
 2 New Travels in America, by J. P. Brissot de Warville, pp. 72, 73. 
 
158 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 termined by the topography of the land and the activities of 
 the inhabitants. After their house-lots were located, the 
 town soon found out where the people wanted to go. It 
 made there a highway, the lines of which were established 
 in due time. The way a settler found most convenient in 
 reaching his employment was followed by others, until it 
 became a road. To the woods he went for his timber; to 
 the falls for stone; to the kiln for clay or brick; to the 
 meadow for hay; to the pasture with his cows; to the mill 
 with his corn; to the mouth of the meadow creek for his 
 boat to cross the river, and to Windsor or Wethersfield to 
 see his friends. Others did the same. Soon roads were 
 made, which survive to this day as the city's streets. It is 
 significant that no highways now cross Main Street east and 
 west. The eastern portion of Pearl Street was laid out 
 where it is, because it was a convenient route to the mill. 
 The same is true of all early highways. Hence their roads 
 came to be named according to their destination, or the 
 places and residences that were thus connected. Some- 
 times these occur in reverse order in the records. The 
 road from the Meeting House to the Mill was through 
 Pearl, Trumbull, Jewell and Ford streets. It was also 
 named "Town to the Mill" and "Old Mill to the Meeting 
 House." The eastern end was sometimes designated as 
 "Seth Grant's to the Meeting House." The extension 
 farther west had destinations according to the development 
 of the settlement — "to the Ox Pasture," "to the Country," 
 "to the Middle Ox Pasture," "to the Woods," "to the 
 Little River" and "to the Commons." After the new mill 
 had been erected at the falls, the road from it westward 
 also received the ambiguous designation "Mill to the Ox 
 Pasture." Centinel Hill was another place of departure 
 for highways. They ran thence "to the Cow Pasture," 
 "to the Neck," "to the North Meadow" and "to Seth 
 Grant's." The latter was usually named "Seth Grant's 
 to Centinel Hill," now Trumbull Street, from Pearl north- 
 ward. In time, Centinel Hill came to be called "Pound 
 Hill," and the names changed accordingly. The entire 
 length of this highway was named "Little River to Centinel 
 Hill," or, "Thomas Stanton's to Centinel Hill." John 
 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 159 
 
 Steele lived where the Travelers Insurance Company- 
 building is. When he recorded his lot, he bounded it on 
 the west by "the hyway Leading from the olid Palifado 
 Now fro the mell to the meeting houfe." As the bridge 
 became a conspicuous landmark, this street received the 
 names "Bridge to the Meeting House," or "Bridge to 
 Pound Hill." Another place of departure was George 
 Steele's house, at the corner of Washington Street and 
 Capitol Avenue. Hence we have the name, " George Steele's 
 to the Mill," applied to the road along Trinity Street, turn- 
 ing then north-west around Capitol Hill to the site of the 
 upper mills. The road from his house southeast joined 
 Buckingham Street near the South Church and continued 
 eastward. It was the highway from "George Steele's to 
 the South Meadow." The section east of Main Street was 
 also named "Giles Smith's to William Gibbons'." The road 
 from "George Steele's to the Great Swamp" led through 
 Lafayette Street, joining Washington Street farther south. 
 One of their longest highways started at the upper mills and 
 went eastward through Elm and Sheldon streets. There 
 was a similar road along the north side of the Little River, 
 now Arch and Wells streets. That portion of Main Street 
 south of the river was called the "Road to Wethersfield" 
 and the "Road to the Ox Pasture." The town, bridge or 
 river, were sometimes its place of departure, and southward 
 from Buckingham Street, the home of John Moody. There 
 is, indeed, scarcely a highway that had not several names 
 applied to it during early years. These continued in use 
 for a long time in the land records. Probably in conversa- 
 tion all roads were designated according to their destina- 
 tion. In the course of time, however, the town's streets 
 came to be named after some feature or the location. It 
 was convenient to speak of "the broad hyway." So their 
 principal thoroughfare became "Broad Street," just as, 
 at a later time, "the main street" became "Main Street." 
 Trumbull Street was at first called "the back street," and 
 then "Back Street." Other town streets were conveniently 
 spoken of as the road that passed the home of some well- 
 known resident. This was a natural origin of the custom 
 of naming streets after certain citizens. As the town-plot 
 
160 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 became more clearly defined, highways were said to lead 
 from the town to some suburban place or neighboring 
 town. In 1G79, the General Court ordered that roads from 
 plantation to plantation "shall be reputed the country 
 roades or King's highway." 1 For this reason, probably, 
 the road from the Meeting House to the Little Meadow 
 came to be named "King Street." Main Street north of 
 the square was then called "Queen Street." The cart 
 tracks in these ancient highways were not necessarily 
 straight for any considerable distance. The land reserved 
 for them was of liberal width, and the roadway might be 
 made in any part of them according to the driver's con- 
 venience. 
 
 The growth of a town is usually revealed in the condition 
 of its highways. Imagine the appearance of Main Street 
 as it must have been in 1640 — a wide swath that the ax 
 had cut through the forest, with a road finding its way from 
 end to end, over swales and around stumps. The improve- 
 ment of such roads was an early public service. In 1640 it 
 was ordered that every man fit for service should work on 
 them one day, magistrates and church officers excepted. The 
 two highway surveyors were empowered, in 1641, to call 
 out the train-bands and teams for two days; and he who 
 refused to respond was to be reported to the Particular 
 Court. Two years later another call was made, to work 
 on the highway from the bridge to the meeting-house, 
 "vntell the worck be finished." That year, also, the eight 
 residents on the north bank of the Little River were freed 
 from common work on the roads, on condition that within 
 that time they made our present Wells Street "pasabell 
 with loden carttes," at their own charges. It was years 
 before the settlers realized how much work was necessary 
 on their highways. They then vested in the townsmen 
 extraordinary powers to compel such public service. In 
 1760 the General Assembly granted the privilege of a 
 lottery to raise £300, "for the repairing the main streets in 
 the town of Hartford." 2 
 
 One of their early public works was the construction of 
 causeways. These were paths made of stones, logs and earth, 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec., Ill: 30. • Ibid., XI: 411. 
 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 161 
 
 raised above the natural level of the highway, to afford a 
 dry passage for the feet. In England they were then in 
 general use. The earliest was constructed in Hartford in 
 1644. It was along Main Street, for it is described as leading 
 "to the metting hous and vp the lane to the pound by tho 
 Spenser." The pound was west, and Thomas Spencer's 
 house north of Centinel Hill. Probably others were soon 
 built, for, in 1646, it was forbidden, under penalty of six 
 pence, to ride a horse on any causeway that led to the meet- 
 ing-house, except to cross it. Two years later, the driving 
 of cattle or carts upon any of the "Causyes that Lead from 
 any parte of the Towne to the meeting howse" was prohib- 
 ited. That year, also, it was ordered that such causeways 
 be constructed on the South-side, from George Steele's, 
 Thomas Hosmer's and Mrs. Wyllys's, to the bridge over 
 Little River; and, on the North-side, from William Phillips's, 
 William Kelsey's and William Westwood's, to the meeting- 
 house. These paths, with those supposed to have been 
 built earlier, would have served most of the inhabitants. 
 Each side was to do its own work; and if either failed to 
 complete the work on or before the last day of September, 
 it was to pay forty shillings to the other side. This was 
 surely a friendly rivalry in preparing the way of the Lord. 
 Such facts show us the early town in its rural simplicity. 
 The value of sidewalks as now constructed, was not recog- 
 nized for more than a century. In 1758, the streets being 
 "very miry at times, unfit for walking on foot," the efforts 
 of divers persons to make foot walks, probably in front of 
 their own homes, were encouraged by the town, and their 
 walks protected from misuse by horses, very much as the 
 causeways had been in 1646. 1 
 
 Such details help us to understand how encroachments 
 upon their highways came to pass. In those early times 
 they had no thought of future city streets. An old English 
 town would better illustrate their ideal. Highways that 
 were so little regarded by the public naturally became the 
 prey of abutting owners. They pushed out their fences to 
 suit themselves, gradually taking in land that was not 
 occupied by the roadway. This was encouraged by the 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 178. 
 
162 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 town's grants of land in the highways and the meeting- 
 house yard. In 1644, John Talcott was given liberty to set 
 a cart house in front of his home lot. Others, from time to 
 time, received similar locations for shops. Being so liberal 
 in such matters, the town would hardly notice the encroach- 
 ment of a fence. Thus, like the crowd viewing a procession, 
 others moved out to get in line. The width of Main Street 
 was in this way diminished in places, especially north of 
 the square. That the tenants of the Ancient Burying 
 Ground could not follow the custom is doubtless the reason 
 for the width of the street in front of it. In 1683, the town 
 took action to prevent encroachments. The General 
 Assembly also did the same in 1724. * The early conditions 
 could not be restored in the town's main streets. The 
 people had slumbered so long that the rights of abutting 
 owners had been secured, and many practical difficulties 
 hindered reform. 
 
 It is evident that the settlers needed pounds from the 
 first. Their contention with the Dutch made one impera- 
 tive on the South-side. On December 26, 1639, it was 
 "ordrd that ther shalbe two pounds made w th 6 Rayls 40 
 foote square: one on the one syd the River the other on the 
 other side, to be Reddy by Aprell." A pound was also 
 established early at Hockanum; but it was apparently given 
 up and the land allotted. Later, two were located else- 
 where. 2 The South-side pound was near the southeast 
 corner of Andrew Bacon's house-lot, on the road from 
 George Steele's to the South Meadow. 3 The North-side 
 pound was northwest of Centinel Hill, near the corner of 
 Thomas Burr's lot. In 1742, the selectmen were authorized 
 to exchange this tract with Thomas Burr, Jr., and a new 
 pound was established near-by on the west side of Trumbull 
 Street. 4 
 
 The changes of a century in the neighborhood of Centinel 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, \l: 449,450; VII: 34. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 46-48, 82, 189; Original Distribution, p. 458; Good- 
 win's Hiit. of East Hartford, p. 70. 
 
 3 Original Distribution, p. 3G7; Hartford Land Records, 1: 19, 69; 5: 310; 8: 
 46, etc. 
 
 * Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 117, 162, 256; Hartford Land Records, 
 7: 112, 356, 357. 
 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 163 
 
 Hill, will serve to illustrate the process of development that 
 was carried on in all parts of the settlement. The hill itself 
 was an elongated elevation, with its summit a little west of 
 the present corner where Main Street turns to the northwest. 
 On the theory that civilization reduces hills and fills up 
 valleys, though rarely to a level, the topographical map of 
 Hartford made in 1892, gives the base of this hill in its 
 contour lines. The rise began as far south as Church Street 
 and extended in a curve to the northwest, near Trumbull. 
 The design of the pioneers, apparently, was to have this 
 hill to command the neck on the north, and, at the southern 
 end of a broad highway, the palisado to command the Little 
 River. It was a splendid location for their plantation. 
 Perhaps signals could once be exchanged between the hill 
 and the South Green, as tradition relates. On the east 
 side of the hill the slope descended abruptly into a swale 
 or ravine. The late Dr. Gurdon W. Russell, who had an 
 intimate acquaintance with the neighborhood, once pointed 
 out a spot, in Main Street at the head of Morgan, where he 
 saw in an excavation, twelve or fifteen feet below the present 
 grade, a large log. His conclusion was as above stated, and 
 the records confirm it. In early times there was no road 
 on that side of the hill. The house-lots of Goodman and 
 Lewis, farther south, were bounded on the west by a high- 
 way; but those of Talcott and Elmer had Centinel Hill 
 for a western bound. This explains the language of the 
 town votes as to the causeway. It went "vp the lane to the 
 pound." The road from the meeting-house northward had 
 room enough until it came to the hill. Then it was com- 
 pelled by the swale on the eastern side to follow the western 
 base to the pound, narrowing its width to a "lane." There 
 it divided, the western branch leading to the Cow Pasture, 
 and the eastern swinging around in front of Thomas Spencer's 
 lot to the North Meadow, as shown in Porter's plan. There 
 was a chase way up the slope from William West wood's lot, 
 between those of Elmer and Ely. Probably there was a 
 spring in the road to the meadow. In 1644, the town 
 appointed a committee to view "the plase that Nath Elly 
 desiers to draw watter in to his lott outt of the highway." 
 Perhaps a pioneer's path to the spring grew into a chaseway, 
 
164 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 which the cattle of Front Street followed to pasture. Its 
 modern successor is Morgan Street, laid out in 1788. The 
 settlers began at an early date to fill up the swale, naturally 
 by grading down the hill. They thus extended their main 
 throughfare northward, to connect directly with the road 
 to the North Meadow. This improvement covered many 
 years. In 1655, the Elmer lot, having passed to Colonel 
 John Allyn, was still bounded west by the hill. Ten years 
 later, the owner was given "liberty to improve the land 
 fro the corner of M r9 Tallcotts ffence to the Chasse lane." 
 The inhabitants were forbidden, in 1660, to "digg or cary 
 away any earth from Sentinell hill," without the consent of 
 Ensign Talcott and John Allyn, under penalty of two shill- 
 ings a load. Probably the earth was wanted for filling on the 
 east. In 1709, the Allyn lot was bounded west by the high- 
 way. As the extent of the hill was decreased, the lane to 
 the pound was widened. An open area was thus established. 
 Next south of it, was the house-lot originally recorded to 
 Mrs. Dorothy Chester. In 1639 her liberty to build upon 
 it was extended two years, but it is not known whether she 
 ever lived there. It was probably acquired by Richard 
 Webb, whose lot bounded it on the south and was included 
 in the three and one-half acres that he sold in 1651 to Barthol- 
 omew Barnard. This lot was then bounded on the north, 
 east and west by highways. For many years thereafter, it 
 was the Barnard homestead, around which were gathered 
 the homes of some well-known Hartford families of that time. 
 It was one of the town's fortified houses in 1689, when there 
 was danger from the Indians. The others were the houses 
 of Samuel Wyllys on Charter Oak Hill, James Steele at the 
 corner of Washington Street, and John Olcott on the Windsor 
 Road. 1 At the death of Bartholomew Barnard in 1697, 
 his homestead passed to his son Sergeant John Barnard, who, 
 in 1734, bequeathed the northwest corner to Jonathan 
 Olcott, and the balance to Joseph Olcott. Meanwhile, the 
 hill having disappeared, the abutters had extended their 
 bounds northward. In 1756, Colonel Samuel Talcott 
 petitioned the town for a small piece of land "on the Hill," 
 north of Joseph Olcott's house "at the Turn of the High- 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 228. 
 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 165 
 
 way," to set a building upon "for a shop or Ware Houfe." 
 At the same time, Isaac Pratt asked for land at this place 
 for a blacksmith shop. The former purchased, however, 
 part of the Olcott lot. He erected there the warehouse, 
 which is still standing a short distance back from the street. 
 This property he conveyed, in 1770, to his son Samuel 
 Talcott. It then had upon it "a Shop or Store Houfe." 
 Near the old pound Thomas Burr had received in 1695, a 
 grant "oute of y e highway aganst his house." In this shop 
 his son, Thomas, afterwards plied his trade as a shoemaker. 
 Probably there were, later, other small shops in that neigh- 
 borhood, which ultimately furthered the diminution of the 
 open area. In 1760, the old home where the Barnards and 
 Olcotts had lived, with its barn and orchard, passed out of 
 Joseph Olcott's hands, and, in 1763, it was bought by 
 Captain Jonathan Wadsworth. 1 He also leased the original 
 lot of John Hollo way, the blacksmith. This was across the 
 street, and had been an early bequest to the First Church. 
 Thus the site of Centinel Hill was on its way to be divided 
 up and put to the uses of trade, as seen to-day. 
 
 The process of transformation illustrated in this locality 
 was carried on everywhere within the settlement. Swales, 
 mudholes and ponds were filled up. There were once two 
 ponds a little west of Main Street and south of Centinel Hill. 
 They were called "Barnard's Ponds," or "Day's Ponds." 
 In 1733, an attempt was made to drain them across Main 
 Street, to which the town objected. 2 Within the memory of 
 recent inhabitants, all the land at the lower end of Pearl 
 and Asylum streets was low and wet. Near High Street, 
 there was a hill where bricks were once made. North of 
 the square, near Market Street, the houses once stood on a 
 considerable elevation. This was also the case on the north 
 side of Asylum Street. Underneath the surface of the 
 present city, with its builded squares, level pavements and 
 easy grades, there are unmistakable signs, sometimes re- 
 vealed in excavations, of that rough and wooded tract upon 
 which the early settlers labored to bring forth better things. 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 10: 220, 339, 340. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 82. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 
 
 On February 21, 1636-7, the settlement the forefathers had 
 called "Newe Towne" was formally named by the General 
 Court, "Harteford Towne." The reason assigned for this 
 action in the colonial records is the commendable practice 
 of giving to their new plantations the names of "some 
 Citties and Townes in England, thereby intending to keep 
 vp and leaue to posterity the memorial of seuerall places of 
 note there, as Boston, Hartford, Windsor." * The former 
 residence of Rev. Thomas Hooker not being of sufficient note, 
 the birthplace of Rev. Samuel Stone was naturally suggested. 
 This historical relationship to one of the famous cities of 
 England, is now expressed in the seal of the City of Hart- 
 ford — "Ar. An American Hart proper, fording a stream, 
 trippant, in fess: in a Landskip, in middle base, a Grape 
 Vine bearing fruit, naissant from a strip of earth — all 
 proper. Crest. An American Eagle proper, displayed. 
 Motto. Post Nubila Phoebus." The early purpose of the 
 town's founders had died out, however, when, in 1785, 
 Colonel Samuel Wyllys, alderman, and John Trumbull, 
 Esq., councilman, reported a device for the seal of the newly 
 incorporated city. The year before, a strange craft had 
 appeared on the river. It consisted of two flat-boats lashed 
 together side by side, with a platform on top, upon which 
 circling horses created power for paddle-wheels on each side. 2 
 The year following, John Fitch won his success with the 
 steamboat at Philadelphia. He is said to have experi- 
 mented on the Connecticut River earlier. A new era in 
 Hartford's commercial life was at hand. 3 Projects were 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 313; The Hartford Courant, Jan. 8, 1895, Dec. 28, 1906, 
 and April 27, 1907. 
 
 2 The Connecticut Courant, July 13, 1784. 
 
 3 "The Navigation of the Connecticut River," by Wm. De Loss Love, in Proc. 
 of the Am. Antiq. Soc, April, 1903. 
 
Coat of Arms, after the City's Seal 
 Adopted in 1852 
 
 The First Seal of the 
 City of Hartford, 1785 
 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 167 
 
 being discussed to deepen the river channel, and were, later, 
 realized. The community was enthusiastic with a revived 
 interest in trade, which many hoped to extend to foreign 
 ports. The day of the Great River that had tarried so long 
 had come. Thus it happened that the above committee 
 reported as follows: "Connecticut River, represented by 
 the figure of an Old man crowned with Rushes, seated against 
 a Rock, holding an Urn, with a Stream flowing from it; at 
 his feet a net, and fish peculiar to the River lying by it, with 
 Barrels and Bales; over his head an Oak growing out of a 
 Cleft in the Rock, and round the whole these words, 'Sig- 
 illum Civitatis Hartfordiensis.'" l 
 
 There is no more appropriate device in which to sym- 
 bolize the sources of Hartford's early development than this 
 first seal. It sets forth the indebtedness of the town to 
 the Connecticut River. That was the great highway to 
 their settlement from the outside world. To it, they com- 
 mitted many a venture for distant ports. It provided their 
 tables, in season, with the choicest fish. It fertilized their 
 meadows, and it brought to their homes many coveted 
 luxuries. Thus it was the main artery of their early life. 
 
 In his plan of Hartford in 1640, Porter located the western 
 bank of the river some distance east of the same in 1824. 
 He evidently thought it had been worn away in the course 
 of two centuries. This is true. The main reason for it 
 was the gradual closing of the channel eastward of two 
 islands lying along the opposite bank. Among the allot- 
 ments, there was granted to Thomas Bird "an Hand 
 Lying Nere the Eaft Side of the grett Riuer ouer againft the 
 Landding plac Contayn by Eftima fortenne acres be it more 
 or les Abutting on the Grett Riuer whare the brim of it was 
 at a ordanary watter in the yeare one thoufand Six hundreth 
 forty & fower." In 1659, the town appointed a committee 
 "to veiw Goodman Birds Island & Stake it out to him." 
 Nothing was done and, in 1660, another committee was 
 named to "apoynt Thomas burd the bounds of his Hand 
 ouer against the town." The necessity for settling its 
 bounds indicates that there was even then a swale between 
 it and the main land. On May 3, 1660, Bird sold this island 
 
 1 Common Council Records, A, p. 16. 
 
168 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 to Jonathan Gilbert, among whose lands it is described as 
 lying "ouer against y e Comon landing place" and abutting 
 "on y e great riuer weft on y e dutch Island & on y e mead 
 lotts East, & against the litle riuers mouth Sow th ." Gil- 
 bert bought the Dutch island the same year. It was the 
 island of two acres, "ouer againft y e Sow th end of y e litle mea- 
 dow," that had been sequestered in 1654. The meadow 
 lots east of it were owned, in 1673, by John Crow, who 
 declared in a document that he would not claim any land 
 west of his mere stones, which "Stand & all waves haue Stood 
 of [on] the Brow of the Hill or Banck on the ends of my 
 [his] lotts, by the run of valey that lyeth between my [his] 
 Sayd meadow lotts, & that which was formerly Caled the 
 dutch Island." 1 It seems, therefore, that these islands were 
 then disappearing into the mainland. In 1640, there was 
 doubtless a large flow of water east of them, and, in some 
 distant past, the channel may have been farther east. 
 These islands remained in posession of the Gilbert family for 
 some years. 2 In 1709 the larger island passed to Samuel 
 Howard. They can now be traced by the contour lines. 
 
 As the channel on the east became closed, the force of the 
 current was expended on the western bank and gradually 
 wore it away. The total area of the Little Meadow, however, 
 was not greatly lessened. Most of the diminution was east 
 of the North Meadow creek and north of the landing place, 
 where there was a strip of unallotted land. In 1655 it is 
 described as "an island." At its northern limit was the 
 upper mouth of the creek, for that stream bounded the 
 southernmost lot of the North Meadow on the west and 
 south. 3 The Little Meadow lots, abutting east on the 
 creek, were protected, therefore, by the strip of town land, 
 part of which was gradually worn away. In the course of 
 improvements, the creek's lower mouth was closed and the 
 bed filled in, thus securing to the town for public uses the 
 land along the river. In 1773, the General Assembly granted 
 a petition for a lottery to raise funds for the protection of 
 
 1 Original Distribution, p. 391. 
 
 2 Hartford Land Records, 1: 50,401,520; i: 19; Manwaring's Hartford Probate 
 Records, I: 307; State Archives: Private Controversies, II: 130. 
 
 5 Original Distribution, p. 104. 
 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 169 
 
 this bank. Wharves built there later were called the 
 "Lottery Wharves." It was stated in the memorial that 
 the landing-place had been "much enlarged and made very 
 convenient, but was in danger of being ruined by the river's 
 current, unless defended by public aid. 1 A committee, 
 appointed by the city in 1792 to ascertain what land near 
 the landing was public property, reported that, since 1677, 
 the river's bank had been worn away for a considerable dis- 
 tance. 2 The deeds indicate that there was along the river, 
 in early times, some swamp land. This was doubtless 
 washed away and the depth of water increased. 
 
 At the landing-place where there was a substratum of 
 rock, they found a convenient locality for most of their 
 early river traffic. This was an important center for two 
 centuries. Rev. Thomas Hooker may have foreseen the high 
 value of land in the neighborhood when he acquired here 
 four acres. His eastern bound was the creek, the landing- 
 place and the highway to it, now Kilbourn Street. This 
 land descended in the family for several generations. Timo- 
 thy Stanley owned the triangle south of this, at the corner of 
 Kilbourn and Front streets. It remained in the possession 
 of his family for more than a century. In 1742 it passed to 
 Timothy Bigelow. The Road to the Ferry was bisected 
 by another from the south. The lot east of this abutting 
 on the river, afforded a desirable site for their early ware- 
 houses. It comprised one acre. Its original owner was 
 Thomas Scott. In 1652, his heirs sold it, with the home- 
 lot, to Thomas Cadwell. 3 South of it, along the river, 
 John Steele owned two acres, which he sold to William 
 Pantry. To this, other lots were added, and his grandson, 
 John Pantry, owned here twenty-five acres. This tract 
 was afterwards called "Pantry Jones' Pasture." Thomas 
 Cadwell made an exchange of land with the town in 1669. 
 It thus secured for public uses the land along the river. 
 The remainder of Cadwell's lot descended to Esther Cadwell. 
 She married Caleb Bull, and their heirs inherited it. Shortly 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, XIV: 118, 119. 
 
 2 Common Council Records, A. 2, p. 65. 
 
 3 Original Distribution, pp. 62, 476-479; Common Council Records, A. 2, pp. 
 59 ff. 
 
170 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 after Thomas Cadwell acquired this lot, he erected upon it 
 a warehouse. It stood where the store of Thomas Bull was 
 located in 1792. As he is believed to have been conducting 
 a private ferry in 1652, he may have used this warehouse in 
 connection with that venture. The account book of John 
 Talcott shows that Cadwell's warehouse was used by the 
 Colony during King Philip's War, probably for the storage 
 of supplies. In 1685 he sold it to Nathaniel Stanley, from 
 whom it passed to Nathaniel Hooker. The latter's son 
 Nathaniel, built there a new warehouse, the frame of which 
 survived in Thomas Bull's store. The town granted liberty, 
 in 1653, to Jonathan Gilbert to set up a warehouse east of 
 the Hooker lot, provided he had the consent of Mrs. Hooker. 
 This site was in the highway west of the landing. He 
 erected the building at once. Very likely he here stored the 
 corn he collected in 1654 for the train-band. He had charge 
 of the military stores for some years. His warehouse was a 
 two-story building. It had a cellar underneath it and a 
 staircase leading to the second floor. This building was 
 standing fifty years later. After Gilbert's death in 1682, his 
 son Samuel sold the north end to Thomas Thornton, and 
 the south end he sold in 1693 to Thomas Hooker, subject to 
 the life use of Widow Mary Gilbert. The town also granted 
 to Jonathan Gilbert, in 1676, "Twenty six Foot of bredth in 
 land by the great riuer & Forty foot in length the former 
 bredth westward to be to him & his heirs forever." The 
 condition was that he and his heirs should maintain the 
 highway thither. This location was next south of the land- 
 ing, at the north end of the Scott-Cad well lot. Here he 
 erected a second warehouse, which he also owned at his death. 
 In 1683, this land was forfeited to the town because his 
 heirs refused to keep in repair the highway. Later, this 
 warehouse passed to William Gibbon; in 1696, to William 
 Caddy; in 1698, to William Whiting, and, in 1725, to John 
 Austin. The last-named owner petitioned, in 1736, for 
 liberty to build an addition at the west end, it being then 
 the northernmost warehouse on the bank of the river. In 
 1761, it was owned by John Ellery. This was the ware- 
 house referred to in 1678, when a committee of- the town 
 recommended that the "Land on the North side of M r 
 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 171 
 
 gillberts warehouse: Betwene the great Riuer [and the] 
 brew of the Little meadow Hill where the ffence Now stands 
 to the mouth of the Little Riuer [North Meadow Creek] bee 
 and Remayne for a Common Landing place which wee Judg 
 Nessesary for the publick." l The same year the above- 
 named strip of land along the river was recorded to the town. 2 
 We have thus a fairly complete plan of the landing-place 
 and its environs in 1678. It continued for years, with few 
 changes, except the erection of other warehouses. We 
 have only to picture to ourselves a highway leading north- 
 east from Front Street to the river, on the south side of 
 the creek's mouth. When this channel was closed and the 
 bed filled, the landing-place was enlarged. Along the river 
 south of it, was the row of early warehouses. The first 
 one, erected by Jonathan Gilbert, was on the west facing 
 the landing. There was evidently a swale parallel with 
 the river. West of it, the grade ascended to the Little 
 Meadow Hill. In 1911, some workmen, who were driving 
 the intercepter tunnel at the foot of Kilbourn Street, found 
 at about low-water level, three large pine logs laid parallel 
 east and west, four feet apart, with cross pieces upon them. 
 An imaginative writer suggested the discovery of Hooker's 
 raft. Probably it was the remains of an early causeway 
 laid across the above swale, by which the settlers reached 
 the landing-place. This approach to the river had become 
 important in 1678. From that time, the landing-place 
 entered upon an era of development that only reached its 
 climax after the revival of commerce in the early years of the 
 city's life. 
 
 Concerning the other early warehouses in the row at the 
 landing, the records give further information. George 
 Gardner received from the town, in 1674, one rod square, 
 where he erected a warehouse. The report of 1792 states 
 that his son, Ebenezer Gardner, gave this to Caleb Stanley. 
 Probably it was on or near the site granted to the latter. In 
 1678, a grant twenty feet square was made to Ensign Na- 
 thaniel Stanley for the same purpose. His site was between 
 Cad well's and the landing. Then, in 1683, a tract sixteen 
 feet wide and twenty -four feet long at the north end of Cad- 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 192. 2 Ibid., I: 184, 190. 
 
172 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 well's warehouse, was given to Caleb Stanley. It descended 
 to Timothy Stanley, who sold it in 1743 to Captain William 
 Tiley. A similar grant was made, in 1685, to Richard 
 Edwards, between the warehouses of Caleb and Nathaniel 
 Stanley. This year, also, Joseph Wadsworth and Philip 
 Lewis received liberty to erect one next to the landing-place. 
 North of the landing, Colonel Samuel Talcott erected a 
 warehouse, about the middle of the eighteenth century. It 
 was on his own land. The creek bed had been filled in 
 meanwhile. This warehouse or store was near the mansion- 
 house and other buildings, which Colonel Talcott sold in 
 1777 to William and Jannet Knox. It passed later to John 
 Chenevard. There was another warehouse at the south end 
 of the row. It was built on the reserved lot of Thomas 
 Cadwell, perhaps by his son Thomas, about 1695, when he 
 became the ferryman. In 1719, it is mentioned in the 
 inventory of Mathew Cadwell, his successor, as "1 Acre and 
 J of Land and the Ware houfe that Stands on it." The 
 inventory of his son Mathew in 1723, speaks of it as "the 
 Waor hous and fhop and Land one which they ftand." In 
 both cases the value was £70. The latter's heirs sold it, in 
 1745, to Caleb Bull, Jr., the deed specifying that the ware- 
 house had formerly belonged to Mathew Cadwell. 1 In 
 buildings then standing on this lot, or afterwards erected, 
 Caleb Bull conducted his flaxseed store. All these ware- 
 houses would now be considered insignificant, both in size 
 and business. They were owned, however, by the most 
 prominent merchants of Hartford. It was in this little 
 group of buildings that a large part of the river trade of 
 colonial times was carried on. In 1792, this public area at 
 the landing was laid out, and its courses and measurements 
 were recorded. 2 There Thomas K. Brace established later 
 his warehouses and his wharf was located. The site is at 
 present indicated by the promontory east of the railroad 
 tracks, opposite the foot of Kilbourn Street. 
 
 The years following King Philip's War also mark an era 
 in the development of the East-side. The committee of 
 1678 reported as follows: "Allso we haue ordred a Common 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 7: 193. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 342-345. 
 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 173 
 
 Landing place uppon M r Jonathan gillberds Island on the 
 east side of the great Riuer where now itt is, to be ffower 
 rods wide uppon the Banck next the Riuer." Thence they 
 laid out a highway across the island, down the bank where 
 the carts had "allready made a passage," and eastward to 
 the upland. 1 This road was obliged to cross swamp land 
 and swales, over which causeways were built. A road here 
 was already in use and connected with a north and south 
 road, laid out in 1640 along the meadow hill. In 1670, 
 the country road, now Main Street, was established by order 
 of the General Court. 2 In consideration, the proprietors 
 were granted and took twenty rods eastward of their three- 
 mile lots. Other roads followed. Saw-mills were built on 
 the Hockanum, or Saw Mill River. 3 Eligible locations for 
 East-side farms were chosen, and residents there increased. 
 Among early settlers the following were the most prominent 
 families: Bidwell, Burnham, Forbes, Goodwin, Hills, 
 Olcott, Olmsted, Pitkin, Porter, Risley, Spencer and Wil- 
 liams. Thus began an era during which the East-side at- 
 tained great prosperity. 4 
 
 The ferry across the river was at first, and for many years 
 so far as known, a private enterprise. In 1641, the General 
 Court took notice of Windsor's ferry and encouraged that 
 town to provide a boat for its use, by allowing a charge for 
 passengers. 5 This was Bissell's old ferry, where travellers 
 crossed in going to the Bay. It is quite improbable that 
 Hartford was without similar accommodations. Thomas 
 Cadwell seems most likely to have been this early ferryman, 
 and possibly before him, Edward Stebbins, who lived 
 nearest the landing, did such service. After the distribution 
 of East-side meadow lots, boats must have been constructed 
 of sufficient size for farming use. Animals were trans- 
 ported across and pastured in the meadows. At a later 
 date, the owners of East-side lots owned such a boat in 
 common, as did the ''Proprietors of the North Meadow." 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 185, 190, 191; Hartford Land Records, 1: 401, 520. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 133. 
 
 3 Original Distribution, p. 553; Hartford Land Records, 1: 101; 4: 203, 369; 
 5: 459; Conn. Col. Rec, I: 262; II: 178; III: 218, 219. 
 
 4 See East Hartford: its History and Traditions, by Joseph O. Goodwin. 
 
 5 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 71. 
 
174 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 It was called a "great boat." Very likely the town had 
 such a boat in early times. In 1715, the town's boat was 
 kept at a certain place for the use of inhabitants. 1 There 
 was also one on the East-side. At the town meeting, 
 December 22, 1681, the convenience and necessity of having 
 a public ferry at Hartford was considered. A committee 
 was appointed to agree with a suitable person to keep the 
 same for seven years. Thomas Cadwell was the man 
 selected. As his warehouse was at the landing, and his 
 house, after 1652, at the southwest corner of State and 
 Front streets, this service would have been convenient for 
 him. His agreement, dated March 31, 1682, states that 
 he was "to maintaine a suffitiant Boate ffor the passaige 
 of Horse and man: and a Connoe good and suffitiant to 
 Carry ouer single persons." 2 The fares were: Hartford 
 residents, man Id., horse and man, 3d. in silver, and double 
 fare if in other pay, non-residents or after dark. Thomas 
 Cadwell was thus the lessee of the ferry privilege, though 
 not necessarily the ferryman. He agreed that it should 
 be "carefully attended." He died in 1694. His widow, 
 Elizabeth Cadwell, succeeded him for one year and then 
 his son Thomas. Probably Mathew Cadwell was the next 
 ferryman. He died in 1719 and was succeeded by his 
 widow, Abigail Cadwell, and her son Mathew. The rent 
 was then £10 a year. This son was probably the ferry- 
 man in 1723, when he died. His inventory includes the 
 "Cart Booat with the Chain fastened to it," and the "hors 
 booat" and chain. Thus one family conducted this ferry 
 for at least thirty-seven years. Daniel Messenger bought 
 a lot near the landing in 1724, and soon afterward built a 
 house there, being persuaded to do so, he claimed, in the 
 expectation of securing the lease of the ferry. He received 
 the appointment in 1726, and probably in 1727, paying 
 therefor £13. The privilege was then sold to the highest 
 bidder. Daniel Messenger was aggrieved, as he had pro- 
 vided "boats, scows and other vessels." He appealed to 
 the General Assembly for redress, agreeing to take the 
 franchise for ten years, to carry the members free when on 
 
 1 Hartford Toum Votes, I: 318; MS. Vol. II: 21. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 197, 198. 
 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 175 
 
 public business, and to pay each year one-tenth of the 
 expense of erecting the Little River bridge. 1 A contract 
 had been made, however, with the successful bidder, Charles, 
 the son of Richard Burnham, for one year. These short 
 term leases were due to the town's hope of securing a charter 
 for the ferry. It petitioned for one in 1727, and several 
 times later, without success. The fares were changed from 
 time to time, and the members of the General Assembly, 
 court officials and town inhabitants were not unwilling to 
 profit by the ferryman's labor. 2 His remuneration, however, 
 was not derived so much from his fares as from the license 
 to sell liquors, which it had become the custom to grant 
 him. That was the reason for Daniel Messenger's liberal 
 offer. In 1728, being then a "tavern-keeper," he sold his 
 property and removed elsewhere. The next ferryman of 
 record was Timothy Bigelow, who was the lessee in 1736. 
 He bought of Daniel Edwards in 1742, the land on the 
 northeast corner of Front and Kilbourn streets, and estab- 
 lished there his home. He also kept a tavern. Nathaniel 
 Pease, ferryman in 1746, petitioned for a license. Timothy 
 Bigelow died in 1747. His son Benjamin was later ferry- 
 man and host. During his term, in 1757, a project was 
 started to have two ferries at Hartford. When he mem- 
 orialized the General Assembly in 1759 on the subject, he 
 stated that another place lower down on the river had re- 
 cently been used as a landing. He admitted the need of 
 two boats and declared that he was willing to keep two, 
 provided the ferry was established at the ancient ferry 
 place and no competition was allowed. 3 This plan was 
 carried out, but no monopoly was granted. Benjamin 
 Bigelow continued as ferryman for some years, but much 
 of the time after 1757 there was a competing ferry. In 
 1769, the town committee was authorized to make a lease 
 for ten years, the ferryman to have liberty to land his boats 
 anywhere between Mr. Knox's house, north of the ancient 
 landing-place, and Jones's south wharf, which was south 
 
 1 State Archives: Travel, I: 157, 171, 173. 
 
 * Ibid., I: 194,281; Conn. Col. flee, IV: 156,248,332,366; VII: 257; Hart- 
 ford Town Votes, I: 241, 242. 
 
 » Conn. Col. flee, XI: 138, 282. 
 
176 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 of the foot of the present Ferry Street, the lower landing- 
 place of later times. 1 In this lease, the inhabitants were 
 to have free passage to meetings and when on public busi- 
 ness. This would have meant much more before 1694, when 
 an ecclesiastical society was formed on the East-side. In 
 earlier times there was great disorder in conveying church- 
 goers across the river. The most was made of this fact in 
 the East-side petitions for a separate organization. The 
 rent of the ferry was put to various public uses, such as 
 procuring firewood for the schools and repairing the bridges. 
 In 1719, the inhabitants of West Farms were authorized to 
 expend £9 of the ferry rent in buying land for a burial 
 ground. 2 Across the river by the ferry, there was a large 
 amount of travel during the Revolutionary War. Several 
 boats were in use and, some of the time, two ferries, as in 
 later times. This travel was somewhat relieved, however, 
 by ferries above and below the town. 3 After the incor- 
 poration of the city, these augmented needs urged the con- 
 struction of a bridge. 4 
 
 The earliest wharf of which we have any knowledge, was 
 that probably built by Samuel the son of Thomas Thorn- 
 ton, who owned the north half of the old Gilbert warehouse. 
 In 1702, the town appointed a committee, "to veiw a Small 
 peice of Land that Sam 11 Thornton desires to wharfe on & 
 lay out the same to him if it prove not predudiciall to the 
 town he to Enjoy the Same as Long as the town Shall see 
 Cause." The next year, he inherited from his father "part 
 of the warehouse at the Common Landing Place." Prob- 
 ably this wharf adjoined the warehouse on the north side. 
 It might have been within the mouth of the creek. We do 
 not note any other wharves for many years. The public 
 landing was used by river merchants. Vessels frequently 
 anchored in the stream, and customers went out to them 
 in boats, the traffic being conducted on the decks. W 7 ith 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 179, 185, 192, 231. 
 
 1 Ibid., MS. Vol. II: 13. 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, V: 354; VI: 322; State Archives: Travel, I: 138, 139, 189. 
 See "Ferries in Early Days" in The Hartford Times, Sept. 29, 1908; July 2, 1909; 
 Aug. 23, 1910. 
 
 4 Memorial Hist, of Hartford County, I: 369-371; Goodwin's East Hartford, 
 pp. 195-197; Wright's Crossing the Connecticut, pp. 5 ff. 
 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 177 
 
 the revival of trade after the Revolutionary War, wharves 
 multiplied very rapidly. Solomon Porter's survey of 1790 
 notes those of Jones, Bull and Olcott in front of the old 
 warehouses. In 1824, there were twenty between Dutch 
 Point and Morgan's bridge. The Connecticut River was 
 then at the height of its commercial renown. 
 
 The impression prevails quite generally that the eastern 
 section of Hartford was populous and busy with mercantile 
 life during colonial times. Those conditions were not 
 brought about until the nineteenth century, after many 
 years of development. One who walked through Front 
 Street, from the fordway at Little River northward in 1775, 
 saw little to suggest its appearance fifty years later. There 
 were some scattered homesteads on the west side of the 
 street, with barns, gardens and orchards. On the east side, 
 the entire southern portion was a meadow that had long 
 been known as "Haynes' Pasture." It contained about 
 twenty-three acres. At an early date, the Haynes family 
 began to gather the original lots into this tract. After the 
 Revolutionary War, the owner, John Haynes Lord, yielded 
 to the pressure of business interests and sold certain lots. 
 Ashbel Wells Jr. erected there a brick store in 1787. He 
 made and sold pottery, whence the name Potter's Lane. 
 Captain John Chenevard also bought on the Little River 
 and established there a wharf. A still-house was near. 
 In 1786, General Jeremiah Wadsworth purchased five 
 acres, adding to two tracts sold to him in 1783 and 1784 
 from the Pantry lot. To him the credit was due for the 
 development of commercial interests along that water front. 
 Probably the first house erected in this portion of the 
 meadow was that of Hannah Watson. She sold two acres 
 to Caleb Bull in 1774, with the house where she lived. The 
 lot west of this she had deeded to William Watson in 1771. 
 When it passed, in 1773, to Asa Benton, it had upon it a 
 new house, partly built. North of this, the next house was 
 Pantry Jones's, south of Jones Lane. His homestead and 
 adjoining pasture occupied a considerable area. It was 
 through the southern part of this tract, then owned by his 
 son Nathaniel Jones, that lower State Street was opened 
 in 1800. In 1783, Pantry Jones sold the northwest corner 
 
178 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 to Dr. Solomon Smith, who built there a house and store. 
 In 1785, it passed to his son Daniel Smith, who sold to John 
 Hall, a hardware and drygoods merchant. In 1781, Pantry 
 Jones deeded to Barnabas Dean and Company the lot near 
 the river, long occupied by their distillery and store. Per- 
 haps the latter building was erected earlier by Pantry 
 Jones. This firm was formed in 1779. It is said that General 
 Nathaniel Greene was a silent partner. Northwest of the 
 distillery, there was a blacksmith's shop, known as Ensign's. 
 Along Ferry and Kilbourn streets the greater part of the 
 business life in this section gathered. In 1775, this was 
 mainly in the warehouses by the landing-place. Here, in 
 1784, William and George Bull sold, among other articles, 
 "fire stoves." They advertised these in 1787 as "Franklin 
 stoves." Frederick Bull was located here in 1775. He 
 dealt in ironware, kettles and pots. Before 1788, when 
 Commerce Street was accepted by the city, there was a 
 roadway, which followed its general course, west of the 
 warehouses. It was called "Cheapside" — a name applied, 
 in 1811, to Main Street, north of State. On the northwest 
 corner, where it crossed Jones Lane, Caleb Bull had a red 
 house and store. It was leased to Elisha Vibbard and, 
 in 1789, sold to him. Here, too, Aaron Bradley, the black- 
 smith, was located in 1784. He bought land there in 
 1787. The next year he advertised as at the sign of the 
 "Horseshoe," No. 3 Cheapside, Jones Street. He also 
 invited his patrons to another shop in the North Shipyard 
 at the sign of the "Strap and Dead Eye." In 1786, Charles 
 Hopkins removed into his brick store in Cheapside. West 
 of Bradley's shop John W r atson Jr. purchased a location 
 from Caleb Bull in 1787. He had owned before 1782 the 
 Normand Morrison warehouse at the landing, which then 
 passed to Captain John Chenevard. It was south of one 
 belonging to the heirs of Captain Samuel Olcott, and north 
 of the store of Captain William Bull. North of these 
 buildings there was a lumber yard, owned by Caleb Bull. 
 His son James Bull leased the corner of it, in 1790, to J. 
 Beckwith for a shop. On the west end of this tract Samuel 
 Kilbourn located his house and store in 1775. At the foot 
 of Ferry Street was the ferry house built by Pantry Jones, 
 
M 
 
 w 
 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 179 
 
 and bequeathed in 1794 to his nephew, John Jones. It 
 remained to recent times. This was then the Ferry Way, 
 called later the "Public Landing." In 1775 the old landing 
 was still in use — and a busy place it was during the Revolu- 
 tionary War. Just north of it, was the Knox Tavern. 
 William Knox married Jannet, the daughter of Normand 
 Morrison, and, after his death, she married John Calder. 
 At this tavern they did a thriving business. Revolu- 
 tionary prisoners on parole were boarded there. 1 William 
 Knox was also the ferryman, and practically in control of 
 the situation. In 1783, he advertised to sell grindstones 
 there. That would have been an appropriate name for 
 the kind of intoxicants that tradition declares he sold at 
 his tavern. The stores of Joseph Barrett and Major John 
 Caldwell were on the other side of Commerce Street. In 
 1770, Blackleach Wells bought a small house on the south- 
 east corner. West of these, near the northeast corner of 
 Kilbourn and Front streets, Captain John Bigelow had a 
 house and store in 1771, and others before him. North of 
 this was the Hooker tract, where Daniel Messenger had 
 located in 1725. At the beginning of the Revolutionary 
 War, the meadow north of Talcott Lane was mostly devoted 
 to pasturage. Its early owner was William West wood, 
 whose heir was Aaron Cook. Here, in 1756, was "Cook's 
 Little Meadow," which was then acquired by Pantry 
 Jones, and sold in 1787 to General Wadsworth and others. 
 At this time, the Maritime Company bought up this land 
 for speculative purposes. John Tiley owned the lot north 
 of that above-named. It was called the "Creek lot," and 
 was the location of the North Shipyard. In 1787, Joseph 
 Toocker, a ship-builder, leased land and built a house on 
 the west side of the passway along the river. 2 He was 
 doubtless engaged at his trade in the neighboring shipyard, 
 where many vessels had formerly been built and continued 
 to be for some years. 3 
 
 1 "Major French's Journal," in Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 213, 215. 
 
 2 Boardman's Ancestry of Jane Maria Grecnleaf, pp. 97-100; Hartford Land 
 Records, 18: 408, 474. 
 
 3 In 1727, John Tiley, Jr., sold to John Caldwell and John Knowles the 
 hull, mast, boom and bowsprit of the sloop Speedwell, seventy-nine tons. — 
 Hartford Land Records, 1: 208. 
 
180 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 This survey from the records gives us in outline a picture 
 of the land along the Great River as it appeared at the 
 close of the colonial period, with the entrance upon it 
 of those activities that eventually transformed it. Early 
 engravings show, in some measure, what it became. The 
 old ferry, by which farmers from the East-side entered the 
 town, gathered trade. Advertisements of 1787, show that 
 shop-keepers on both sides of the river, were offering West 
 India goods in exchange for butter and cheese. Arriving 
 travellers, also, needed an inn and sometimes a horse- 
 shoer. The river trade demanded warehouses, and these 
 sufficed for colonial times. At length, however, there came 
 a new era, and with it another generation of merchants. 
 Then the Great River claimed its opportunity. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 
 
 The town of Hartford once had in its ancient riveret a great 
 natural source of beauty. In the days of the forefathers 
 it was a clear and sparkling stream, except in times of 
 freshet or flood. DeVries described its appearance in 1639, 
 in his reference to "a high woodland out of which comes a 
 valley which makes the kill or creek." What a trout 
 stream it must have been in those days! It had its deep 
 pools and its areas where it could spread out its skirts on 
 occasion. Its springtime waters, after tumbling over a 
 natural fall, rushed down between high banks, over a rocky 
 incline and at last found quietness at the level of the Great 
 River. The Dutch traders at once saw the advantage of 
 its mouth as a harbor. It was protected from the Con- 
 necticut's current by the protruding foot of the Little 
 Meadow. There they could entertain the canoes of many 
 Indians who came to trade, and their own sloop was largely 
 concealed from view. This must have been in those days 
 an interesting port. Let us try to imagine two rows of 
 settlers' homes, with their out-buildings and yards, one on 
 either side of this stream, from the eastern limit of Bushnell 
 Park to the river. No old rookeries shut them off from a 
 view of their neighbors across the stream — nothing but 
 the trees and shrubbery of their front yards. The distance 
 was too great to suit lovers, but perhaps some young Lean- 
 der swam this Hellespont, or knew a good place to wade 
 across. How pleasant it must have been along the riveret's 
 banks, to listen at evening's hour to the purling stream, to 
 recline underneath the shade on a summer noontime, or to 
 sail toy boats down with the current, freighted with loving 
 messages for dear old England. Such was life along the 
 riveret in the days of the forefathers, and all the early 
 residents on its banks passed away with their generation 
 before there were any material changes. 
 
182 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 The formal baptismal name of this stream was the "Little 
 River." Sometimes, though rarely, as the boundary be- 
 tween the two "sides," the "river" was a sufficient designa- 
 tion. In the town votes, as early as 1642, they used the 
 diminutive term "riveret," and "rivulet" was favored in 
 the land records. Then in the last decade of the century 
 when its mills multiplied, it came to be called "Mill River," 
 a name especially applied to the main stream. The early 
 designation of the south fork was "Hog River," and of the 
 north fork "Ox Pasture River." These were so termed 
 because of abutting pastures for the animals named. Quite 
 recently, but with some fitness, the former title has been 
 extended to the entire stream. 
 
 The earliest public service that has been attributed to 
 the riveret is turning the wheel of Mathew Allyn's mill. 
 Here, for some years, the corn of the forefathers was ground. 
 Allyn's first mill was probably built in 1636, soon after the 
 arrival of Hooker's company. The site may have been 
 chosen in 1635 by the pioneers, or earlier by John Hall. It 
 stood on his two-acre mill lot, part of which is the planted 
 bank north of the river in West Bushnell Park. The 
 western section of the road from the Meeting House to the 
 Mill, now Ford and Asylum streets, ran through it, continu- 
 ing across Brick-kiln or Gully Brook to the Ox Pasture. 
 The entry of this lot was made under the date February 
 1639-40, and it is believed just before Allyn abandoned 
 his first and completed his second mill. 1 It states that his 
 mill was then standing on this lot and that there was "an 
 ifland on the fouth west fide of the mill." The northern 
 bound was his own ten-acre tract in Westfield, made up 
 largely of swamp land, through which the brook flowed 
 from the north. The owner thus had a considerable flowage, 
 secured by damming the brook, which then entered the riv- 
 eret some distance east of the present stepping stones. 
 In the author's opinion, Allyn's first mill utilized this water 
 privilege and not the riveret. This belief is favored by 
 the fact that these adjoining tracts were granted to him by 
 the plantation. However, a pen sketch of 1685 notes the 
 "place where M r Alyns first mill stood," and it was ap- 
 
 1 Original Distribution, p. 145. 
 
THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 183 
 
 parently near the present stepping stones. 1 This mill is 
 thought also to have been on the west side of the brook's 
 mouth. The mill lot extended westward of this to John 
 Skinner's land. 2 This location harmonizes with a town 
 vote thought to date in 1637, appointing Thomas Scott 
 to "keep in good Repayre the bridg over the bri[ck kiln] 
 swam[p] brooke leading to the mill." This first mill was 
 hastily erected to meet immediate needs. It was probably 
 of the simplest construction of pioneer times, still to be seen 
 among the mountaineers of the south. Its shaft was an 
 upright timber, with vertical paddle blades morticed in at 
 the lower end for a wheel, and the nether mill-stone was 
 secured at the upper end of the shaft. Obviously the swift 
 current from a mill-pond was most advantageous for such 
 a mill. We have no other references to this mill, except that 
 in 1644 it was forbidden to ret hemp or flax in the riveret 
 below "that place whare M r Aliens mill ded first stand." 3 
 In 1639, Mathew Allyn decided to erect a new mill, 
 having then very likely improved facilities. About the 
 same time, the town conceived the idea of owning its own 
 mill. It appointed committees in September of that year 
 to "vew for a place to set a mill," and to see what Mr. 
 Allyn "hath agaynst seting vp of another mill." A con- 
 troversy ensued. It did not, however, deter the miller 
 from carrying out his project. Perhaps he was assisted in 
 this by John Hall, a man of skill in such construction work. 
 He located his second mill on the southwest corner of his 
 island. There he made a dam across the riveret, noted in 
 the above-named sketch as the "Place where the former 
 dam of M r Allyn's mill was." Here he had the advantage 
 of the channel between his island and the main land on the 
 south, probably used as a mill-race. The plans for this mill 
 seem to have been made before his mill lot was recorded, 
 for it is stipulated therein that he had a right to dig and 
 carry away earth from the bank southwest of his island "for 
 the ufe of his mill" — a valuable privilege in constructing 
 his dam and levelling up his mill yard. His problem was 
 to make a convenient way to this mill from the north side 
 
 1 Slate Archives: Private Controversies, III: 73. 
 
 2 Original Distribution, pp. 145, 309. 3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 75. 
 
184 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 of the riveret. On January 11, 1640-41, Mr. Allyn promised 
 "To macke a waie offer To y e mill so y l good man hall wold 
 doe it for 20 s & m* Alin Layd him stufe," and the frag- 
 mentary record shows that the erection of a bridge was 
 intended. At the same time the town, on its part, voted 
 to "make afence Leading To y e mill through m rs spencers 
 grownd & giue hir satisfacone for y* ground," evidently for 
 a roadway. She was the widow of William Spencer and lived 
 just across the riveret west of the mill, where the Sigourney 
 mansion is. This plan was carried out. In 1645, her 
 second husband, William Edwards, acknowledged the 
 receipt of "damages done by the way to the Millne" through 
 his home-lot. The approach to this mill from the north 
 side was, therefore, by a short highway diverging south- 
 ward from the road to the Ox Pasture, and across the 
 riveret by a bridge opposite the mill. The way to the 
 Armory from Asylum Street now follows the course of this 
 highway. During the period when John Steele made his 
 entries in the Original Distribution, he distinguished this 
 as the "old mill." It had hardly been finished before the 
 delayed project for a town mill came to effect, in the erection 
 of one at the falls below. The plan provided that it should 
 not "preiuduse the mill of the sd m r Mathew Allen by stop- 
 ping the water," but the erection of a competing mill re- 
 newed the dispute. In 1643 arbitrators were appointed 
 to settle these differences. Their success is doubtful. 
 Each mill doubtless had its friends and patrons. The 
 rivalry continued for some years. After such a pioneer 
 outlay as Mathew Allyn had made for the town's benefit, 
 he probably felt aggrieved by this competition. May it 
 not have been this controversy, rather than any religious 
 differences, that was at the root of his trouble with the 
 church, for which, in 1644, he was excluded from its fellow- 
 ship? He removed to Windsor soon afterwards, and 
 few men in the Colony had greater influence, or received 
 more honors than he in his after life. 
 
 In 1653, Mathew Allyn deeded his mill lot to his son, 
 John Allyn. This entry was made by William Andrews, 
 evidently from the earlier record, for, like tnat, he omitted 
 the word "west" after naming John Skinner's land, and did 
 
THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 185 
 
 not give contemporary abutters. He designates the lot, 
 however, as that upon which "a mill stood." From the 
 tense of this verb, we infer that this mill had then fallen 
 into disuse. It is possible that a freshet had cut across 
 through the mill-race, making the island of later times. 
 This was long called "Allyn's Island," and later "City 
 Island," though it was found in 1841 that the city did not 
 own it. 1 On or near this island, one of Mathew Allyn's 
 descendants has erected the Corning fountain. The dis- 
 use of this mill may also account for the contemporary 
 project of the town to enlarge its mill, or build a new one, 
 as presently related. It is improbable that this mill was 
 ever revived. John Allyn formed a partnership later with 
 John Bidwell Jr. in that business, thus establishing the 
 "Upper Mills," which survived as "Imlay's Mills" to recent 
 times. The lot next south of Allyn's Island originally 
 belonged to John Wilcox, from whom it passed to his son-in- 
 law Thomas Long. In 1681, John Bidwell bought part of 
 this lot. The tract was seventeen rods along the riveret 
 and three rods wide, or fifty-one square rods. 2 Thus Allyn 
 united his interests with those of Bidwell, the most extensive 
 and experienced mill owner of his day. 3 They then erected 
 a mill, which eventually grew into a group, where milling 
 of various kinds was carried on for years. Their dam was 
 located above the former. The testimony of 1685 was that 
 "M r Allyn's old mill dam stood much lower than the present 
 dam." Joseph Mygatt's project in 1682, to exchange land 
 with the town, probably contemplated access to these mills. 
 It was for "the conueniancy off a Bridg or highway ouer the 
 River," and anticipated "Badger's Road" as laid out in 
 1741. 4 The Bidwell interest passed in 1692 to his heirs, 
 and, in 1700, Sarah Bidwell sold to John Marsh Jr. one 
 moiety in the mills, then being "much out of repair." This 
 grantee sold, in 1704, to Joseph and William Whiting, who, 
 as heirs of Captain John Allyn in 1696, and by purchase, 
 had acquired his half interest. Thus the Whitings became 
 
 1 Common Council Records, Vol. F, pp. 122, 124. 
 
 2 Original Distribution, pp. 461, 462, 526. 
 
 3 Inventory of John Bidwell, 1692; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, 1: 230; 
 State Archives: Private Controversies, I: 72 a. 
 
 * Hartford Toivn Votes, I: 201, 212, 224, 231. 
 
186 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 the sole owners of this property, with the island and mill 
 lot. They sold the mills, in 1712, to Benjamin Graham and 
 Joseph Mygatt; and these families, with divided interests, 
 were associated with them for years. About 1727, Joseph 
 Tillotson acquired three-fourths of the grist-mill, with the 
 whole of the bolting-mill, the other one-fourth of the grist- 
 mill being owned by Richard Seymour, who also had one- 
 fourth of the saw-mill and the fulling-mill. Three-fourths 
 of the saw-mill were still held by the Graham and Mygatt 
 heirs. Then Jonathan Pratt purchased the grist-mill, with 
 one-fourth of the saw-mill, which interests he sold, in 1737, 
 to Daniel Badger, who also secured, through Thomas 
 Andrus in 1741, another fourth of the saw-mill. Badger 
 conducted these mills until 1744, and they were commonly 
 called "Badger's Mills." He sold, through Jonathan 
 Yeomans, to John Ellery, who also bought from Jonathan 
 Seymour the one-half of the saw-mill that had passed from 
 Isaac Graham through Timothy Andrus and Timothy 
 Marsh. Thus the upper mills had a single owner. They 
 were then called "Ellery's Mills." During this period rights 
 in the dam were usually in proportion to each owner's mill 
 interest. The mill yard remained as originally laid out. 
 East of it, was a two-acre lot with a dwelling-house, which 
 also passed to successive millers. On the north of this lot, 
 ran the road to the upper mills, which furnished access to 
 them from the South-side. In 1741, a road was laid out from 
 the North-side, diverging from Asylum Street and crossing 
 the riveret by a bridge near the present structure. It was 
 called "Badger's Road." * The mill plant was improved 
 during the ownership of John and William Ellery. From 
 the latter, John Ledyard secured a half interest, in 1767. 
 They and their heirs were in control for many years. In 
 1814, Benjamin Wood became the owner and added a 
 cotton mill. The property passed from him, through 
 Henry Seymour, to Samuel Ledlie in 1817, and he sold, in 
 1820, to William H. Imlay, whence the name "Imlay's 
 Mills." A picture of them in the possession of the Connecti- 
 cut Historical Society, was drawn from the western bank 
 of the river, and represents their appearance during the 
 
 1 Ibid., MS. Vol. II: 111, 114. 
 
THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 187 
 
 first half of the last century. The history of these mills 
 furnishes a good example of the persistence of such business 
 enterprises during colonial times. Near the north end of 
 the old ford way, a novel foot-bridge was built, in 1828. At 
 either end were casks filled with stones, which were spanned 
 by a large timber, to which cleats were nailed. This bridge 
 was ten feet above the water. 1 It was called "Imlay's 
 Bridge," and a sketch of it by Frederick B. Perkins has been 
 preserved by the Connecticut Historical Society. The 
 bridge at Ford Street was erected in 1850. 
 
 The early project for a town mill was doubtless suggested 
 by the greater convenience of one at the falls, and the need 
 of a bridge there. In those days, a bridge was a natural 
 adjunct to a mill. So the plan of 1639 included both. 2 
 It would seem that the committee then appointed, thought 
 to settle a disagreement by having two bridges, one near 
 the mill and the other near the fordway, to accommodate 
 "the lower pt of the Towne." The latter was to be a cart 
 bridge, ten feet higher than the great flood of 1 638-9. 3 On 
 April 15, 1640, an agreement was recorded for carrying out 
 this project. Possibly the lower bridge was built that sea- 
 son, as the upper bridge, when erected, was called the 
 "New Bridge," but the entire plan was not carried out, 
 perhaps for lack of unanimity or the expense. The outcome 
 was that, on January 9, 1640-41, liberty was given to 
 Edward Hopkins and John Haynes "To sett vp amill & a 
 bridg one y e Litell River ofer against y e palesadoe att theare 
 owne p r per Charge." The bridge was to be "a strong 
 suficientt Cartt Bridg To be Twelfe footte wide bettwene 
 y e Rayles w th Turned Ballesters one y e Top." They were 
 to be finished before the following winter and to be kept 
 
 1 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 371; The Hartford Post, Feb. 23, 1884. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 7, 14, 30, 36-38. 
 
 3 "The great flood began on the 5th of March. On the 11th of March it began 
 to fall, but by reason of much rain on the 12th day, it rose very high." Mathew 
 Grant's Church Record. There was another exceptional flood in May and June, 
 1642. In 1683 and 1692, the water rose to 26 feet. On May 1, 1854, the height 
 was "25^ Feet above Low water Mark," as stated on the picture of "The Flood 
 of 1854," though Geer's Directory gives it as 29 ft. 10 in. In 1801, the height 
 was 27 ft. 8 in., which was the highest of record to that date. The water has 
 reached 26 ft. or over in 1841, 1843, 1854, 1859, 1862, 1869, and 1896. The most 
 damaging freshets on the Little River have not been necessarily in the years of 
 great floods on the Connecticut River. 
 
188 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 in repair four years, when the expenses were to be adjusted. 
 The town was to pay £120 toward the enterprise. This 
 agreement was signed by Edward Hopkins and the towns- 
 men. Probably the work was completed before September 
 2, 1641, when Hopkins's "halfe the Myll standing] by the 
 New Bridge" was attached. 1 
 
 Leaving the bridge and its successors for later considera- 
 tion, we follow the history of the mills located at the falls. 
 This first town mill, conveniently distinguished as Hopkins's 
 mill, was located on the north bank of the riveret, just 
 below the falls. It is true that the palisado was on the north 
 side, and a location "over against" it might seem to mean 
 across the riveret; but, as there is positive evidence of its 
 being on the north side, either a change of site was made, 
 or the above phrase was used in an obsolete sense, meaning 
 "in front of" the palisado, the entrance to which was, there- 
 fore, on the west. The corner lot opposite was bounded 
 south and west by the "hyway leadding to the mill." 2 
 This could only refer to Hopkins's mill, and establishes its 
 location. Possibly this was the only mill in operation in 
 1655, and increased facilities were needed. A committee 
 was then appointed to treat with Robert Hay ward of 
 Windsor, and later to agree with Thomas Bunce to erect 
 a new mill. Finally the inhabitants voted, January 23, 
 1655-6, to appoint John Talcott, William Westwood, 
 Nathaniel Ward and William Wadsworth to agree with 
 workmen for the construction of a mill "upon the townes 
 account." 3 At the same time, they owned the action 
 of a previous committee in buying Hopkins's share of 
 "the old mill with the appurtenances." The expenses of 
 this venture were to be paid by rates levied upon the es- 
 tates of the inhabitants. In three years these amounted to 
 about £550. 4 The total of each inhabitant's assessment 
 constituted his propriety interest in the mills. It is a good 
 illustration of the method, already discussed, by which the 
 proportions of the ancient proprietors were determined. 
 
 1 Conn. Col.Rec.,1: 67. 
 - Original Distribution, pp. 107, 255, 438. 
 3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 106-Kl!). 
 
 * Ibid., I: 109, 114, 120, 122, 130, 134, 140; Original Distribution, pp. 539, 546, 
 549. 
 
THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 189 
 
 A mill book was kept, in which these shares were recorded, 
 and they were passed by deed, or will, to new owners. 
 Hopkins's mill was not displaced by the new building, but 
 the latter adjoined it. The property is described in 1711 
 as "two certain water grinding mills . . . under one roof 
 or house." 1 There are other references to them as "two 
 grist-mills." West of the mills there was a watering-place 
 for public use, called, in 1812, the "Town Lane." In early 
 years, these mills were managed by a committee chosen 
 by the inhabitants. They employed a miller. Apparently, 
 this town mill paid, for, in 1658, a vote was passed to reim- 
 burse from its profits the committee that built the mill. 
 The subsequent history of this mill is recorded in many 
 conveyances. About 1720, Nathaniel Stanley acquired 
 some of the scattered shares in it. William Stanley increased 
 these holdings. He had a controlling interest in 1792. 
 Consider Burt then secured it, partly by leasing Stanley's 
 rights. The plant was then commonly called "Burt's 
 Mills." In 1805, Bela Burt and Solomon Loomis succeeded. 
 They sold, in 1812, to Eliphalet and Heman Averill, whose 
 partner was James Babcock. Horace Burr bought out the 
 Averills in 1815, and, in 1819, Ira Todd acquired the control. 
 They then received the name "Todd's Mills." A clothier's 
 and carding mill had been added to the grist-mills. Todd 
 was very enterprising. He purchased from Reuben Wads- 
 worth in 1829, his share of the "finishing mill" on the south 
 bank of the stream, and, in 1833, he acquired the share of 
 James Taylor. He sold a half interest in the mills on both 
 sides, the latter year, to Leonard Daniels, to whom another 
 quarter passed, from Lucius Nichols in 1836, and the balance, 
 excepting the Stanley interest, from Lemuel Humphrey in 
 1838. The rights of William Stanley had been bequeathed 
 to the Second Ecclesiastical Society. Thus these ancient 
 mills enter the history of our own times. 2 
 
 We turn back to follow the history of the town's main 
 bridge. Early intercourse between the plantations at this 
 place was by a fordway over a ledge of rocks, now visible at 
 low water. East of the mill there was, in later times, a 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 2: 107. 
 
 2 The Hartford Courant, June 29, 1912; The Hartford Times, July 15, 1891. 
 
190 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 "passway to the river." A similar reservation was on the 
 south side of the stream. Here, it is thought, their earliest 
 bridges were located. The proprietors of the old mills 
 erected east of this a small house called the "miller's house." 
 If they carried out the original plan, their first bridge was 
 twelve feet wide, with rails on either side. Its substructure, 
 we may infer, was not very heavy. Winthrop tells us that 
 in 1645-6, there was "so sudden a thaw in the spring (the 
 snow lying very deep) and much rain withal, that it bare 
 down the bridge at Hartford." l Of its rebuilding we have 
 only hints in the accounts of 1648, which refer to Mr. 
 Haynes's rate "when the Brig was Biultt," and a payment to 
 Thomas Bunce "for work at the Brig." That it was re- 
 paired the same year, and its supports were strengthened in 
 1651, may indicate that the freshets made it hard to main- 
 tain their structure. At the latter date, the General Court, 
 then in session, excused some from training, "to bee imployed 
 about the raising of the worke prepared for the supporte 
 of the great bridge." It was again repaired in 1660 and 
 1667; but it was so old in 1671, that it was a question 
 whether it could be made "safe & secure for Foot Folkes 
 to pass ouer." At this time, there was a difference of 
 opinion as to the best location for a new bridge. The 
 Second Church had been recently organized. A meeting- 
 house was in process of erection. Attendants there would 
 naturally favor a location nearer or at Main Street, a short 
 distance from the new church. There was delay. 2 The old 
 bridge was examined by the townsmen and again by experts. 
 One night, in the autumn of 1672, their differences were 
 brought to an issue. The old bridge was burned. Two 
 of the town's young men were arrested, as being "deeply 
 suspicious" of causing the fire. They were finally dis- 
 charged. 3 No doubt some thought it was justifiable arson. 
 The town then appointed a committee "to bulde a good 
 bridg ouer the riuer for passidg for horce & foott one y e 
 publick Charge of y e toune & the toune leues it with y e 
 aforesaide Committy to order y e dimenchons of y e said 
 bridg and the place whare itt shuld be ereckted." * The 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, BE: 311. J Hartford Town Votes, I: 164. 
 
 » Probate Records, Book III, County Court, 1663-1677, p. 127. 
 • Hartford Town Votes, I: 167. 
 
THE BANKS OF THE R1VERET 191 
 
 town votes do not disclose the results of this action. A 
 bridge was doubtless built at once, and, in the writer's 
 opinion, near or at Main Street. Some calamity befell 
 this bridge, for, in 1676, the town was in need of a "present 
 passage to pass over the riuer," until another could be built. 
 They then considered a stone bridge, indicating some im- 
 patience with recent wooden structures. Again they were 
 building a bridge in 1691, for a present passage over Mill 
 River. From this time, the town bridge assumed a large 
 importance. The two "Sides" which had maintained from 
 the beginning certain individual interests, began to find 
 more in common, along the dividing stream. It had, for 
 some occupations, decided advantages over the landing or 
 the square. Intercourse increased. The fordways were 
 still in use. In 1702 they also resorted to a ferryman, 
 probably at the lower crossing when the bridge was closed. 
 The transformation along this dividing stream was gradual, 
 and only culminated after many years. Still the days of 
 the riveret's natural beauties were passing away. In 1728, 
 the town authorized the building of a "new bridge," for 
 which £130 were levied. It was their most ambitious 
 effort hitherto. Captain Stanley, who lived near, was given 
 the care of it. This was more generally called the "Town 
 Bridge." Another was authorized in 1742, at a cost of 
 £300. It was popularly termed the "Great Bridge" and 
 lasted until 1756. Another was built in 1769. In 1780, a 
 stone bridge was considered, to be paid for by a lottery. 
 The plan failed and a new one was built in 1786. Porter's 
 sketch of it, on his survey of 1790, indicates that it was of 
 simple but strong construction. The need of repairing an 
 old bridge, or building a new one, was before the town in 
 1801, 1804, 1807 and 1817. The plan of 1804 contemplated 
 one not less than forty, nor more than forty-four feet wide. 
 Earlier bridges had probably not exceeded thirty feet. 
 Stone piers to protect the supports were proposed in 1817. 
 Finally, however, in 1832, a stone bridge was voted, and it 
 was erected the following year. 1 Many doubts were then 
 expressed as to the stability of an arch with a span of one 
 hundred and four feet. This is now the Main Street bridge. 
 
 1 Ibid., MS. Vol. Ill: 151, 154, 160, 165, 166; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, 
 I: 368, 369. 
 
192 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 It was widened twenty feet east of earlier bridges and 
 necessitated raising the highway six feet near it, with the 
 lowering of the grade northward. 
 
 That which contributed most to alter the appearance of 
 the riveret, was the town's leasing of land along its banks. 
 Locations had been granted, now and then, for shops on 
 public land, but the earlier development was elsewhere. 
 In 1695, Ebenezer Gilbert was given such a privilege on the 
 south bank of the riveret. Other grants soon followed. 
 In 1701, Thomas Gilbert was voted a location for a barber 
 shop on the north bank, west of the bridge. Some of these 
 grants were regarded as temporary and were not recorded. 
 The practice grew, however, into a system of leases. The 
 first of these was made in 1737, for twenty years. In 1753, 
 forty years was the usual term. Within six years, a dozen 
 were made. Then the town in 1760, having examined into 
 all grants and leases, appointed a committee to sell and 
 dispose of the lands on both banks east of the mills. Rules 
 were adopted for the adjustment of all rights of occupants 
 and future leases. The proceeds were to be used in erecting 
 and maintaining the great bridge. It does not appear that 
 new leases were made under this action. In 1769, another 
 committee was appointed to carry out the rules. A new 
 bridge was then in contemplation. Twice the activities 
 of the committee were revived by other appointments. 
 After the Revolutionary War, however, leases were common. 
 The period was then nine hundred and ninety-nine years. 
 In 1824, in consideration of the location of Washington 
 College in Hartford, the town authorized the selectmen 
 to quitclaim the rentals and fee in these leased lands to the 
 amount of $5000 to the said institution. 1 The trustees of 
 Trinity College have since disposed of most of this interest. 
 
 The reader can best gather information concerning the 
 changes along the Little River in colonial times, by follow- 
 ing it westward from the mouth. On the right is Dutch 
 Point, at first a low and sandy tract, then a part of John 
 Haynes's pasture. It passed, in 1792, to John Ellery. 
 Later it was occupied for occasional ship-building, and 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 38: 377-405; Hartford Town Vote*, MS. Vol III: 
 113; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 373. 
 
THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 193 
 
 finally claimed for manufacturing. In 1790, Porter located 
 there a saw-mill. This gave place to Taylor's planing-mill, 
 which was burned in 1849. Barber, in his Historical Collec- 
 tions, shows a picture of Dutch Point as it appeared in his 
 day. On the south side of the stream, west of the Point, 
 was the House of Hope. For many years, the fields on either 
 side were used for hay and pasture. Taylor's wharf on the 
 north bank is noted in 1790. The bridge at Commerce 
 Street was built in 1858. Between that point and Front 
 Street on the right, there were originally two inlets, one of 
 which is said to have been partly filled with the ruins of the 
 Dutch fort. Abreast of John Chenevard's wharf, there was 
 once an island, called "Sheldon's Island," after the family 
 living near. The ford way crossed from Front to Governor 
 Street. It was above the limits of the riveret's navigation, 
 except at high water. The steamboat Barnett took advan- 
 tage of one spring flood, to go up stream over Daniels's dam, 
 as far as Imlay's foot bridge. At the beginning, there was 
 a landing on the left, east of the fordway. It was near 
 Governor Hopkins's house. There, the earliest merchants 
 of the South-side Plantation conducted some of their trade. 
 Perhaps there was also a landing on the north side of the 
 stream. In 1793, when commercial interests increased in 
 that neighborhood, the town laid out a public landing there. 
 Continuing up stream, we pass on the right bank, the site 
 of John Nichols's tailor shop and Daniel Hinsdale's store, 
 and reach the lower dam. Here, in 1779, Thomas Seymour 
 asked liberty to build a grist and saw-mill. It was opposite 
 his homestead. He received, in 1787, the usual lease of the 
 premises. The grist-mill was on the north, and the saw- 
 mill on the south side of the riveret. Both continued for 
 many years. In 1824, Ward's Woolen Manufactory occu- 
 pied the former site. Little did Thomas Hooker imagine 
 such a building across the street from his dooryard. The 
 Ledyard elm that stood near was witness to these changes. 
 West of the saw-mill there was another inlet or creek, over 
 which a stone bridge was built before 1783. Most of the 
 land on both banks westward to the falls was leased. On 
 the north side, was the Ellery house, now standing at the 
 end of Prospect Street. East of the bridge, Joseph Shepard 
 
194 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 leased land, in 1737, for his cooper shop. The old Shepard 
 house is now east of the site. In 1769, Joseph Reed leased 
 between Shepard and the bridge. His property was con- 
 fiscated during the Revolutionary War, he having "joined 
 the enemies of his country." It was sold in 1781, to buy 
 saddles for Colonel Sheldon's regiment of dragoons. 1 Thus 
 the owner paid his annual rental of "one peppercorn." 
 The land passed to Nathaniel Patten and later to the Frank- 
 lin Market Company. The junction of Arch and Main 
 Streets was called "Shepard's Corner." At the northwest 
 corner of the bridge, was "Stanley's Corner." Here, in 
 1755, Colonel Nathaniel Stanley obtained a lease of a lot 
 on the river's bank for forty years. John and Hephzibah 
 Skinner became the lessees in 1787, having a house there. 
 In 1790, Solomon Porter noted as landmarks west of them 
 the houses of George Burnham, Benjamin Wood and Jacob 
 Norton. Hudson and Goodwin were lessees next on the 
 west. Then came the old miller's house. Near the mill, 
 from 1773 to 1781, John Cable carried on a bakery, quite 
 famous in its day. North of the mills there were more 
 leased lots. In 1787, Ralph Pomeroy obtained a location 
 near Mulberry Street bridge. There a stock company 
 began the manufacture of broadcloth, a suit of which was 
 worn by President Washington at his first inauguration. 2 
 It was called "Congress brown." Later Cyprian Nichols 
 had a soap and candle factory in this building. Factory 
 Lane, or Gold Street, led thither from Main Street. The 
 passways to the riveret along this bank were reserved for 
 the use of fire engines. There they had occasional "washes." 
 On the south bank of the stream, west of the saw-mill, 
 some of the earliest leases were given. Thomas Hender 
 was about seven rods west of the stone bridge across the 
 inlet. In 1781 Aaron Bradley's blacksmith shop was west 
 of this. He was succeeded by Adonijah Brainard. A 
 watering-place was west of this shop. Richard Butler 
 came next. At the southeast arm of the bridge, was Thomas 
 Seymour's store of colonial days. In 1767, when he died, 
 he had two shops, one on each side of the Little River, near 
 
 1 State Archives: Revolutionary War, 34: 118, 119, 147, 253. 
 
 2 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 564, 565; New England States, I: 195, 196. 
 
THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 195 
 
 the bridge. In its later years the south side shop was 
 occupied by Elizur Skinner's restaurant, called "Washing- 
 ton Recess." J Across the street westward, John Lord was 
 the first tenant in early times. He had a house and shop 
 there, three rods west of the Great Bridge. 2 Later John 
 Thomas gathered several properties there. They passed 
 from him to Josiah Benton. Porter's landmarks between 
 this tract and the mill dam in 1790, were Joel Carter's house, 
 formerly Ezra Hyde's, and Reuben Wadsworth's. Between 
 the Thomas and Hyde lots, was that where Cotton Murray 
 had his store in 1777. It had previously belonged to Peter 
 R. Livingston. He acquired it from Andrew Thompson, 
 who purchased it from Daniel Bull in 1762. It was a well- 
 known store in its day, and stood north of Moses Butler's 
 tavern. At an early date Henry Hay ward, a malster, bought 
 the lot originally owned by John Barnard, also a malster. 
 He deeded, in 1698, to his son Samuel Hay ward his house 
 and "also his malt-house," north of the highway on the 
 river's bank. This location was devoted to that business for 
 many years. The malt-house was a landmark for locating 
 later grants, such as Ebenezer Gilbert's shop, James Taylor's 
 fulling-mill and others. 
 
 In colonial times the riveret west of the mills had no 
 resemblance to the present stream. The dam then held 
 back a considerable mill-pond. The land along its banks 
 was low. In 1636, the area now included in Bushnell Park 
 had a wild, woods-like appearance. Its islands were a 
 picturesque feature. The land was claimed for tanneries, 
 and it degenerated. Any one who remembers this tract 
 before the park was created will not wonder that the propo- 
 sition of Rev. Dr. Horace Bushnell was ridiculed by some 
 as absurd. 3 Porter's survey of 1790 shows three islands 
 within the east part. In 1824 there were only two, Ward's 
 Island and City Island. The latter was probably made up 
 of two as seen in 1790. John Bidwell was the original owner 
 of an island here, about two roods in extent. It abutted 
 southward on the river, and northward on a creek coming 
 
 1 The Hartford Times, March 18, 1891; Hartford Land Records, 56: 368. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol II: 167; Hartford Land Records, 10: 238. 
 
 3 "Letter of Dr. Bushnell" in Hearth and Home, Feb. 6, 1869, and The Hartford 
 Courant, April 22, 1908; Connecticut Quarterly, I: 68-71. 
 
19C THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 out of the river between the island and the highway. Within 
 a few years it passed in turn to Michael Spencer, William 
 Williams and William Kelsey. From the latter Edward 
 Grannis bought it in 1664, and the same year another island 
 of the same extent was given to him by the town. It abutted 
 on William Andrews's land, and is said to have been "com- 
 passed about" by the river. These two islands passed in 
 1671 to Samuel Burr, in 1674 to John Sadd, in 1715 to Daniel 
 Messenger, in 1724 to Moses Merrill, in 1738 to Timothy 
 Marsh and in 1741 to Joseph Forbs. 1 All these owners were 
 interested in the tanning business, which, with the currying of 
 leather, the manufacture of leather breeches and gloves, was 
 carried on in that neighborhood throughout colonial times. 
 When the dam of Allyn and Bidwell was built, it made a 
 mill-pond that extended some distance up stream. The 
 embankment ran across to the lot originally granted to 
 Governor Haynes. There Rev. Joseph Haynes had made 
 a garden, enclosed with a fence. Mrs. Sarah Haynes 
 brought suit for damages. 2 She eventually won, but the 
 mill-pond remained. The tract involved is now occupied 
 by the State Armory. Capitol Avenue was formerly called 
 Oil Mill Lane. The land south of it was a pasture until 
 about 1850. Rocky Hill Brook ran northward through it and 
 emptied into the riveret. At the west end of the lane, there 
 was a flaxseed oil-mill. There, in 1739, Nathaniel Hooker 
 and Samuel Talcott secured liberty from the town to build 
 a dam against "Butler's ten acres." The same year Jona- 
 than Butler sold them the land. It adjoined the falls in the 
 river, "a little above the flood " of Daniel Badger's mill- 
 pond. The grinding of flaxseed was carried on here for 
 years. A grist-mill was added before 1798. In 1819, this 
 property was acquired by Samuel Ledlie, who sold to 
 William H. Imlay. It was sometimes called "Imlay's 
 Upper Mills." The Sharp's Rifle Manufacturing Company 
 bought here in 1853. Such was the beginning of Hartford's 
 present manufacturing district. 
 
 1 Original Distribution, pp. 144, 242, 245, 388, 539; Hartford Land Records, 3: 
 19; 4: 1G2; 6: 208, 461. 
 
 2 State Archiir.s: Private Controversies, III: 67-73; The Hartford Courant, Nov. 
 6,1909; Hartford Land Records, I: 292. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 
 
 The First and Second churches of Hartford have been 
 favored with historians, who have written after careful 
 research. Yet the colonial history of the town would be 
 incomplete without sketches of those meeting-houses that 
 occupied the foreground of interest in their day. To con- 
 vey to the reader a general impression of them, is, moreover, 
 to our purpose, because each edifice was typical of the time 
 in which it was erected, and stands now for a period in the 
 town's development. 
 
 The first meeting-house of Hartford was perhaps begun 
 by the pioneers in the spring of 1636. They were then 
 anticipating the coming of Hooker's company, and would 
 naturally wish to provide a place of worship before his 
 arrival. The area they had reserved for public uses was 
 called, in the entries of surrounding lots, "meeting house 
 land," "meeting house lot," or "the meeting house yard." 
 Perhaps they thought it might become necessary to sur- 
 round this yard with a palisade, as planters did in other 
 pioneer settlements. At its southeast bound, James Cole 
 bought, at an early date, from Thomas Scott one rood of 
 land, which is described as "lying by the meetinge houfe.' 
 A lane led thence southward to the home-lots of their 
 ministers, called the "chase way leading to the meeting 
 house." It is thought, therefore, that this first place of 
 worship was located in the southeastern section of the 
 original square. Such, too, is the tradition. We have no 
 description of it ; but it is fair to assume that, in construction 
 and shape, it was like other pioneer meeting-houses in 
 New England. If so, we may think of it as a plain struc- 
 ture, built of logs, perhaps roughly squared, the chinks being 
 filled with moss, or clay mixed with hay. The roof was 
 thatched. Unglazed openings, provided with board shut- 
 
198 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 ters, served for windows, and the door was of plank. Ded- 
 ham's first meeting-house, erected in 1637, was 36 feet long, 
 20 feet wide and 12 feet high, from sill to plate; but that 
 was used thirty-one years. Hartford's was a temporary 
 structure, probably of that type and smaller size. As an 
 estimate for purposes of comparison, a pioneer meeting- 
 house 24 feet long, 16 feet wide and 10 feet high, would 
 have been of liberal proportions. It might have had a 
 wooden floor; but beaten earth was more likely. It was 
 furnished with rough benches, on either side of a narrow 
 passage. The men occupied one side and the women the 
 other. At the end, an elevated enclosure served for a 
 pulpit. Seats near the door were provided for the guard. 
 It was certainly such a plain building, whatever its shape 
 or size, for it was only a Puritan meeting-place, intended 
 mainly to afford an opportunity for all to hear the Word of 
 God, and capable of seating quite a company. To the 
 assembly that gathered there, however, it was "none other 
 than the house of God," made sacred by the sincerity of 
 their religious aspirations and the public significance of 
 their councils within its walls. If we assume that this 
 meeting-house was in use until another was provided, it 
 served the congregation for several years. It seems most 
 likely to have been the "litle house in the Meeting house 
 yard," which, on January 7, 1639-40, the townsmen re- 
 ceived liberty to sell. 1 If so the plan failed, for, a few 
 months later, William Spencer, in one of his last entries, 
 made the record: "Its ordrd that the ould Meeting house 
 shalbe given to m r Hooker." 2 We are to associate with 
 this edifice all their early public assemblies. These included 
 the general gatherings of the people, for civil as well as 
 religious purposes. There, the Court, on February 21, 
 1636-7, christened the settlement "Harteford Towne." 
 The following month they doubtless held there the first 
 election of magistrates. On May 1, 1637, their General 
 Court would have been assembled there, when they de- 
 clared war against the Pequot Indians. It was there, ere 
 their brave warriors embarked, that Thomas Hooker prob- 
 ably told them in a sermon that the savages "should be 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 11. * Ibid, I: 32. 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 199 
 
 bread for them." ! They would have celebrated there 
 also, on October 12, 1637, the first general Thanksgiving 
 Day of the New England Colonies, and the earliest of 
 record in Connecticut. 2 If we correctly interpret the town 
 votes, and their first townsmen were chosen by the inhab- 
 itants of the North-side and South-side plantations in 1637, 
 it was within these walls that the first organized town of 
 Connecticut was prematurely born. In the spring of 
 1638, the committees and magistrates probably convened 
 there to work out the democratic principles of their con- 
 stitutional government. Most likely, too, Thomas Hooker 
 preached there his famous sermon in May: and it was as 
 picturesque a setting for the event as the cedars of Clark's 
 Island for the Pilgrims, the old elm of Mattabesett for the 
 settlers at Middletown, or the wide-spreading oak for the 
 planters of New Haven. There they had certainly met that 
 spring to confer with some Indian sachems, for John Hig- 
 ginson states that it was in an edifice later "Mr. Hooker's 
 barn," their second meeting-house being "then not buylded." 
 There is a record of some "costlets" that had been kept in 
 this house, probably suspended from pegs in its walls, like 
 ancient armor, which were, on April 5th, committed to 
 Richard Lord, to "bee fitted vpp." They had been used in 
 the Pequot War; and the Indians had these weighty reasons 
 for the submission they yielded at the conference. These 
 scenes — and many others which an artist, only, could 
 portray — must have transpired within that first meeting- 
 house. 
 
 It had become evident, however, in 1637, that they could 
 anticipate a Colonial estate. A new era in their develop- 
 ment was within their view, and it demanded expression 
 in a meeting-house such as older communities in Massa- 
 chusetts had already erected. Moreover, the town's in- 
 habitants had increased. On any reasonable estimate of 
 the size of their first edifice, it could not accommodate 
 them. In his diary, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth records the 
 fact that, when the second meeting-house was taken down, 
 
 1 Mason's " Brief History" in Mather's Early History of New England, ed. 1864, 
 p. 156. Cf. Numb. XIV: 9. 
 
 2 Love's Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England, pp. 135, 136. 
 
200 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 thedate 1638 was found "upon y e weather cock." l Other 
 instances of such inscriptions are known. We have, how- 
 ever, no town votes concerning their plans or the initial 
 steps in carrying them out. Such action was doubtless 
 taken, and it may have been recorded in the plantation 
 records, but, as these votes were not of "general concern- 
 ment" when William Spencer transcribed the orders then 
 in force into the town votes, they have not been preserved. 
 This second meeting-house was located, says Dr. Hoadly, 
 "upon a little rising ground on the east side of the present 
 state house square." 2 The conveyance of a share in the 
 brick school-house, in 1759, states that this building stood 
 on "old Meeting House Hill," and near the dwelling-house 
 of Captain John Lawrence. The former edifice is supposed 
 to have been a little southeast of it. Its architecture was 
 of a type early adopted in New England and prevailing 
 throughout the century. Such meeting-houses were nearly 
 or quite square, with a truncated pyramidal roof, having 
 at its peak a "tower and turret." There were doors on 
 three sides, the fourth being occupied by the pulpit. We 
 have good reasons to believe that Hartford's meeting-house 
 was fifty feet square, and it was of sufficient height to 
 permit the erection of galleries. 3 It is proved by the records, 
 hereafter cited, that the first meeting-house of the Second 
 Church was of that size; that the second meeting-house of 
 that congregation also was exactly the measurements of 
 the First Church edifice, and that other Hartford meeting- 
 houses, built about the same time, adopted those propor- 
 tions in their ground plan. The material of that erected 
 in 1638 was wood. There was a door on the north side, 
 near which the guard sat on raised seats. As the pulpit 
 
 1 Wadsworth's Diary, p. 12. 
 
 1 "Some Account of the Early Meeting Houses of the First Church," by Dr. 
 Charles J. Hoadly, in Appendix to Sermons Preached by Rev. Leonard Bacon and 
 Rev. Geo. Leon Walker, Feb. 27, 187'J; Rowland Swift in Tiro Hundred and Fiftieth 
 Anniversary, p. 144; The Hartford Courant, July 29, Nov. 30, Dec. 2, 1907; The 
 Hartford Time*; Aug. 17, Dec. 2, Dec. 4, 1907. 
 
 8 New Haven's meeting-house, ordered in 1639, was "fifty foote square," and 
 had a pyramidal roof (New Haven Col. Rec, I: 25, 145). Northampton's, built 
 in 1661-1664, was forty feet square. That of Springfield, contracted for in 1645, 
 was forty feet long, twenty-five feet wide and nine feet high. It had two turrets, 
 one for a bell and the other for a watch-house. 
 

 " #4f ¥ tnpi 
 
 
 5» ^--:: 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 201 
 
 was on the west side, the main entrance was doubtless on 
 the east, according to custom. This was the natural front 
 at that time. Probably there was also a door on the south 
 side. There was a window on either side of each door. 
 These were small. Their two narrow window-sashes, hung 
 on hinges at the sides and opening in the middle, were 
 glazed with lozenge-shaped panes of glass, set in lead. The 
 cost of this meeting-house when completed, judging by the 
 experience of New Haven, must have been considerable. 
 It was not the custom in that day, however, to complete 
 new meeting-houses at once. The work usually lingered 
 for some years, and additional features were added as the 
 inhabitants could afford the expense. This was the case 
 in Hartford. Probably their edifice was sufficiently ad- 
 vanced so that it was occupied during the winter of 1638-9, 
 and they met there to adopt their first Constitution. Of 
 the work's progress, we have several hints in the records. 
 On April 11, 1639, the ringing of their bell is mentioned. 
 This they had brought from Cambridge. The town agreed, 
 on October 28, 1640, with Stephen Post, at 5s. 6d. per 
 hundred, to hew, plane and lay the clapboards. One 
 addition to their original design had been ordered a few 
 months earlier. It was the construction of an enclosed 
 porch, covering, as the custom was, the front doorway. 
 In the author's opinion, this porch projected in front of 
 the edifice. Over such porches a chamber was usually 
 built, called a "porch-chamber." As now, with dormer 
 windows, it furnished light and a convenient egress from the 
 interior of the second floor. This empty space above a 
 church auditorium, was called "the meeting house cham- 
 ber." Springfield's church had, at first, only the joists 
 for one; but, in 1649, John Pynchon agreed to "make a 
 chamber over the meeting house and board it," provided 
 he could have the use of it for ten years. There he stored 
 his corn. 1 A stairway — usually in the porch or near the 
 door — afforded access to such chambers. Hartford's meet- 
 ing-house had apparently a floor above. It seems to have 
 occurred to some, to add the porch and, through a chamber 
 above it, to provide for the use of the second floor. How 
 
 1 Burt's History of Springfield, I: 200. 
 
202 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 much of the interior space above the auditorium was in- 
 cluded in this chamber, we do not know, but sufficient to 
 make a room of convenient size for ordinary uses. As, 
 according to the records, it was situated directly over the 
 church gallery, it must have included some interior space, 
 and, if we may suppose that the porch was ten feet square 
 as some were — as much, or more, taken from the interior, 
 would have made a room of considerable size. This cham- 
 ber was used in early times as an arsenal. A room in the 
 Second Church was put later to the same use. There was 
 no fire in either place to endanger a supply of gunpowder. 
 This was the "Court Chamber" mentioned in later records. 
 It was used by the upper house after the General Assembly 
 had been divided, and was accustomed to convene in the 
 meeting-house. They also called it the " Council Chamber." 
 Here the smaller courts of the time may have held some of 
 their sessions. Some time was occupied in completing this 
 porch, but, as its construction did not interfere with the 
 use of the auditorium, it could be done at their leisure. 1 
 The seating of this meeting-house, according to the customs 
 of those days, was ordered March 13, 1640-41. By that 
 date, seats must have been provided and order established 
 within. Henry Packs, in his will, dated September 4, 
 1640, bequeathed to the church a clock, but, so far as 
 known, it was never used in their meeting-house. 2 That 
 would have been quite contrary to the customs of the time. 
 Ministers then used hour-glasses, but gave little heed to 
 them. 
 
 This meeting-house had not been in use many years before 
 it was found to be too small. The population had in- 
 creased. Had it not been for emigrations to other towns, 
 they would have been compelled to build anew before the 
 Second Church was formed. This condition was met by a 
 vote to build, with convenient speed, a gallery. In 1643, 
 the town had voted to discipline any boy, who was mis- 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 39, 46. 
 
 2 Manwaring's Hartford Probate Records, I: 29. In 1654 an inventory of the 
 town's property has "The towne Clock at good Prats." It had in 1657 "A clock at 
 John Allyns." Hartford Town Votes, I: 106, 119. The clock in the steeple of the 
 third meeting-house was provided by public subscription in 1752. Russell's Hist, 
 of Christ Church, I: 62 n. 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 203 
 
 behaving "at the tim of publik exorcies ether in the mitting 
 howse or about the wales without." Perhaps the insuffi- 
 cient room for them within, or the need of a suitable place 
 for them to sit, was one reason for the immediate erection 
 of this south gallery, afterwards assigned to the boys. 
 There, they were watched by the tithing-man. 1 In 1660, 
 they voted to build a gallery on the east side. They also 
 voted, in 1664, to erect a gallery "for the inlargment of the 
 Rume." This was doubtless on the north side and com- 
 pleted this improvement. Evidently the height of the 
 walls had been greater than in some buildings to permit of 
 such galleries. It may have been sixteen or eighteen feet, 
 which was a liberal dimension. Repairs were made upon 
 this edifice from time to time. The east side was newly 
 shingled in 1660, and the south and west sides in 1667. 
 At the latter date "necessary Lights for the Gallery" were 
 ordered, altering the exterior appearance by the addition 
 of small second story windows. The roof was newly covered 
 in 1687, with cedar shingles, which, says Dr. Hoadly, they 
 sought liberty to obtain in Fitz John Winthrop's swamp, 
 between Haddam and Saybrook. In 1699, new window 
 casements were needed. In 1704, underpinning, ground 
 sills and clapboards were provided. At that time, William 
 Davenport laid a new oak plank floor in the turret, "calking 
 and pitching" it, and set up "the speere & vain." The 
 year before, the pulpit had been furnished with a "Plush 
 Cushin, a greene Cloth, and Silke for the fringes and Tasseles 
 of s d Cushion," at a cost of £2. 14s. 6d. sterling. 2 In 1725, 
 the bell was broken. The town finally decided to have it 
 recast in England, with as much, or more, weight of metal 
 added. The cost was £85, of which the First Society paid 
 £47. 5s. 9d., and the Second Society £37. 14s. 3d. — a fair 
 representation of their relative wealth at the time. 3 This 
 bell being out of use in 1726, John Edwards was directed 
 to purchase some suitable red bunting for a flag to be set 
 up on the State House, "to direct for meeting upon public 
 
 1 Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary, pp. 147, 148. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 147. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 151; Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 49, 51, 52. 
 
204 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 worship of God." 1 The breaking of the old "town bell" 
 must have awakened in some recollections of the past. 
 It had voiced the summons of their meeting-house so long, 
 that a babe who heard its last peal might have been the 
 great-grandchild of one who heard its first. So, genera- 
 tions had come and gone in that century of struggle with 
 the wilderness and the Indians, and not a little, also, with 
 "the world, the flesh and the devil." Their meeting-house, 
 had been the symbol of that period — small, unadorned, 
 substantial. It was fitting that the old bell should ring 
 out its dying peal and be broken. When it was returned 
 from England, it gave forth a new and a fuller note. 
 
 The awakening of interest at this time in the building of 
 a new meeting-house, can hardly be regarded as a mere 
 coincidence. To be sure, their present edifice was small 
 and old, but for many years, that of the Second Church 
 had relieved the congestion of attendance. In fact, it did 
 serve them until 1737. We must turn back to the time 
 when the church was divided, to remind the reader that in 
 1670, as well as for years before that and years afterwards, 
 Hartford was a dual community and had maintained its 
 unity under a virtual treaty, by which the North-side and 
 the South-side inhabitants shared equally in its government. 
 The doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues of the controversy 
 in the First Church cannot be minimized. It was not 
 greatly to the disparagement of either party that differences 
 should arise in Hartford, for the same issues were in dis- 
 cussion elsewhere. This dual community life, however, 
 apparently offered the disputants every advantage for 
 creating a division. This was especially true in the later 
 stages of the controversy, when Rev. Joseph Haynes, the 
 son of a North-side settler, and Rev. John Whiting, the son 
 of a South-side settler, came into open conflict. In most 
 ecclesiastical disputes, there are elements that are not dis- 
 cussed in the council's minutes. We suspect that this was 
 true of the controversy that finally resulted in the forma- 
 tion of the Second Church, February 12, 1669-70, most of 
 
 1 The selectmen of Plymouth, in 1C97, were directed to "procure a flagg to be 
 put out at the ringing of the first bell and taken in when the last bell was rung." 
 In some places a flag was used to commence the time of worship. 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 205 
 
 whose founders were South-side inhabitants and followed 
 Rev. John Whiting. 
 
 This action had been taken, pursuant to the vote of the 
 General Court in October 1669, recommending to the 
 First Church a course favorable to it, in default of which 
 the withdrawing members were permitted "to release and 
 releiue themselves, without offense to the Courte." We 
 do not know of any favorable action by the mother church. 
 The vote of the Court was not carried by any encouraging 
 majority, four assistants and fourteen deputies dissenting. 1 
 The old law concerning the maintenance of ministers, which 
 was originally framed by the Commissioners of the United 
 Colonies, did not then contemplate the support of two 
 churches within a town. 2 Provision was made, therefore, 
 at a town meeting in 1670, for the salary of Mr. Haynes 
 alone. It happened, however, that relief was soon afforded 
 by the revision of the laws, ordered in May 1671 and ap- 
 proved in October 1672. Therein it was provided that, 
 where there was more than one congregation in a town, 
 "all persons shall contribute to one or both of those Societies 
 within their township." 3 This allowed the new church to 
 pay rates for the maintenance of Mr. Whiting and his 
 ministry. In the will of Deacon George Grave, dated 
 September 17, 1673, he specified that his lands should "pay 
 their rates, according to their proportion, to the Mainte- 
 nance of the Ministree at the new meeting house." Ser- 
 geant Joseph Nash in 1675 did the same. At the begin- 
 ning, however, the Second Church labored under a great 
 disadvantage. 
 
 Another problem was presented to them in the erection 
 of their meeting-house. No public land could be secured 
 without the town's consent, and there is no record of such 
 a vote. Nor did their Society then have such corporate 
 existence as was necessary for them to hold real estate. 
 There was no other course than for them to build on private 
 property. The commercial interests of the South-side being 
 then largely near the southern end of the bridge, the lot 
 that had originally belonged to Andrew Bacon was selected. 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rcc, II: 120. 2 Ibid., I: 111, 112, 545. 
 
 3 Ibid., II: 153, 154, ICO, 176, 190, 290; Laws of 1672, title page and p. 52. 
 
206 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 This had been recorded to William Warren in 1664, under 
 an agreement made the year before with Andrew Bacon and 
 his nephew, Nathaniel Bacon, whereby payment was to 
 be made in six annual installments, ending April 1, 1670. x 
 William Warren was a member of the new congregation. 
 At all events, the northern part of this lot, comprising about 
 one and a quarter acres, with a dwelling-house and other 
 buildings, passed to Lieutenant Thomas Bull. He did 
 not buy this for a homestead, and we have found no evidence 
 that he ever lived there. Nor was this lot recorded to him. 
 In 1670, or within a few years, he certainly acquired it. 
 There was no record to inform the curious that Warren had 
 sold it, or, if he had, who the purchaser was. This lot was 
 bounded west by Main Street and north by our present 
 Sheldon Street. The land south of it was sold, in 1684, by 
 Nathaniel Bacon to Richard Burnham, whose house and 
 blacksmith shop were located there until 1738. Lieutenant 
 Bull in 1682, by deed of gift conveyed his lot to his son, 
 Major Jonathan Bull, who married in 1684, Sarah, the 
 daughter of Rev. John Whiting. In his will, also, executed 
 in 1684, Lieutenant Bull bequeathed to his son "my [his] 
 Lott and House that I [he] bought of William Warren neare 
 the New Meeting hous in Hartford." On this lot therefore 
 owned at the time by Lieutenant Bull, the first meeting- 
 house of the Second Church was built. It seems probable 
 that the congregation worshipped in the dwelling-house 
 until their edifice was completed. The meeting-house was 
 south of this dwelling, and the land upon which it stood 
 was never recorded to that Society. The truth appears to 
 have been that, since the new congregation could not other- 
 wise secure a site, Lieutenant Thomas Bull took the new 
 meeting-house under his protection, and bequeathed the 
 trust to his son Major Jonathan Bull, from whom it de- 
 scended to Dr. Jonathan Bull. It is partly through a con- 
 veyance made by Sarah, the widow of Major Jonathan, 
 that we obtain an acquaintance with this meeting-house. 
 She obtained liberty from the General Assembly in 1705 
 "to make a sale of a small parcel of land in Hartford, not 
 
 1 Original Distribution, p. 553; State Archives: Private Controversies, I: 121-123; 
 Probate Records, Book III, County Court, March 5, 1673-4. 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 207 
 
 exceeding fifteen foot in breadth and fiftie foot in length 
 for the accomodation of the making some inlargement to 
 the south meeting house in said town," in which sale, as 
 administratrix, she was to act, on the advice of Major 
 William Whiting. She conveyed, therefore, to Nathaniel 
 Stanley, Richard Lord, Thomas Bunce, John Marsh and all 
 others of the "Congregation of the Society of the South 
 meeting house," 516 square feet of her home-lot, being 50 
 feet and 4 inches in length and 10 feet and 3 inches in breadth 
 throughout. This strip of land was bounded by the meeting- 
 house on the north, her own home-lot on the south and east, 
 and the street on the west. 1 That she sold four inches more 
 in length than she was authorized to do, undoubtedly in- 
 dicates that it was necessary in order to extend the strip 
 to the east end of the edifice. As the addition was for 
 "some inlargement," we conjecture that the design was to 
 build an outside porch on the south side of the edifice and 
 erect stairs to galleries within. If this explanation is cor- 
 rect, this meeting-house, which we shall see was fifty feet 
 square and doubtless had a pyramidal roof, would have 
 been when completed similar to that of the First Church. 
 Under the circumstances, this was a natural proceeding. 
 There is no evidence in the land records that the above 
 strip of land was ever conveyed by the Second Society. 
 
 The ownership of the site of this meeting-house was in 
 dispute, when the edifice was abandoned in 1755, from 
 which we learn its exact size. A vote was then passed by 
 the Society, empowering the committee "to Sell the Old 
 Meeting Houfe and Leafe the Land belonging thereto for 
 Nine Hundred and Ninety nine years to the higheft Bid- 
 der." 2 To this, Jonathan Bull objected. He claimed to 
 own, by right of inheritance, the fee in this property. Con- 
 sequently, a suit was brought in the County Court in 1756, 
 known as Jonathan Bull vs. Ebenezer Benton, Jonathan 
 Seymour et al. The writ describes this property as "being 
 about fifty feet Square, Bounded Weftwardly by the Town 
 Street or Country Road, Southerly by land formerly appro- 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 512; Hartford Land Records, 1: 397. 
 
 2 "Seymour Papers," in Boardman Collection, State Library, No. 5631. See 
 also Nos. 5632, 5633. 
 
208 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 priated to accommodate the South Meeting Houfe so called 
 in the firft Parifh in said Hartford," and on all other sides 
 by land of the plaintiff. 1 The land herein mentioned as 
 on the south was the strip above referred to, hence the 
 meeting-house site was fifty feet square. The defendants 
 contended that this land had belonged to the inhabitants, 
 the Society having acquired from them an ownership by 
 occupation. Thomas Warren, aged 82 or 83, testified to 
 attending meeting there as a boy with his father, and 
 declared that the meeting-house was built on land that was 
 once his father's; nor had he ever heard of any person that 
 laid claim to the land on which the meeting-house stood. 
 He and Widow Hannah Olcott, aged about 92 years, also 
 testified that the land had laid open to the street ever since 
 they could remember. It is evident that the South Society 
 had forgotten, if any of those then living ever knew, the 
 facts concerning the location of their first meeting-house. 
 This case was tried in the County Court in January 1757. 2 
 The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants, from which 
 the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. Upon a final 
 review of the case, this verdict was reversed, and the plain- 
 tiff recovered possession of the lot, with damages and costs. 3 
 We have, thus, sufficient evidence to determine the type 
 of this meeting-house. It was doubtless patterned after 
 that of the First Church, erected in 1638, and of the same 
 size. In general appearance it was similar after the erection 
 of the porch about 1705, which the street on the west made 
 it necessary to place on the south side. It stood on Main 
 Street, near the residence recently owned by Hon. Henry 
 C. Robinson. Probably this edifice was begun about 1670. 
 James Ensign, in his will executed November 23, 1670, 
 bequeathed £6 "towards the building of the new meeting 
 house." The will of Deacon Grave in 1673, intimates that 
 it was then completed and in use. In 1719, the Society 
 was permitted by the town to erect horse sheds 10 feet wide 
 and SO feet, long at the end of the school-house, nearly oppo- 
 site in the highway. 
 
 1 8uperior Court Papers, September Term 1757, State Library. 
 
 - County Court Records, Vol. T, January term 1757, case 20. 
 
 3 Superior Court Records, Vol. 12, March and September terms, 1757. 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 209 
 
 Few, if any, congregations of that day had endured more 
 from courts and councils in order to attain such a consum- 
 mation of their desires. We know of none that seemed 
 to hold their minister in higher esteem. Within the first 
 fifteen years of the church's history, no less than ten of his 
 loyal supporters made bequests to him in their wills, perhaps 
 in recognition of his loss those early years when the town 
 withdrew its support. 1 So the Second Church of Christ 
 in Hartford, which Major James Richards termed, in 1680, 
 the "South Church," entered into the privileges of its sanc- 
 tuary, named in the earliest records " the new meeting house " 
 and "the meeting house of the South side of the Riveret." 2 
 
 Thus it happened that the "Town Bell," which had hung 
 so long in the tower of the First Church meeting-house, had 
 for more than half a century summoned the worshippers 
 of both congregations. The recasting of it was regarded 
 as the town's duty, in which both societies ought to share. 
 The matter was referred to a committee representing both 
 bodies. It was under consideration for several months. 
 As both churches then needed new meeting-houses, this 
 conference became the occasion out of which the proposition 
 arose to reunite the two churches. In 1726, the First 
 Society voted that such a union would be better for the 
 town and the "honorable support of the ministry." A 
 committee was named to propose the same to the "new 
 church." The plan failed, however, to receive sufficient 
 favor from that body to warrant further consideration. It 
 was altogether unlikely that a new meeting-house could be 
 
 1 These bequests were: James Ensign, 1670, £5; Christian, wife of Benjamin 
 Harbert, 1670, three acres of land; Gregory Wolterton, 1674, £5; John Bidwell, 
 Sen., 1683, 20 s.; Major James Richards, 1680, £15; Justes Banbury, 1672, 20 s.; 
 Captain Thomas Watts, 1683, £20; Elder John White, 1683, £5; Thomas Hos- 
 mer, 1685, £5; Lieutenant Thomas Bull, 1684, £3. 
 
 2 Gregory Wolterton wrote his own will. His use of the phrase "South side of 
 the Riveret" in 1674 is significant. The most common early designation is "New 
 Meeting House." On the title page of Rev. John Whiting's election sermon, 
 printed in 1686, he is called "Pastor of the Second Church of Christ in Hartford." 
 The caption of Rev. Thomas Buckingham's early records, made after 1694, has 
 "Second Church in Hartford," but whether this phrase was copied from Rev. 
 John Whiting's record is uncertain. The Town Votes speak of "the second church 
 now in Hartford" in 1684. Mrs. Bull probably used the common designation in 
 1705 — "South Meeting House." In deeds "South Ecclesiastical Society" appears 
 in 1755, "South Society" in 1765 and "Second Ecclesiastical Society" in 1774. 
 
210 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 located south of the riveret satisfactorily to both churches, 
 and the South-side was too nearly equal to the North-side 
 in inhabitants and wealth to surrender the privileges it 
 had so long enjoyed. 
 
 There is evidence of the force of such considerations in 
 the protracted controversy the First Society had in locating 
 its own meeting-house. 1 After eleven years, the possibili- 
 ties of further discussion being exhausted, the southeast 
 corner of the burying-ground was selected. The original 
 vote of 1734 contemplated a brick edifioe seventy feet long 
 and forty-six feet wide, the exact dimensions of North- 
 ampton's meeting-house, erected the same year. The 
 length was afterwards reduced to sixty-six feet, and wood 
 was substituted for brick. "This house stood," says Dr. 
 Walker, "sidewise to the street, its steeple on the north end. 
 There was a door at the south end, another on the east side 
 and another under the steeple on the north. The pulpit 
 was on the west side, and, over it, a sounding board, and 
 behind it a curtain." There were two rows of windows, set 
 with small rectangular panes of glass, the lower sash, at 
 least, being hung on weights. The "Great Alley" ran from 
 the east door to the pulpit, and another, it is said, crossed 
 it from north to south. Un cushioned slips occupied the 
 floor and gallery space, excepting a few more pretentious 
 pews on either side of the high pulpit, which increased in 
 number as the century advanced. "The tower," says Mr. 
 Rowland Swift, "elevated the bell turret a full story at least 
 above the ridge pole — the spire still rising high above this 
 with its lofty pole and gilded ball and weathercock." On 
 July 31, 1737, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth preached his last 
 sermon in the old meeting-house. Its destruction was 
 begun the following week, the pulpit, seats and bell being 
 removed. Some of its timbers are said to be in the present 
 edifice. The congregation met in the State House August 
 
 1 Dr. Walker's History of the First Church, pp. 278-289; Two Hundred and Fif- 
 tieth Anniversary, pp. 151-158. These volumes are authorities on the second meet- 
 ing-house. See also "Some Account of the Early Meeting Houses of the First 
 Church," by Dr. Charles J. Hoadly, in Appendix to Sermons Preached by Rev. 
 Leonard Bacon and Rev. Geo. Leon Walker, Feb. 27, 1879; Wadsworth's Diary, pp. 
 25, 28; The Hartford Times, Aug. 17, Dec. 2 and 4, 1907; The Hartford Courant, 
 July 29. Nov. 30 and Dec. 2. 1907. 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 211 
 
 7th, and there conducted worship until December 30, 1739, 
 when their third meeting-house was dedicated. On that 
 occasion, Mr. Wadsworth preached his only published ser- 
 mon, entitled, "Christ's Presence the Glory of an House of 
 Publick Worship," printed at New London in 1740. 
 
 There was a great similarity among the meeting-houses 
 erected in New England about the middle of the eighteenth 
 century, especially in the Connecticut valley. Their dimen- 
 sions, interior arrangement and architecture varied little. 
 Doors were placed as the convenience of the location sug- 
 gested. It is said that a plan of this meeting-house had 
 been prepared by Mr. Cotton Palmer of Warwick, R. I., 
 who received one pound for the service and his advice. He 
 was not an architect, as that term is now used, but a builder. 
 Probably he had merely a draft of this edifice, and obtained 
 his ideas and measurements from some early builder's com- 
 panion. 
 
 Ten years after the dedication of this edifice the Second 
 Church decided to erect a new meeting-house. The matter 
 had been determined before the January session of the 
 County Court, 1749-50, when that authority was asked to 
 fix a site. The Court appointed Colonel Elizur Goodrich 
 and Hezekiah May of Wethersfield, and Captain Jonathan 
 Hills of East Hartford, to view the premises, notify and hear 
 all parties and report to it. A site was fixed at the July 
 session, but it was not approved by the Society. It was 
 "in the highway that comes from the westward," now Buck- 
 ingham Street. The southeast corner of the meeting-house 
 was to be about two rods north of the northeast corner of 
 Joseph Buckingham's house-lot, on which the present church 
 stands. 1 As the Society had voted to erect a building 
 "sixty-six feet in length and forty-six feet in breadth" — 
 the exact size of the First Society meeting-house — the 
 highway would be almost closed. Only about two rods 
 were left at each end. The space on the north was in the 
 winter and spring covered with ice or flooded, so as to be 
 impassable. On the south, it was claimed, the highway was 
 much used for carting hay, corn and wood. There was 
 also "a considerable run of water" coming along Main 
 
 1 County Court Records, Vol. S., July, 1750. 
 
212 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Street, which would run under the meeting-house. This 
 was the brook mentioned in deeds of that time. The 
 ground, too, it was thought, would endanger the foundations. 
 Thus the project encountered obstacles that delayed it for 
 two years. On May 20, 1752, the "Inhabitants of the 
 Second Society" petitioned the General Assembly for a new 
 location. The committee recited the facts, stated the 
 proposed size of their edifice, and admitted that it was made 
 larger than the Society required because the two societies 
 often had occasion to meet together. 1 The Assembly 
 appointed a new committee, upon whose report the site was 
 fixed. It was about thirty feet east of the former, two- 
 thirds of the building being in Main Street. 2 It stood the 
 longest way north and south. The bell tower measured 
 16 feet. It was in the center, at the north end. There 
 was an entrance through it into the church, almost in line 
 with the west sidewalk. There were also doors in the center 
 on the east and south sides. The pulpit was on the west. 3 
 In the interior, the arrangement was quite similar to the 
 First Church meeting-house. This edifice was begun, as Dr. 
 Parker discovered in the "Memorandum Book" of Thomas 
 Seymour, "in the fore part of the year of our Lord, 1752, 
 was three years in building, and finished about the latter 
 end of the year 1754." 4 It was occupied by the congrega- 
 tion January 5, 1755, but, on December 2nd, Rev. George 
 Whitefield preached in it the first sermon. So far as it is 
 possible to make a comparison between the meeting-houses 
 of the First and Second churches, the main feature in which 
 they differed was their spires. In 1737 the First Church 
 had invited the Second to contribute towards a steeple 
 where the town bell could be hung — probably without re- 
 sults. It then ordered its committee to do the work. The 
 contract with Mr. Palmer was for £250, but there were ad- 
 ditional expenses. They paid Eben Sedgwick £9. 15 s. for the 
 spire pole. To Seth Young they paid £52. 13 s. 6 d. for a 
 gilded brass cock and ball, which adorned its summit. As the 
 base of the tower measured fourteen feet, the above details 
 
 1 State Archives: Ecclesiastical, IX: 19-22. 
 
 - Conn. Col. Ree., X: 96, 106. 3 The Hartford Times, March 18, 1891. 
 
 4 Dr. Parker's History of the Second Church, pp. 120-123; "Seymour Papers" 
 in Board man Collection, State Library, No. 5630 tf. 
 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 213 
 
 may indicate that its spire was patterned more after that 
 slender and tall type, which some of the meeting-houses 
 of that day had. The Second Church edifice is described 
 by a traveller in 1807 as "of wood, alike unornamented 
 within and without, and when filled there was still pre- 
 sented to the eye nothing but what had the plainest 
 appearance." * Its steeple was erected by a subscription 
 of sixteen men, amounting to £465. At its base the tower 
 was two feet larger than that of the First Church edifice. 
 The spire was more of the conventional type. 2 In this 
 feature, the meeting-houses of that period usually displayed 
 the taste and wealth of the congregation. 
 
 These were not the only meeting-houses erected in Hart- 
 ford during the colonial period. One was built on the 
 East-side in 1699. It was probably one of the small square 
 edifices, which continued in fashion into the next century. 
 Its location was on a low hill where the South Meadow Road 
 diverges from Main Street. This stood until 1735. Its 
 successor was erected about the same time as the First 
 Church meeting-house. The dimensions were exactly the 
 same. It had no steeple. In 1754 it was painted. 3 A 
 meeting-house was built by the West Society in or about 
 1712 and stood diagonally across the highway from the 
 present church. It also was probably a small barn-like build- 
 ing. North of this, at the same corner its successor was 
 erected in 1742-1744. This followed the type then pre- 
 vailing in the town. The third meeting-house of the West 
 Society was built in 1834 and is the present town hall. 4 
 
 That there were no other churches in Hartford about 
 the middle of the eighteenth century, does not indicate 
 entire unanimity of religious faith. In 1745, John Tiley 
 
 1 Kendall's Travels, I: 4. 
 
 2 The Wadsworth Athenaeum has an old oil painting, the colors of which are 
 much dimmed, which shows the spire of the Second Church meeting-house. It is 
 said to have been formerly in the possession of the Pond family. As this edifice 
 was torn down in 1828, and the picture also shows the spire of the present First 
 Church meeting-house, erected in 1807-1808, the painting was executed between 
 those dates. A writer in the "Old Days in Hartford" articles, No. 27, Connecti- 
 cut Post, refers to this or a similar painting as giving the view from Lord's Hill in 
 1818 and states that it was painted by Waldo. 
 
 3 Goodwin's Hist, of East Hartford, pp. 129, 130. 
 
 4 The Hartford Courant, May 19, 1913. 
 
214 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 declared himself as a Baptist. He had been a member of 
 Elder Stephen Gorton's church in New London since 1726, 
 and had sometimes been there to worship. 1 John Bolles, 
 called the father of the denomination in Hartford, attended 
 church in Suffield before 1789. He and others then formed 
 a church. It is said that their first meeting for worship was 
 held in the home of John Bolles. A meeting-house was 
 erected about 1794, on the corner of Market and Temple 
 streets. There were Methodists in Hartford as early as 
 1789, but no meeting-house until 1821. The year before, 
 services had been held in the old Court House on Church 
 Street. A few merchants or traders of the Jewish faith 
 were occasional residents of Hartford in colonial times. 
 There were Roman Catholics, also, before 1781, when Abbe 
 Robin, chaplain of the French troops* celebrated mass in 
 their encampment. Neither had any stated place of wor- 
 ship. About the middle of the eighteenth century, there 
 were a number of families in Hartford that had affiliations 
 with the Church of England. These had so increased in 
 number and strength that, after 1762, occasional services 
 were held. Land for a church was purchased, and there 
 was a parochial organization. The first administration of 
 the Lord's Supper was celebrated in the Court House in 
 1766. This early movement declined during the Revolu- 
 tionary War. Adherents were then in fellowship with the 
 church in Middletown. The interest was revived in 1786. 
 Their first church was built in 1792, on the north corner of 
 Church and Main streets. 2 
 
 It must be admitted that Hartford was no exception to 
 the rule of colonial times, in showing intolerance toward 
 dissenters from the established order, especially when they 
 violated the laws. Some such were confined from time to 
 time in Hartford's jail. There were others, however, of 
 good religious standing in the community, who worshipped 
 reverently in its Puritan congregations, because there was 
 no church in the town according to their faith. Their 
 dissent was doubtless known, but, in the general esteem 
 for their characters, it was overlooked. 
 
 1 State Archives: Ecclesiastical, X: 312, 313. 
 
 2 See Dr. Russell's History of the Parish of Christ Church. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
 
 The places where the founders of a town or commonwealth 
 were accustomed to meet in early times, have ever afterwards 
 a public interest. If there was a rude log hut erected within 
 the palisado by the pioneers of 1635, that was the town's 
 first public building. In 1636, the meeting-house became 
 the place for assemblies and continued to be such for some 
 years. It is not so likely, as it seems to the writer, that all 
 their general or particular courts in early times were held 
 there. That was not in accordance with their custom in 
 old England; nor would it have suited their convenience. 
 The story is told that an Indian was hired to seek a lost 
 horse, which its English owners had sought in vain. He 
 dashed off into the forest and quickly found it feeding in a 
 well-watered intervale. When he was asked for an explana- 
 tion of his read}' 1 success, he replied: "I just thought what 
 I would do, if I were a horse." Their courts for some years 
 had comparatively few members. If the reader had been 
 one of them, he certainly would have suggested some more 
 comfortable place of assembly than a cold meeting-house in 
 mid-winter. In England, courts of that time were fre- 
 quently convened at inns, and are sometimes to this day. 
 At the inn, members could stable their horses and find 
 lodgings and entertainment for themselves. The hall was 
 a suitable meeting place. It seems very likely that the 
 settlers convened their courts in such inns, as soon as suitable 
 ones were established. Such is the indication of the records. 
 On June 3, 1644, the General Court, after rehearsing the 
 need of such inns or ordinaries in the Colony, passed an 
 order requiring each town to provide one. We have no 
 hint of any inn in Hartford before this date. At the same 
 meeting, John Steele, Andrew Bacon and James Boosey 
 were appointed a committee to secure "some conuenient 
 
216 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 house in Hartford, for the comly and sutable meeteing" of 
 the Commissioners of the United Colonies in September. 
 This body numbered eight. It certainly would not convene 
 in a meeting-house, and no such place was thought of in 
 Hartford. We are not told what house the committee 
 secured; but we do know that Thomas Ford, a deputy of 
 that General Court from Windsor, married, November 7, 
 1044, Ann, the widow of Thomas Scott. They then, or 
 soon afterwards, established the first inn in Hartford, at the 
 late home of the deceased husband. Perhaps that was the 
 meeting place of the Commissioners. In 1645, John Win- 
 throp, the younger, recorded in the diary of his journey to 
 Connecticut the fact that he "reached the inn of Thomas 
 Ford at Hartford," about nine o'clock in the evening of 
 November 17th. 1 He spent the next day there, on which 
 he says, "the Governor and magistrates went to Tunxis 
 Village." This entry at least suggests that this inn was 
 their place of assembly and departure, to which Winthrop 
 was a witness. Thomas Ford was keeping this inn in 1648, 
 although he had a large property in Windsor. 2 It was 
 located on the southwest corner of State and Front streets. 
 Thomas Scott, at his death in 1643, had bequeathed to his 
 widow and son Thomas a half interest in this property. 
 The house at that date evidently had a hall, parlor, several 
 chambers, a garret, cellar and leanto. It passed, in 105 c 2, to 
 Thomas Cadwell. 
 
 We next note that the General Court, in May 1660, ordered 
 that no person in Hartford, excepting Jeremy Adams, should 
 sell wines and liquors in small quantities, as innholders did. 
 The Court was presumably convened at his tavern, as two 
 of its members were appointed to take in his account. 
 This inn was located on Main Street, where the Church of 
 the Redeemer recently stood, now occupied by the southern 
 half of the Travelers Insurance Company building. It was 
 originally the lot of John Steele, and in 1650 passed to John 
 Talcott, who sold it to John Morris, from whom Jeremy 
 Adams bought it in 1051. As this was shortly before the 
 Ford inn was sold, we may infer that it was acquired for 
 
 1 2 Ser. Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, VIII: 8; The Hartford Courant, Dec. ii, 1892. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 168. 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 217 
 
 the purpose of an inn, and was the successor to Ford's. The 
 messuage or tenement of John Steele is mentioned in the 
 above transfers. It was probably a house of the better sort, 
 and of some size for that day. The lot comprised two and 
 one-half acres. Jeremy Adams mortgaged this property 
 in 1661, to John Talcott, treasurer of the Colony, to secure 
 the payment of a debt. This unusual action probably meant 
 that the Court had an interest in Adams's possession of the 
 premises. On March 13th following, they gave him three 
 hundred acres of land. Moreover, upon his desire that 
 the house he "doth now possess and improue for an Ordnary, 
 or house of coinon enterteinment, shalbe and remaine for 
 the same end and vse and occupation for the future," they 
 gave him a perpetual license, to run to his heirs and suc- 
 cessors. The conditions were, that the inn be conducted to 
 the approval of the General Court, that the house "be 
 fitted and made capable" of giving entertainment to neigh- 
 bors and strangers, and that the accommodation be ample 
 for travellers, "both respecting wine and liquors and other 
 provision for food and comfortable refreshing both for 
 man and beast." l This appears very like an agreement 
 between the Court and its landlord, to provide for the enter- 
 tainment of its session, or to continue a provision already 
 enjoyed and in danger of interruption, because of the finan- 
 cial embarrassment of the host. No other innholder re- 
 ceived such consideration. This action is further signifi- 
 cant in view of the Court's recommendation to the freemen, 
 the previous October, to consider the reduction by one-half 
 of the number of deputies, because of the expense of so large 
 a body. At that session, these numbered twenty-three. 
 In September 1661, they certainly had a "Court Chamber" 
 in "the house of Jeremiah Adams," as mentioned in a 
 deposition of that date, and alluded to afterwards as the 
 place where their courts convened. In 1679, the County 
 Court reprimanded him for "having no signs according to 
 law." He was ordered to provide a "compleat one." 
 Jeremy Adams died August 11, 1683. In his inventory the 
 furnishings of the chamber are enumerated. Among the 
 items are the following: "In the Court Chamber two 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 378. 
 
218 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Tables & a Carpet, £ 1. 10 s.," "One doz. of joynt stools 
 & a forme, £l. 10 s.," and "2 leather chayres & 4 other 
 chayres, £l. 10 s." At that time, the inn and its land 
 were owned by the Colony, the mortgage having been 
 foreclosed January 14, 1680-81. In 1684, a committee was 
 appointed to sell the property, "according as they shall 
 judg most advantageous for the country." On December 
 2, 1685, it was conveyed to Zachary Sandford,' grandson of 
 the former host. 1 That this inn continued for some years, 
 as formerly, to be a place for court assemblies, is unques- 
 tioned. The "court chamber" had become the recognized 
 center of all judicial proceedings, and Sergeant Sandford 
 was a worthy host. He is said to have made additions to 
 the house. At the Court's special meeting, March 30, 1687, 
 a committee was appointed "to agree with our [their] land- 
 lord Sanford for the payment of what the country is indebted 
 to him." 
 
 Here, one of Hartford's historic scenes was enacted. It 
 was on the 31st of October, 1687, that Governor Edmund 
 Andros reached Hartford, in the hope of receiving the sur- 
 render of Connecticut's charter. He would have stopped at 
 the inn, where the General Court was then convened. There 
 was some conference concerning the matter in the "court 
 chamber." Trumbull says: "The important affair was 
 debated and kept in suspense, until the evening, when the 
 charter was brought and laid upon the table, where the 
 assembly were sitting. By this time, great numbers of the 
 people were assembled, and men sufficiently bold to enter- 
 pri.>e whatever might be necessary or expedient. The lights 
 were instantly extinguished, and one Captain Wadsworth, 
 of Hartford, in the most silent and secret manner, carried 
 off the charter, and secreted it in a large hollow tree, front- 
 ing the house of the Hon. Samuel Wyllys, then one of the 
 magistrates of the colony. The people appeared all peace- 
 able and orderly. The candles were officiously re-lighted; 
 but the patent was gone, and no discovery could be made 
 of it, or the person who had conveyed it away." Such was 
 the story in his day. The tree was known in colonial times, 
 and in 1780 esteemed sacred as that in which the charter 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 145, 172; Hartford Land Record*, 1: 95. 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 219 
 
 was concealed. 1 There is a tradition that, long before the 
 coming of the English, the Indians were accustomed to 
 hold their councils underneath its wide-spreading branches, 
 and plant their crops when it put forth its leaves in the 
 spring. Its age at its fall was computed by competent 
 authority as nearly a thousand years. This famous tree 
 stood on the estate that was owned and occupied by the 
 Wyllys family for nearly two centuries. In 1823, it passed 
 from the heirs of George Wyllys to Stephen Bulkeley, who 
 built there one of those stately mansions, which formerly 
 graced the streets of Hartford. He is said to have used 
 much of the ancient frame of the Wyllys mansion. This 
 property passed to Mr. Bulkeley's son-in-law, Hon. Isaac 
 W. Stuart. The sacred oak fell August 21, 1856. The 
 next day, it was the subject of several early photographs 
 taken by N. A. Moore of Hartford, which are now in the 
 collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. 
 
 How long Sandford's inn continued to be used for such 
 courts, must be left to conjecture. An order of October 1689, 
 notes the meeting of the assistants "in the court chamber" 
 to canvas the nominations of the towns. Probably the 
 Governor and Council, empowered in 1692 to act for the 
 General Court between its sessions, and other smaller bodies, 
 continued to meet there for some time. Sandford had a 
 bill against the Governor in 1704, for "expenses in his house." 
 It was paid by the Colony. He had apparently made over 
 the greater part of his household goods to his son-in-law, 
 Jonathan Bunce, before 1710, when he made his will. In 
 this, he mentions "the jury chamber." His inventory, taken 
 in 1713, does not refer to the court furniture. Jonathan 
 Bunce died in 1717. His inventory mentions "A Long Table 
 & Foarm," probably once owned by Jeremy Adams or 
 Zachary Sandford. "In y e Jury Chamber" there were 
 "Four Turkey work chairs," but the apartment was fur- 
 nished as a bedroom. "In v e Court chamber" there were 
 "A Long Table," "a fmall Do," "A Turkey Work Carpett," 
 
 1 Trumbull's History, I: 371; Hoadly's The Hiding of the Charter; Stuart's 
 History of the Charter Oak, MS. in collections of the Conn. Hist. Soc; Twitchell's 
 Hartford in History, pp. 99 ff.; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 63 ff.; Conn, 
 as a Colony, I: 247 ff. On the Charter Oak tree, see The Hartford Courant, Oct. 
 29, Nov. 2, 5 and 19, 1907, April 19, 1914; The Hartford Times, Aug. 18, 1906. 
 
220 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 "Six chairs & 4 cushions." The contents of this room 
 suggest that it was then used largely for storage purposes. 
 As there was a "jury chamber," we may infer that this 
 inn had been generally used for trials. 
 
 A new era had come, however, for the General Court. 
 Its size had increased. In October 1698, it was ordered 
 that thereafter it was to consist of two houses. 1 The same 
 session introduced the roll call of deputies. Thereafter, it 
 was termed in the records the "General Assembly." In 
 the author's opinion, it was about that time that the Assem- 
 bly, having outgrown the inn, began to convene regularly 
 in the meeting-house. The upper house then used the 
 porch chamber, which was of sufficient size for that body, 
 the lower house using the auditorium of the church on the 
 first floor. It is noted in connection with the meeting of 
 the Court of Assistants, May 12, 1708, that a constable 
 was charged to go with the jury "to a room appointed" 
 and remain by themselves, until they had agreed on a 
 verdict. On May 27th, Joseph Wads worth was before 
 this court, for using improper language to Ichabod Wells, 
 the sheriff, "he the said Wadsworth being in the Gallery 
 of the Meeting house in Hartford, under the Court Cham- 
 ber where the Governor and Council were sitting." 2 These 
 quarters at length became unsatisfactory to some of the 
 Assembly. In 1712, the meeting-house was nearly seventy- 
 five years old. That year, at its May session, the upper 
 house numbered eleven and the lower house sixty-five. 
 On the 14th of that month, Governor Gurdon Salton- 
 stall made certain proposals to that body, the last of 
 which was as follows: "What provision may be requsite 
 to be made, in the present want of a suitable house 
 for the holding our General Assemblies." It was referred 
 to a committee, which thought there should be court-houses 
 in each county, "but more especially at Hartford and New 
 Haven, for holding the General Assemblies." Action was 
 deferred by the lower house. At the same session, it was 
 voted to sell certain country lands and use the proceeds 
 "to the building a publick house or houses for the use of 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 267, 282, 284. 
 
 2 Records of Court of Assistants, II : 95. 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 221 
 
 the Assembly and other courts." x Objections to this plan 
 arose, and nothing came of it for some years. The Council 
 voted, therefore, in 1715, to "repair the court chamber in 
 the first meeting house at Hartford, so as may be safe for 
 the courts to be held in the same, at the Colony's charge." 2 
 This was the porch chamber in which the upper house con- 
 vened. Thus they managed until 1718, when the proposal 
 for a court-house was adroitly coupled with a plan for the 
 encouragement of Yale College and its final location in New 
 Haven. 3 The amount appropriated for the former purpose 
 was five hundred pounds, which was eventually secured 
 from the sale of lands in Stafford, Voluntown, New Milford 
 and Danbury. On October 28, 1718, the Governor and 
 Council appointed a building committee, consisting of 
 William Pitkin, Esq., Joseph Talcott, Esq., and Captain 
 Aaron Cook. Their design, as approved by the Council on 
 March 11th following, gives a good description of this pro- 
 posed building, then called a "State House." 
 
 "This board are of opinion that a house of seventy-two 
 feet long, thirty broad, twenty-four between joints, with a 
 range of pillars under the middle of the beams of the cham- 
 ber floor, a door on each side, and at each end, a staircase 
 at the south-west and another at the south-east corner, two 
 chambers of thirty foot long at each end, one for the Council 
 and another for Representatives, with a space of twelve 
 foot between the two houses, and a staircase into the garrets, 
 and on the other side a lobby to the Council chamber, will 
 well serve the occasions designed by the Assembly, and 
 answer their expectation in the grant aforesaid." 4 
 
 This building, the Assembly at its October session, ordered 
 the committee to erect with all speed. The length was 
 apparently altered to seventy feet. Two hundred and 
 fifty pounds were taxed on Hartford County, in February 
 1719-20, toward finishing the building, and the balance 
 was paid by the public treasury. 5 According to the same 
 proportion, the Colony and County bore the expenses of 
 repairs in 1732, and also in 1735, when shutters were pro- 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, V: 325, 333. 
 
 
 
 2 Ibid., V: 493, 512. 
 
 * Ibid., VI: 
 
 91, 102. 
 
 3 Ibid., VI: 35 36,8, 3, 84. 
 
 5 Ibid., VI: 
 
 157, 158. 
 
222 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 vided for the lower windows to prevent the breakage of 
 glass. The building once had a cupola, but it was never 
 restored after a fire, which threatened the entire edifice in 
 1783. This fire was occasioned by its illumination, or by 
 fireworks at the peace celebration. 
 
 Although this building was at first called the "State 
 House," after a few years, the more common designation 
 became "Court House," especially in later advertisements. 
 It stood in the square, in front of the present City Hall. 
 In 1796, it was sold to make room for the new State House, 
 and was moved to the rear of Christ Church. There it 
 remained for many years, being owned by the trustees of 
 the estate of Ebenezer Clark. It was occupied at sundry 
 times, wrote Dr. Gurdon W. Russell, as a tenement house, 
 a school taught by George J. Patten, where the late Mr. 
 Henry Keney was once a pupil; a shop in which Charles 
 Hosmer printed an edition of Scott's Bible; the place where 
 the Methodists worshipped, before their church on Trumbull 
 Street was built, and a factory where Force and Goodnow 
 made carriages and William R. Loomis shaped saddle- 
 trees by machinery, the power being a horse in the cellar. 1 
 The parish of Christ Church bought the property in 1833; 
 and part of the building was sold to Messrs E. B. Pratt and 
 G. H. Hart, who removed it to a location in the rear of 
 Nos. 185 and 187 Pearl Street. There, Robert Walker, 
 and later Preston and Kenyan, had a paint shop. It was 
 torn down in 1910, after a life of nearly two centuries, to 
 make way for the telephone company's building. 
 
 The most historic public building of Hartford that has 
 been intrusted to present and future generations, and the 
 choicest example of earlier architecture, is the State House, 
 completed in 1796. It is a memorial of the city's incorpora- 
 tion, and the result of its early enterprise, as elsewhere 
 related. At the beginning of its history, the City of Hart- 
 ford having been aroused to an interest in its municipal 
 privileges and responsibilities, determined to secure the 
 erection of a state house, which should be worthy of honor 
 among its citizens. The best legacy that colonial times 
 
 1 The Hartford Times, Nov. 17, 1904, May 25, 1907; The Hartford Courant, 
 Nov. 2, 1910; Geer's Directory, 1879. 
 
i:iHI!!i!iill 
 
 , « lis e 
 
 
 *<55iv5ii*.]i «ffis( 1 
 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 223 
 
 in their passing away could have left to those who will 
 inhabit the city two centuries hence, is such a building. 
 In accepting it for city uses, Hartford has taken a moral 
 responsibility to preserve an edifice that has been made 
 famous by the State and is consecrated by the labors of 
 her citizens. 1 This building, consecrated anew as the throb- 
 bing heart of Hartford's municipal life, will receive great 
 praise in that day when cities realize the dream of the proph- 
 ets; and the place of a man's birth, whatever his race, 
 will quicken his pride and give him honor in his wanderings. 
 The Connecticut General Assembly, at its May session 
 in 1792, appointed a committee "to superintend the Businefs 
 of erecting and finishing a large Convenient State House in 
 the Town of Hartford." The gentlemen named were: 
 John Chester, John Caldwell, John Trumbull, Noadiah 
 Hooker and John Morgan. The material specified was 
 brick. They were to raise £1500 from the inhabitants of 
 the City, Town and County of Hartford, and if raised before 
 May 1, 1793, they were authorized to draw on the State 
 for £1500. The original subscription list of Hartford has 
 been preserved by the Connecticut Historical Society. 
 Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth was the first and largest 
 subscriber, giving $500. The city contributed $3500., and 
 the County $1500. In May, 1793, the Assembly granted 
 the privilege of a lottery to raise £4000. It was attempted, 
 but failed of financial success. After the money raised had 
 been used, and work on the building was suspended, the 
 General Assembly accepted the proposal of Colonel Jeremiah 
 Halsey of Preston and General Andrew Ward of Guilford, 
 to complete the State House "according to the proposed 
 plan," in exchange for the State's interest in the Gore Lands 
 on Lake Erie. They received a deed of these lands July 25, 
 1795. 2 Their land venture was not successful, and subse- 
 
 1 "The Old State House, Hartford — Why it should be preserved" — Publica- 
 tions of the Municipal Art Society of Hartford, Bulletin No. 15; The Hartford Courant, 
 Nov. 2, 1904, Oct. 19, 1905, March 7, 1906, March 4 and 10, 1910, Nov. 19, 1910, 
 Feb. 3, May 24, and Dec. 3, 1911, March 8 and Nov. 16, 1913; The Hartford Times, 
 March 10, and Nov. 19, 1910, March 10, 1912. 
 
 2 See "The Connecticut Gore Land Company," by Albert C. Bates, in Annual 
 Report of the American Historical Association, 1898, pp. 141 ff.; The Hartford Times, 
 Oct. 20, 1908. 
 
224 THE COLONIAL HISTORY' OF HARTFORD 
 
 quently they received assistance from the State. The build- 
 ing is said to have cost $52,480. A Hartford builder — 
 Joseph Woodbridge — was in charge of the construction. 
 
 That this State House was erected after a design by 
 Charles Bulfinch, cannot be doubted. It is unnecessary to 
 produce drawings by this architect to prove this claim. 
 Experts attribute the design to no other. There is, however, 
 in the Comptroller's office at the State Capitol, a bill ren- 
 dered by John Chester, chairman of the committee, for his 
 expenses in September 1792 to Boston, then the archi- 
 tect's home. It reads: "To Journey & expences to Boston 
 for a plan of faid State House, $31.60." He was probably 
 moved to this because of the advice of his associate, John 
 Trumbull of Hartford. On September 30th, Trumbull 
 wrote a letter to Hon. Oliver Wolcott at Philadelphia, in 
 which he says: "A new State House is to be built here next 
 year upon a Design of Mr. Bulfinch, which I think is worth 
 executing in the best materials." 1 The writer then specifies 
 certain particulars and gives details of the building, on which 
 he desired to secure an estimate in marble. These could 
 only have been given after an acquaintance with a design. 
 It would seem that Mr. Chester's visit to Boston was suc- 
 cessful, and that John Trumbull had examined the design, 
 and possibly had it before him when he wrote. 
 
 This building was first occupied by the General Assembly 
 in May 1796. It was then practically completed. The 
 balustrade around the roof was added in 1815. In 1822, the 
 cupola was ordered. It is said to have been copied from that 
 of New York's old City Hall. John Stan wood put it up 
 in 1827. The Common Council of Hartford appropriated 
 $150. in 1848 for a clock. The balance was paid by private 
 subscription. The bell was cast in 1830, by Enos Doolittle 
 for Ward, Bartholomew and Brainard of Hartford. While 
 all that has been said or written of the architectural excel- 
 lence of this historic edifice is true, it must ever be regretted 
 that it can no longer be seen, as originally intended, from the 
 eastward slope at the head of State Street. Its front en- 
 trance was on that side, and distance is necessary to reveal 
 its stately elegance. This view was obstructed by the gov- 
 
 1 Wolcott Papers, VIII: 64, in collections of the Conn. Hist. Soc. 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 225 
 
 eminent building, occupied in 1882. Pictures alone can 
 disclose the State House and its surroundings in earlier 
 days. As seen in them, with its esplanade planted with 
 trees; a broad paved walk leading up to its steps; its three 
 arches below closed by iron gates, and lofty windows above, 
 through which one formerly looked from its portico, the 
 whole surrounded by an iron fence, each post of which was 
 a lictor's fasces — this public building was worthy of the 
 honor that has been awarded to it by many a visitor. 1 
 This is the only edifice in Hartford that makes good claim 
 to be historic. Here, the Hartford Convention met Decem- 
 ber 15, 1814, and the Constitutional Convention in 1818. 
 More than thirty of Connecticut's governors have been 
 inaugurated within its walls, where most of the State's 
 public men for more than a century have been assembled. 
 The chronicler for President Monroe, who visited Hartford 
 June 23, 1817, mentioned it first, after stating that "the 
 public buildings, considering the size of the place, are not 
 exceeded by any town in the Union." Other Presidents of 
 the United States have been the city's guests — President 
 Jackson, June 17, 1833; President Polk, June 28, 1847; 
 President Johnson, June 20, 1866; President Grant, July 2, 
 1870 — and, if they have not entered its doors, they must 
 have looked with admiration upon the Capitol, as they 
 passed. On September 4, 1824, the Marquis de La Fayette 
 received from Hartford the most enthusiastic welcome ever 
 given by her citizens to a visitor from abroad. Escorted by 
 the military, and attended by his son, George Washington 
 La Fayette, he rode through the city's streets in Daniel 
 Wadsworth's carriage drawn by four white horses, and, 
 along the way, the multitude rent the air with shouts — 
 "Welcome to La Fayette" "Welcome to La Fayette." 
 On the east front of the State House he was greeted by eight 
 hundred school children, whose badges bore in French the 
 sentiment "We love you, La Fayette." They presented 
 the hero with a gold medal inscribed "Presented by the 
 
 1 The esplanade was early surrounded with a wooden fence with turned posts 
 and bars. Inside of it a row of Lombardy poplars was planted. In 1834 the Legis- 
 lature ordered an iron fence, for which $8000 was appropriated. In 1882 it was 
 removed to the Old People's Home on Jefferson Street. Later it was secured to 
 enclose the grounds of the West Middle School. 
 
226 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Children of Hartford, Sept. 4th 1824." In the senate cham- 
 ber, which had been elaborately decorated, he was introduced 
 to many of the ladies of the city. There was an evergreen 
 arch on the west side of the State House, bearing on the right 
 and left the words "Monmouth" and "Yorktown." Here 
 he reviewed the procession. In the line, there was a com- 
 pany of eighty Revolutionary Veterans, under the command 
 of Judge Hillyer. Many were old, and some were maimed. 
 As they passed La Fayette, he stretched out his hand, and 
 they all drew near to shake it, with much feeling — a 
 moment that was never forgotten in after years by those 
 heroes of American Independence. 
 
 The Connecticut Legislature held its last session in the 
 State House in March, 1878. Its alteration for municipal 
 purposes was then determined, and the city took possession 
 March 13, 1879. The famous spiral staircase, with its 
 graceful hand rail, which had been the work of Asher Benja- 
 min, was then removed. The senate chamber was refitted 
 for the Board of Aldermen, and the hall of representatives 
 for the Councilmen. The building was dedicated to city 
 uses October 22, 1879. 
 
 The City Hall of Hartford, previous to the occupation 
 of the State House, was located on Market Street. This 
 building was projected partly because a new market was 
 needed. An auditorium was also desired for promiscuous 
 public uses. Town meetings, after the erection of the old 
 Court House, had usually been held in that building, though 
 occasionally the inhabitants met in one or the other of the 
 meeting-houses. There had been, how ^ver, a growing senti- 
 ment against the secular use of places of worship. On the 
 other hand, amusements of various kinds had increased in 
 popularity. 1 A commodious hall had thus come to be a 
 public necessity. The matter was presented to the Council 
 November 1, 1827, by Mayor Nathaniel Terry. It was 
 favorably received, and a committee was appointed to 
 inquire as to sites. The report recommended the purchase of 
 the Lee homestead on Market Street. This lot had been 
 under consideration by the parish of Christ Church as a 
 
 1 See Dr. Parker's chapter on "Social Life after the Revolution" in Mem. Hist, 
 of Hartford County, I: 578 ff. 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 227 
 
 location for their new edifice. It was deeded to the city 
 November 9, 1827. At the time, some favored a site on 
 Trumbull Street, and others the use of State House Square, 
 where stores underneath the hall could be rented. Plans 
 were presented on January 28th, following. The dimensions 
 of the building as erected, were sixty by one hundred and 
 ten feet. The market on the ground floor provided about 
 twenty stalls, those on the east side being entered by wide 
 doors. A broad aisle ran north and south. The floor was 
 of flagging. A "Watch House" for the four night watch- 
 men, who then constituted the city's police force, was built 
 in the southwest corner. At the north end were two rooms, 
 one with cells where disturbers of the peace were confined. 
 On the second floor, there were rooms for military and vari- 
 ous other purposes. Those at the north end were for the 
 Common Council. The hall itself, with an anteroom at 
 the entrance, was on the third floor. A gallery at the south 
 end was built in 1829. There are many living who remember 
 this building and scenes within it, such as town meetings of 
 the old sort, political gatherings, military occasions, gradu- 
 ating exercises, lectures, fairs, dramatic performances and 
 balls. Here Daniel Webster was heard in 1837, and Abra- 
 ham Lincoln in 1860. There was a time in Hartford's his- 
 tory when this City Hall was the center of a large social 
 life, now scattered in many places; but the story pertains 
 to more recent times. 1 
 
 To return to the town's earlier history, it should be said 
 that some buildings, now considered essential to public 
 interests, were wholly unknown in early New England life. 
 The system of town government was very simple. The 
 selectmen were the high local officials. Of all their officers, 
 the town clerk usually had the longest term of service. 
 This was generally due to the natural fitness of certain men 
 for such work, in communities where few had the time for 
 it or were familiar with records. Prior to the Revolution, 
 Hartford had only six town clerks. These were: John 
 Steele, chosen November 16, 1639, served twelve years; 
 William Andrews, January 12, 1651-2, eight years; John 
 Allyn, April 11, 1659, thirty-seven years; Richard Lord, 
 
 1 The Hartford Post, May 27, 1893. 
 
228 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 December 23, 1696, nine years; Hezekiah YVyllys, Decem- 
 ber 25, 1705, twenty-seven years; and George Wyllys, 
 December 12, 1732, fifty years. The deeds of this entire 
 period filled only sixteen volumes. About the same time 
 has elapsed since, and the deeds have filled more than three 
 hundred and sixty volumes. Such has been the develop- 
 ment of Hartford. The early town clerks, having only a 
 few books in their care, kept them where it was convenient — 
 in their homes, stores or offices. It is the town's good fortune 
 that none have been lost or burned. This fact shows why 
 there was no demand for a public record office. The present 
 Halls of Record building was not erected until 1853. * It 
 was preceded by a small building, which stood on the south 
 side of Pearl Street, where the State Savings Bank is now 
 located. It was used for town clerk and probate purposes. 
 The land was bought, in 1835, from Robert Watkinson, 
 and the building was erected the next year. 2 
 
 One of the public places that would soon be inquired for 
 today by a visitor to any town, is the post-office. Buildings 
 devoted solely to this service, were unknown in colonial 
 times. A consideration of their early custom of dispatching 
 letters, and its development into a postal system is pertinent, 
 however, and very important to an acquaintance with their 
 life. In earliest times messengers came and went at inter- 
 vals, mostly on public business. Letters were committed 
 to them, and also to neighbors and friends, for delivery. 
 Even the stranger considered this a matter of politeness. 
 Places were naturally appointed by convenience or authority 
 where letters were received or dispatched. At Boston in 
 1639, Richard Fairbanks's place was so named. There was 
 a monthly mail between New York and Boston in 1672. 
 Connecticut, and especially Hartford, New Haven and 
 New London, profited by their location on the route of 
 through travel. Sir Edmund Andros proposed to have 
 "John Perry the post" go from Boston to Hartford monthly, 
 during the winter of 1687-8, and "oftener in the spring"; 
 but his project failed. 3 A new era in this service began with 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 84: 474; 91: 67, 68. 
 
 2 Ibid., 57: 29; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 372. 
 » Conn. Col. Rec, III: 393, 398, 442. 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 229 
 
 the issue of letters patent by King William and Queen Mary, 
 February 17, 1691-2, to Thomas Neale, Esq., providing for 
 a postmaster-general of all the American Colonies. 1 Andrew 
 Hamilton was then appointed manager; and the post be- 
 tween New York and Boston was continuous thereafter. 
 In 1693, a general office was established in Boston. The 
 rate to Connecticut was nine pence. John Campbell was 
 later made postmaster at Boston. In 1704, he began pub- 
 lishing The Boston News-Letter. His successor, Ellis Huske, 
 also established a newspaper — The Boston Weekly Post- 
 Boy. There was an obvious connection between the post- 
 master's office and the printed dissemination of news. 
 Thomas Short, the first printer of Connecticut, engaged 
 with the General Assembly, in 1708, to dispatch with speed 
 the acts and proclamations that he printed. 2 John Campbell 
 early announced in his paper a fortnightly service between 
 Boston and New York, by which Hartford and Saybrook 
 were alternately the points where the post-riders met. In 
 1708, he proposed to the General Assembly "to settle a 
 constant post between the towns of Hartford and Saybrook," 
 and asked some allowance therefor. 3 It seems probable, 
 therefore, that some convenient place in Hartford was 
 early made a depository, where a letter could be left for the 
 first traveller or post-rider going to its destination. Inns 
 were often so used. Still we are unable to identify any such 
 place during the first half of the eighteenth century. On 
 January 1, 1755, James Parker and Company began to 
 publish in New Haven The Connecticut Gazette. It was 
 printed "at the Post Office, near the sign of the White- 
 Horfe." In 1761, the "Printing and Post Offices" there 
 were at the house formerly occupied by Captain Hatch. 
 To further the circulation of his paper, Parker employed a 
 post-rider in 1755. He went weekly from New Haven to 
 Hartford, via Wallingford and Middletown. Parker's ad- 
 vertisement on October 18th says, "My good cuftomers at 
 or near Hartford are defired to pay their Arrears to Mr. 
 John McKnight." This gentleman, who then lived on 
 Wethersfield Avenue, was a Hartford merchant. He prob- 
 
 1 Acts and Resolves of Mass., I: 115; VII: 50, 430, 434. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. flee, V: 69. » Ibid., V: 69. 
 
230 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 ably received and delivered copies of Parker's newspaper, 
 and possibly had some further connection with this early 
 post service. At that time, letters and papers were received 
 and delivered at Hon. Jonathan Trumbull's store in Lebanon, 
 Hugh Ledlie's in Windham and Daniel and Joshua Lothrop's 
 in Norwich. The Connecticut Gazette was suspended in 1764, 
 and, on October 29th of that year, the prospectus of The 
 Connecticut C our ant was issued. In 1764, also, John Walker 
 was appointed postmaster of Hartford. He was the son-in- 
 law of Dr. Normand Morrison, who had died in 1761. The 
 postmaster was living on the Morrison estate, the house and 
 shop being on the east side of Main Street, a few rods north 
 of the square. Here he kept the post-office. It was adver- 
 tised as a place "well accommodated for a merchant or 
 tradesman." In 1767, there was some irregularity about 
 Walker's accounts, and he was displaced and lodged in 
 Hartford gaol. The case did not come to an issue in the 
 courts, much to the disappointment of James Parker, who 
 had become, meanwhile, secretary to the postmaster-general 
 in New York. 1 On October 22, 1767, W T illiam Ellery, 
 maternal grandfather of Governor Thomas H. Seymour, 
 was commissioned postmaster by Benjamin Franklin and 
 Thomas Foxcroft, joint postmasters-general. He kept the 
 post-office at his store, "near the Great Bridge." The post- 
 riders were then Isaac Tucker and John Bunce. Andrew 
 Hurd was engaged in 1769. Their route was between New 
 York and Boston, via Hartford, which had one post day a 
 week. This service did not pay, and it was proposed to 
 discontinue it. Secretary Parker thought the riders carried 
 more letters for themselves than they did for the service. 
 They were allowed to deliver packages at their own rates; 
 and certain persons evaded the postage by enclosing letters. 
 An order was issued in 1771, requiring the receiving post- 
 master to open these packages. Mr. Ellery resigned in 
 1770, and a commission was issued to Mr. Knight Sexton, 
 but the former postmaster soon resumed office. He served 
 until 1777, being recommissioned by Franklin, September 
 22, 1775. For a time in 1771, the office was removed to the 
 
 1 "Seymour Papers" in Boardman Collection, State Library, No. 5479 to No. 
 5499. 
 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 231 
 
 house of John Ledyard, Esq., on Arch Street. James Parker 
 died in 1770, and Alexander Colden succeeded him. The 
 latter was followed by R. N. Colden. In 1774, the secretary 
 sent Mr. Ellery "a set of Stamps" for the Hartford office. 
 The postmaster was required to mark each letter as it came 
 into his office, with the name of the town, month and day 
 of the month. The Connecticut Courant of April 7, 1777, 
 announced the resignation of William Ellery and the suc- 
 cession of Thomas Hilldrup, who settled in Hartford about 
 1772. He was a watch maker and repairer. His shop was 
 located "a few rods north of the State House," where Dr. 
 Jepson had been. Here he kept the post-office for several 
 years, removing thence to another shop, "a few rods south- 
 west of the State House." His frequent change of location 
 afterwards made the post-office a jest among the towns- 
 people. In 1790, the national postal system was established, 
 and Thomas Hilldrup was its first Hartford postmaster, 
 being appointed February 16, 1790. He was succeeded, on 
 January 1, 1795, by Ezekiel Williams, who served until 
 1803. 1 One can easily imagine what this post-office in Hart- 
 ford was in colonial times — a mere depository for the con- 
 tents of the postboy's saddle-bags. The conditions during 
 the Revolutionary War augmented the importance of it 
 and increased its use, but they did not tend toward its reg- 
 ulation as a business enterprise. After the town became 
 a convenient connection in stage travel, and prominent 
 through river trade and its own enterprise, the post-office 
 began to assume a new function in commercial life. 
 
 1 Hartford Sunday Journal, June 15, 1882. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 
 
 The man some students of Hartford's early history would 
 most like to interview, is the traveller who has thoroughly 
 seen the town and is about to resume his journey. If the 
 ferryman had only kept a record of the gossip he heard, 
 and had passed his notebook on to his successors, it would 
 have told an interesting story. His passenger would have 
 had little to say about the houses, churches, mills, shops or 
 highways of the town, for they were like others throughout 
 New England; but he would have given us some inside 
 information concerning the resorts, occasions, customs and 
 dress of the town's society. Now and then, some one did 
 visit our fathers, even from abroad, and print a few of his 
 observations. A Frenchman, who came in 1788, wrote of 
 the town: "It is confidered as one of the moft agreeable 
 in Connecticut on account of its society." 1 To another 
 visitor, we are indebted for a description of the doings on 
 election day. If others had only told us in detail what they 
 saw and heard during the fair week in May or September, 
 on a market or training-day, or about some good dame's 
 tea-table, we would become acquainted with the town's 
 social life. There were no novels written in that day, nor 
 society journals. They took no photographs. Very few 
 wrote letters on the common affairs of life. Occasionally 
 some one made a deposition in court, and then the plain 
 truth was told. The fact is, that the antiquary's most 
 difficult task is to picture, with proper drawing and color, 
 the life of colonial times that every one would now find most 
 interesting. Records, genealogies, furniture, portraits and 
 grave-yards, while they are valuable, are apt to make our 
 ancestors appear too much like mummies in a museum. 
 Perhaps there are some reasons for gratitude in the dis- 
 closures made concerning a few, of those days, who lied, 
 
 1 New Travels in America, by J. P. Brissot de Warville, p. 72. 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 233 
 
 stole, slandered their neighbors and became drunk at the 
 taverns, just like modern folks, for that is unmistakable 
 evidence that their daily life was such as our own. At first, 
 social life in New England was quite like that of the Puritan 
 class in the mother country. Here, however, it had another 
 environment and, as time passed, it came into its own — a 
 type of society that could be found nowhere else. It is 
 impossible here to trace minutely the development of this 
 social life. Let it suffice that we introduce the reader to 
 some places in early Hartford to which it habitually resorted, 
 and to those special occasions when, in its best attire, it 
 displayed itself in public. 
 
 The reason for the law of 1644, establishing inns, was, 
 the need of entertainment for "passengers and strayngers." 
 These innkeepers were to be nominated by the inhabitants 
 of each town, and to be approved by two magistrates. We 
 have no record of early nominations in Hartford. Perhaps 
 Thomas Ford, Jeremy Adams and Zachary Sandford may 
 be considered as innkeepers, by the appointment of the 
 General Court. Naturally, these inns soon became widely 
 known. There, all travellers or distinguished guests sought 
 entertainment. Few prominent planters of that time were 
 not, on occasion, attendants at court and, probably, guests 
 at the inn. Jeremy Adams was doubtless a typical landlord. 
 He was a man of some standing in the town, had been a 
 constable, and, in 1638, was twice appointed to attend 
 Captain Mason in trading with the Indians for corn. On 
 some public matters he seems to have been considered an 
 authority. He certainly had a mind of his own, and was 
 not always backward in expressing it. On one occasion, 
 he encouraged Thomas Hosmer to resist an officer, and was 
 guilty of "passionat distempered speches, lowd languadge & 
 vnmannerly cariedge" before the court. He was careless 
 in his financial management; a man, too, it is thought, who 
 had some personal idiosyncrasies. And yet he was apparently 
 the inhabitants' or court's choice to succeed Thomas Ford 
 as innkeeper. Probably he had some affable and generous 
 characteristics, which made him a good entertainer with 
 wit and wisdom, as well as in the culinary department. At 
 least his inn was a popular resort for social life. It stood 
 
234 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 some rods back from the roadway. In front of it there was 
 a well. A garden and outbuildings were conveniently placed 
 in the rear. It was just such an inn as a man, who was 
 nearly thirty years old when he left England, would have 
 established in a new country — as much like the old inn of 
 his native town as it could be. The same scenes transpired 
 within it as are recorded of famous hostelries across the 
 sea. There, its habitues discussed political issues, named 
 their candidates for the next town meeting or the Colonial 
 government, and by unanimous consent drank to their 
 military heroes. Sometimes, commissioners of great dignity 
 spent many days there. Officials of fame in other colonies 
 arrived, creating a flutter of excitement throughout the 
 community, and, in due time, departed. If an Indian war 
 was raging, military officers held important councils there. 
 One can easily imagine the arrival of expected scouts. 
 Ministers sometimes met there. It was then as proper for 
 them to drink rum as it was for their parishioners. That 
 old inn probably witnessed many a festive scene about 
 Landlord Jeremy's hospitable board. Alas, courts were 
 held there, when stories, criminal or scandalous were re- 
 hearsed, and the condemned went forth to the pillory, 
 stocks, whipping-post or gallows. These were the sensa- 
 tions of the community. Any day, the landlord might have 
 expected at nightfall the coming of the young emigrant 
 family on their way westward; or the visit of the frontier 
 farmer, for some news to carry back to his solitude and some- 
 thing to cheer him on his way homeward; or the arrival of 
 the captain, whose ship had anchored in the river off the 
 landing-place with a cargo from the West Indies or Eng- 
 land; or the summons of the mud-covered rider, who had 
 certain packets of important papers for the Colonial Gover- 
 nor, and perhaps letters for delivery to the inmates of Hart- 
 ford's homes. All these were welcome visitors. They had 
 news from the border settlements, from the Bay, or from 
 the great outside world and the home government, upon 
 which so much of their prosperity and happiness depended. 
 The landlord could then replenish his wasted stock of news, 
 for that, rather than rum, was the important commodity 
 in maintaining an ancient inn. It was that which gathered 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 235 
 
 his customers. In the course of time, the post-rider arrived 
 at such inns with some regularity. Then many awaited the 
 disclosure of his treasures. It was toward the close of the 
 colonial era, we must remember, that newspapers came into 
 circulation. One reason why they were so barren of local 
 items was, that the inhabitants had this other method of 
 disseminating news. It was carried by travellers from inn 
 to inn. That custom helped to make the New Englanders 
 of those times a race of newsmongers. Thus the ancient 
 inn had a useful mission, notwithstanding some incidental 
 harm. It quickened the intelligence of society, disseminated 
 much necessary information, furthered the moral advan- 
 tages of publicity, helped to restrain and detect crime, 
 served the people for a post-office, often sent abroad warn- 
 ings of danger, and dispatched many a message of courage, 
 cheer and affection. Jeremy Adams and his successors were 
 important factors in all this. He must have had some quali- 
 ties that made him the man for the place, to have held such 
 sway until his death in 1683. At all events, his demise was 
 properly mourned, for John Talcott, treasurer of the Colony, 
 notes in his accounts, that he paid for "3 Gallons and 3 
 quarts of wine for Jer: Adams funerall." 
 
 Zachary Sandford kept this inn for twenty-five years. 
 In 1713, his son-in-law, Jonathan Bunce, "reigned in his 
 stead." A daughter, Sarah Bunce, then married Samuel 
 Flagg, who acquired control in 1732. He established there 
 the "Black Horse Tavern." His inn became equally 
 famous. In 1740, he erected a new house. Under the 
 date September 30th, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth made the 
 entry in his diary, "Mr. Flaggs House raised." In 1756, 
 when Samuel Flagg was omitted in the distribution of 
 licenses, he petitioned the General Assembly for one. He 
 then stated that he had "Largely laid out himself in accom- 
 modable Buildings." His license was doubtless withheld 
 because of the enmity he had engendered in the dispute 
 over the rights of the ancient proprietors. He also informs 
 us that his inn was then a resort for many officers and 
 soldiers in the war, and that places of entertainment were 
 needed in the town. 1 Still, licenses had been granted that 
 
 1 State Archives: Travel, III: 381-383. 
 
236 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 year to thirteen persons. When Samuel Flagg died in 1757, 
 his widow, Mrs. Sarah Flagg, continued the inn. At her 
 death in 1769, her son, Joseph Flagg, became the landlord. 
 After the Revolutionary War, the Flagg estate passed to 
 other hands. Then Captain John Chenevard, who had 
 married Hannah Flagg, kept a tavern at or near the same 
 place. Its later history is often referred to. 1 We get a 
 look into this tavern as Samuel Flagg left it, through his 
 inventory. The furniture of his "Barr room" was as 
 follows: a "Long table," "6 old chairs of y e common sort," 
 a pair of cob-irons and tongs, pint and quart decanters, 
 "5 foot drinking glasses," "2 blew stone quart mugs," "4 
 punch bowls," a "case of bottles," "snuff bottles," pint, 
 half pint and gill measures, vials, grater, etc. The house 
 had an "old kitchen," probably used as a dining-room. 
 Dishes were kept there, and it was furnished with an oval 
 table. There was also a "new kitchen," where the cooking 
 was done. The house had besides these a kitchen bedroom, 
 chamber and cellar in that section. In its "buttery" there 
 was a tempting amount of old pewter. The main cellar 
 contained a stock of port wine, cherry rum and rum of the 
 ordinary New England kind. On the first floor there was 
 a "South-east Bedroom," where the fire-arms and ammuni- 
 tion were kept, and a "North Room," used doubtless as a 
 parlor. The latter contained a library of twenty-seven 
 books, among them "One Law Book of this Colony." On 
 the second floor there were five bedrooms. A "Close room" 
 and "Garret" are also mentioned. In an outbuilding, 
 called a "Shop," tools of various kinds were kept. The 
 landlord owned several cow t s, a yoke of oxen and horses 
 for saddle use. He had no chaise. Such was the Flagg 
 homestead of about three acres, largely covered today by 
 fine insurance buildings. 
 
 This was by no means the only tavern in Hartford during 
 the first century of the town's history. In 1663, Marshal 
 Jonathan Gilbert bought the two acre house-lot formerly 
 owned by Clement Chaplin. It was next north of Jeremy 
 Adams's lot. Soon afterwards he removed thither from 
 
 1 Scaeva's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 213; The Hartford Post, Oct. 14, 1893; 
 The Hartford Times, April 3, 1906. 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 237 
 
 the South-side, and was given liberty to retail wine. Here 
 he kept a tavern until his death in 1682. His house was 
 probably on the east end of his lot, near Meeting House 
 Lane. His widow Mary Gilbert succeeded him, and, later, 
 his son Samuel Gilbert. In 1703, the town's votes mention 
 only Lieutenant Sandford and Samuel Gilbert as licensed 
 to keep victualing-houses and retail liquors. There were 
 other early inns, however, along the routes of travel from 
 Hartford, such as John Sadler's in Wethersfield and Jona- 
 than Gilbert's at Cold Spring in Meriden. Samuel Gilbert 
 sold, in 1707, to Captain Caleb Williamson, who also kept 
 an inn, which he leased in 1740, to William Tiley. The 
 latter was the landlord for some years. 
 
 There were others in the seventeenth century who had 
 licenses to sell liquors, but probably they did not entertain 
 travellers. In 1693, the County Court granted a license 
 to Mrs. Elizabeth W T ilson. She was allowed to retail wines 
 and liquors "to her neighbors, she not suffering it to be 
 drunk in her house, and not selling it to servants or chil- 
 dren." The record in the town votes in 1695 js, that 
 "m r s wilson is allowed by the town to retail drink to those 
 that have occasion untill this time twelve months She 
 attending the Law theirin." In 1703, Ebenezer Gilbert, 
 another son of Jonathan, acquired a lot next north of the 
 homestead. He established there "a publique house of 
 entertainment." In 1718 he sold to Benjamin Smith, who 
 continued the business. At an early date, a tavern was 
 located on the north side of the square. In 1708, Jonathan 
 Arnold bought part of the prison lot from Daniel Clark, 
 and was licensed to keep a public house. 
 
 About 1760, Hezekiah Collyer occupied the home north of 
 the Court House, which his father Captain Hezekiah Collyer 
 had bought in 1739. The house had been built by James 
 Church about 1722. Between it and the prison lot, was the 
 homestead of Deacon John Edwards. The younger Col- 
 lyer kept a tavern and inn until his death in 1768. His 
 widow Jannet Collyer succeeded him. Her inn was well- 
 known during the Revolutionary War, and quite popular, 
 being without any suspicion of tory sentiment. Here, 
 General Washington was entertained. After William Col- 
 
238 THE COLOXIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Iyer had kept this tavern several years, Frederick Bull, in 
 1788, established there the "City Coffee House." 
 
 On the west side of the meeting-house yard, where the 
 Phoenix Bank building now stands, Samuel Pelton was 
 licensed to sell liquors in 1747. He sold the property in 
 1751, to Samuel Smith of Middletown and David Bull of 
 Westfield. The latter was licensed about the time of this 
 purchase. He acquired the entire property in 1757, and 
 added other tracts later. Here David Bull kept the famous 
 "Bunch of Grapes" inn for many years. Cotton Murray 
 also kept an inn, in 1783, at the sign of the "Globe," on the 
 west side of Main Street, where others succeeded him. 
 
 One of the most popular locations for taverns in early 
 Hartford was near the ferry. It is not unlikely that Thomas 
 Cadwell, the first ferryman, kept an inn at the Scott-Ford 
 homestead, after it passed into his hands. His son, Sergeant 
 Edward Cadwell, who inherited the Stebbins homestead, 
 was licensed in 1706 "to keep a house of entertainment 
 for strangers." He did so for years. Daniel Messenger, 
 Timothy Bigelow, Nathaniel Pease and Benjamin Bigelow, 
 were successively licensed to sell liquors when they kept 
 the ferry. On the east side of the river, "about thirty 
 rods from the ferry," Widow Dorothy Burnham in 1753, 
 and for several years thereafter, entertained travellers, who 
 were hindered in crossing the river. The Pitkin tavern 
 answered the same purpose, and, to some extent, Gideon 
 Benjamin's. During the Revolutionary War, that of 
 William and Jannet Knox, on the west side near the landing- 
 place was the most popular. 
 
 On the South-side, also, there were several early inns or 
 taverns. Joseph Mygatt was licensed in 1656. He lived 
 near the present Capitol. In 1707, William Worthington 
 received a license. He was probably then living on a place, 
 which he bought in 1709, from Samuel Gilbert. It was 
 located on the west side of a highway, then leading south- 
 ward from Wyllys Street. Amos Hinsdale kept a tavern 
 in this neighborhood as early as 1744, and for many years 
 afterwards. He was located on the east side of the South 
 Green. An advertisement in 1789, refers to Joseph Ash- 
 ton as carrying on weaving "in the house where Amos 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 239 
 
 Hinsdale formerly kept a tavern at the south end of the 
 city." Another public house of note before and during 
 the Revolution, was the "Old Red Tavern," which formerly 
 stood near the south-east corner of the Capitol grounds. 
 Israel Seymour secured this property, in two tracts, in 1773 
 and 1775. On the latter there were "edifices," probably 
 erected by the grantor, Jonathan Seymour. In these or a 
 new building, Captain Israel Seymour kept the red tavern. 
 It was a favorite resort for soldiers during the war. Here, 
 the ministers were entertained at the installation of Rev. 
 Benjamin Boardman. On August 16, 1784, Captain Sey- 
 mour was killed by lightning, as he stood in his doorway. 1 
 
 The most famous inn on the South-side was that of 
 Moses Butler. This was located on the south-west corner 
 of Main and Elm streets. It had formerly been the home- 
 stead of Samuel Howard, who died in 1750. In the distri- 
 bution of the estate in 1754, there was set off "To Sarah the 
 wife of Moses Butler the north eaft part of the Homestead 
 with the Building thereon." The south part was distrib- 
 uted to the only son, Samuel Howard, from whom it 
 passed, in 1788, to Norman Butler. The entire frontage 
 was about nine rods. In 1754, there were two houses upon 
 this property, an "old house" and a "new house," appar- 
 ently connected, or not far apart. That year Moses Butler 
 was licensed. He kept this inn for thirty years, and perhaps 
 longer. It was a popular meeting place. The physicians 
 and surgeons of Hartford County met there in 1784, and 
 perhaps found it a convenient resort earlier. This was 
 eight years before the formation of the county society. It 
 is said that a number of elderly men were accustomed to 
 gather there evenings, to learn the news. Each of them 
 was allowed to spend seven coppers for half a mug of flip, 
 and no more. They were called the "Seven Copper Club." 
 Landlord Butler was very particular about sending fre- 
 quenters home at nine o'clock. 
 
 There were, also, outlying inns in various sections of the 
 town. One was at John Seymour's, on the road to Far- 
 mington. Captain Timothy Seymour was the host in later 
 
 1 Dr. Parker's Hist, of the Second Church, p. 156; The Connecticut Courant, Aug. 
 17, 1784; The Hartford Times, Oct. 3, 1894. 
 
240 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 colonial times, and was succedeed in 1779 by his son, Nor- 
 man Seymour. The well-known Wadsworth inn was on 
 the Simsbury road. It was kept by successive members 
 of that family. On the east side of the river, Thomas 
 Olcott, Ezekiel Webster, Russell Woodbridge, Benjamin 
 Cheney, Gideon Benjamin and others, kept inns. Taverns, 
 as places where liquor was sold, multiplied during the French 
 wars. In 1756, there were no less than fourteen such 
 resorts in Hartford. 
 
 The forefathers, of course, brought with them the drink- 
 ing customs of England. Their experience here is interest- 
 ing. It soon became necessary to prohibit sales to Indians. 
 In 1643, they forbade all sales by unlicensed persons. This 
 action was based distinctly on current abuses. Within a 
 few years, these increased among persons of the inferior 
 sort. A law regulating and restricting the use of liquor 
 was enacted in 1647. It was aimed at the inn. One-half 
 hour was the limit of time an inhabitant could spend in 
 drinking at a "victualing house." He was also restricted 
 as to the amount of liquor. It was forbidden to sell drink 
 to be taken from the premises, except on an order from the 
 master of a family or an allowed inhabitant. In the Code 
 of 1650 some fine distinctions were made to prevent excess. 
 For being drunk, so as to be bereaved or disabled in under- 
 standing, speech or gesture, the fine was ten shillings; for 
 drinking excessively — that is more than a half pint of 
 wine at one time — it was three shillings four pence; for 
 continued tippling, it was two shillings six pence; and for 
 imbibing at unseasonable times, or after nine o'clock at 
 night, it was five shillings. Persons were actually fined 
 under one or more of these counts. Other regulations were 
 made later. Some liquors, such as Barbadoes rum, called 
 "Kill Devil" were discriminated against. A tariff was 
 levied upon all importations. During King Philip's War, 
 when a general reformation of morals was inaugurated, the 
 laws were more rigidly enforced. They failed to prevent 
 excess; and there was always more or less illegal selling. 
 Their drinking customs, which English settlers were wont 
 to consider harmless in moderation, were found to be de- 
 moralizing. One reason was the enticing charm that lingered 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 241 
 
 about their inns, as the principal resorts of their social life. 
 Doubtless, their general Puritan strictness in other matters 
 tended to increase this. They had difficulty, also, in exclud- 
 ing those games that were customary in English taverns. 
 In 1650, there was a law forbidding "shuffle board." This 
 was amplified, in 1656, to include cards and dice. A more 
 stringent law was enacted in 1686, because of the increase 
 of such amusements. It specified gaming, singing, dancing 
 and all riotous conduct in houses of public entertainment. 
 The offenders in all such particulars were, of course, com- 
 paratively few, and, judged by the court records, they were 
 mostly of the lower classes. In reputable inns such viola- 
 tions of the laws were not permitted. There is abundant 
 testimony as to the decorum with which these were con- 
 ducted, and the respectable standing of their landlords. 
 President Dwight wrote of them in his Travels as follows: 
 "The best old-fashioned New England inns were superior 
 to any of the modern ones which I have seen. They were 
 at less pains to furnish a great variety of food. Yet the 
 variety was ample. The food was always of the best 
 quality; the beds were excellent; the house and all its 
 appendages were in the highest degree clean and neat; 
 the cookery was remarkably good; and the stable was not 
 less hospitable than the house. The family in the mean 
 time were possessed of principle, and received you with 
 the kindness and attention of friends. Your baggage was 
 as safe as in your own house. If you were sick, you were 
 nursed and befriended as in your own family. No tavern- 
 haunters, gamblers, or loungers were admitted, any more 
 than in a well ordered private habitation; and as little 
 noise was allowed." 1 
 
 Their military organization and trainings also furthered 
 social relations. John Adams included training-days among 
 the factors that made New England. The church of colonial 
 times had no social aims. It afforded little opportunity 
 for acquaintance, except as attendants conversed between 
 services. Gatherings of young people were looked upon 
 with suspicion. There were no public charities in which 
 
 1 Dwight's Travels, IV: 249. 
 
242 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 women could be associated. Acquaintance among them 
 was fostered in their homes, at the spinning-wheel and 
 other industrial pursuits. The tea-drinkings of later times 
 gave them a better social occasion. From the first, however, 
 the custom of visiting with friends within the town and 
 abroad was general. Colonial dames frequently went 
 visiting on horseback. In 1651 John Wilcox provided in 
 his will that his wife should have the use of his mare, "to 
 ride either to Windsor, to Wethersfield or to Hartford, or 
 to The Sermon." To that end he gave her his "pannell 
 and bridle." As entertainment in their homes was very 
 simple, and required no advance preparation, the inter- 
 change of social life among the young people was easily 
 effected, and hence quite general. Corn-huskings and 
 apple-parings were its natural opportunities. For the most 
 part the daily occupation of the men gave them no chance 
 for social intercourse. They were a hard-working race. 
 Sunrise and sunset marked the limits of their working-day 
 out of doors. By candle-light or the blaze of the open fire, 
 they fashioned various implements, tools and articles for 
 home or farm use. It required an occasion to get the men 
 together. That was what the training-day did. In early 
 years, the train-band demanded their attendance. Few 
 were exempt. Later, the various military companies did 
 the same. Nor was the honor of being a captain, lieutenant, 
 ensign or sergeant, lightly regarded. 
 
 The General Court ordered the formation of a train-band 
 in each plantation, in 1636. Every soldier kept his arms 
 and ammunition at home. Once a month they had a train- 
 ing-day. Then their arms were inspected and they were 
 drilled. Absence, without lawful excuse, was punishable 
 by a fine of five shillings. After the Pequot War, Major 
 John Mason was made the commander-in-chief to train 
 the soldiers of each plantation. Their practice in 1650 was 
 embodied in a law on "Military Affaires." It provided 
 that all men between sixteen and sixty years of age should 
 bear arms, magistrates and church officers excepted, unless 
 exempted by the court. Then trainings were held in 
 March, April, May, September, October and November. 
 In 1654, a general muster of all their military companies 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 243 
 
 was ordered for every second year. They had pikemen, 
 who wore corselets of wadded cotton for protection against 
 Indian arrows, and musketeers, who carried bandoleers and 
 rests. A troop was organized in 1657, which came to high 
 dignity and usefulness as dragoons. From these beginnings, 
 they developed a military system, which was the subject of 
 much legislation during colonial times. It attained no 
 mean proportions for that age. Hartford's train-band was 
 given the precedence over all others in 1662. Later, this 
 was divided into North-side and South-side companies. 
 An East-side company was organized in 1698, and another 
 in the West Division in 1714. When an enumeration was 
 made in 1680, there were in Hartford County 835 trained 
 soldiers and a troop of 60 horsemen. 
 
 Only imagine what must have transpired on a training- 
 day in the old town. At eight o'clock in the morning, when 
 the drum sounded, the soldiers were assembled in the meet- 
 ing-house yard. The very appearance of the boy of sixteen 
 and the man of sixty was significant. There might have 
 been three generations of one family in the ranks. Some 
 fathers were there with an array of stalwart sons. There 
 was a roll-call by the clerk. Woe to him who was tardy or 
 missing. Then, perhaps, their arms were inspected — old 
 flint-locks, some of them used doubtless in English wars; 
 pikes like those of ancient guardsmen, and swords of various 
 patterns. Hours were passed in instruction and drilling. 
 Then there was very likely a review in front of the inn, 
 where the Governor and some of the magistrates had con- 
 vened. Yet all this was only the formality of the day. 
 After they were dismissed, there was time for feasting and 
 merriment, and much of it, too, in homes and taverns to 
 which they scattered. On the morning of such a day in 
 1737, Parson Wadsworth wrote in his diary, "Publick 
 diversions often occasion much sin. I wish it may not be 
 y e case with this." Be that as it may, they doubtless en- 
 joyed the day. The older men discussed their farms, herds 
 and crops; the younger men their work, play and the girls, 
 quite as they would now. The occasion was, of course, 
 highly useful. It kept alive the military spirit and generated 
 patriotism. Still it won and held its place in public esteem 
 
244 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 throughout colonial times largely because of its social 
 features. 
 
 In this respect, election day in Hartford was not alto- 
 gether unlike it. The political significance of a gathering 
 of the freemen in early times, augmented public interest in 
 the day. It gave the occasion a dignity that did not per- 
 tain to a military training. This feature suffered little or 
 no decline with passing years. The description a certain 
 visitor gives of this day in 1807, would as well have answered 
 for earlier times. 1 He details the arrival of Governor Trum- 
 bull from the eastward, on horseback, his reception by the 
 horse and foot guards at the river, their escort of him to 
 his lodgings, the procession of officials, clergy and repre- 
 sentatives the next morning to the South Church, where 
 the election sermon was preached, the dinner at the inn, the 
 meeting of the General Assembly, the inauguration and 
 the election ball. Election day, this writer declares, was a 
 holiday in the state, as was the rest of the week. Families 
 then exchanged visits and treated their guests with election 
 cake. 
 
 The social life of Hartford in colonial times may seem to 
 one who considers it superficially to exhibit little change. 
 The warp of its fabric was very much the same. Inns, 
 shops, markets and other resorts continued throughout this 
 period, with no great alteration. They had election and 
 training-days, corn-huskings and tea-drinkings that had run 
 an uninterrupted course of fashion. Still the woof of the 
 fabric was gradually changing. One generation was fol- 
 lowed by another, of a different sort, and each looked 
 askance upon its successor. It is a very difficult matter to 
 trace this transformation of society with our scanty ma- 
 terials. We know, however, that it had gone so far in 1675 
 as to demand a general reformation movement in New 
 England. King Philip's War was thought to be a divine 
 judgment upon a backslidden people. The ministers tes- 
 tified against a multitude of provoking sins, and uttered 
 ominous prophecies of dreadful things that might be ex- 
 pected. New laws against some social vices were enacted. 
 
 1 Kendall's Travels, pp. 1 ff. 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 245 
 
 The magistrates enforced them in the courts with conse- 
 crated zeal. In the election sermon of 1674, Rev. James 
 Fitch referred to the "Many evil Cuftomes and Degenerate 
 Manners" of that day. The context shows that he had in 
 mind the contrast between them and those of earlier times, 
 for he distinctly reminded his hearers of the settlement 
 of the river towns. There were only a few of the orig- 
 inal planters then living, some of whom were doubtless 
 in his audience. How apparent the contrast must have 
 been to them! The young people about them were unlike 
 their grandfathers. Puritanism had changed. There was 
 a difference in ideas, language, manners and dress. Still 
 those youth grew to old age and passed through the same 
 experience. The middle of the eighteenth century found 
 the wealth of Hartford materially increased. Those families 
 that had lived in the town for more than a century, assumed 
 quite naturally that social standing which time alone can 
 give. More attention was paid to education. Social 
 refinements and culture were more highly regarded. Wealth 
 had enabled some to escape much of the drudgery of life. 
 The houses were better, their furnishings more luxurious. 
 Rugs had begun to cover floors that had once been sanded. 
 Chairs supplied the places of forms and stools. China had 
 displaced pewter. New fashions of dress had come in. 
 The elegance of some, when arrayed in their new French 
 styles, was shocking; but the "granny" forgot how she 
 had given a similar shock in her day. When The Connecti- 
 cut Courant began to advertise what was for sale in the 
 shops, fashions seemed to change more rapidly. The 
 newspaper made the people aware of the arrival of a new 
 assortment of dry-goods. Merchants offered "English and 
 India goods" received by the latest ship. Sally Tryper had 
 "female aprons imported from Europe" in her shop. Caleb 
 Bull was more conservative. He had "beaver hatts made 
 in Hartford." What a sensation there must have been in 
 the old town in 1775, when Mary Gabiel opened as a "man- 
 tua-maker and milliner from Paris." Society surely moved 
 very fast after the French wars; and it might have been 
 arrayed in cloth of gold in a few years, had it not been for 
 the Revolutionary War. Then the men went back to their 
 
246 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 old leather breeches, and the women, like Faith Trumbull, 
 cast their scarlet cloaks upon the altar of freedom. 
 
 The dress of people during colonial times is, indeed, a 
 fair exponent of social conditions. Inventories do not, of 
 course, enable us to trace in detail the changing styles, 
 but they furnish a reliable and accurate means of contrast- 
 ing different periods. Jewelry, for instance, was very rare 
 in early times. We have not met with any among the 
 Puritan founders of Hartford, though some may have had 
 seal rings. In 1662, Casper Varlett, or Judith his wife, 
 had "A gold Ring w th a Diamond," but they were Dutch, 
 and she was accused of being a witch. Doubtless the ring 
 belonged to her. John Crow, a grandson of Elder William 
 Goodwin, died at sea in 1667. He had several gold rings; 
 but he was engaged in trade with the West Indies and likely 
 to secure such, as sea-captains often did. Major James 
 Richards also had "gold rings," at his death in 1680. His 
 granddaughter, in 1759 had diamonds and much valuable 
 jewelry. The great granddaughter of Rev. Thomas Hooker, 
 in 1765 had a "gold Necklace & Locket," "gold Buttons," 
 "4 gold Rings" and " 1 p r Stone Earings sett in gold." We 
 do not suspect that Madam Susanna Hooker had any such 
 possessions, or her descendants for two generations. Early 
 silver-smiths were mostly engaged in making and selling 
 silver pieces for household use. The jewellers of later 
 colonial times, like Ebenezer Austin, advertised, as a matter 
 of course, "cyphered stone ear-rings set in gold," and other 
 jewelry. 
 
 It would surely be a fascinating amusement, and yield a 
 most interesting exhibit in water colors, if the articles of 
 dress left by certain colonial characters were used to clothe 
 their imaginary figures, as children dress up paper dolls. 
 We should then see the early Puritan in contrast with his 
 colonial descendants. It would surprise us to find how colors 
 displaced the conventional black; how soon those, who 
 were able, laid aside homespun; how much the men thought 
 of a best broadcloth suit, with a fancy waistcoat; and how 
 velvet and silks exerted their charm over the women. 
 Unfortunately, in most inventories of the first generation, 
 the value of "wearing apparel" is given as one item, and 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 247 
 
 sometimes the contents of the purse is added. The clothing 
 of an early planter seldom exceeded £10 in value; and that 
 sum seems high for what he had. Here is the trader, who 
 ventured first into the wilderness, clothed in a "Portingale 
 cap," "A Jackette & p r re of breches," probably leather, 
 "stockings & shues." He could have worn "a pair of 
 Indean stockins," and if he wanted a coat, he could have 
 put on a short one of "darnixe," or one made of either " Catte 
 skins" or "Racoone skins." An original settler of honored 
 name left only "a Coate, a Jergen, 2 dubletts and a p r re 
 of breeches." This seems to be a meagre wardrobe; but 
 the value given in inventories, even to old garments, indi- 
 cates that all articles of dress were included, except of 
 course those in which the decedent was buried. Another 
 planter of good means had "3 suits of apparrell, w th hatts, 
 stocking & shues," valued at £13 5s., which is above the 
 average. The conclusion is warranted that the clothes of 
 most of the founders of Hartford, who died within twenty- 
 five years, were of the plainest sort and coarse but strong 
 material. Their work clothes were usually of home manu- 
 facture. The skins of wild animals were commonly used in 
 winter, and the men all wore breeches of tanned deerskin. 
 Ministers, magistrates and men of social standing had 
 clothes suitable for public occasions. In fact, one of their 
 early laws restrained excess of apparel by those of inferior 
 rank, and the constables were authorized to warn any who 
 ignored these proprieties. 1 John Baysey was an original 
 proprietor, and one of the settlers of 1636. He was a weaver 
 by trade, industrious and thrifty. When he died in 1671, 
 his inventory was of creditable size. His apparel is given 
 in detail, and illustrates both Puritan simplicity and the 
 increased supply of clothes among such as lived to that day. 
 He left the following wardrobe: "cloath suite, cloath 
 cloake, surge suit, Jacket, doublett & Breeches, cloath 
 coat, peniston wascoat, Leatheren Jacket & white cotton 
 drawers, payre of Buttons, payre of Gloves, woofteed 
 stockings, yarne stockings, low crownd Hatt, High crownd 
 Hatt, payre of bootes, payre of shoes, cotten & lining 
 drawers, two shirts, Bands & Handkerchiefs." 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rcc, I: 64. 
 
248 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 One characteristic of the reformation movement, was an 
 attempt to check what was considered extravagance in 
 dress, then beginning to appear. The General Court, in 
 1676, declared that it was "unbecoming a wilderness con- 
 dition and the profession of the gospell, whereby the riseing 
 generation is in danger to be corrupted." l Specific reference 
 was made to wearing lace and buttons of gold or silver, silk 
 ribbons, or other superfluous trimmings. Offenders were 
 to be listed at £150 and taxed accordingly; but magistrates, 
 public officers of the Colony and their families were excepted, 
 as also commissioned officers of the military. No particular 
 application of this law in Hartford has been discovered, nor 
 does it seem to have hindered long the tendencies of the 
 times. Little by little, the fashions came to permit colors 
 for both sexes. This departure was furthered by the in- 
 creasing use of foreign goods. Before the middle of the 
 next century, the ultimate outcome was apparent; and the 
 development of colonial dress in later years was only a mat- 
 ter of time, under prevailing social conditions. Of these 
 fashions, the inventories furnish many interesting details. 
 How elegantly Samuel Edwards could be attired by an 
 artist. He was a brother of Rev. Timothy Edwards, and 
 died in 1732, leaving a large estate. Of coats he had the 
 following: "loofe Coat of broad Cloth," "Streight bodyed 
 Coat of broad Cloth," "Streight bodyed Coat duroy," 
 "Loofe Coat of Duffels," "Streight bodyed Coat of fustian." 
 He had waistcoats of fustian, broadcloth, black flowered 
 silk and white linen. Of course, he had a pair of leather 
 breeches; but he also had several of fustian and broadcloth. 
 He could wear black and light colored silk stockings, worsted 
 stockings, dark colored, light colored or "blewifh," or "old 
 yarn stockings." He had plenty of the best Holland linen 
 shirts. According to the occasion for which he was dressed, 
 he would wear his "Noted wigg," "best bob wig" or "Na- 
 turall white wig." His hat would be his "beaver"; his 
 stock of white muslin; and he had a pair of white gloves. 
 But what would his grandfather, William Edwards, have 
 said of him? We can dimly see Rev. Daniel Wadsworth, 
 who died in 1747, dressed in his "black suit," with black 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: iSS. 
 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 249 
 
 silk stockings; silver buckles on his knee-breeches and on 
 his shoes; a stock about his neck, and a periwig on his head. 
 He seems to have been an example of ministerial proprieties. 
 Still, he also had a blue coat and a drugget vest. The 
 inventory of Rev. Samuel Woodbridge of East Hartford, 
 who died the previous year, discloses the fact that he left 
 no black suit, though he was probably buried in black. In 
 the pulpit he wore a gown. His coat was of "blew broad 
 cloth," and his "great coat" was blue. His best waistcoat 
 was of "black silk Damafk." His knee-breeches were 
 ornamented with silver and he had "gold sieve buttons." 
 The blue coat had found favor with gentlemen before 1700; 
 and clothes of a grey, butternut, or cinnamon color were 
 sometimes worn. 
 
 One of Hartford's leaders of fashion, in her day, must 
 have been Madam Elizabeth Wilson. She had a remarkable 
 career in the matrimonial field, her fourth or fifth husband 
 being Mr. Phineas Wilson of Hartford, who died in 1692. l 
 As a woman of rare business ability, she left abundant evi- 
 dence. When she died in 1727, her estate amounted to 
 £7154 4s. 2d. Her wardrobe was valued at £46 17s. 
 The inventory of it proves that in her time, and probably 
 some years before her death, more costly dress goods had 
 come into fashion among the ladies. She had gowns of 
 "black Sattin," "mixed white and black Silk crape," "flow- 
 ered Silk lined with read Silk" and "padifway" (paduasoy). 
 The use of silk in Hartford for hoods, aprons, petticoats 
 and cloaks, had become fashionable in the latter part of the 
 seventeenth century, though comparatively few could afford 
 it. The wardrobes of certain ladies, who doubtless had an 
 acquaintance with Boston or New York society, indicate 
 that they introduced some of these newer fashions. The 
 best wardrobe we have met with to serve in measuring the 
 advance in dress among Hartford ladies in later colonial 
 times, is that of Mistress Mary Hooker, spinster. She was 
 the daughter of Mr. Nathaniel Hooker, and died in 1765. 
 Her gowns were of "dove Col d Damask," "Light Blue 
 Damask," "Blk padusoy w th Tale," "Strip d Lutestring," 
 "dark ground Chintz" "moufe Col d gr d Chintz," "Light 
 
 1 Manwaring's Hartford Probate Records, I: 522; II: 619-624. 
 
250 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Sprig d Chintz" "Blk Bombazein," "green Rufset," with a 
 dozen others that were of less costly material, or had seen 
 longer service. She had a "Blk Velvet cloak," a "Red 
 cloak" and a "Blk Everlasting Cardinell." Her hoods 
 represented the fashions of that day. They were of "white 
 Sarfenett," "Blk gauze," "Blk Velvet with a Lace," "Silk 
 w th gauze Border," and "flow d Blk gauze." She also had 
 a "womans Blk Hatt w th Lace," and an "old plain Blk 
 Bonnet," not to mention a "Blk flow d gauze Shade" and 
 "2 Lac d pinners." Besides her black shoes, she had pairs 
 of "Blue Rufsel," "Brocaded Silk" and "yellow Damask." 
 Ladies of that period were fond of handkerchiefs, in which 
 their skill at needlework could display itself. Mistress 
 Hooker had several such. She had two girdles of silver and 
 one of "Blue silver," ivory fans, jewelry already referred to 
 and " 1 Blk Velvet mask," for the mention of which we 
 crave the lady's pardon. No doubt she had graced many a 
 social gaiety elsewhere in her younger days, for she entered 
 the period of "laced caps" and "temple spectacles" before 
 she turned over her wardrobe to two of the town's foremost 
 men to be inventoried. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 
 
 The claim that our Puritan ancestors esteemed education, 
 rests not so much upon their own attainments, as upon the 
 honor in which they held it. They saw the relation of 
 learning to the full stature of a man as a responsible being. 
 It was valued as an avenue by which to reach the altitudes 
 of religious faith. That trait was sure to manifest itself 
 in a system of education. In the early pages of their records, 
 therefore, one expects to meet with some vote that declares 
 their purpose to educate the generations for whom they had 
 won the wilderness. 
 
 On December 6, 1642, the founders of Hartford passed the 
 following vote: "It is agreed that thurte pownd a yeer shall 
 be seatled vpon the schoole by the towne for efer." Thus 
 they laid the corner-stone of an edifice, upon which succeed- 
 ing generations have never ceased to build. This vote 
 seems to have been related to some special undertaking, not 
 fully disclosed. It could not have been the beginning of 
 their interest in education. Schools were not then, either 
 here or in the mother country, necessary tenants of school- 
 houses. The teacher made the school wherever he gathered 
 his pupils. Such was the case with many ministers, and 
 several of that profession were numbered among the early 
 schoolmasters of the town. At an early date, most likely 
 in 1637 or 1638, John Higginson came to Hartford. He 
 was the son of Rev. Francis Higginson of Salem, and had 
 once been a pupil in the Grammar School in Leicester, 
 England. His widowed mother had lands allotted to her 
 here in the plantation divisions. She settled in New Haven, 
 where she died in 1639, leaving eight children. Although 
 John Higginson was nominally the chaplain of Saybrook 
 fort for several years, his duties may not have required a 
 continuous residence there. "I was sometime a school- 
 
252 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 master in Hartford," he afterwards wrote, "where I enjoyed 
 the ministry of that godly man, Mr. Hooker, and of Mr. 
 Stone." Cotton Mather says, "He first taught a grammar 
 school and then betook himself unto the study of divinity." l 
 Thus Rev. John Higginson was the town's first schoolmaster. 
 Probably he was a student of divinity under Mr. Hooker, 
 his father's friend, at the same time. We have no clue, 
 however, as to the place or pupils of his school. It may 
 have been kept in the minister's home. His later life in 
 Guilford and Salem fulfilled the promise of his youth. 
 He died in 1708, aged 92 years. After him Rev. William 
 Collins was engaged, but we do not know exactly when or 
 how long he taught. He had been, says Hubbard, "an 
 hopeful professor, and preacher also privately, at Gloucester 
 in England, till he came to be seduced there, being carried 
 about with one of the female sex, and of familistical prin- 
 ciples." 2 He went later to Barbadoes, where he preached 
 for a time, and did some good; but when persecution arose, 
 he, with others, came to New Haven in the summer of 1640. 
 Mr. Collins "was entertained first at Hartford, to teach 
 school." At that time he was above suspicion of heresy, 
 but, through a follower of Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, he became 
 infected with her opinions. One morning he left Hartford, 
 without disclosing his reasons or destination. That was the 
 end of his school. He went, it appears, to Aquiday, where he 
 embraced Mrs. Hutchinson's views and married her daugh- 
 ter. In 1641 he was arrested in Boston, being found to be a 
 seducer of the faithful, and was held for some months to 
 pay a heavy fine. He was then released and banished. 3 
 In 1643, he was killed by the Indians, with other members 
 of the Hutchinson family. 
 
 Neither of these early teachers are thought to have taught 
 in a school-house. A single room in some private house 
 would have served the ambitions of those first years. The 
 town's votes give us no record of any school-house in Hart- 
 ford before 1643; nor should we look for any then, except 
 
 1 Mather's Magnalia, I: 365. 
 
 2 Hubbard's History, pp. 340-345; Winthrop's History, II: 10. 
 
 3 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 336, 340, 344; Winthrop's History, II: 46-48. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 253 
 
 as some portion of a private house was used for that purpose. 
 In an inventory of the town's common property that year, 
 the first item is, "2 great gunns: & Carriages & other things 
 belonging to y m in the schoole howse." 2 Moreover, at a 
 town meeting, in April 1643, an engagement was made with 
 Mr. William Andrews to "teach the children in the Scoole 
 one yere next ensewing from the 25 of march, 1643," for which 
 service the town guaranteed him £16 a year. He was 
 expected to collect from the parents what he could of this 
 sum, at the rate of twenty shillings for each pupil. It is 
 evident that no more than sixteen pupils were expected to 
 attend, and probably not that number, as the town agreed 
 to pay the balance. Where was this school-house — the 
 first of record at least in Hartford? It has been claimed 
 that "it was the usage to set school-houses in the highway, 
 and thus the location was not a matter of record." 2 Such 
 buildings, it is true, were sometimes erected on public 
 property, and, in these cases, there was no deed of land; 
 but it would be unusual for this to be done, without any 
 vote of the town or the appointment of a committee to 
 locate the building. In this instance, it is unnecessary to 
 assume such an exception. A lot was secured by the town, 
 probably in 1642, upon which a house afterwards owned by 
 it, was located. This is believed to have been their first 
 school-house. It was called the "town house," as in a later 
 instance where the building was certainly the school-house. 
 That is the reason the place has not been long since identified. 
 This lot was originally the home-lot of William Hills. It 
 was situated on the southwest corner of our present Gover- 
 nor and Sheldon streets. In the earliest times, it was on 
 their main highway running north and south, and was just 
 south of the fordway across the Little River. This was a 
 convenient location for both "Sides." The lot was recorded 
 to William Hills, as an original distribution of the plantation, 
 and comprised one acre and a quarter. 3 Jonathan Gilbert 
 bought the southern part, which was recorded to him about 
 1645. 4 The town acquired the northern portion where the 
 house stood. This may have been at first by rental or 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 68. 3 Original Distribution, p. 262. 
 
 2 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 224. 4 Ibid., pp. 363, 382. 
 
254 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 purchase, of which we have no record, and is thought to 
 have been in 1642. There is evidence, however, that this 
 lot and house were owned later by the town. On March 
 22, 1658-9, the townsmen were ordered to "take Care of 
 y e Towne hous that was goodman hills : and repair the hous 
 or fenc upone the towns acount," and, on November 22nd 
 following, they were made a committee, with the addition 
 of John Talcott [Sen.] and John Barnard, "to sell the Towne 
 House." l This they did on December 7th, the grantee 
 being Joseph Smith. 2 There was then upon this lot of about 
 one acre a "messuage or tenement," doubtless the same that 
 William Hills had built for his own use. It could have 
 been none other than the "schoole howse" mentioned in 
 1643, part of which had been used for storing their great 
 guns. There was nothing strange in this. Their meeting- 
 houses were used for similar purposes. In the author's 
 opinion, the acquisition of William Hills's lot by the town 
 in 1642, was the undertaking that led to the appropriation 
 of thirty pounds as above mentioned. This was the place 
 where William Andrews opened the school in 1643, and it 
 was ample to accommodate the sixteen pupils which set the 
 limit of their educational expectations. The inventory of 
 Joseph Smith, who died in 1689, indicates that his house 
 was of the usual one story type. It had two rooms on the 
 first floor, and in one of these, the school could easily have 
 been conducted. 
 
 This was a "grammar school," and was supposed to 
 prepare youth for the college life of those days. It was the 
 successor to the venture of Higginson and Collins. There 
 were also in those times private schools of a lower grade. 
 At least one such school was kept in Hartford — that of 
 Widow Mary Betts, doubtless in a room of her own house, 
 on Seth Grant's original lot. This was on the east side of 
 Trumbull Street, near the Little River. "Goody Betts 
 the school dame" died in 1647. Her pupils were young 
 children, whom she taught the simple lessons of the "horn 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, 1: 124, 125. 
 
 2 Original Distribution, p. 100. The date of the deed to Joseph Smith was 
 copied as Dec. 7, 1669. It should have been 1659. Several of the grantors were 
 deceased in 1669, and Joseph Smith owed the town £50 for the property in 1664. 
 Hartford Town Votes, I: 146. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 255 
 
 book." Instruction of this kind was also given by parents; 
 and the catechism was a means not only of religious train- 
 ing, but also of elementary education in their households. 
 
 Our next information concerning the town's educational 
 facilities is derived from a vote of February 1, 1648-9. 
 As it is of some length, and is the only action recorded under 
 that date, we conjecture that the meeting had been called 
 expressly to consider their school. This record rehearses 
 "the necessity es of the Towne and the desires of many for 
 some provision to be made for the keeping of a Scoole with 
 better conveniency then hitherto hath beene attayned, the 
 want whereof hath beene both vncomfortable to those who 
 haue beene imployed in that service, [and] prejudiciall to 
 the worke vnder hand, w ch is lookt vppon as conducing 
 much to the good both of the present age and of the future." 1 
 This proves that there was then in Hartford a progressive 
 party in educational matters, and there is evidence to show 
 that Governor Edward Hopkins was one of the leaders of 
 it. The reflection on their old school-house situated near 
 his home, and its unfitness for both teacher and pupils, is 
 unmistakable. This reference is made more pointed by 
 their conclusion to provide £40 by a rate, not sufficient, it 
 was admitted, to attain the end of building a new school- 
 house; but "in case any other shall make such an addition 
 to the sayd summe that the worke may be carryed on and 
 finished, eyther with tymber or bricke," the town further 
 agreed "that the buildinge soe to be erected shall not be 
 diverted to any other use or imployment but in a way of 
 scoolinge without the consent of the partyes that shall con- 
 tribute to y e [sum] more than their rates." We can put no 
 other construction upon this record than that one or more 
 inhabitants considered a room in a private house, part of 
 which was used as an arsenal, beneath the dignity of and in- 
 adequate for a town school, and some party or parties had 
 given encouragement of erecting a grammar school building, 
 by the payment of a sum in addition to the rate to be levied 
 by the town. Some part of what the town promised, is lost 
 in an undecipherable record; but it was evidently agreed 
 that, if the new school-house was built, they would carry 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 85, 86. 
 
256 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 on their educational work with greater diligence. It was 
 common then to supplement rates with additional subscrip- 
 tions for a public enterprise, and the town had received such 
 assurances. This agitation was the beginning of a move- 
 ment, which at first promised great results, but no immediate 
 action was taken. 
 
 In May, 1650, Edward Hopkins being then Governor of 
 the Colony, their Code of Laws was established. It con- 
 tained an emphatic declaration concerning the education 
 of their children in the English tongue and the catechism. 
 "And further," it was declared "that all Parents and Masters 
 doe breed and bring vp theire Children and Apprentices in 
 some honest lawfull [calling,] labour or imployment, either 
 in husbandry, or some other trade proffitable for themselves 
 and the Common wealth, if they will not nor cannott traine 
 them vp in Learning to fitt them for higher imployments." ! 
 A similar law was made in Massachusetts in 1642. The 
 above code also contained a law concerning the relation of 
 towns to schools, enacted in Massachusetts in 1647. It 
 required in every township of fifty householders the appoint- 
 ment of a teacher to instruct the children in writing and 
 reading, and in every township of one hundred householders 
 the setting up of a grammar school to fit youth for the uni- 
 versity, for which aid had already been proposed. 2 This 
 law became the foundation of Connecticut's early educa- 
 tional system, and continued on its statute books until 1792. 
 
 The school in Hartford, so far as we are aware, went on 
 as before in their arsenal school-house, with such improve- 
 ments as could be afforded. Mr. William Andrews was 
 teaching it in 1648. On February 1, 1649-50, Mr. Samuel 
 Fitch, who was a son of Joseph Fitch and a nephew of Rev. 
 James Fitch of Saybrook and Norwich, presumably began 
 an engagement for three years, "to teach such children as 
 shall be thought fitt to be taught by him." To all appear- 
 ances, he fell out by the wayside, for, on November 19, 1650, 
 it was ordered that Mr. Andrews should keep school for the 
 "present year," beginning the 29th of the previous Sep- 
 tember. In 1651, Mr. Fitch married Susanna, the widow 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 521. Cf. Mass. Col. flee, II: 6, 9. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 112, 139. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 257 
 
 of Mr. William Whiting. He died in 1659, and was a 
 friend of the school to the last. Meanwhile the town, in 
 furtherance of its project, granted a rate of £20 "towards 
 the erection of the schoole howse," and, on January 12, 
 1651-2, it voted to raise £40 to be put in the hands of 
 Elder William Goodwin for the same purpose, he being 
 desired to take the care of the work. A year later the town 
 was in debt to him for thirty shillings "w * 1 hee payd for y e 
 scoole house." Then the town votes disclose no more of 
 the matter for several years. We know, however, that Mr. 
 Goodwin and some others were endeavoring meanwhile 
 to secure a certain lot upon which to erect a school-house, 
 and that the interest of Governor Hopkins had been suffi- 
 ciently engaged to express a decided preference for this 
 particular lot as a desirable location. It was the original 
 home-lot of Samuel Greenhill, situated west of our present 
 Main Street, between the Little River and Buckingham 
 Street, and, if it had been secured, the Hopkins Gram- 
 mar School, amply endowed, might now be located there. 
 Samuel Greenhill died soon after his removal to Hartford, 
 leaving a son Thomas, and a daughter Rebecca, who married 
 John Shepard of Cambridge. His widow, Rebecca Green- 
 hill, married Jeremy Adams, by whom she had six children. 
 In this home the family lived until Adams bought the Steele 
 lot, as elsewhere stated. Thomas Greenhill died in 1653, 
 and the rights of the heirs involved this lot in litigation for 
 many years. 1 It had advantages as a location for a school- 
 house intended to serve both divisions of the town. It 
 was on a highway, which was fast increasing in importance, 
 and was just south of the bridge across the riveret. That 
 Governor Hopkins had favored this selection, is certain, for, 
 in 1664, Mr. Goodwin wrote as follows: "We do also desire 
 and request that the school house may be set upon the house 
 lot which was lately in the occupation of Jeremy Adams, 
 where our worthy friend did much desire that a school might 
 be set." In 1653, Mr. Goodwin, still intent upon carrying 
 out the earlier votes of the town, sought to purchase this lot, 
 then valued at £30, from Edward Stebbins, his fellow ex- 
 
 1 State Archives: Private Controversies; I: 1-18; Manwaring's Hartford Probate 
 Records, I: 119-121. 
 
258 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 editor of Thomas Greenhill's will. He encountered strong 
 opposition from Jeremy Adams, whose wife had an interest 
 in it. John Talcott, Samuel Fitch, John White and others, 
 knowing the purpose and probably Governor Hopkins's 
 intentions, urged him to sell. He refused. Delay ensued, 
 and a law suit. Then on December 18, 1655, the town ap- 
 pointed a committee, whose members had been approved 
 by Mr. Goodwin, to take account of the money that he had 
 received from the town for building a school-house, and, on 
 January 23rd, following, they received authority "to end 
 the Biusenes Between m r Goodwin and the Town about a 
 Schole Hovs and order it as they see cause." l Deacon 
 Stebbins testified in 1660 that, after Jeremy Adams had 
 refused in 1654 to end the business, the town called back the 
 money out of Mr. Goodwin's hands, "which they had left 
 with him for the building of a school," and "he being frus- 
 trated of a convenient place to sett upon resigned it into their 
 hands." 2 At the same time, John Webster made a similar 
 statement, saying that the town "called upon M r Goodwin 
 either to have a fchool houfe built or to make return of the 
 money of theirs that he had in his hands, [and] he being not 
 able peaceably to enjoy the place w° h he intended to gett 
 his fchool houfe in, made his return of his money to the 
 town." 3 Thus a project, in which Mr. Goodwin was doubt- 
 less acting to accomplish a purpose of Governor Edward 
 Hopkins to found a grammar school in Hartford, failed of 
 accomplishment. In view of the sequel, no one can meas- 
 ure the detriment it probably was to the town of Hartford. 
 During this period, also, the division in the church oc- 
 curred over the candidacy of Rev. Michael Waggles worth. 
 Elder Goodwin became the leader of one party, in opposition 
 to Rev. Samuel Stone. That this controversy affected their 
 school, is not doubted. If not otherwise, the employment 
 of Mr. Davis as a teacher in 1655, must have done so. John 
 Davis, son of William Davis of New Haven, had been a 
 college classmate of Mr. Wigglesworth. Gookin calls him 
 "one of the best accomplished persons for learning as ever 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 107, 109. 
 
 2 State Archives: Private Controversies, II: 3 a. 
 
 3 Ibid., II: 4. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 259 
 
 was bred at Harvard College." * He met an untimely death, 
 when Captain James Garrett's ship was lost at sea in the 
 autumn of 1657. In 1655, an engagement was made with 
 him at Hartford for "preaching and schooling," which is 
 not recorded in the town votes. In 1656, the balance of 
 £10, due him for this service to February 7th preceding, was 
 appropriated by the town. The townsmen's account, also, 
 shows that this sum was "appointed to M r Dauis in the year 
 1655." Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull has called attention to 
 the fact that it "was contributed or advanced before Janu- 
 ary 20, 1655-6, by six individuals — John Richards, John 
 White, Samuel Fitch, James Steele, Francis Barnard, and 
 the widow of William Gibbons — all of the South-side of 
 Hartford, and three or four of whom were among the ' with- 
 drawers' from the first church in 1669-70." 2 The situa- 
 tion in 1655 evidently was that Mr. Davis found his support 
 largely if not wholly, on the South-side, among the followers 
 of Elder Goodwin. After the fulfillment of the engagement 
 with Mr. Davis, we have no evidence that a grammar school 
 was kept for several years. The church controversy was at 
 its height, and their school interests were submerged. On 
 February 15, 1655-6, a new committee had been appointed, 
 consisting of two from each "Side," to act for the town, 
 "either In Byinge or Bilding a Hoose for a schole Hovse." 
 If they built, they were not to exceed the sum of money 
 due from Mr. Goodwin. It does not appear that anything 
 was done by this committee. It is believed that the school 
 was entirely discontinued, for, as already stated, the towns- 
 men were ordered, in 1658, to care for the town-house and, 
 soon afterwards, to sell it. This view is confirmed by the 
 fact that, on August 12, 1659, when John Talcott made his 
 will, he bequeathed £5 "towards the mayntayning a latin 
 skoll at Hartford, if any be kept here." This was the second 
 legacy the town had received for that purpose, the former 
 being of land at Penny wise from William Gibbons. On March 
 28, 1660, liberty was granted to Mr. William Pitkin to teach 
 school in Hartford. He was a lawyer, about twenty-four 
 
 1 Gookin's "Historical Collections," in 1 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 202; 
 Sibley's Harvard Graduates, I: 300, 301; Winthrop's History, I: 401 n. 
 
 2 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., II: 54; Hartford Town Votes, I: 114. 
 
260 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 years of age. There is no record of a grant then made for 
 his support. Tuition was probably paid that season by 
 the parents. Most likely his school was kept from the first 
 in some private house. In November following, the towns- 
 men were empowered to hire the house of John Church for 
 a school-house; and to "Incourage m r pitkin to teach such 
 Schollers as shall be sent to him." This house was that of 
 Richard Church on North Main Street, which he had bought 
 from William Spencer. It was probably then vacant be- 
 cause of the removal of the owner, with the "withdrawers," 
 to Hadley. It is another instance proving that early schools 
 were kept in private houses. Such was their arrangement 
 for the next four or five years. Mr. Pitkin was the school- 
 master and he was paid in part by the town. 1 Thus we are 
 brought to the end of what may be termed the pioneer 
 period of Hartford's school life. We have the authority of 
 John Trumbull, Esq., who prepared the memorial of 1798, 
 hereafter cited, for stating that, during the first thirty years, 
 there was no school in Hartford, except the grammar school, 
 where the masters taught some Greek and Latin and much 
 a. b. c. Such is the writer's conclusion, after a study of the 
 records. 
 
 Governor Edward Hopkins, the son of Edward Hopkins, 
 and Katherine, the sister of Sir Henry Lello, Warden of the 
 Fleet and Keeper of the Palace of Westminster, was born 
 in Shrewsbury, England in 1600. After his education, 
 which was conducted there at the Royal Free Grammar 
 School, he became a merchant in London. He came to 
 New England in 1637, with Theophilus Eaton, whose wife 
 was the mother of Ann Yale, whom Governor Hopkins had 
 married. In 1653, he returned to England, and, upon the 
 death of his brother soon afterwards, he inherited the honors 
 of his uncle as Warden of the Fleet. He lived only a few 
 years. His will, dated March 7, 1656-7, was proved in 
 London on April 30th following. It was found to contain the 
 following bequest: 
 
 "And the residue of any estate there [New England] I do 
 hereby give and bequeath to my father Theophilus Eaton, 
 Esq., Mr. John Davenport, Mr. John Cullick and Mr. 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 132, 136. 137, 141. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 261 
 
 William Goodwin, in full assurance of their trust and faith- 
 fulness in disposing of it according to the true intent and 
 purpose of me the said Edward Hopkins, which is, to give 
 some encouragement in those foreign plantations for the 
 breeding up of hopeful youths, both at the grammar school 
 and college, for the publick service of the country in future 
 times." 
 
 In a later clause he added to this bequest, in the following 
 provision : 
 
 "My farther mind and will is, that, within six months 
 after the decease of my wife £500 be made over into New 
 England, according to the advice of my loving friends 
 Major Robert Thomson and Mr. Francis Willoughby, and 
 conveyed into the hands of the trustees before mentioned, 
 in further prosecution of the aforesaid public ends, which, 
 in the simplicity of my heart, are for the upholding and 
 promoting the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in those 
 parts of the earth." l 
 
 It seems to have been Governor Hopkins's intention to 
 encourage the education of youth, both in grammar school 
 and college. His early allegiance had been to Harvard 
 College. He was President of the Commissioners of the 
 United Colonies in 1644, when Rev. Thomas Shepard pre- 
 sented his memorial asking for contributions to that institu- 
 tion. He was Governor of Connecticut the following month, 
 when that recommendation was adopted by the General 
 Court. After his return to England, Rev. John Davenport 
 of New Haven, probably with a knowledge of the difficulties 
 encountered at Hartford, had solicited, by correspondence, 
 his interest in establishing a college in New Haven. In a 
 reply, dated April 30, 1656, Mr. Hopkins had given the pro- 
 ject encouragement. 2 What his mind was in this respect is, 
 perhaps, open to a difference of opinion. As to his intention 
 
 1 Winthrop's History, I, 273-275; The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, 1657-1890; 
 Bowditch's The Hopkins Trust, 1889; Bacon's Historical Discourse on the 
 Hopkins Grammar School; Catalogue of the Trustees, etc., of the Hopkins Grammar 
 School of New Haven, 1660-1902; Historical Discourse pronounced at the 250th 
 Anniversary of the Hopkins Grammar School of New Haven, 1910, by Hon. 
 Simeon E. Baldwin; Address by Dr. Henry Parks Wright in Commemorative 
 Exercises upon the 250th Anniversary of the Hopkins Grammar School of New 
 Haven, 1910; Barnard's American Journal of Education, IV: 657 ff. 
 
 2 New Haven Col. Rec, II: 370. 
 
262 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 to assist in founding a grammar school in Hartford, there 
 can be no doubt. This purpose, as above disclosed in a 
 study of the records, must have been known to his friends 
 William Goodwin and John Cullick, and probably, also, to 
 some of the inhabitants in Hartford, before his return to 
 England. In view of this knowledge, the town interpreted 
 his will as a provision for the accomplishment of his pur- 
 pose. This accounts for the apparently stupid and stubborn 
 course pursued by the General Court in reference to the ad- 
 ministration of his estate. It was unfortunate that the terms 
 of his will were not more specific; but the uncertainty of 
 conditions in Hartford at the time of his death may, in part, 
 explain this omission. He therefore appointed four trustees, 
 equally divided between Hartford and New Haven, and 
 left them to carry out his purposes, according to their judg- 
 ment. Of these trustees, Governor Eaton died soon after 
 the testator, and Mr. Cullick on January 2, 1662-3, before 
 any settlement was made. The decision was left, therefore, 
 to Messrs. Davenport and Goodwin. 
 
 It is a plain matter of record that the General Court of 
 Connecticut used every means within its power to prevent 
 the trustees from the performance of their trust as they 
 interpreted it. 1 Feeling in the church controversy was 
 rife, and both Cullick and Goodwin were among the "with- 
 drawers." The very Court before which they were pleaders 
 in 1658, inaugurated this hostile course. That this was just 
 after Cullick and Goodwin had petitioned the Massachusetts 
 General Court for leave to remove up the river, and that the 
 restraint on the estate was temporarily removed in 1659, 
 when it was thought their project had been abandoned, is 
 a sufficient disclosure of the animus of the Connecticut 
 authorities. They desired to secure the estate for the bene- 
 fit of their own Colony, which many may have considered 
 the testator's intentions. 2 The Court conceded only one 
 point to the wishes of the trustees — the appointment of 
 Deacon Edward Stebbins and Lieutenant Thomas Bull, in 
 1661, to manage the estate. 3 It then had from Mr. Goodwin, 
 
 1 Conn. Cot. Rcc, I: 3ii, 338, 341, 345, 350, 361, 37. 
 
 2 The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, p. 19. 
 
 3 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 374. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 263 
 
 who had removed meanwhile to Hadley, a written tender of 
 £350 to the Colony. This was not accepted; but a com- 
 mittee was named to treat with the trustees, which was 
 refused. 1 So the contention went on until March 10, 1663-4, 
 when the General Court removed the sequestration, with 
 some very lame excuses. It was influenced, no doubt, 
 by the advice of Governor Winthrop, who had recently re- 
 turned with their Charter, but more, perhaps, by Mr. Good- 
 win's intimation of "freeing the estate elsewhere," meaning 
 by an appeal to the Chancery Court in England. 2 
 
 The inventory of this estate, made by the townsmen of 
 Hartford in 1660 and returned to the General Court, 
 amounted to £1382 3s. 6d. Governor Hopkins's Hartford 
 lands were valued at £545. 3 The trustees had then decided 
 that one-half of the estate should be given "to further the 
 Colledge at Newhaven," and the other half should be im- 
 proved where they had "power to perform their trust, w * 1 
 because they could not expect to have [it] at Hartford they 
 concluded it would be best done by them in that new plan- 
 tation vnto w CD sundry of Hartford were to remove and 
 [were] even now gone, yet they agreed that out of the whole 
 an 100 li should be given to the Colledge at Cambridg in 
 the Bay." 4 On April 30, 1664, however, Messrs. Davenport 
 and Goodwin agreed to give £400 to Hartford, and divide 
 the balance including the £500 contingent upon the death 
 of Mrs. Hopkins, "between the towns of Newhaven and 
 Hadley," £100 being paid to Harvard College out of Had- 
 ley's share. The provision respecting Hartford was ex- 
 pressed in the following terms: 
 
 "The debts and legacie being paid, we do give to the town 
 of Hartford the sum of 400£, of which Hills his farm shall 
 be a part, at the price at which it was sold by us, and pay- 
 ment ready to be delivered if there had been no interrup- 
 tion, the rest of the 400£ in such debts or goods as we or 
 
 1 Ibid., I: 578, 579. 
 
 *Ibid., I: 412, 418; XV: 543. 
 
 3 The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, p. 19. 
 
 4 Ibid., pp. 21, 22. Mrs. Hopkins died Dec. 17, 1698. Harvard College and the 
 Cambridge Grammar School received the contingent bequest of £500, through 
 the " Society for the Propagation of the Gospel," by an act of the English Court 
 of Chancery, dated March 19, 1712-13. It amounted to £771 13 s. 7d. 
 
264 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 our agents see meet, provided that this gift be improved 
 according to the true intent of the donor, viz. for or towards 
 the erecting and promoting of a grammar school at Hartford. 
 Provided also that the General Court at Connecticut do 
 grant and give to us, the said Trustees, a writing, legally 
 confirmed, so that neither themselves will, nor any, by, 
 from, or under them shall, disturb or hinder us in our dis- 
 pose, or executing our dispose of the rest of the estate, which, 
 being done this gift is in all respects valid." * 
 
 Following the above, is the request of the trustees as 
 above quoted, with reference to the building of a school- 
 house upon the lot where Governor Hopkins had in his life 
 time desired it. This, therefore, connects the Hopkins 
 bequest with the movement for better educational facilities 
 begun in 1649, of which Elder William Goodwin was sponsor. 
 
 On January 18, 1664-5, the Council agreed that the estate 
 should not be further "molested by sequestering," and 
 Messrs. Stebbins and Bull promised to pay the £400 in the 
 spring. 2 Meanwhile the town had appointed, December 3, 
 1664, Samuel Wyllys, James Richards and William Wads- 
 worth a committee to receive the above sum, and employ 
 it, "with whatsoever elce is allredy giuen or shall bee raised 
 to that intent" "for the promoteing of Learning." This 
 committee, profiting by the experience of Mr. Goodwin, 
 sought another location. They settled upon the original 
 home lot of Deacon Andrew Warner, who had removed to 
 Hadley. It was the second lot west of that where their 
 first school-house had stood. In 1659, Mr. Warner had 
 sold it to William Loveridge, a hatter, who agreed to pay 
 for it and an upland lot £130, in wheat, peas and "suteable 
 hats." 3 Perhaps he was disinclined to dispose of his prop- 
 erty; but the Council, on January 4, 1664-5, offered to 
 remit certain fines due from him, if he would sell "for the 
 use of the towne " and remove from the Colony. Accordingly 
 he conveyed his two tracts to the committee. They also 
 received at that time four tracts at Hockanum, comprising 
 fifty-six acres, known as the Hopkins farm, then in the im- 
 provement of William Hills, together with Hopkins's rights 
 
 1 The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, p. 26. 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rcc, XV: 54*. 54,'j. 3 Original Distribution, pp. 58, 490. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 265 
 
 in all future distributions. 1 These lands were recorded to 
 the town, January 18, 1665-6, for the "maintenance of 
 the Latin school." Their value could not have been £400, 
 but, how much the committee received in "debts and goods," 
 is unknown. John Trumbull, Esq., who was the treasurer 
 of the fund in 1789, gave the value of these lands as £200. 
 
 There were some inhabitants who still considered the 
 Main Street location as preferable. For this reason, or 
 because they wished the entire fund devoted to erecting the 
 building, the town voted, January 30, 1665-6, "that the 
 committee for the schoole should have liberty to build a 
 schoole house in the most convenient place between Wil- 
 liam Warrens & Nath : Willetts house lot, which was Thomas 
 Greenhills." This meant in the broad highway running 
 southward from the bridge. The school-house would then 
 be in Main Street, abreast of the Adams lot. Here it was 
 afterwards erected. On the Loveridge lot, however, there 
 were a house and other buildings, as good and probably 
 better than the school had ever enjoyed. The committee 
 decided, therefore, to use them until better could be afforded. 
 The house was repaired, at an expense of £48, and their 
 school was again in permanent quarters. In 1668, this lot 
 was said to be "now in the possession and improvement of 
 the Town of Hartford," and in a deed of 1673 it is called 
 "The schoole house lot." 2 
 
 The school here conducted for many years was variously 
 termed a "Grammar School," "Latin School," or "Free 
 School." The Hopkins arms were hung upon its walls. A 
 frame for them was made in 1678, by Nicholas Desborough, 
 for which Captain John Talcott paid 2s. 6d. 2 It was in 
 this school-house that the Indians were confined in 1675, as 
 elsewhere related. The school's affairs were managed by a 
 committee appointed by the town. John Allyn and John 
 Talcott, the Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the 
 Colony, had been added in 1668 to that above-named. 
 
 1 Ibid., pp. 421-423; Hartford Land Records, 2: 139. Cf. Orig. Dist., pp. 5 ff. 
 
 2 Original Distribution, pp. 175, 444. 
 
 3 John Talcott's Account Book, State Library, p. 53. For the arms of Governor 
 Hopkins, impaled with the Lello arms, and used by him on a seal, see 4 Ser. Mass. 
 Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. VI, plates. 
 
266 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 The names of its early teachers are unknown. In 1673, 
 Rev. Caleb Watson was engaged. His salary was £60 a 
 year. Toward this the town granted a sum not to exceed 
 £30, the inhabitants to send their children free of expense. 1 
 Mr. Watson was a son of John Watson of Roxbury, and was 
 born in 1641. After his graduation at Harvard College in 
 the class of 1661, he began teaching, and, from 1666 to 
 1673, is said to have been at Hadley. In 1687, the town of 
 Hartford annulled its agreement with him, but perhaps 
 thought better of it, for he continued as teacher until 1705. 
 The town then voted that he be no longer master, and the 
 committee were authorized to provide a successor "to manage 
 that work in Convenient Time." He was then sixty-four 
 years old. His property was encumbered and he was in 
 debt. The town repeatedly abated his interest. In 1681, 
 the General Court granted him two hundred acres of land. 
 He was freed from his taxes in 1708, in "consideration of 
 his good service." A memorial was presented to the As- 
 sembly in 1725 for his relief, he having been "for a multi- 
 tude of years last past in ye office of school master and a 
 great benefactor to the Colony." He died within a year, 
 "an old man much respected." 2 
 
 This school had meanwhile become, says Dr. Barnard, 
 "The main reliance of the town for the education of all its 
 children, old and young." Its usefulness in higher education 
 was thus impaired, and the purpose of the Hopkins be- 
 quest was lost to view. After King Philip's War. an opinion 
 more favorable to schools of a lower grade prevailed. Every 
 town of thirty instead of fifty families, was ordered, in 1678, 
 to teach its children to read and write. In 1690, there being 
 still "many persons unable to read the English tongue," 
 provision was made to compel such instruction. It was also 
 enacted that there should be two free schools in the Colony, 
 one at Hartford and the other at New Haven. These schools 
 were to teach "reading, writeing, arithmetick, the Lattin 
 and Greek tongues." The master was to be paid jointly 
 by the school's revenue, the town and the Colony. All 
 
 1 Hartford Toini Votes, I: 170, 171, 173, 175, 184, 195, 203, 222, 223. 
 
 * Sibley's Harvard Graduates, II: 95-98; Hartford Town Votes, I: 291, 294. 
 309; Conn, Col. Rec, III: 93; IV: 305,323,429; V: 72; State Archives: College 
 and School, I: 57. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 267 
 
 elementary town schools, "as disstinct from the free schoole," 
 were to be kept six months each year. The only qualifica- 
 tion for admittance to the free school was an ability to "read 
 the psalter." l Under these conditions, such instruction in 
 Hartford was given at home or under a school-dame. Good- 
 wife Kake was the teacher of Captain Talcott's children in 
 1675; and this primary teaching was doubtless the rule for 
 years. 
 
 Thus, one of the Colony's free schools was located in 
 Hartford. It was accomplished by transforming the old 
 Grammar School. New interest was awakened, without 
 any marked improvement. Its buildings were then old. 
 The time had come for an edifice erected especially for a 
 school-house. Again they turned to the site formerly se- 
 lected, and decided to use the privilege granted by the 
 town to build in Main Street, abreast of it. The location 
 of the Second Church, and the enterprise that had gathered 
 in that neighborhood, had augmented the importance of 
 the bridge as a public center. Dr. Barnard says of this 
 school-house that, in 1760, it had stood there for "seventy 
 years," just south of Linden Place. The town votes make 
 no mention of its erection. Perhaps such action was taken 
 at the annual town meeting in 1691, the record of which 
 is omitted. In 1692, the rate rose for some special reason 
 from £45 to £121. The school committee was authorized 
 in 1698 to ascertain the town's rights in the old property 
 and "to dispose of said house & lot cald y e Town house" 
 to the best advantage of the school and the town. Probably 
 it was rented for a time. In 1710, they were empowered to 
 exchange it for meadow or other land of greater benefit to 
 the school, which they did, two years later. 2 
 
 The site of this school-house is approximately determined 
 by the vote of the town in 1719, giving liberty for the erec- 
 tion of horse sheds in Main Street, to suit the convenience 
 of attendants at the South Church. Their location was to 
 be "at the South End of the School houfe by M r Howards 
 fence." 3 In 1748 Thomas Seymour, Esq., bought from Sam- 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 30, 31. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 252, 253, 298, 299; Hartford Land Records, 2: 160. 
 
 3 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 15. 
 
268 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 uel Howard two tracts of land here. 1 He erected a barn in 
 1749 and made an elaborate estimate of the expense of a new 
 house, "in order," he wrote in his Memorandum Book, 
 "to first Count y e Cost," according to the Scripture warning. 
 His estimate was £2946., upon which he afterwards com- 
 mented thus: "N.B. I did not Count half the Cost." His 
 house was of the best materials and superior workmanship, 
 as the inspection of it proves, for it is still standing at the 
 west end of Linden Place. After his death in 1767, it was 
 the home of his widow Hepzibah (Merrill) Seymour and her 
 children. Her rights in the cellar buttery where the "Arch" 
 is and in the "Space way," near the "fore Door," whence 
 the stairs ascend, as well as the deeds, easily identify the 
 house. It passed in 1793, by deed of gift from her son, 
 Mayor Thomas Seymour, to his son, Major Thomas Y. 
 Seymour, who was living there in 1801, when the land for 
 Linden Place was conveyed to the City of Hartford, the 
 north and south lines running from the east corners of this 
 house. It was later the homestead of Sylvester Wells, and 
 from the estate of Ralph Wells passed, in 1839, to Hon. 
 Gideon Welles. 2 Here President Lincoln's Secretary of the 
 Navy lived before his residence in Washington. As the 
 town gave Thomas Seymour, Esq., liberty in 1749 to move 
 the school-house not more than twenty rods from the river, 
 and a driveway to his house was early constructed, the 
 school-house doubtless stood opposite the entrance to Lin- 
 den Place, and was removed to suit Squire Seymour's 
 convenience. 
 
 The school building was of wood and comparatively 
 small. It is thought to have had only one room. Various 
 provisions were made to secure fuel to heat it in winter. 
 Here Rev. Daniel W 7 adsworth preached to the negroes and 
 held other services on Sunday evenings. The teachers were 
 young and inexperienced college graduates. Some of them 
 studied theology, medicine or law, at the same time. Noah 
 Welles Jr. of Colchester, a graduate of Yale College in 1741, 
 was the teacher for several years. The terms of such in- 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 8: 99, 138. 
 
 2 Ibid., 20: 3G8; 21: 5(i3; 22: 123,459; 25: 272; 28: 9,101,133; 29: 23,24; 
 32: 93; 43: 350; 58: 214,281; 60: 191; 61: 88; 62: 322. 
 
w 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 269 
 
 structors were short, and their schools were likely to be 
 inferior. From 1751 to 1760, Rev. Edward Dorr, pastor of 
 the First Church kept a private school. Jeremiah Wads worth 
 was one of his pupils. It is not unlikely that other teachers 
 did the same during this period. 
 
 The establishment of this Free School gave to Hartford 
 better advantages for the higher education of those days, 
 but it did not further public elementary instruction. The 
 revised law of 1700 required all towns having no free school 
 to maintain a school to teach children to read and write. 
 Grammar, or free schools, were then provided in Hartford, 
 New Haven, New London and Fairfield. In Hartford, 
 children could enter after receiving elementary instruction 
 at home, or from a school-dame. The above law also es- 
 tablished a new system of aiding town schools from the 
 Colony's treasury. 1 This was extended, later, to parishes. 
 By an act of 1710, the inhabitants of the East-side had been 
 empowered to manage their own schools. The West Di- 
 vision was made a society in 1711, to which like privileges 
 were granted under a law of 1712. 
 
 Such were the conditions in 1753, when an agitation began 
 in Hartford for the elimination of elementary education 
 from the grammar school. The plan was to accomplish 
 this by providing two parish schools, one in connection 
 with each ecclesiastical society. This was really in accord- 
 ance with the existing law, requiring such schools in every 
 society where there were seventy families. This fact was 
 used as an argument with the General Assembly in urging 
 the division of Hartford into two districts. In 1753, the 
 town voted that the income of lands and rents be applied 
 for the future to the maintenance of the grammar school, 
 and it appointed a committee to take charge of the fund. 
 Further action in this direction was taken in 1756, it being 
 expressly declared that the income of the town's school 
 fund should be devoted "to the proper ufe or ufes defigned 
 in the original Donation." 2 Thus the Grammar School 
 was started on a new career, which we shall follow later. 
 It was not so easy to establish the proposed parish schools. 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 331, 375. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Vote*, MS. Vol. II: 155, 167. 
 
270 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Neither of the ehurches had clearly defined parochial 
 bounds. The natural division between them was the 
 Little River, but some families in each lived on the side of 
 the other. A difference arose, therefore, as to the dividing 
 line. This occasioned long delay. The matter was before 
 the First Ecclesiastical Society on January 16, 1756, when 
 the above difficulty was stated. The opinion then recorded 
 was that "this Society judg necessary that Exclufive of 
 the Grammar School ther be (to be erected in some con- 
 venient places and situations within the Limits of said two 
 Societys) two other Schools sett up and Supported for an 
 English Education only," or, as later explained, to teach 
 "reading, writing and arithmetic." * This society then 
 petitioned the General Assembly for a division of the town 
 into two districts. Some of the Second Society, however, 
 desired to include in that district the homes on the north 
 bank of the Little River, from Haynes's Corner to the Mills. 
 Perhaps this was for personal reasons; but it seems more 
 likely that they desired to have the new Grammar School 
 building on School Street, on the dividing line between the 
 two districts. These societies finally united in a petition to 
 the Assembly, which granted their request, making the Little 
 River the boundary between them. 2 This conclusion was 
 reached in May 1761. 
 
 The inhabitants of the First or North District did not 
 wait for this action. In 1758, or early in 1759, thirty of the 
 Proprietors, being unable to act as a town or a society, 
 erected the famous Brick School House. The cost was 
 divided among them in equal shares. One of these was 
 conveyed, May 30, 1759, as "one Thirtieth part of the Brick 
 School Houfe now lately built and standing on the Old 
 Meeting Houfe Hill and near the dwelling houfe of Capt. 
 John Lawrence in Hartford." 3 This was in the eastern 
 section of the square. It was the first school-house of the 
 North District, although it was erected as a Parish School 
 before that district was created. James Hosmer, being 
 
 1 First Ecclesiastical Society Records, Feb. 3, 1755, Jan. 16, 1756, Feb. 24, 1757, 
 Jan. 24, 1759, and Feb. 13, 1760; State Archives: College and School, I: 153 ff. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, XI: 410, 467, 560; XII: 497; XIII: 337. 
 
 3 Hartford Land Records, 9: 502; 11: 245,256. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 271 
 
 seventy-nine years of age, testified in 1830, that when he 
 was a boy of twelve years, he attended school there. The 
 building faced the south, and he was "in the habit of peep- 
 ing frequently from the school house to the old Williamson 
 tavern." l In a deed the building is located about fifteen 
 rods east of the Court House. Its career was brief. In 
 making preparations for the celebration of the repeal of 
 the Stamp Act, May 23, 1766, a quantity of powder in it 
 was ignited and the school-house was blown up. Six young 
 men representing prominent families, died after being 
 escued from the ruins, and many others were wounded. 2 
 On the following Sunday, Rev. John Devotion of Saybrook, 
 being providentially in Hartford, preached in the North 
 Meeting House a memorial discourse upon the calamity. 
 
 The district doubtless made temporary provision for 
 several years, pending the contemplated division of the 
 school funds. The Second North District was set off in 
 1770. It depended upon rented quarters for some years, 
 but later built near the junction of Ann and Main streets. 
 The First or "Middle District" was given liberty in 1771 
 to erect a school-house on the northeast corner of the 
 burying-ground. This building was of brick, thirty-six 
 feet long north and south, and twenty-two feet wide. It 
 had a chimney at each end and a partition in the middle. 
 This school-house was sold in 1814. Its successor was the 
 "Stone Jug" school-house on Market Street. The South 
 District experienced delay in erecting its first school-house, 
 because the inhabitants could not agree on a location. As 
 early as 1762, they sought a division into two districts. It 
 is believed that they used the old Grammar School building 
 for a time. In 1769, a district school-house was erected on 
 the South Green. We have entered, however, the era of 
 our modern district system, the history of which has been 
 written. 3 At the time this system was adopted, it was 
 
 1 "Report of the Committee on the Petition of Samuel Olcott," State Street 
 Papers, Town Clerk's Office. 
 
 2 Barber's Conn. HiM. Coll., p. 54; Hartford Town Voles, MS. Vol. II: 213, 214, 
 236; Conn. Col. Rec, XII: 467; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 298, 299. 
 
 3 "Historical Sketch of Districts," by Supt. Thomas S. Weaver, in Annual Re- 
 port of School Visitors, 1904, pp. 83 ff. 
 
272 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 a necessary step in the evolution of better and higher 
 education. 
 
 In 1753, Mrs. Abigail Woodbridge conveyed to the town's 
 school committee sixty-five square rods of her home-lot 
 near the corner of Main and Arch streets, for the erection 
 of a new Grammar School building. Here this school was 
 conducted for about half a century. The site is now occu- 
 pied by the east end of the Municipal Building. The edifice 
 fronted on the highway along the north bank of the Little 
 River, to which it gave the name "School Street." l It was 
 the town's most ambitious effort hitherto for higher educa- 
 tion. The town's vote to devote thereafter the income of 
 its school funds to this original purpose, gave the enterprise 
 encouragement. In 1672, six hundred acres of land had been 
 granted by the Colony for its benefit. Many years elapsed 
 before this grant was laid out in Stafford. It was not sold 
 until 1776. 2 Tracts of land in Litchfield and Fairfield coun- 
 ties were also bestowed upon it. This school was under the 
 care of a committee of prominent inhabitants, including 
 the town's ministers, to which others were added from time 
 to time afterwards. It had been suggested however in a 
 meeting of the First Ecclesiastiacl Society, January 24, 1759, 
 that a portion of the funds in the hands of this committee 
 properly belonged to the English School. Certain persons 
 were then appointed to treat with them. Perhaps this opin- 
 ion was entertained elsewhere. In 1765, the town considered 
 the matter, and subsequent votes forecast the final result. 
 A division was made in 1771, and one-fourth of the fund, 
 or £284, was given to the two districts. The residue was 
 set apart for the Grammar School. 3 No doubt that school 
 had failed to meet their expectations since its removal. 
 Titus Hosmer, the son of Captain Stephen Hosmer of the 
 West Division, was the preceptor from 1758 to 1760, when 
 he began the practice of law in Middletown. He was a 
 graduate of Yale College, and the recipient of a Berkeley 
 scholarship. Thomas Seymour's accounts with the school 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 1: 155; 9: 306. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 176; IV: 402; V: 462; VI: 548; XV: 448; Colonial 
 Land Records, III: 258. 
 
 » Hartford Town Voles, MS. Vol. II: 209, 212; "Papers Relating to the School 
 Districts," in collections of the Conn. Hist. Soc. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 273 
 
 indicate that his successor for a time in 1761 was a Mr. 
 Dean, who has not been identified, unless he was Silas 
 Deane. 1 This distinguished patriot was graduated from 
 Yale College in 1758. After Mr. Dean, perhaps with an 
 interval, Nehemiah Strong, Yale College 1755, became the 
 preceptor and was teaching the school in 1769. He was 
 perhaps followed by John Wright, who begged his patrons 
 in 1771 to pay up, as he was about to leave town. Eleazer 
 Wales, a graduate of Yale College in 1753, and a son of 
 Ebenezer Wales of Windham, became preceptor about 1772 
 and continued in service for seven or eight years. He had 
 been licensed to preach in 1765. In 1775, he opened an 
 evening school at his house, to teach young men navigation 
 etc. Oliver Lewis came to Hartford in 1780, the year of his 
 graduation from Yale College. He advertised, in September 
 1781, that the Grammar School was opened, where Latin 
 and Greek would be taught. "A watchful eye," he added, 
 "will be kept over the morals of the youth." In 1783, he 
 advertised a morning and evening school to be kept at the 
 Grammar School building. The hours on Monday, Friday 
 and Saturday, were from 6 to 8.30 o'clock in the morning; 
 and on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, from 5 o'clock 
 to sunset. He had studied law in Hartford and in 1783 was 
 admitted to the bar. During this period, private schools 
 sprang up in the town. In 1770, John Jeffrey, who had come 
 from Rhinebeck, N.Y., and married in 1766 Sarah Nichols 
 of Hartford, advertised a private school where Andrew 
 Thomson had formerly kept a store. Samuel Holbrook had 
 such a school in 1775. Noah Webster the lexicographer, 
 who is said to have lived and done some of his work where 
 the Robbins building now stands, on the north corner of 
 Main and Mulberry streets, opened a rhetorical school in 
 1783 for the cultivation of the English language. In 1784, 
 
 1 "Seymour Papers" in Boardman Collection, State Library, No. 5561. Bris- 
 sot de Warville in his New Travels says of Wethersfield : "They tell me it gave 
 birth to the famous Silas Deane, one of the first promoters of the American revolu- 
 tion; from a school master in this town, elevated to the rank of an Envoy from 
 Congress to Europe." Mr. Deane was born in Groton, Conn., and we know of 
 no evidence that he taught school in Wethersfield. Perhaps his teaching in Hart- 
 ford may have been the source of this impression. He is said to have settled in 
 Wethersfield in 1761. 
 
274 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Ebenezer Whiting taught a school in the house of Mr. 
 John Hall. Mr. Lathrop advertised in November 1788, 
 that he had opened a school for young ladies at the large 
 building a few rods south of the printing office. These 
 schools undoubtedly detracted from the public interest in 
 the Grammar School. After the incorporation of Hartford, 
 this interest was revived. Solomon Porter was the preceptor 
 for some years. He resigned in 1792, and George Jeffrey 
 Patten succeeded him. He was the son of Rev. William 
 Patten, pastor of the Second Church, and Ruth, the daughter 
 of Dr. Eleazar Wheelock, President of Dartmouth Col- 
 lege. His service ended in 1798. ! That year, at the town's 
 request and upon a memorial drafted by John Trumbull, Esq., 
 the committee then in charge of this school were incorporated 
 as "The Trustees of the Grammar School in the Town of 
 Hartford." 2 The school was then newly arranged. Its 
 pupils were boys, limited to forty in number. In a list of 
 those examined and approved for entrance in 1798, we find 
 the familiar Hartford names, Beach, Bolles, Bull, Butler, 
 Cad well, Hart, Root, Wolcott and W T yllys. During the 
 next decade the following Yale graduates were in succession 
 the preceptors: Elisha Chapman, Alanson Hamlin, Thomas 
 Adams, Stedman Adams and Amasa Loomis. The trustees 
 had for some time anticipated the sale of this property and a 
 new location elsewhere. In 1808, they secured a portion of 
 the Seymour homestead, lying between Buckingham Street 
 and the house formerly occupied by Thomas Y. Seymour. 
 Here there was a building standing. It was, perhaps, that 
 referred to in 1807 as the Seymour office. An addition was 
 built by the trustees, and the whole was equipped for the 
 school. At the same time, another portion of the lot was 
 secured. The removal was accomplished in 1809, and the 
 old property was conveyed in 1810 to Daniel Wadsworth. 
 John Langdon of Yale College was the next preceptor. He 
 was succeeded by Isaac Parsons. The school prospered. In 
 
 1 Memoirs of Mrs. Patten, pp. 71, 83; Family Letters of the late Mrs. Ruth Patten, 
 pp. 257-259. Mr. Patten afterwards founded a Literary Institute in Hartford 
 for both sexes, and kept a school for boys. He died in 1830. His sisters the Misses 
 Patten kept a girls' school from 1785 to 1807. 
 
 2 Private Laws of Conn., II: 1000; V: 514. 
 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 275 
 
 1813, another addition to the building was erected. Their 
 school-house had been outgrown, however, in 1828, when 
 Enoch Perkins, Esq., was authorized to secure the building 
 of "a new brick school-house," 54 feet long and 38 feet wide. 
 It was to have two stories and be furnished with desks, seats 
 and a stove. The north front of this edifice was twenty or 
 thirty feet south of the south line of Linden Place. It looked 
 toward the old Seymour house, then known as the Welles 
 homestead. The city had meanwhile opened Capitol 
 Avenue, which divided the school-house lot. The playground 
 was south of it. A lane south of Enoch Perkins's house, 
 which had furnished access from Main Street to the earlier 
 school-house, thus gave place to a city street. The new 
 building of the Hartford Grammar School is [remembered 
 by the living. It was here that the desire of the founders 
 of Hartford, to establish a school for classical learning, was 
 worthily realized, after nearly two centuries of struggle, 
 and this school stood near the site that Governor Edward 
 Hopkins had chosen. The sequel relates to recent events. 
 In 1847, the trustees approved a proposition of the First 
 School District to unite with it in supporting a High School. 
 Thus their relations with the classical department of that 
 school were established. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 
 
 It will not be denied that criminal history is one of our best 
 means of acquaintance with social conditions in any age. 
 The standards of virtue, as well as the current vices, are 
 there disclosed. Our fathers kept no such record of crimes 
 as the modern newspaper publishes. The entries made by 
 the courts are very meagre. In some cases written testi- 
 mony is extant in the State Archives. We have sufficient 
 details, however, in one way or another, to secure a near 
 view of the criminal courts of colonial times, their proceed- 
 ings and those who were arraigned before them. 
 
 The court established by the Commission for a provisional 
 government was the first in Connecticut. It had civil and 
 criminal jurisdiction. The General Court set up by the 
 inhabitants of the plantations, succeeded it. Sessions of a 
 Particular Court were held as early as 1637. * Their records 
 begin with 1639. Until 1650, these were kept in the same 
 volume with those of the General Court of the Colony, and 
 are printed with them. Thereafter, they are in separate 
 books and unprinted. 2 The Particular Court gave place, 
 in 1666, to the County Courts. In 1665, the Court of As- 
 sistants was established. The Superior Court succeeded this 
 in 1711. These were the criminal courts of colonial times. 3 
 
 The early Particular Court was constituted of the Gover- 
 nor, Deputy Governor and magistrates. In 1642, the 
 presence of either the Governor or Deputy Governor, 
 with four magistrates, was made a quorum. Two magis- 
 trates only were required in 1647, or three magistrates, 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 1(5. 
 
 2 Particular Court, Vol. II, Probate Records, 1650-1663; Probate Records, Book- 
 Ill, County Court, 1663-1677 — Secretary of State's Office. 
 
 3 Conn. Hi ports. Vol. 53, Appendix by Dr. Hoadly; "Origin of Conn. Courts," 
 by Judge Bammersley, in N. E. States, I: 477 ff.; Report of the Temporary Ex- 
 aminer <<J Public Records, 1904, pp. 21 ff. 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 277 
 
 one of whom presided. Quarterly sessions were adopted 
 in 1642. Trials by jury were customary in criminal cases. 
 The jury might be composed of six or twelve men. Although 
 strenuous efforts were made to secure unanimous verdicts, 
 one could be rendered by four or eight jurymen. A grand 
 jury was provided for in 1643. The judges of this court 
 were obviously the leaders in public affairs. During its 
 existence, the following Hartford men were numbered 
 among them: Haynes, Hopkins, George Wyllys, Welles, 
 Webster, Samuel Wyllys, Whiting, Cullick, Talcott, Mathew 
 Allyn, John Allyn and James Richards. These men were 
 not lawyers, but they were not lacking in qualifications. 
 According to the laws, their decisions were just and wise. 
 
 Every magistrate was bound by his oath to assist in the 
 execution of the laws. He was the prosecuting officer in 
 the community where he lived. In 1639 the laws were 
 provided for each town in manuscript. Later, when they 
 were printed, they were accessible to all the people. In 
 fact, a deal that is both true and interesting might be written 
 as to the aptitude of the early New Englander as a student 
 of law. In 1642, twelve capital laws were established. Fines 
 were imposed in the Code of 1650, for profane swearing, 
 lying, petty theft and similar offenses. In default of pay- 
 ment, the offender was put in the stocks or pillory. Some- 
 times he was whipped. Branding in the forehead with the 
 letter "B" was the penalty for burglary, to be repeated on 
 the second offense, with the addition of whipping. The 
 penalty for a third offense was death. "When this crime 
 was committed on the Lord's Day, an ear could also be cut 
 off for the first and second offenses — a provision, perhaps, 
 designed to protect their homes while they were absent at 
 church. Forgery was punishable by standing in the pillory 
 on three lecture days, and double damages to the party 
 wronged. As actions for debt were very frequent, it should 
 be noted that, in the Code of 1650, no person could be 
 arrested and imprisoned for any debt or fine, if satisfaction 
 could be obtained by law from his estate. If imprisoned, 
 he was kept at his own charges until settlement was made. 
 No defense is here attempted of the severe laws of those 
 Puritan times. We must admit the truth of many charges 
 
278 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 that have been brought against them. In justice to their 
 court records, it is stated, however, that their magistrates 
 did not inflict, in many instances, the penalties that the law 
 prescribed. Capital crimes were punished otherwise than 
 by death. Some persons were released, after being compelled 
 to stand for a time on the gallows ladder with the noose 
 around their necks. Large discretion was then allowed the 
 magistrates in the infliction of punishment. They were 
 often very ingenious in doing so, and they sometimes made 
 the most of mitigating circumstances. To a surprising 
 degree, their trials reveal the fact that their main purpose 
 was the reformation of the criminal, in which they sometimes 
 succeeded. It was fortunate that their early courts had 
 such magistrates as have been named. During their ad- 
 ministration of justice, principles were established and 
 methods of procedure were inaugurated, which continued 
 for many years and, in some cases, throughout colonial 
 times. 
 
 As we might expect, there were no misdemeanors in which 
 all colonial courts were more particular than those that im- 
 pugned the court's own dignity, or the authority of its 
 officers. More than one man of standing in Hartford, was 
 compelled to offer his apologies to the court; nor was his 
 fine remitted when he had done so. Contemptuous speeches 
 about the court and its proceedings, or disobedience of its 
 orders, were punished in a number of instances. One man 
 was fined £50 for resisting an officer of the court. Another 
 was fined ten shillings for not responding to a warrant. A 
 man once dared to say that the court "had given the Con- 
 stables a Ly cense to Lye." In several instances, witnesses 
 who concealed information were punished. The officers of 
 a town were also sustained in their authority. One who 
 offered an affront to the watch, or resisted him, was severely 
 dealt with. In 1646, several rogues broke prison and escaped. 
 Perhaps they had been concerned in a raid made shortly 
 before, by a party of servants, who broke into William 
 Gibbons's house and drank his wine. Gibbons himself gave 
 bonds for the due appearance of some of the party. Those 
 who escaped were concealed by a man-servant and maid- 
 servant in the house of their mistress. The former was 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 279 
 
 fined £5, whipped and required to give security for his 
 appearance three months later, when he was to be whipped 
 again, unless the Court was convinced of his reformation. 
 The maid was also fined £5, and whipped at the house of her 
 mistress, which was to be repeated in three months unless 
 the Court was informed of her amendment. That was their 
 form of probation, for which they had some justification. A 
 man, who should have known better, was whipped for ad- 
 vising the prisoners not to "peach" on their friends. There 
 were a large number of cases of theft. Some of the offenders 
 were only fined. A man-servant, who had been guilty of 
 immorality, was confined in the house of correction. He 
 was afterwards returned to his master, to be kept at hard 
 labor and on a coarse diet. This punishment did not reform 
 him. He was later convicted of theft. The Court required 
 him to restore four-fold, and he was to be branded in the 
 hand on the next training-day. There were comparatively 
 few cases during earlier years where persons were charged 
 with drunkenness. They increased later. A distinction was 
 made between the various phases of this offense. The fines 
 were in proportion to the fault. Confinement in the stocks 
 was common, if payment was not made. There were cases 
 of profanity, assault, buying stolen goods, taking excessive 
 rates, trespass, Sabbath breaking and the like; but they 
 were comparatively few. In some instances, these offenders 
 were treated practically according to the modern principle 
 of probation. They were put under bonds for their good 
 behavior or reformation. The excess of one man's earnings 
 while he was in the house of correction, over the expenses of 
 his keep, was devoted to the maintenance of his child. In 
 the Court of Assistants, in 1678, a man and his wife were 
 fined for excessive drinking. Stephen Hopkins and John 
 Easton were appointed by the court to see that they behaved 
 themselves — the earliest instance that we have met with 
 of the appointment of probation officers in Hartford. 
 Throughout colonial times emphasis was placed upon the 
 reforming effect of hard labor. This principle was applied 
 as a corrective measure long before they had a workhouse. 
 Murders were rare except among the Indians. Excusable 
 homicide was punished by a fine. The death of Thomas Scott 
 
280 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 was occasioned by an accident on the part of John Ewe. 
 He was ordered to pay £5 to the Country and £10 to Widow 
 Scott. On the whole, there were a surprising number of 
 imprisonments for counterfeiting, especially during the 
 later years of their colonial currency. This crime was 
 severely punished. 
 
 One misdemeanor that was very common during colonial 
 times, was regarded with particular aversion and punished 
 accordingly. It was slander, or defamation of character, 
 which is rare in modern courts. The attitude of the founders 
 of Connecticut, as expressed in the Code of 1650, was that 
 "no mans honor or good name shall be stained" unjustly. 
 They vested in their courts the protection of such a name, 
 as they did his property rights. The publishing of a lie, 
 "pernicious to the publique weale, or tending to the damage 
 or iniurye of any particular person," was a great injustice. 
 "To deceiue and abuse the people with false newes or re- 
 portes," was a public wrong. This was one of their social 
 temptations, as would have been natural among news- 
 mongers. Lying was punishable by a fine of ten shillings 
 for the first offense. In default of payment, one could ls 
 placed in the stocks not exceeding three hours. The fine 
 was doubled for the second offense, or a whipping on the 
 naked body, not exceeding twenty stripes, could be ad- 
 ministered. For the third offense, the fine was forty shil- 
 lings, or thirty stripes. Upon each conviction thereafter, 
 there was an increase in the penalty. This was a process 
 that was quite likely to cure the liar in time. The enforce- 
 ment of this law did not bar any person from an action for 
 slander. Such suits were quite common, and the penalty 
 was usually severe. The fine was as high as thirty pounds. 
 In 1646, the slanderer of Mistress Mary Fen wick was sen- 
 tenced to stand in the pillory during the lecture, then to be 
 whipped, then fined five pounds, and finally to endure six 
 months imprisonment. The libeler of Mistress Chester in 
 1649, was committed to prison, to be brought forth and 
 whipped the next lecture day, then to be imprisoned for a 
 month, at the end of which time he was to be corrected 
 again — all in addition to giving security for his good be- 
 havior. There were other instances of slandering promi- 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 281 
 
 nent colonial dames, whose vindication was promptly 
 undertaken by the magistrates. They often displayed an 
 ability to discriminate between neighborhood quarrels and 
 vicious slanders. On one occasion, Goody A sued Goody B 
 for circulating damaging reports about her character. The 
 court, after due consideration, decided that Goody A bore 
 in fact such a character among her neighbors. 
 
 The impression prevails that offenses against social 
 morality were scandalously common in colonial times. It 
 is true that such misdemeanors are matters of frequent 
 record. That they are noted in church records is neither 
 surprising nor significant, since public confession and mar- 
 riage were considered a proper and adequate atonement. 
 Their Puritan standard of social virtue was high. This 
 tended to increase their diligence and severity in dealing 
 with immorality. Their most serious problem was due to 
 the servants among them. These were very necessary to 
 their life, both in the field and the household, but they were 
 hard to control. President D wight has stated that the 
 founders of New England brought with them "a collection 
 of peasants and servants remarkable for their profligacy." 
 After an examination of the records of New Haven County, 
 he reached the conclusion that this class furnished most of 
 their criminals. 1 A study of the court records at Hartford 
 confirms this opinion. Pains have been taken to follow the 
 lives of certain persons of this class. The fittest seemed to 
 survive. Others of the baser sort perished. The truth is, that 
 the fathers considered the existence of an unmarried class 
 as a menace to the morals of a community. Laws were 
 enacted to prevent such from gaining a residence among 
 them or living alone. Servants were under the strict super- 
 vision of their masters or mistresses. It was unlawful for 
 any man to pay his attentions to a maid-servant, with design 
 to inveigle her affections, without the mistress' permission. 
 Cases are on record of the violation of this law. The one 
 remedy in early times for social evils was marriage. Parents 
 regarded it as the proper estate for their children when they 
 arrived at maturity, and it was very common for them to 
 bestow a marriage portion, or the means of earning a liveli- 
 
 1 D wight's Travels, IV: 381. 
 
282 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 hood, to this end. This, too, was often the remedy applied 
 by the court. 
 
 It has been thought that divorces were rare throughout 
 the colonial period of Connecticut history. Of the seven- 
 teenth century this is true, though they increased towards 
 its close. The General Court ordered in 1677, that no di- 
 vorces should be granted except for adultery, fraudulent 
 contract or wilful desertion, after three years' neglect of 
 duty. It further provided that, after seven years' provi- 
 dential absence, the parties should be declared legally dead 
 to each other. After 1711, many petitions were brought 
 before the Superior Court for this latter reason, and divorces 
 were more frequent on other grounds, although many 
 requests were refused. 
 
 The large majority of actions before the colonial courts 
 were, of course, civil cases, such as prosecutions for damages, 
 and suits for debt. For many of these there was good 
 excuse. There was little business system in their transac- 
 tions. Land at first was sometimes conveyed by "turf 
 and twig," after an ancient English custom. 1 Many were 
 negligent in the immediate recording of their deeds. Con- 
 tracts and agreements were not always written. Debts 
 were forgotten, and payment was deferred to a more con- 
 venient season. All these conditions helped to increase their 
 law suits. 
 
 The most serious indictment that has ever been brought 
 against our early criminal courts is for their action in the 
 witchcraft delusion, the explanation of which has been 
 often made and is here left to others. It was an episode in 
 New England history that should be judged in view of 
 similar beliefs then current in the old world. In Connecticut, 
 all the cases where the condemned were executed occurred 
 between 1647 and 1662. 2 They were, therefore, tried in the 
 Particular Court. Of the seventeen in the river towns who 
 were charged with witchcraft during this period, nine were 
 residents of Hartford. Three of these were executed. As 
 the prison where all criminals of Hartford, Windsor, Wethers- 
 field and Farmington were confined was located in Hart- 
 
 1 Original Distribution, p. 368; Hartford Land Records, I: 162. 
 
 2 Tin Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut, by John M. Taylor. 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 283 
 
 ford, it is probable that the entire number from these towns, 
 which were hung in this delusion, suffered in Hartford. 
 Alse Young of Windsor was the first unhappy victim, but 
 the court records give us no information concerning her 
 trial. On the cover of Mathew Grant's Diary, Dr. J. Ham- 
 mond Trumbull discovered the record "May 26. 47 Alse 
 Young was hanged." This supplies the blank in Winthrop's 
 History: "One of Windsor arraigned and exe- 
 cuted at Hartford for a witch." 1 So far as known, this was 
 the first execution for witchcraft in New England. The 
 next victim was Mary Johnson of Wethersfield. In 1646, 
 she had been sentenced to be whipped for theft, probably at 
 Hartford, which was to be repeated a month later at Wethers- 
 field. On her own confession, she was indicted by a jury 
 December 7, 1648, as guilty of "familiarity with the Deuill." 
 Mather says, "Her confession was attended with such 
 convictive circumstances that it could not be slighted." 2 
 She confessed, he says, that she had murdered a child, and 
 committed other faults of licentiousness. For some months 
 before her execution, she was imprisoned at Hartford, under 
 the care of William Ruscoe. A son was born to her while 
 there. Nathaniel Ruscoe, the jailor's son, agreed with her 
 before her death to bring up and educate the child, which 
 agreement was afterward sanctioned by the court. The 
 jailor was paid £6 10s. for twenty-four weeks' charges to 
 June 6, 1650, from which fact it is inferred that she was 
 executed on that date. Rev. Samuel Stone ministered to 
 her while in prison, and it is said that she became a penitent 
 woman. She was evidently a poor, misguided creature, 
 who accounted for her fault according to the superstition 
 of the age. 
 
 After the execution of John and Joan Carrington of 
 Wethersfield in 1651, and Lydia Gilbert of Windsor in 1654, 
 a witchcraft tragedy was enacted among Hartford residents. 
 It is one story and has been written and published by Dr. 
 Charles J. Hoadly. 3 Nine persons were involved, largely 
 
 1 Annie Eliot Trumbull, in The Hartford Courant, Dec. 3, 1904; Winthrop's 
 History, II: 374. 
 
 2 Mather's Magnolia, Bk. VI, pp. 71-78. 
 
 3 "A Case of Witchcraft in Hartford" in Connecticut Magazine, Nov., 1899, 
 pp. 557-561. 
 
284 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 through the statements of Rebecca Greensmith. She had 
 been the wife of Abraham Elsen of Wethersfield, who died 
 in 1648. Then she married Jarvis Mudge, and was a widow 
 when she married the unfortunate Nathaniel Greensmith. 
 Those who were implicated constituted a group of local 
 acquaintances, some of whom had a repute for misdemeanors 
 or immorality. Their names were Nathaniel and Rebecca 
 Greensmith; Elizabeth, the wife of Richard Seager; An- 
 drew Sanford and Mary his wife; William Ayres and his 
 wife; Judith Varlett and James Walkley. Of Rebecca 
 Greensmith, Rev. John Whiting wrote to Increase Mather 
 that she was "a lewd, ignorant and considerably aged 
 woman." Her husband had twice been convicted of theft. 
 The court had once censured him for lying. Elizabeth 
 Seager left a record of shameless crime, being guilty of blas- 
 phemy and adultery. These were the leaders. The others 
 kept such company. One night they had a merry-making, 
 under a tree on the green near Rebecca Greensmith's house. 
 James Walkley, Goodwife Ayres and Goody Seager were 
 present. They all danced and had a bottle of sack. Other 
 nocturnal gatherings were held. Suspicions were awakened 
 in the neighborhood. Nathaniel Greensmith had a small 
 home-lot, house and barn, recently purchased. It was 
 located just south of our present Barnard Park, on which 
 green the dance of the witches was doubtless held. 1 Com- 
 plaint had been made to the town that he had set his barn 
 on common land. James Walkley had a house-lot on the 
 north side of the road from George Steele's to the South 
 Meadow. Sanford and Ayres apparently lived on North 
 Main Street. The crisis came in the spring of 1662, with 
 the accusations of a young daughter of John Kelley, uttered 
 in the delirium of sickness. The child died. Immediately, 
 the neighborhood was busy with reports that she had been 
 bewitched unto death. The magistrates examined several 
 of those accused. Nathaniel Greensmith then sued William 
 Ayres for slandering his wife. She and her husband were 
 soon arrested. The defendent Ayres, his wife, and James 
 Walkley, took refuge in flight. Ann, the daughter of John 
 Cole, had strange fits about that time. Her examination 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 91; Original Distribution, pp. 268, 269. 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 285 
 
 by the ministers, Samuel Hooker of Farmington, Samuel 
 Stone, Joseph Haynes and John Whiting of Hartford, only 
 increased the mystery and augmented the excitement. On 
 June 6th, Andrew Sanford was indicted for witchcraft. 
 The jury disagreed. A week later, Mary Sanford was in- 
 dicted and found guilty. This action furthered the ultimate 
 indictment of Nathaniel and Rebecca Greensmith, which 
 occurred December 30, 1662. They were both found guilty. 1 
 The woman's testimony implicated her associates. On 
 January 6th, Mary Barnes of Farmington was indicted, 
 and was also found guilty. The tragic scenes, which closed 
 this horrible episode of our local history, can be all too 
 clearly imagined. Mary Sanford was convicted first, and 
 was not long detained in jail. Like some weird spectre of 
 the spirit world, she disappeared. Goodwife Barnes was 
 confined three weeks, for which Daniel Garret, the jail- 
 keeper, was allowed 21s., to be paid by Goodman Barnes. 
 The jailor was also allowed 6s. a week for keeping Nathaniel 
 and Rebecca Greensmith, to be paid out of his estate. His 
 inventory states that he was executed January 25, 1 662-3. 2 
 Hutchinson quotes the diary of Goffe, the regicide, under 
 the date January 20th, as saying "three witches were con- 
 demned at Hartford." On this date the Particular Court 
 met. He also says of Rebecca Greensmith: "Upon this 
 
 1 The indictment reads: "Nathaniel Greensmith, thou art here indicted by the 
 name of Nathaniel Greensmith for not having the feare of God before thine eyes; 
 thou hast entertained familiarity with Satan, the grand Enemy of God and Man- 
 kind, and by his help hast acted things in a preter naturall way beyond human 
 abilities in a naturall course, for which according to ye Law of God and ye established 
 laws of this Commonwealth thou deserveth to die." The form of the information, 
 used in the Superior Court for many years, assigned all crimes to the instigation 
 of the Devil. The magistrates at this trial were as follows: Mr. [Mathew] Allyn, 
 moderator, Mr. [Samuel] Wyllys, Mr. [Richard] Treat, Mr. [Henry] Woolcot, 
 Danll Clark, Sec, Mr. Jo. Allyn. The jury were: Edw. Griswold, Walter Ffiler 
 Ensign [Nicholas] Olmstead, Sam" Boreman, Goodm [Gregory] Winterton, John 
 Cowles, Sam 11 Marshall, Sam 11 Hale, Nathan 11 Willet, John Hart, John Wads- 
 worth, Robert Webster. The execution of criminals then devolved upon the Mar- 
 shal, who was Jonathan Gilbert. One of the accused is said to have seen this 
 worthy official in a dream, which seemed to presage the end. He was the first of 
 three appointed to settle Greensmith's estate. Jonathan Gilbert succeeded Thomas 
 Stanton in this office, and was followed by George Grave. 
 
 2 January 25th was a Sabbath, and we can not think the execution would have 
 occurred on that day. Perhaps the court met on the 20th and they were executed 
 on the 23rd, the latter date being incorrectly copied. 
 
286 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 confeffion flie was executed, and two more of the company 
 were condemned at the same time." x The scene was doubt- 
 less accompanied by the public sensation, common to such 
 occasions in England. It was the last time any witches 
 were hung in Connecticut, and forty years before the excite- 
 ment over the Salem witchcraft. Elizabeth Seager was 
 indicted on the same day with Mary Barnes, and twice later. 
 In 1665 she was convicted, but the Court of Assistants 
 found a way to release her, after a year's imprisonment. It 
 seems probable that the witches were executed outside of 
 the town-plot, on the road from the Cow Pasture into the 
 Country. There the gallows of early times was located. 
 On March 10, 1711-12, John Read sold to John Olcott a 
 tract of about seven acres, bounded south on the "highway 
 leading out of Hartford town towards Symsbury," now 
 Albany Avenue. It is described in the deed as "near the 
 houfe lately built by Joseph Butler, near where the Gallows 
 ufed to stand." 2 The place is near enough identified as on 
 the north side of the avenue, on the east end of the present 
 Goodwin lot. There, a large elm tree on a rise of ground 
 might well memorialize the place where this tragedy of 
 Hartford's early history was enacted. 
 
 The usual place of punishment for minor offenses was in 
 the meeting-house yard. Near the church were the stocks, 
 the pillory and the whipping-post. The stocks was a timber 
 frame in the holes of which the feet, or feet and hands of 
 criminals, were confined. In the pillory, the head and hands 
 were held, the victim being often compelled to stand. To 
 the whipping-post the criminal was fastened while the lash 
 was applied. All these punishments were very common. 
 It was not so much the pain as the disgrace that was depended 
 on for correction. On lecture day, just before the ringing 
 of the first bell, the criminal was put in the stocks or pillory, 
 where the congregation could see him. The passer-by 
 sometimes railed at him, and the children pointed their 
 fingers at him. An old writer says, "The jeers of a theatre, 
 the pillory and the whipping-post are very near akin." 
 
 At first, the Colony had no jail. Prisoners may have been 
 committed to the keeping of William Ruscoe. On April 10, 
 
 1 Hutchinson's History, II: 17. 2 Hartford Land Records, 2: 228. 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 287 
 
 1640, the General Court passed the following vote: "For- 
 asmuch as many stubborne & refractory Persons are often 
 taken w th in these libertyes, and no meet place yet p r epared 
 for the detayneing & keepeing of such to their due & deserued 
 punishment, It is therefore Ordered that there shall be a 
 house of Correction built, of 24 foote long & 16 or 18 foote 
 broad, w th a Cellar, ether of wood or stonne, according as 
 Mr. Talcotte, Ed: Stebing, Tho: Ford and James Boosy 
 shall Thinke meete, who are chosen by the Courte to lette 
 out the worke, appoynt out the place & to order and directe 
 whatsoeuer occations and businesses that may fall out for 
 the compleate finishing the said house, w ch is to be done 
 by the nexte Courte, in September." The committee located 
 this edifice in the northeast corner of the yard, north of 
 the meeting-house. This was long known as "the prison 
 lot." Here they erected a building, variously called a "house 
 of correction," "jail" or "prison." The repairs made upon 
 it indicate that it was of wood. In 1652, Richard Goodman 
 and John Pratt were appointed "for carrying on the neces- 
 sary worke about the prison house." The amount to be 
 expended suggests extensive improvements, or a new build- 
 ing. An addition was ordered in 1664, which William 
 Wadsworth and Joseph Fitch were to erect at the Colony's 
 expense. A well was provided in 1692. The lot was enclosed 
 with pales, and some prisoners were given the freedom of 
 this yard. Such inmates as could, maintained themselves 
 in prison. In 1647, William Ruscoe was given 40s. toward 
 his charges for keeping inmates. Some prisoners took with 
 them such articles of furniture as they needed. Others found 
 very poor and uncomfortable lodgings on the floor, or in a 
 prisoner's bunk. Nathaniel Greensmith had there "One 
 Bed well filled," "One Boulster," "One Rugg, one Blan- 
 kett" and "Two Blanketts," valued at £6 10s. The cellar 
 was utilized for dungeons. Prisoners were kept there in 
 gyves or fettered with chains. In 1679, Henry Green of 
 Farmington, a murderer, died there, and William Edwards 
 was paid two shillings for his burial. Others, doubtless, 
 died in prison at various times. These would most likely 
 have been buried in the prison yard, according to custom. 
 In the author's opinion, the graves discovered on this lot 
 
288 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 some years ago were those of prisoners. Daniel Garret 
 succeeded William Ruscoe as keeper in 1654, and continued 
 in office many years. The annual salary was £10. In 1090, 
 Evan Davy was the keeper. He was succeeded the next year 
 by Thomas Hancox, who also had a long term of service. 
 
 This early house of correction, with the alterations of 
 nearly sixty years, must have presented an interesting ap- 
 pearance towards the close of the seventeenth century. 
 Within that low rambling building, many prisoners of all 
 sorts had been confined. Some of them made their escape. 
 One of these was the Niantic Indian Moween, charged with 
 murdering a Pequot girl. 1 In 1664, John Scott took his 
 leave, without paying Daniel Garret for twelve weeks diet. 2 
 William Mathews, convicted of rape and sentenced to death, 
 made his escape in 1693, by the assistance of William 
 Wright, an Indian, and John Rogers Jr. of New London. 
 The confederates were arrested and imprisoned. The latter 
 was also charged with the burning of New London's meeting- 
 house. 3 They were allowed at times to walk at liberty, for 
 which the keeper was censured by the Governor and Council. 
 This prison edifice could not have been very secure, except 
 for criminals in chains or confined in its dungeons. In 1698 
 the need of a new building was recognized, for which the old 
 site was used. The Court of Assistants authorized Captain 
 Joseph Whiting, treasurer of the Colony, and Captain Wil- 
 liam W T hiting, high sheriff, to provide materials for such a 
 building and do the work at the public expense. The size 
 of this structure is unknown. It was larger than the old 
 prison, and perhaps partly of brick. Three years later, the 
 General Assembly ordered that it be maintained by a rate 
 levied by the County Court. The keeper was then allowed 
 4s. "for comitment of a prisoner and discharge" and 2s. 6d. 
 a week for the "diet." Many an interesting tale gathers 
 about this prison, often called "Hartford Gaol." In 1722, 
 it was the scene of the famous Hartford Riot, on account of 
 land disputes in the Hop River country. The keeper, Thomas 
 Meakins, refusing to release Captain Jeremiah Fitch of 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 178, 188, 196, 197 n., 213, 232. 
 
 2 Ibid., I: 436. 
 
 3 State Archives: Crimes and Misdemeanors, I: 197-201. 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 289 
 
 Norwich, the door was burst open and all the prisoners 
 escaped. 1 Here some of the Separatists were confined during 
 that religious controversy. On a lecture day in November 
 1743, Rev. Elnathan Whitman preached a sermon "per- 
 vious to y e execution of Jack and Kate, two negroes y e one 
 condemned to die for a rape y e other for murdering her 
 child." 2 Perhaps executions at that time were conducted 
 in the jail yard. John Barnard was then the keeper. During 
 Revolutionary times the gallows stood near the junction of 
 Zachary's Lane, now Vernon Street, and Rocky Hill. The 
 place was called "Gallows Hill." 3 Indeed, the criminal 
 history of that period, which is associated with this prison, 
 would fill a volume and give no very favorable impression 
 of the times. 
 
 Meanwhile, a more economical and reformative treat- 
 ment of certain classes of offenders had found favor. 
 The courts had recognized from the first the wholesome 
 influence of work upon the wayward. It was ordered for 
 some, under masters. In certain instances, it was conducted 
 in the prison. The evils of the times now demanded a work- 
 house. During the first quarter of the eighteenth century, 
 "rogues, vagabonds, sturdy beggars, and other lewd, idle, 
 dissolute, profane and disorderly persons" increased. 
 In 1727, the General Assembly recited these conditions, when 
 a law was enacted providing for a Colony work-house. To 
 this institution the above classes could be committed. The 
 insane, also, could be sent there, and, in 1730, persons sen- 
 tenced to perpetual confinement were transferred to it. A 
 master was to have charge, and conduct the work done by 
 the inmates. Each of them was allowed two-thirds of his 
 earnings to pay for support and necessary materials. The 
 court might apply all one's earnings to maintain his family. 
 To further the self-support of this work-house, overseers 
 were appointed in 1737. At the same time, the year 1741 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, VI: 332, 333, 341, 375; em. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 
 78; Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, in the Hartford Evening Press, Oct. 1860. 
 
 2 Wadsworth's Diary, p. 106; Hartford County Court Papers in State Library. 
 The indictments in these as in other similar cases charged that they had been 
 "instigated by the Devil." 
 
 3 The Hartford Times, Aug. 8, 1890. 
 
290 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 was named as the limit of this experiment. 1 The original 
 act located this institution in Hartford, if the town or pro- 
 prietors provided land for the purpose. Accordingly, on 
 July 8, 1729, John Edwards conveyed to Nathaniel Stanley, 
 John Austin and John Skinner, a committee of the town, 
 "for y e use of y e Inhabitants and proprieto rs ," a triangular 
 piece of land containing one-half acre, located on the west 
 side of Trumbull Street. 2 It was originally the northeast 
 corner of Thomas Stanton's home-lot, and is the present site 
 of the Case, Lockwood and Brainard Company building. 
 The above committee were named by the General Assembly 
 to erect thereon a building "of fifty foot in length and 
 thirty-two foot in breadth and fourteen foot between 
 joynts." It stood length-ways on Trumbull Street. To 
 prevent the escape of prisoners and facilitate the work, a 
 yard was made about it in 1737. The Court records give 
 the names and offenses of some who were confined in this 
 work-house. It failed to become self-supporting and, in 
 1742, the General Assembly authorized the Hartford County 
 Court to transfer its inmates to the common gaol, north of 
 the square, to be kept and employed there as in the work- 
 house. 3 
 
 This institution was revived in 1750, by the law that 
 appears in the revision of that date providing for county 
 work-houses. The old building was put to this use. An 
 additional act in 1753 directed the County Court "to put 
 the same in good repair and order" for this purpose. 4 Other 
 counties, which had no building, were not so ready to comply 
 with the law. At this time Hartford County needed a new 
 gaol. On February 13, 1753, the court therefore ordered the 
 erection of one "near the south end of the work-house," 
 and authorized the sale of its interest in the prison lot or 
 old gaol. 5 This plan was accomplished. Thus the building 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Bee., VH: 128-130,345,530,531; VIII: 137-139; Poor Law of 
 Conn., by Dr. E. W. Capen, pp. 61-66. 
 
 2 Conn. Col. Bee., VII: 240, 241; Original Distribution, pp. 329, 436, 438 n.; 
 Hartford Land Records, 5: 132. 
 
 3 Conn. Col. Ree., VIII: 505. 
 * Ibid., X: 159-161, 206. 
 
 Hartford County Court Records, Feb. 13, 1753; Hartford Town Votes, I: 184, 
 216; Hartford Land Records, 1: 70; 7: 548; 9: 363; 11: 295. 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 291 
 
 originally erected in 1729 for the Colony work-house, and 
 the Hartford County gaol ordered in 1753, came to occupy 
 the same lot on Trumbull Street — a fact that has caused 
 much confusion. As places of confinement, however, they 
 were distinct. The classes above specified were committed 
 to the work-house, which was conducted as in former times. 
 For this, an assistant and a justice, or any two justices, 
 received final jurisdiction in 1769. 1 Criminals and some 
 others temporarily confined were kept in the gaol. As both 
 institutions were under county authority, there was doubt- 
 less an interchange of courtesies between them. In 1785, 
 the sentence of a horse thief was to ride the wooden horse 
 half an hour and receive fifteen stripes in the square, and 
 then be confined "in the gaol and the work-house" for three 
 months, to be taken out every Monday morning for the first 
 month, receive ten stripes and again ride his "oken stud." 2 
 Apparently, the two buildings were referred to, in some 
 instances, as the gaol, jail or prison. Moll Rogers in 1757, 
 and others at sundry times, escaped from this gaol. In 
 1764, a plot was formed in Colchester, by one Titus Carrier, 
 to "pull Down, Demolifh and Deftroy it" and release the 
 prisoners. Here, Moses Dunbar was imprisoned in 1777 for 
 high treason, David Farnsworth and John Blair in 1778 
 as spies and counterfeiters, and Alexander McDowell in 
 1781 for desertion — all of them hung, probably on Gallows 
 Hill. A yard was built in connection with it in 1776, 
 for the safe-keeping of Revolutionary prisoners, who were 
 confined there during the war. It seems probably that during 
 this period both buildings were used for this purpose. 
 
 On February 28, 1792, the County Court, in view of the 
 decayed state and insufficiency of this gaol, appointed 
 Roger Newberry, William Moseley and John Caldwell a 
 committee, with authority to purchase more land, if neces- 
 sary, to sell, lease or use the materials of the old buildings 
 and erect a new gaol or prison house. 3 Additional land 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, XIII: 237, 238. 
 
 2 Barber's Conn. Hist. Coll., p. 56. In 1775 a man was committed "unto the 
 Keeper of the Gaol . . . within the said Prifon." 
 
 3 Hartford County Court Records, Feb. 28, 1792, March 4, Aug. 31, Sept. 18, 
 1793, June 3, 1794; The Connecticut Couranl, Oct. 22, 1792. 
 
292 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 was bought on the west, the southern part of which was 
 sold, and the remainder, with the old lot, constituted the 
 new prison tract. 1 During the construction work, prisoners 
 were sent to Middletown gaol. The building was "nearly 
 finished " when, on April 6, 1794, it was set on fire by Betsy 
 Goodhue, an insane woman confined in one of its apart- 
 ments, who perished in the flames. 2 Its brick walls were 
 not greatly damaged. In the autumn it was completed, 
 and its "liberties" round about were defined. The prison 
 occupied the lower part. In the upper stories there was a 
 tavern that was called "City Hall." There had been, 
 probably, such apartments in the former building, for, on 
 February 13, 1792, Jonathan Janes, who carried on the 
 shoemaking business there, advertised "good accommoda- 
 tions for travelers and good keeping for horses at the City 
 Hall in Hartford," fifty rods west of the Court House. 
 This was a unique combination, but it was a convenience to 
 many a poor debtor confined there. There is a death notice 
 of one such, who ended his days "in the City Hall" by 
 swallowing three ounces of laudanum. 3 In those days, 
 many respectable people were sent to the gaol for such 
 reasons, and it is believed that the main purpose and use 
 of this tavern was to give them opportunities for self-support 
 while there. It certainly attained that distinction and was 
 never a popular social resort. Rooms there were occa- 
 sionally used temporarily as business offices. Here Elias 
 Morgan conducted the drawing of the State House lottery 
 in 1795. 4 Perhaps, also, the County Court met there for a 
 time. 5 This edifice was sold in 1836, to Case, Tiffany and 
 Company, and demolished in 1866 to make way for the 
 widening of Pearl Street and the present Case, Lockwood 
 and Brainard Company building. In 1837, the jail was 
 removed to No. 107 Pearl Street, where it remained until 
 1874, when it was located on Seyms Street. 
 Throughout colonial times the relief of the poor was 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 19: 450, 457; 20: 265; Maps in City Engineer's 
 Office, Books 65: 14; 67: 9,10; 69: 6, 14. 
 
 2 The Connecticut Courant, April 7, 1794. 
 
 3 Ibid., June 11, 1798. 4 Ibid., March 9 and 23, 1795. 
 
 6 "The gaol which has the court house on the top of it is the most elegant build- 
 ing in the city." — John Gerrond's Travels. 
 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 293 
 
 conducted by the town, without any institution. It con- 
 sisted in grants of land, labor, provisions, wood and medical 
 attendance. Besides this, there was much neighborly 
 charity. Children without parental care were bound out. 
 The customs of marriage really relieved social conditions 
 to a large degree. Many a poor widow and her children 
 thus found another home, after a shockingly brief interval 
 of mourning. These children were practically placed out 
 in another home with a new father. The records prove that 
 the results were remarkably good, which should be remem- 
 bered in a criticism of their marriage customs. With the 
 Revolutionary War, the most extreme conditions of need 
 were soon thrust upon every community, because of the 
 number of men that were absent in the army. The town 
 of Hartford, like others, met this situation with liberal 
 bounties and the extensive practice of out-door alms by a 
 special committee. After the war, there were many widows 
 and orphans to be provided for, and how this relief was 
 accomplished is a matter of wonder. There were also 
 other broken fragments of society, not so easily placed. 
 It is not strange, therefore, that there was a demand for an 
 almshouse where a few could be made comfortable. In 
 1782, the selectmen were authorized "to build a small 
 Houfe for the ufe of Neil McLean the old Soldier as long as 
 he lives, . . . the same to remain to the Town for a Poor 
 Houfe for the ufe and dispose of the Town." He was 
 probably a French War veteran, for he was known in 1772 
 as "Old Niel the Soldier." The location of this house was 
 south of the gaol, on the bank of the Little River. 1 This 
 veteran lived only about four months. Probably the 
 town's purpose was carried out, and this was their first 
 almshouse. It was evidently too small for their need. 
 In January 1785, a committee was appointed to memorial- 
 ize the General Assembly for liberty to erect an almshouse 
 and tax the town for its support. The request was granted, 
 and before the autumn, such an edifice had been erected on 
 the east side of the road to Windsor, on land owned by the 
 town. 2 This site was nearly opposite the North Cemetery. 
 
 1 Hartford Toivn Votes, MS. Vol. II: 291. 
 
 2 Ibid., MS. Vol. II: 309, 311, 312; Hartford Land Records, 18: 290. 
 
294 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 The conditions changed, and this property was sold in 1797, 
 to reduce the town's expenses. The value of an almshouse, 
 however, had been proved. In 1812, an act was passed by 
 the General Assembly, upon the town's petition, authoriz- 
 ing it to establish, maintain and regulate a workhouse — 
 a privilege that had been granted earlier to some towns and 
 was extended to all the next year. The town's vote shows 
 that it then had in mind a temporary almshouse and work- 
 house. 1 The former almshouse on Windsor Avenue was 
 secured for this purpose. There this dual institution con- 
 tinued until 1822. The town then purchased the Kelsey 
 farm, "a mile and a half northwest of the State House." 
 It there established both a work-house and an almshouse. 2 
 These were in separate buildings, and the old distinction 
 between the two classes and their treatment was maintained 
 to times within the memory of the living. 
 
 The work-house as a correctional institution was the 
 product of colonial times — the natural outcome of an early 
 belief in the reforming effect of hard labor for certain classes. 
 Under the successive administration of colony, county and 
 town, it accomplished a valuable service. The measure- 
 ment of its success by their commercial standard of self- 
 support, and the general neglect of education and training 
 in its treatment of the inmates, impaired its usefulness. 
 Those classes for which it was intended seem to have been 
 clearly distinguished from criminals, on the one hand, and 
 the poor, on the other; and yet there was always the ten- 
 dency to combine it with their punishment of the former in 
 the jail, and their charity for the latter in the almshouse. 
 The fundamental principle of their work-house has been 
 adopted for good by modern reformatory institutions. 
 It has also been departed from for evil, by the indiscrimi- 
 nate commitment of certain classes to our jails. 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. Ill: 56, 65, 69, 83. 
 
 2 Ibid., MS. Vol. Ill: 102, 103, 105. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII 
 TRADE AND SHOPS 
 
 The early emigrants to New England were well aware of 
 their dependence upon trade for subsistence and develop- 
 ment. They also thought it would be profitable. It is 
 doubtful if they realized how little they would have for 
 export, and how much they would need for themselves. 
 Their descendants can hardly understand what it must 
 have meant to them to begin life anew under primitive 
 conditions. In their homes there were few of those tem- 
 poral luxuries, common in an older civilization. Much of 
 their diet was new. The scant supply of goods necessitated 
 care and economy in their dress. They must have missed, 
 most of all, some of those common tools, implements, 
 utensils and other articles of farm or household use, so 
 easily obtained in England. With these, their inventories 
 show they were poorly supplied. These were the things 
 they used most, and that wore out soonest. Such circum- 
 stances, however, were not on the whole detrimental to 
 New England life. Necessity thus put them in the way of 
 using their own resources. To bring manufactured articles 
 across the sea, they must send over their own products, or 
 find a market elsewhere. It was a fortunate circumstance 
 that beaver skins found such favor in England. The 
 settlers profited greatly by the demand for pipe staves in 
 the West Indies. With these and a few other products, 
 they established an export trade. As time passed, they 
 obtained by this means the things they had left behind in 
 England. Nor was this all. Their need of many articles 
 stimulated them to invent simple devices in their place, 
 just as a camping life does to-day. What they could not 
 thus provide, they found ways of getting on without. This 
 tended to simplicity of life. Their needs resulted, also, in 
 perpetuating, through apprentices, the trades in which some 
 
296 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 of the early generations were skilled masters. So, the 
 chair or chest of a colonial ancestor stands for something 
 more than an ancient pattern. It represents achievement. 
 Above all, these circumstances were the means of develop- 
 ing home industries, by which many of their essential needs 
 were supplied during colonial times. The old spinning- 
 wheel is not a mere curiosity. It is an emblem of that 
 era of American manufactures, in which the skill and dili- 
 gence of women were important factors. Such industries 
 were economically, socially and morally a great blessing to 
 colonial homes. Leaving much to the reader's general 
 acquaintance with the subject, we turn to the particular 
 features of trade and shops within the town of Hartford. 
 
 The General Court, on July 5, 1643, granted liberty for a 
 market to be held at Hartford weekly, on Wednesday, 
 "for all manner of comodityes that shall be brought in, and 
 for cattell, or any marchandise w h soeuer." The land 
 records locate the site of this market at the southeast corner 
 of the meeting-house yard. It is mentioned as a north 
 bound of Jonathan Gilbert's purchase in 1663. In 1645, the 
 Court also granted liberty for two fairs to be kept yearly 
 at Hartford, upon the second Wednesday of May and 
 September. The purpose of these occasions can be best 
 understood through an introduction to contemporary 
 English customs. "A fair," says Brand, "is a greater kind 
 of market, for the more speedy and commodious providing 
 of such things as the place stands in need of. They are 
 generally kept twice a year." 1 Thomas Warton states 
 that "antiently before flourishing towns were established 
 and the necessaries of life, from the convenience of com- 
 munication and the increase of provincial civility, could be 
 procured in various places, goods and commodities of 
 every kind were chiefly sold at fairs: to these as to one 
 universal mart, the people resorted periodically, and sup- 
 plied most of their wants." 2 Such were the conditions in 
 the river towns. Hartford, being the center settlement, 
 was thus selected as a place for weekly trade. We are not 
 to consider this market, therefore, as merely an early ex- 
 
 1 Hrand's Popular Antiquities, II: 453. 
 
 - Warton's Hist, of English Poetry, 1840, II: 55 n. 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 297 
 
 ample of that institution known later by that term. It 
 was the same kind of an occasion the settlers had known in 
 England. One might call it a great country store, kept 
 for a day in an open area, where "all manner of comodityes" 
 would be likely to find a customer. Thither the surplus of 
 their produce, herds or looms was brought, and presumably 
 many second-hand articles. As they had at first no stores, 
 it was a public necessity, as well as a convenience. Prob- 
 ably the early traders of Hartford sold goods there. This 
 custom was maintained for many years. The market- 
 place is mentioned in a deed of 1763. Fairs were revived, 
 generally, that year. Jonathan Trumbull petitioned the 
 General Assembly for a fair at Lebanon, stating that "Fairs 
 and Markets are found Beneficial & serviceable to facilitate 
 the Transaction of Business." A similar petition for one 
 at Windham expressly appeals to the English custom and 
 its advantages. As shops and stores increased, however, 
 this early market in Hartford came to be devoted to the 
 sale of such produce as could not always be sold elsewhere. 
 It is certain that this ancient privilege of periodical traffic 
 in the square, or near the bridge, continued to quite recent 
 times. It survived within the memory of many, in the sale 
 of poultry in the square at Thanksgiving time. It is said 
 that the drop curtain of a theatre or circus, long ago estab- 
 lished in the rear of the American House, "represented the 
 old State House and grounds, with farmers and their carts 
 and oxen in the foreground on Central Row." The people 
 seem to have regarded this as an inherited right. One reason 
 given for the establishment of the bridge market, built in 
 1811 upon an arch on the west side of Main Street bridge, 
 was the obstruction of the highway at its south end by the 
 wagons of venders, who gathered there to sell their mer- 
 chandise. This public need resulted later in the erection 
 of the city's markets. 1 
 
 When their early market or fair was established, there 
 were in Hartford several merchants, who had in their 
 homes or outbuildings such articles as were used in trade 
 or were sold to the settlers. Their early traffic was with 
 the Indians for corn or beaver skins. The General Court 
 
 Ktfem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 368; Hartford Land Records, 22: 98,46(5. 
 
298 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 sent out its agents to obtain corn. In 1638, the exclusive 
 right to trade for beaver on the river was given to certain 
 individuals. William Whiting and Thomas Stanton secured 
 it for Hartford. Governor Hopkins obtained a special 
 privilege of trade at Warranoke in 1640. Traffic with the 
 Indians on Long Island was restrained in 1642, though 
 Thomas Stanton and Richard Lord were allowed to make 
 one voyage. The settlers were then in need of articles and 
 goods, which they hoped to secure in the older colonies. 
 Protests were made, however, by Massachusetts and Plym- 
 outh, that their markets were being overfilled. Hence, 
 Connecticut traders sought a foreign market. In 1644, an 
 agreement was made with Governor Hopkins and William 
 Whiting, by which they were to pay a fixed price for corn, 
 and have the sole privilege of transporting it to foreign 
 parts. 1 This restrictive policy prevailed for years. Such 
 Hartford merchants as acquired particular rights under it 
 were profited. As export trade increased, they were the 
 first to win its rewards. Comparatively little progress had 
 been made in 1680, when answers were asked to certain 
 queries of the Committee for Trade in England. 2 It was 
 reported that there were then only about twenty petty 
 merchants in the Colony. A few of these lived in Hart- 
 ford. They had little traffic abroad. Provisions were sent 
 to Boston or New York, and goods were received in return. 
 Their products were occasionally shipped to Barbadoes, 
 Jamaica, and other islands of the West Indies, in exchange 
 for rum, sugar, and cotton wool. Trade with the Indians 
 was then of little value. In 1730, the Colony again answered 
 the queries of the Board of Trade in England. 3 Their trade 
 was then reported as small. Horses and lumber were being 
 exported to the West Indies. Goods for clothing, nails, 
 scythes, pewter, brass and fire-arms were obtained in 
 American ports, for provisions, tar and turpentine. In 
 1747, the General Assembly passed an act for the regulating 
 and encouragement of trade. It placed a duty upon goods, 
 wares and merchandise above the value of fifteen pounds, 
 imported from other American colonies, and offered a 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 116, 117, 119. 
 
 2 Ibid., Ill: 294 ff. 3 Ibid., VII: 580 ff. 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 299 
 
 bounty for such importations from Great Britain and 
 Ireland. Another act provided for a duty upon lumber 
 exported to neighboring governments. 1 The next year a 
 protest was made by various merchants, among whom were 
 Daniel Goodwin, John McKnight and Benjamin Payne of 
 Hartford. It resulted in the suspension of the importation 
 act. 2 As the years passed, their trade increased slowly, 
 but Hartford was surpassed by other towns of the Colony. 
 Its era as a commercial port did not arrive until after the 
 Revolutionary War. 
 
 At an early date, there were some small vessels, owned, 
 in part at least, by Hartford merchants. The joint building 
 of a ship by the towns was proposed in 1642. One was 
 owned at Wethersfield in 1649. The inventory of Rev. 
 Thomas Hooker, dated the latter year, notes that he had 
 a venture abroad in the Entrance. This may have been 
 the name of the pinnace, in which his friend, William Whit- 
 ing, owned a part interest, valued at £40. A ship of that 
 name was "of Hartford," later. At his death in 1662, 
 Richard Lord owned one-sixteenth of the Society and one- 
 eighth of the Desire. It is said that his son Richard Lord 
 and John Blackleach bought the ship America in 1669, and 
 it was then in the Connecticut River. 3 In 1680, only one 
 ship was registered at Hartford. It was of ninety tons 
 burden. Probably this was the Hartford Merchant, which 
 Lord and Blackleach bought in Boston about 1676. 4 Major 
 Jonathan Bull, at his death in 1702, owned one-half of the 
 sloop The Two Brothers, and one-half of the sloop The 
 Bonneta. Other Hartford merchants during this period 
 probably had similar interests. In 1730, four vessels were 
 registered at Hartford as follows: Sloop Mary, 60 tons, 
 Captain David Williamson, master; sloop Rebeckah, 40 
 tons; sloop Hampshire, 18 tons; and sloop Tryal, 35 tons. 
 
 1 Ibid., IX: 283-287. 
 
 2 Ibid., IX: 393-395; State Archives: Trade and Maritime Affairs, I: 135. 
 
 3 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 319 n. As the ship Mary and Elizabeth 
 was of Hartford in 1671, it is conjectured that the owners renamed the America 
 after their wives; that Richard Lord subsequently sold his interest to Giles Hamlin 
 of Middletown, and that this was the ship of the same burden registered there in 
 1680. 
 
 4 State Archives: Private Controversies, II: 34, 44. 
 
300 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Captain Jonah Gross commanded a sloop named the Tryal, 
 in 1709. At his death in 1745, he had an interest in the 
 Rebeckah. John Caldwell owned two-thirds of a brigantine 
 in 1734. The report of 1730 states that two sloops had been 
 recently built at Hartford, one of thirty tons and another 
 of ninety tons. The latter was then being loaded, to be 
 sold with her cargo at Bristol, England. These were 
 probably built at the ship-yard on North Meadow Creek, 
 where others had been earlier and many were later. The 
 Colony's vessels increased from 74 in 1756, to 114 in 1761, 
 and to 180 in 1774. Of these Hartford had a fair propor- 
 tion for a river port. Several local merchants and ship 
 captains had an interest in vessels that were engaged in the 
 coast trade. In 1776, the following Hartford merchants 
 petitioned for some relief from the taxes assessed upon 
 their idle vessels: Daniel Goodwin, James Church, Samuel 
 Olcott, James Caldwell, Samuel Marsh, Nathaniel Goodwin 
 and John Chenevard. 
 
 A closer acquaintance with the town's early merchants 
 may be obtained through their inventories. William 
 Whiting was one of the most prominent. In 1646, he and 
 Governor Hopkins complained of wrongs done them by 
 the Indians, who had stolen their goods and burned their 
 warehouse. This building was probably located on the 
 south bank of the Little River, near the landing. Their 
 joint ownership suggests that they may have used it in 
 connection with the exportation of corn, according to their 
 agreement. William Whiting died in 1647. His inventory 
 indicates that he had commercial interests abroad in Eng- 
 land, Piscataqua, Virginia, Warranoke and Long Island. 
 In a room or closet of his house, he seems to have kept a 
 stock of goods for the purpose of trade. In wampum he 
 had £39 9s.; in beaver £10 4s., and in ammunition and 
 gunpowder £7 10s. He had "2 Racoone coats, 1 Wolf 
 skin coate, 4 Bear skinns, 3 Mooss." Another item of 
 "beauer, mooss and wampum" amounted to £250. Of 
 articles used in trade, he had hoes, hatchets, shoes, nails, 
 pins, paper, shot, fish-hooks, blades, looking-glasses, pewter, 
 bottles, brass ladles, brushes, bells, thimbles, boxes, knives, 
 scissors, combs, "Jewes harps," brass kettles, etc. His 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 301 
 
 dry-goods were "shagg cotton, stockings, hollands," "25 
 yards greene tammy" and "13 peeces of duffles." The 
 "howsing and land" of William Whiting in Hartford was 
 valued at £400, and the same in Windsor at £300. The 
 total of his inventory was £2854, and it was the largest 
 estate that had been probated in Hartford at that date. 
 
 Another early merchant was Captain Richard Lord. 
 He had a warehouse in which he stored grain, soap, salt, 
 lime, pitch, deerskins, whalebone, cotton wool, axes, shovels, 
 spades and forks. A supply of kettles, brass, tin, wooden 
 and earthen vessels, trenchers and pewter ware, he kept 
 in the great closet of his house. At the time of his death 
 he had debts due him in the surrounding towns, in New 
 London, Norwich, Long Island, Delaware Bay, Newfound- 
 land, Barbadoes and England. He died in 1662, at New 
 London. His epitaph pays him this tribute: 
 
 "To Marchantes as a Patterne he might stand, 
 Adventring Dangers new by Sea and Land." 
 His son Richard Lord was also a prosperous merchant, 
 and was lost at sea in 1685. Such goods as glasses, nails, 
 scales, dimity, cotton and woolen yarn, he kept in a shop 
 on his premises. In an "old warehouse," he had sugar, 
 tar and old iron. He also had grain and tar in Ensign 
 Stanley's warehouse. Debts were due him at Haddam, 
 New London, Narragansett and Antigua. In due time his 
 son Richard Lord became a very wealthy merchant, dying 
 in 1712. He had a warehouse at Mill Cove, New London. 
 
 There were also in colonial times some inland traders, 
 such as would now be termed "peddlers." These were 
 often enterprising, shrewd and thrifty men. Along the 
 highways of travel, and in remote settlements, they carried 
 on a remunerative trade and amassed considerable property. 
 John McKnight of Hartford thus began his career. He 
 came from Glasgow in 1738, bringing with him English goods, 
 valued at £60 sterling, "which he travelled with and Dis- 
 posed of in this Colony." After two years experience as a 
 trader, he was associated with Robert Sloan, a Hartford 
 merchant. Then he went to New Haven, where he built 
 two ships of about two hundred and fifty tons each, and was 
 clerk of the company that extended Union or Long Wharf. 
 
302 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Later he returned to Hartford. At one time he had large 
 means, and gave financial aid to the government; but he 
 suffered through the depreciation of old tenor, and by being 
 "unhappily bound for another man." In 1774, he peti- 
 tioned the General Assembly for a peddler's license, intend- 
 ing to return to his early occupation. 1 When he died, in 
 1785 at East Windsor, the Courant termed him "an eminent 
 trader," to which his extant account books bear witness. 
 
 The method of conducting local trade in colonial times, 
 was largely by the exchange of produce for the wares of the 
 shopkeeper, or the labor of the mechanic. As early as 
 1662, the town had a sealer of measures, and a sealer of 
 weights was chosen in 1687. Old-fashioned steelyards were 
 owned in nearly every home. All kinds of produce had a 
 certain standard of value; and this varied very little during 
 long periods. Ledgers, or account books, came to be 
 kept in most families. Some of these have been preserved. 
 At a convenient time, and often after a long interval, two 
 parties would meet, compare their charges against each 
 other, and the debtor would pay the balance in cash. This 
 they called a "reckoning." In many instances, a record 
 of the settlement was made on their books, and signed by 
 both parties. Rev. Daniel Wadsworth, for instance, notes 
 in his diary the fact and date of his reckoning with Robert 
 Sloan, at his "shop," which was then on the north side of 
 the square, where Captain Hezekiah Collyer afterwards 
 lived. A certain shoemaker's ledger, covering the period 
 from 1770 to 1784, shows that he was paid for shoes in 
 walnuts, butter, sugar, salt, milk, wheat, rye, wood, various 
 kinds of meat, cider and rum. Colonel Jeremiah Wads- 
 worth discharged part of his debt with molasses; Colonel 
 Wyllys by recording two deeds, and Dr. Solomon Smith by 
 medical attendance. Rev. Nathan Strong turned in, on 
 his account, beef and veal; and Josiah Clark six chairs. 
 
 Throughout the entire colonial period, trade was con- 
 ducted, occasionally, on the decks of vessels, lying in the 
 river or at the landing. The reasons are obvious. A 
 Co i irant advertisement on December 29, 1766, announces 
 the sale of codfish, ironware, powder and shot, on board the 
 
 1 State Archives: Revolution, V: 22. 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 303 
 
 schooner Squirrel, Ephraim Bartlet, master. The next 
 December, the same master advertised a sale on the sloop 
 Industry. Perhaps, he was accustomed to winter at Hart- 
 ford for this purpose. In 1770, Enoch Reed, on board the 
 sloop Tender lying at Hartford Ferry, advertised to buy 
 flaxseed with rock salt. He was probably gathering a cargo 
 for Ireland. There, also, the same year John Updike, on 
 board the Dolphin, bought wheat. The schooner Peggy 
 sold English goods at the same place in 1785. Such traffic 
 illustrates the methods of early traders in their ventures 
 abroad. It tended, in Hartford, to concentrate trade at 
 the landing. This the warehouse perpetuated. Such build- 
 ings were used generally for grain, iron, flaxseed and bulky 
 merchandise. After King Philip's War, there was a gradual 
 separation between export or river trade, and local traffic 
 among the inhabitants. Thus the storekeeper claimed the 
 business of the earlier trader. 
 
 This advance was partly due to the development that had 
 been going on, meanwhile, among the town's craftsmen. 
 Nearly all the early settlers followed husbandry to some 
 extent; but many of them worked at their trades. There 
 was work for the carpenter, mason, blacksmith, shoemaker, 
 tailor, tanner and glover. We know that these and other 
 trades were represented among them. Their work was at 
 first carried on in the home, or in a small building adjoin- 
 ing, called a "shop." William Kelsey had a "working- 
 shopp" on his lot in 1652. l Peter Bassaker was a smith, 
 and made nails by hand. Such were sometimes called 
 "nailers." In 1646 he had a shop on the north side of Pearl 
 Street. He profanely expressed a hope of meeting some 
 of the members of the church in infernal regions; but he 
 appears to have met them the next lecture day, as they 
 passed him in the pillory. 2 His shop went to his creditors. 
 Nicholas Desborough was a carpenter or cabinet-maker, 
 though he was afterwards accused of being a witch. His 
 home was on North Main Street, near the tunnel. In 1660, 
 he asked the town for liberty to build on the highway next 
 his fence a shop sixteen feet square. His request was 
 
 1 Original Distribution, p. 449. 
 
 2 Ibid., pp. 311, 395; Conn. Col. Rec, I: 168, 169. 
 
304 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 granted. A committee was appointed in 1683, to assign 
 Ebenezer Lewis a place to build a shop "for his trade of a 
 smith." He also located near the tunnel. Doubtless, he 
 used the smith's tools, which his grandfather William Lewis 
 had secured from John Holloway and had willed to him. 1 
 Such instances might be multiplied. Thus the shop where 
 an artisan plied his trade, became a factor in the town's 
 business life. Desirable locations were sought near the 
 bridge, or along the banks of the riveret, and elsewhere. 
 Such as built upon their own lots, often located in front of 
 their houses, near the street. Sometimes their shops 
 encroached upon the highway. As new houses came to 
 be erected, especially on the square or Main Street, their 
 builders yielded to the fashion, and, in their lower front 
 rooms, many of the stores of later years were kept, as the 
 records and advertisements prove. The rest of the house 
 was occupied for household purposes. It was natural for 
 these craftsmen to keep for sale those articles that their 
 trade produced. Thus, the silversmith became the jeweller; 
 the printer, the bookseller; and the tanner, the leather 
 dealer. Instances are known where the produce such 
 craftsmen received for their work led them, also, to become 
 grocers. In this way, shopkeepers were multiplied. Nor 
 was it long before others, who had no trade, seeing the oppor- 
 tunity, established stores for the sale of such merchandise 
 as they considered profitable. The more enterprising of 
 these pushed out into the highway of traffic. In front of 
 their shops they hung out the ancient swinging sign, with 
 some symbol or name upon it. Thus, the town's main 
 highways assumed a different appearance. The broad 
 expanse of green, traversed by roadways and shaded by 
 ancient trees, continued about the same; but along its sides, 
 old farm-houses, which had defied innovations for many 
 years, began to disappear. Newer houses, which were 
 much better adapted for stores, were erected in their places. 
 Quaint little shops were built in front of, or near those, that 
 remained. As if to invite trade, their swinging signs bowed 
 in the breezes to every passer-by; and the paths that led 
 
 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 202; Original Distribution, p. 72; Manwaring's 
 Hartford Probate Records, I: 331. 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 305 
 
 to their doorways witnessed to their success. It was a 
 picture not so different from some to be seen now in old 
 English towns. 
 
 The reader would, perhaps, become better acquainted with 
 this business life of Hartford, if he were conducted along 
 its main highway, as it was about the close of the colonial 
 period. In general, the land records give us the names and 
 location of residents along this street, and glimpses of their 
 shops. Some buildings were erected by permission upon 
 another's land, for which no lease was recorded. There 
 were old homesteads that had adjoining shops, which were 
 rented, from time to time, to various parties. Much may 
 be gathered concerning their shops from advertisements in 
 The Connecticut Courant. We have, also, to assist us 
 Barber's "Plan of Main Street" during the Revolution, 
 made with the assistance of certain aged men of his day. 1 
 
 Let us set out from Amos Hinsdale's tavern, near the 
 corner of Wyllys Street, and make Buckingham Street our 
 next station. Mr. Hinsdale was by trade a wheelwright, 
 and worked some as such. He acquired this property in 
 1745, and lived there many years. In 1775, his neighbor 
 next north was Captain Daniel Sheldon, who bought there 
 in 1765. Beyond him, Ebenezer Crosby lived. Here, 
 Consider Bowen had a shop later. He sold it in 1789, to 
 Nathaniel S. Benton. Farther north, the property was 
 undeveloped on the east side of the highway, then called 
 the "Country Road." On the west side of the South 
 Green, there was an open field. North of this, in 1774, 
 William Adams, a shoemaker, had a small one-story shop. 
 This was the southernmost lot of a tract owned by the 
 Second Ecclesiastical Society. In 1636, about four acres 
 here, extending north to the road from George Steele's to 
 the South Meadow, were distributed to John Moody. 
 His grandson, John Moody, sold the tract, in 1691, to the 
 Second Church. It then had an "old houfe & Barns" upon 
 it. The church committee, at the Society's desire, con- 
 veyed it, in 1696, to Rev. Thomas Buckingham, from 
 whose son, Joseph Buckingham Esq., by the deed of his 
 
 1 Barber's Connecticut Historical Collections, pp. 48, 49; The Hartford Times, 
 March 21, 1912; Crossing the Connecticut, p. 16. 
 
306 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 mother, Mrs. Ann Burnham, it returned as a gift, in 1762, 
 to the Second Society. In view of the Society's purpose to 
 lease this property, Barnabas Hinsdale made a survey of its 
 several lots in 1774, with sketches of the houses upon them. 1 
 On the lot next north of Adams's shop, there was a large 
 two-story house, with chimneys at either end. It was that 
 "once proposed to be given" to Rev. William Patten, at 
 his settlement in 1767, and was called the "parsonage 
 house." 2 Here Mr. Patten resided some years. On the 
 north, there was a vacant lot. In 1783, Jonathan and James 
 Steele, Jr., located on the south half, and Asa Francis on 
 the north half. The next house was leased, in 1777, to Dr. 
 William Jepson. It was a small two-story tenement, prob- 
 ably correctly represented in Hinsdale's sketch. Here he 
 kept a shop for the sale of drugs and medicines, and practiced 
 his profession until his death. His inventory furnishes a 
 reliable list of his stock. 3 This is a good illustration of an 
 early drug store kept in the lower front room of a residence. 
 On the north, there was a small gambrel-roof house, with a 
 chimney at one end. This was the home of Barzillai Hud- 
 son, a mason by trade, who secured a lease of it in 1774. 
 At the same time, Ebenezer Watson, a printer, and the 
 publisher of The Connecticut Courant, acquired the corner 
 house, where the South Church now stands. Barber's 
 plan indicates that this had been the home of "Parson 
 Buckingham." Here, also, his son, Joseph Buckingham, 
 Esq., had lived. According to the sketch, this was a two- 
 story house of the usual pattern, with a large central chim- 
 ney. Ebenezer Watson died September 16, 1777, and his 
 widow, Hannah (Bunce) Watson, married February 11, 
 1779, her neighbor, Barzillai Hudson. 4 The house in the 
 
 1 Dr. Parker's History of the Second Church, p. 126. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 130; Hartford Land Records, 18: 353; 19: 518. 
 
 3 The list of Dr. Jepson's drugs and medicines contains 136 items. He had a 
 large assortment of bottles of various kinds, mortars, ladles, boxes, etc. A set of 
 instruments for amputating, another for trephining, a case of dissecting knives, a 
 set of teeth instruments, a case of five lancets, seven catheters, a case of couching- 
 needles and a syringe are mentioned. His medical library contained 5i volumes. 
 The Doctor had a horse, harness, sulky and saddle. These items give a good 
 representation of the physician and surgeon at the close of colonial times. 
 
 4 Ebenezer Watson, son of John and Bethia (Tyler) Watson, was born, May 1, 
 1744, in Bethlehem, Conn. He married, (.1) Oct. 1, 1767, Elizabeth, daughter of 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 307 
 
 rear was leased in 1774, to Elisha Burnham, a blacksmith. 
 In 1825, this corner again returned to the Second Ecclesi- 
 astical Society. 1 
 
 Proceeding northward to the Little River, there was, on 
 the east side, the homestead of Captain Aaron Bull, a 
 prominent South-side man in his day. He was one of the 
 seven or more residents on Main Street, who had followed 
 the sea. Barber calls him "Sea Captain and Shoe maker." 
 His house was lately razed, being the well-known "Joseph 
 Whiting house." The lower east room was called, in 1793, 
 a " shop." Here, or in another building on this lot, Epaphras 
 Bull once made and sold copper ware. Next north, was the 
 Freeman Gross homestead. There had been, and perhaps 
 was in 1775, a shop between it and the Richard Burnham 
 house, farther north. It was bought from Mr. Gross in 
 
 1737, by William Adams, "cabinet maker." He sold it, 
 in 1739, to Isaac Tucker, who was of the same trade. In 
 1743, it passed to Michael Burnham. The brook, else- 
 where mentioned, flowed underneath this shop. In front 
 of the Burnham house there was a blacksmith shop. Mi- 
 chael Burnham, the son of Richard, had asked the town's 
 liberty, in 1732, to erect a shop at the west end of his father's 
 house, one and a half feet upon the highway, and the width 
 of the house. Richard Burnham was a blacksmith. In 
 
 1738, when the father conveyed his homestead to his son, 
 he also gave him this "blacksmith shop" and his tools. 
 This illustrates their custom, of erecting such shops in front 
 of their homes. In 1753, William Hooker secured Michael 
 Burnham's lot. Barber calls him "Old Will Hooker, 
 Butcher and Blacksmith." His inventory in 1794, proves 
 the statement. The butcher shop was on Arch Street. 
 
 Richard Seymour of Hartford. She died April 11, 1770. He married, (2) Aug. 
 1, 1771, Hannah, daughter of Aaron Bunce (John Watson of Hartford, by Thomas 
 Watson, pp. 17, 24; Hartford Land Records, 14: 191; 21: 451). Barzillai Hudson 
 son of William and Sarah (Fobes) Hudson, was born in 1741, in Bridgewater, Mass. 
 He married, (1) Margaret, daughter of Zebulon Seymour of Hartford, a cousin of 
 the first wife of Ebenezer Watson. These relations, doubtless, led to their occupa- 
 tion of adjoining houses. Hannah Hudson died Sept. 27, 1807. Barzillai Hudson 
 died Aug. 1, 1823 (Orcutt's Hist, of Torrington, p. 723; Mitchell's Hist, of Bridge- 
 water, p. 201). 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 21: 451; 22: 83,324; 43: 342. 
 
308 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 This homestead passed, in 1773, to Joseph Reed, who sold 
 to Ezra Hyde the southern half, where the Thatcher house 
 now stands. The northern half, on which Hooker's "old 
 house" stood, was confiscated during the Revolutionary 
 War, when Reed joined the enemy. In 1781, the State sold 
 it to Enos Doolittle. North of this, Abraham Beach had 
 bought, in 1762, from his stepfather, Dr. Jonathan Bull, 
 one-half acre, and established there a grocery and dry-goods 
 business. He offered this property for rent in 1765, with 
 his "new dwelling-house," having a "fine store under the 
 whole." The next year he sold, and William Hooker 
 acquired it for a home in 1770, before selling his old home- 
 stead. It passed to Dr. Daniel Butler in 1782. Mr. 
 Beach became a well known Episcopal clergyman. 1 He 
 is said to have been the author of the prospectus of The 
 Connecticut C our ant in 1764. The homestead of Jonathan 
 Bull was farther north, on the corner of Sheldon Street. 
 On the west side of this section, Barber locates "Elisha 
 Burnham's Blacksmith's shop," near Buckingham Street. 
 Next north, was the Gideon Bunce homestead, so-called 
 for several generations. Beyond this, Isaac Tucker bought 
 land, in 1755. His shop had previously been in Cooper 
 Lane, perhaps the one that formerly stood on the north- 
 west corner of the Cone lot. His son Isaac acquired this 
 property in 1769, and, until 1775, resided there, conducting 
 a blacksmith shop. He was a soldier in the Revolution, 
 and was killed in the battle of White Plains. The apparent 
 excess of smiths may be accounted for by the demand for 
 nails and other iron work, in later colonial times. Farther 
 north, was the homestead of Rev. Elnathan Whitman, the 
 lot extending to that of Thomas Seymour, Esq., where the 
 school-house and horse sheds had stood in the highway. 
 Next north, there was a shop, where Dr. Daniel Butler 
 advertised to sell drugs in 1784. The following year, Colonel 
 Miles Beach, silversmith, opened a shop there, at first with 
 Isaac Sanford, and later with James Ward. His house 
 was in the rear. Beyond the home of Samuel Howard, 
 where Norman Butler in 1781 sold dry-goods, was Butler's 
 Tavern, and then Elm Street, with its riverside shops and 
 
 1 Dexter's Yale Biographies, II : 44G-449. 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 309 
 
 tanneries. Such was Main Street on the south side, after 
 one hundred and forty years — a country road in truth, 
 with some ancient houses, none of which were highly orna- 
 mental, and a half dozen scattered shops. 
 
 Going northward from the bridge to the square, we enter 
 a busier section. On the east side, the corner lot had 
 been sold by Mrs. Abigail Woodbridge, in 1750, to Timothy 
 Shepard. She reserved an old house, which was succeeded 
 by the home of Timothy and Josiah Shepard. In 1753, 
 she sold the lot north of this to Ebenezer Balch, from 
 whom it passed, in 1755, to James Caldwell, a sea captain. 
 His house was partly devoted to trade, later. Charles 
 Caldwell had a house here, which he sold in 1765 to William 
 Gardiner. He removed his store from Exchange Corner to 
 this house, and sold there English goods, china and glass- 
 ware. At his death in 1766, from injuries received in the 
 school-house explosion, this property passed to Benjamin 
 Payne Esq., a lawyer. During the Revolutionary War, 
 there was a store here, probably the one commonly called 
 "the red store." Here, Kelliger and Tisdall, William 
 Seymour and Daniel Jones and Co., were successively 
 tenants. The north part of this lot was owned later by 
 George Merrill, who in 1793 sold to Oliver Ellsworth, with 
 his right in a twelve foot gangway, separating this from the 
 home of Rev. Nathan Strong on the north. Beyond this, 
 was the one-acre lot, which Mrs. Abigail Woodbridge sold 
 in 1733 to Rev. Daniel Wadsworth. This had originally 
 been a part of Elder William Goodwin's home lot, which 
 extended south to the bank of the Little River. 1 It was 
 also called the "Way Lot." On its north end the Wads- 
 worth homestead was located. It is now the site of the 
 W T adsworth Athenaeum. North of this, on the Flagg 
 property originally owned by John Steele, Deacon Ezra 
 Corning, in 1766, acquired from Samuel Olcott and John 
 Chenevard one-half acre, with a mansion-house. Here, 
 for many years, he carried on an extensive trade as a shoe- 
 maker. The owner next north was Stephen Meers, of 
 whom Barber says, he had "various trades." He sold 
 English goods and exchanged them for homespun woollens. 
 
 1 Original Distribution, pp. 23, 24, 513, 15, 60; Hartford Land Records, 1: 155* 
 
310 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 In 1772, he sold the southern part of his lot to John and 
 Aaron Bradley, who came from Guilford. Aaron Bradley 
 conducted here, in 1775, a shop for horseshoeing. In 1776, 
 this property passed to William Ellery. It had then a 
 dwelling-house upon it. North of Meers' store was the Flagg 
 tavern. Just beyond it, was the store of Captain Thomas 
 Hopkins, one of the best known in Revolutionary times. 
 It encroached upon the highway. Here he sold English 
 and India goods, sugar and spices. Barber calls him a 
 "sea captain," as he also does John Chenevard, whose 
 house was located on the north, where the Times Building 
 now is. In 1769, Mrs. Margaret Chenevard sold wine, 
 chocolate and snuff there. Next, on the north, was the 
 homestead of John Butler, whose wife Susannah survived 
 him. On the south part, which was leased to Hezekiah 
 Merrill, Daniel and George Merrill erected, about 1773, 
 a "Merchants Shop or Store," partly in the highway. It 
 was twenty-two feet in breadth and forty feet in length, 
 with its end toward the street. At this "new store," Dr. 
 Hezekiah Merrill conducted the business of an apothecary 
 and bookseller. He bought this property in 1775. The 
 next year George Merrill succeeded him. His sign was 
 the "Unicorn and Mortar." The unicorn was an ancient 
 emblem of booksellers, and the mortar was considered appro- 
 priate for the druggist. It is sometimes seen now. A few 
 years later, Hezekiah Merrill acquired the north part of 
 this homestead, "with an old Manfion" upon it. The 
 house had disappeared, when he conveyed the lot in 1789 
 to Oliver Ellsworth, with one-half the gangway on the south. 
 The present wooden building was erected by the grantee 
 soon afterwards. On the corner where the Hartford Trust 
 Company Building now stands, Allen McLean had a shop 
 in 1765, and advertised tamarinds for sale. Later, Dr. 
 Neil McLean claimed this property, and it was occupied by 
 Amasa Jones, a storekeeper. It became the site of John 
 Caldwell's store. 
 
 On the west side of Main Street, near the bridge, Captain 
 John Skinner kept a shop for some years. His house was 
 so near the highway that his piazza encroached upon it. 
 Here, and elsewhere, he made sales at auction, sometimes, 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 311 
 
 doubtless, at the sign-post, as his predecessors had. 1 North 
 of Wells Street, was the homestead of William Stanley, his 
 house being located on the southern portion of the lot 
 originally distributed to his ancestor, Sergeant Thomas 
 Stanley. West of it were his outbuildings. He died in 
 1786, and his real estate eventually passed to the Second 
 Ecclesiastical Society. In 1701, Nathaniel Stanley had 
 conveyed three roods at the north end of the original tract, 
 next to the burying-ground, to his son-in-law, Nathaniel 
 Hooker. South of this Hooker lot, in a building on William 
 Stanley's land, Thomas Green and Ebenezer Watson 
 established the third home of The Connecticut Courant, 
 the location being described as "near the Great Bridge." 
 Green became interested with his brother Samuel in New 
 Haven in the autumn of 1767, and removed thither the 
 following spring, leaving the management of the Courant 
 to his partner; but he retained his connection with the 
 newspaper until 1771. In 1768, they probably bought a 
 building here that had been used for shops, as portions of 
 it were afterwards. It was a two-story building, with 
 north and south entrances. The first floor of the north 
 side, or more likely of another building connecting with it 
 on the north, was occupied in 1772 by Enos Doolittle, who 
 made, cleaned and repaired clocks and compasses. The 
 building of Green and Watson was about opposite the 
 southwest corner of the Morgan Memorial. They were 
 the owners of it in 1777, when Ebenezer Watson died. His 
 inventory included "Half the Shop Belonging to Green & 
 Watson — £30." It also mentioned Watson's interest in 
 "The Printing Room over M r Doolittle's Shop— £30." As 
 there were shops below, the Courant office occupied the 
 second floor of both buildings. 2 From the accounts of the 
 
 1 Conn. Col. Rec, III: 111; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 299. 
 
 2 Watson's inventory gives valuable information concerning an early printer's 
 possessions. "At the Printing office: 1 Printing Press, £20-0-0; 11 Pair Printing 
 Cafes @ 15/— 8-5-0; 2 Large frame for D° 20/, 7 Small D° 35/ — 2-15-0; Half the 
 Shop Belonging to Green & Watson — 30-0-0; The Printing Room over M r . Doo- 
 little's Shop — 30-0-0; Lye Trough 24/, Iron for Sign 10/ — 1-14-0; Large Iron 
 Kittle 7/, Iron Pot 7/6—0-14-6; Iron Pounder 8/, Small Iron Kettle 2/ — 0-10-0; 
 Blanks 3-10-0, Accompt Book 30/ — 5-0-0; Old Wrighting Desk 8/, Iron Skillet 
 1/6 — 0-9-6; 37 Ream Printing Paper® 10/— 18-10-0; Saw 2/, 6 Small Gallies 
 9/, 2 folio D° 6/ — 0-17-0; 1 Long D° 2/, Salmons Gazetter 4/— 0-6-0; 3 Chairs 
 
312 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 administrator, Barzillai Hudson, we learn that it had 
 become necessary to remove these buildings, and they 
 were sold, at a loss of £45 to the estate. This was probably 
 soon after 1782. That year, Barzillai Hudson and Enos 
 Doolittle acquired this portion of the Stanley lot, being one- 
 third of an acre. There was then only a small building, 
 recently erected for a barber shop, between the Stanley 
 home and the printing-office. The purchasers divided this 
 tract into four lots. The owners going north were, George 
 Burnham, who sold in 1785 to Daniel Hinsdale, a former 
 tenant of the printing-office ; John Dodd, Barzillai Hudson, 
 and Enos Doolittle. The old buildings on the last two lots 
 were soon removed. Hudson then erected a new building, 
 in which the Courant was published for many years. A 
 conveyance of 1792 describes this lot as that, "whereon 
 the printing office now occupied by Hudson and Goodwin" 
 stands. Its frontage was nineteen feet, and its depth 
 fifty feet. Probably the building was narrow, and stood 
 with its gable toward the street. It was removed in recent 
 times. North of a ten foot passway, Enos Doolittle also 
 erected a new building upon his lot. There he lived and 
 carried on his trade as a clock-maker. Specimens of his 
 work have survived. 1 
 
 7/, 4 Compofing Sticks 48/ — 2-15-0; Twine 4/, Bank 4/, old Slice & Handirons 
 2/6—0-10-6; All the old Printing Types Belonging to the office — 50-0-0; New 
 Types Lately Imported from Philadelphia — 161-0-0." At Watson's house he 
 had a "Map Lexington Battle." He also owned one half of a paper mill, with the 
 house and land valued at £475, 16 s. Paper was early obtained at Christopher 
 Leffingwell's mill in Norwich. The Courant was suspended for lack of it from Dec. 
 11, 1775 to Jan. 15, 1776. In the summer of 1775, Watson bought a mill site at 
 "Five Miles," now Manchester, and, in company with Austin Ledyard, established 
 a paper-mill. Here the Courant's paper was made. This mill was burned on the 
 night of Jan. 27, 1778, it was thought by an incendiary. Widows Watson and 
 Ledyard petitioned the General Assembly for help in rebuilding it, and were granted 
 the privilege of a lottery. In 1779, it was again in operation. Elisha Babcock, 
 later a Hartford printer, was, perhaps, running it. He acquired an interest, which 
 he sold in 1780 to Barzillai Hudson and Daniel Butler, it being the mill set up by 
 Watson and Ledyard. A Courant advertisement in 1782 indicates that there 
 were then two paper-mills in Hartford, apparently under the same management. 
 It is said that one was set up at Buckland in 1780, by Richard L. Jones. Hudson 
 ami Goodwill erected one at Burnside in 1789, where paper for the Courant was 
 made many years. State Archives: Industry, II: 159, 160; Goodwin's Hist, of 
 East Hartford, pp. 154-158; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, II: 250-252; Hart- 
 ford Land Records, 13: 300,361; 14: 191,215; Rec. State of Conn., I: 503,5,49, 
 II: 197, 198. 
 
 1 Lyon's Colonial Furniture of New England, p. 255. 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 313 
 
 The tenants of the old printing-office changed frequently. 
 There Cotton Murray, a "tailor from Boston," made men's 
 clothes of leather, as well as cloth, in 1770. The next year 
 Edward Dodd, Jr. sold English goods there, and rum also. 
 In 1776, and for several years, Deodat Williams, a gold- 
 smith and jeweller, and George Burnham, in the same 
 business, were tenants. The same year, Nathaniel Patten, 
 a book-binder and stationer, established himself there. 
 He removed, in 1777, to a shop north of the Court House, 
 where he became a publisher about 1780. In this building, 
 Lynde and Marble from Worcester, in 1777, opened a shop 
 for the sale of drugs and medicines, and Josiah Blakeley 
 had a store. He advertised, in the newspaper printed on 
 the floor above, that he had gunpowder for sale. These 
 shops must have been small, and some of them in the rear. 
 The printing-office was one of the town's landmarks. Ad- 
 vertisers referred to it in locating their shops as they did 
 to the North Meeting House or the Bridge. The building 
 long occupied by Peter Lux was formerly known as the 
 Doolittle place, and the printing-office was just south of it. 
 
 On the home-lot of Nathaniel Hooker there were buildings, 
 when he acquired it, with a well, trees and a garden. When 
 he died in 1711, he had a shop there, in which he sold dry- 
 goods, and also a "shop warehouse." The widow, Mary 
 Hooker, married John Austin, another early merchant. 
 Her son, Nathaniel Hooker, inherited the homestead and 
 the business. At his death in 1763, the property passed 
 to the widow, Eunice Hooker, and the son Horace. In the 
 shop, Benoni Chalker was a tenant in 1765. Here, or in 
 another building on the premises, Henshaw and Hamlin, 
 braziers and pewterers, were established in 1767. Among 
 the tenants during the Revolution, was Josiah W. Gibbs, 
 who sold knives, forks, linen, shoes, etc. He advertised, in 
 1775, that he had escaped from Boston and set up a shop 
 at Mrs. Hooker's, the next door north of the printing-office. 
 Later, a new shop was erected and occupied by Daniel 
 Hinsdale. Stephen Austin, a tailor by trade and a dry- 
 goods merchant, acquired the north part of the Hooker lot 
 before 1775, and kept a store there during the Revolution. 
 In 1782 he sold to Colonel Jeremiah Wads worth. The 
 
314 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 place then had upon it a brick mansion-house, stores and 
 other buildings. Next north of this lot, Nicholas Brown, a 
 chair or chaise and harness-maker, was established in 
 1769. He advertised, in 1771, that he was building a stage- 
 coach for the accommodation of passengers from Hartford 
 to New Haven. He bought this place in 1773. When the 
 war broke out, he advertised it for sale. He had then a 
 house, shop and barn. John Thomas secured the property, 
 by execution, in 1783, and two years later Nicholas Brown, 
 then of Shelburn, Nova Scotia, quitclaimed it. Along its 
 north side, there was a passway to the south door of the 
 meeting-house, for which part of the Hooker lot had been 
 taken. 
 
 North of the First Church property, the ancient cemetery 
 then extended for some distance out to the street. The 
 history of this tract has been exhaustively studied by Mr. 
 Albert L. Washburn, and nothing need be added to printed 
 authorities. 1 Near its northeast corner, the town gave 
 liberty, in 1771, for the erection of the school-house elsewhere 
 described. The vote states that it was "south of the Bar- 
 bers Shop in the Pofsefsion & Occupancy of James Mookler." 
 This "noted and well accomplished artist" was an Irish- 
 man, who came to Hartford before 1758, and that year 
 married Sabra Center. His shop was on the first floor of 
 a rented building, near the south line of the Lord lot, which 
 extended from the burying-ground to Pearl Street. On 
 December 5, 1765, his memorial for a "place" was before 
 the town. Probably this was without immediate results, 
 for, in 1771, when the school-house was located, he was 
 granted liberty to erect an addition to his shop on the 
 burying-ground "next to M r Lords Lott." He was granted 
 six feet and took about twice that. This property passed, 
 in 1786, to Prosper Hosmer. 2 In the old shop Mookler 
 
 1 Washburn's Study and Plan in The Hartford Times, Oct. 4, 1899. See also 
 "The Ancient Burying Ground of Hartford," by Mrs. Emily S. G. Holcombe, in 
 Connecticut Quarterly, IV: 73 ff.; Hoadly's "List of Burials," with Notes by Miss 
 Mary K. Talcott in Connecticut Quarter!;,', IV: 180, 264, 417; V: 118, 186, 242, 290, 
 336, 382, 426, 481, 520; The Hartford Courani, Feb. 4, 1893, Feb. 6, 1895, Nov. 
 21. ism). March 29, 1905, May 16 and 29, 1912; The Hartford Times,Dec.U, 1896; 
 Nov. 1, 1897, Oct. 31, 1898, June 17 and Oct. 4, 1899, Nov. 5, 1902. 
 
 - Hartford Land Records, 14: 353; 16: 354; 17: 18, 19, 151, 491; Hartford 
 Town Votes. MS. Vol. II: 208, 236, 237, 317. 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 315 
 
 was located in 1768, when he warned his customers to 
 "make immediate settlement or expect Trouble," as he 
 was going on a voyage to Europe. He advertised his shop 
 in 1769, as "within a stone's throw of the North Meeting 
 House." Barber was told by Mr. George Goodwin, the 
 senior editor of The Connecticut Courant, who was then in 
 his eightieth year, that "he commenced his apprenticeship 
 with Mr. Green, at the age of eight or nine years, in his 
 office over Mooklar's barber's shop, the first printing office 
 in Hartford." ! This must have been, therefore, the first 
 home of that ancient newspaper. Its issues from October 
 29, 1764, to March 25, 1765, inclusive, state that it was 
 published "at the Heart and Crown near the North Meeting 
 House," and it probably continued there until the week 
 following its issue of May 6, 1765. Mr. Albert C. Bates 
 has suggested that the device on the headlines of the early 
 numbers was copied from its sign, as the cut displays both 
 heart and crown. 2 One item in the inventory of Ebenezer 
 Watson was, "Iron for Sign." Thus little is left to the 
 imagination in picturing the birthplace of the Courant. 
 
 North of Mookler's shop, on the lot of John Haynes 
 Lord, there were several small buildings used for shops. 
 One was rented in 1768, by Robert Currie, a cabinet-maker. 
 Another was occupied later, by Ebenezer Austin, a gold- 
 smith, formerly with James Tiley on King Street, and, in 
 1782, at Mrs. Chenevard's, near the State House. 3 Barber 
 assigns a third to William Gove, called "Old Gove," a 
 shoemaker. Thomas Hilldrup was in one of these in 1775. 
 
 During the Revolutionary period there were several shops 
 on the road from "Lords Corner" to the prison, now Pearl 
 Street. In 1778, John Hill, formerly with Charles Wright, 
 at the next door to Widow Collyers, sold leather breeches, at 
 the sign of the "Cock and Breeches," on the south side of 
 the street. Ely Warner had advertised the same goods, in 
 1775, at the gaol, and William Smith at his shop a few rods 
 north of it. On the north corner at Main Street, was the 
 
 1 Barber's Conn. Hist. Coll. p. 49. 2 The Hartford Courant, April 3, 1912. 
 
 3 Austin advertised for sale in 1782 "The whole Apparatus of a Gold-Smiths and 
 Jeweller's tools — confisting of large and f mall Anvils, Hammers of all sizes compleat, 
 large Bellowfes, Patterns and Drafts of all kinds of work, including the whole 
 Articles to carry on the Bufinefs." 
 
316 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 home of John Nevins, "cooper and butcher." William 
 Imlay secured a lot west of this in 1778, with a shop upon 
 it, which had been occupied by Captain Hugh Ledlie. 
 Mr. Imlay had married Mary, the widow of Joseph Church 
 and daughter of Robert Nevins. North of the Nevins 
 home, was the store of James Church, where the State Bank 
 now is. On the second floor of this store, "opposite the 
 Court House and next door to Mr. Bull's Tavern," was the 
 second home of The Connecticut Courant. It was published 
 here from May 13, 1765, to December 5, 1768. Its sign 
 was still "the Heart and Crown." Along Central Row there 
 were also shops, some of them concealed in the rear to this 
 day, as elsewhere shown. At the southeast corner of the 
 square, Ebenezer Barnard dealt in horses. In the same 
 locality, Bavil Webster was established in 1780, as a printer, 
 being "a few rods south of the State House," or "southeast 
 of the Court House." Several publications about that 
 time bear his imprint. In 1783, he issued The Freeman s 
 Chronicle or American Advertiser. Some prominent mer- 
 chants were located on State Street, known in colonial times 
 as "King Street." On the south side, Lathrop and Smith 
 were established in 1763. In 1770, Smith and Coit succeeded 
 them, and Dr. Solomon Smith conducted the business, 
 alone, from 1778 to his death, in 1786. Dr. Smith was one 
 of the prominent physicians of the town. His shop was 
 that of an apothecary, or druggist and bookseller. On the 
 southwest corner of State and Front streets, was the store 
 of Caleb Bull, kept later by James and Hezekiah Bull. 
 Captain John Keith's homestead and shop were on the 
 northwest corner. He died in 1775. West of this, was 
 the shop of James Tiley, where William Tiley had been. 
 The former was a well-known goldsmith and jeweller for 
 many years. This building is still standing. After the 
 Revolution, the trade in this street increased, and other 
 shops were erected. At the present west corner of Market 
 Street, there was a small building occupied by John Law- 
 rence, treasurer of the State from 1769 to 1789. Here he 
 conducted the Continental Loan Office. His home and that 
 of his son William Lawrence, a storekeeper, farther west, 
 are often recalled. Beyond this, was the Edwards home- 
 
TRADE AND SHOPS 317 
 
 stead. The one or more shops on the premises were favorite 
 locations for business before and during the Revolution, as 
 the advertisements prove. This is also true of the Collyer 
 homestead west of it, where both dry-goods and wet goods 
 were sold. 
 
 In 1775, the residents on the highway from Exchange 
 Corner northward, called in colonial times "Queen Street," 
 had just begun to appreciate the advantages of their loca- 
 tion for trade. The succeeding generation witnessed great 
 changes. On the corner, George Smith, a sea captain, had 
 a mansion-house, shop and warehouse, in 1762. These 
 buildings were devoted to business. Here John Morgan 
 kept his store, until he removed to Morgan Street. North 
 of this, on the east side of the street, was Dr. Normand 
 Morrison's homestead. Beyond, was the store of Captain 
 Caleb Bull Jr., who sold dry-goods and provisions. The 
 early location of Gardner and Jepson was next. The 
 latter succeeded to the business, his sign being also the "Uni- 
 corn and Mortar." He removed thence to the South- 
 side, and Dr. Richard Tidmarsh located here. This was 
 one of the several places where Thomas Hilldrup repaired 
 watches and kept the post-office. Richard Shepard, a 
 tailor, had a shop north of this, perhaps the same where 
 Caleb and Ebenezer Moor sold laces and fringes in 1776. 
 Timothy Phelps, whose home was next, was a cabinet- 
 maker, and probably worked at his trade on the premises. 
 The north part of his lot passed, in 1784, to Dr. John Endi- 
 cott, but he may have been a tenant earlier. In 1783, 
 William Moseley acquired a lot north of this, and in this 
 neighborhood, where Colonel Samuel Talcott occupied his 
 ancestral home, we find Jeremiah Piatt, Pelatiah Pierce and 
 other merchants, toward the close of the Revolutionary War. 
 
 On the west side of Queen Street, north of Bull's Tavern, 
 there were in 1775 several homes of farmers, who still con- 
 tinued the early uses of their lots. The first was owned by 
 Captain Samuel Wadsworth. His house stood on an em- 
 bankment said to have been eight feet high, near the north 
 corner of Asylum Street. He had a barn and cowyard on 
 the west. Joseph and William Pratt were living on the lot 
 that had been in the possession of that family since the 
 
318 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 settlement. Here Thomas Sloan, whose earlier location 
 had been on the south side of Pearl Street, had a blacksmith 
 shop. Zachariah Pratt, also a farmer, was north of him. 
 Beyond was the Maynard Day lot, on which Thomas Con- 
 verse had earlier erected a shop, being on the west side of 
 "the Broad Street." Here Converse and Stone made and 
 sold breeches, at the "Sign of the Breeches," in 1770. 
 Presumably it was here, also, that Thomas Converse adver- 
 tised in 1771 to sell English and India goods. Cotton 
 Murray was located here in 1773. Dr. Eliakim Fish bought 
 one rood at the southeast corner of Samuel Day's lot in 1774, 
 and erected there a house. North of this, part of the Day 
 lot was sold in 1776 to Moses Morse, from whose son Moses 
 it passed, in 1784, to Captain William Bull, with the house 
 and buildings. Here he had a store. Perhaps this is where 
 Barber locates Dr. Lemuel Hopkins's shop. The Olcott lot 
 was next. Here, Joseph Olcott sold, in 1759, three acres to 
 Charles Caldwell. Part of this was sold, in 1762, to the 
 committee of the Episcopal Church. North of this, Charles 
 Caldwell sold a lot, with a dwelling-house and shop, in 1763, 
 to Samuel Mattocks of New Haven. In 1765, he advertised 
 as a wig-maker. He became a captain in the Revolution- 
 ary War, and his son John a governor of Vermont. About 
 1780, Cotton Murray opened here a tavern "at the sign 
 of the Globe," which he kept for some years. After passing 
 the Talcott and Wadsworth properties, with which the 
 reader already has some acquaintance, we may fittingly end 
 our journey. 
 
 At the close of Hartford's colonial history there was 
 scarcely a building in the town devoted to trade that could 
 be called either spacious or ornamental. The larger stores 
 usually had several tenants. Most of them were small 
 wooden buildings, occupied by the shop-keepers of earlier 
 times. Those that survived into the nineteenth century 
 were then considered insignificant. It is evident, however, 
 that the location of Hartford, which rendered it compara- 
 tively safe from dangers during the Revolutionary War, 
 greatly augmented interest in its business life. After that 
 struggle was over, it stood on the threshold of an opportunity, 
 for which it had waited one hundred and fifty years. 
 
CHAPTER XIX 
 
 HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 
 
 The New England colonists of the seventeenth century 
 were remarkably successful in their home-building. This 
 ability had been credited to their race in those times. The 
 Englishman, though cast away on a lonely island like Rob- 
 inson Crusoe, soon surrounded himself with many of the 
 conveniences of civilization. Whatever may have been due 
 to this instinctive trait, their high conception of the family 
 as essential to social welfare, their appreciation of the home 
 as the source of many ennobling joys, and the loving industry 
 they lavished upon it, were very important factors in the 
 success of our forefathers. The truth disclosed in the records 
 is that most of the original settlers of the River Plantations, 
 who did not suffer from sickness or disaster, and lived to 
 the natural limit of their years, secured good estates and 
 comfortable homes. To a remarkable degree, they founded 
 families that are worthy of honor among their widely scat- 
 tered descendants, for intelligent piety, high morals, persist- 
 ent industry and heroic service. 
 
 It is proposed to study the colonial homes of Hartford. 
 We have no pictures of them as they appeared in their best 
 days, but so many details are given in deeds and inventories, 
 that we may gather a fairly intimate acquaintance with them 
 and their surroundings. We can not now obtain admittance 
 by tapping on the oaken door, walk leisurely through the 
 family's hall — that living-room for which every Englishman 
 had an inborn affection — and inspect the furniture of their 
 various apartments; but we know very well the several plans, 
 after one of which all those houses were built, and through 
 their inventories, we can determine the general size, num- 
 ber of rooms and arrangement within. In some instances, 
 a good estimate can be made of the proportions of an ances- 
 tor's hall, and a list of its contents can be given to a reverent 
 
320 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 descendant to arrange. So we lack but little, after all, of 
 visiting them in their colonial homes, to appreciate which, 
 let us humbly admit, the unrest of this age, our materialistic 
 ideals and modern luxuries have largely unfitted us. 
 
 What was the ideal of home in the minds of these Puritan 
 settlers? Their success should be measured by that. They 
 did not come from lordly halls. The majority were of the 
 middle class, of good families, but unaccustomed to large 
 houses and a luxurious life. To the average Englishman 
 of those times, the house was a habitation in the midst of 
 a tract of land, with trees, shrubbery, flowers and gardens, 
 if not also fields. Such surroundings were necessary to fill 
 out for him the ideal of a home. Some of the emigrants 
 are known to have sold such properties in England. That 
 country was then a realm of rural life. It had few cities. 
 So it was natural that, to each original settler, there should 
 be distributed a tract of about two acres "for a houfe lott." 
 This was soon developed and recorded as "a parcell on which 
 his dwellinge houfe now standeth w th other Outhoufes, 
 yards & gardens." He had owned this tract long enough, 
 in "Febr: Anno: dom: 1639," to construct this home. 
 When John Allyn, in 1655, bought Edward Elmer's home- 
 lot, it was particularly described as having "outhoufes, 
 barn, yards, orchards & gardens therein." Orchards and 
 gardens are frequently added in later records. They be- 
 came adjuncts of most homes. Often the place where a 
 settler had thus established himself was termed his "home 
 lot" — a significant and appropriate designation, to cover 
 all that was included in an Englishman's ideal of home. 
 If he, or his descendants, sold the place later, it was often 
 termed in the deed the "homestead." These ancient homes 
 in the country are so designated now. Until commercial 
 life began to wander from its earlier centers, Hartford was 
 a town of such homesteads. A visitor from abroad refers 
 to it as having "broad ftreets, trees on the fides and hand- 
 fome houfes." On the west side of the country road, 
 between Pearl Street and the Little River, there were only 
 four family residences when the town was a century old. 
 Few streets of that length had more. They were scattered 
 everywhere among the trees within the town-plot. In 
 
bd 
 
 Bui 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 mm^mw^" 
 
 
 1 If J mWlM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 IpP 
 
 
 E3t ^jj f^ 
 
 ^^3 
 
 KpBi^l^i 
 
 
 
 
 Tim 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 321 
 
 time, these rural features began to disappear. We have now 
 only a few colonial houses in Hartford. Most of the sur- 
 vivors are greatly altered, and none of them conveys an 
 idea of the original surroundings. 
 
 The familiar picture of the Isaac Bliss homestead best 
 illustrates the general appearance of these colonial homes. 
 It stood on the west side of Trinity Street. In 1786, its 
 location was given as at the west end of the street leading 
 from the Great Bridge toward the Upper Mills, on the south 
 side of the Little River. Here Zebulon Seymour acquired 
 part of the Mygatt lot, and, in 1733, sold a small tract to 
 Daniel Bull, who added another purchase on the south of 
 it, in 1738. He also acquired, at the latter date, part of 
 Robert King's land on the north. This was Daniel Bull's 
 homestead. He probably erected his house soon after his 
 first purchase. In 1762, he was living there, when, on ac- 
 count of business embarrassments, he mortgaged his home 
 to William Bayard, a merchant of New York. The property 
 was never redeemed, and it was one of those confiscated by 
 authority of the General Assembly in 1780, Colonel William 
 Bayard having "joined the enemies of his country." The 
 next year, John Lawrence, Treasurer of Connecticut, sold 
 it to Colonel John Broom. There was then upon it a dwell- 
 ing-house, barn, shop, tanhouse and other buildings. This 
 owner sold the property in 1786, to Isaac Bliss, a tanner, who 
 lived there many years. Through a painting of it, recently 
 presented by his granddaughter, Miss Charlotte Tyler, to 
 the Connecticut Historical Society, we have an illustration 
 of a colonial home, dating from the first half of the eigh- 
 teenth century. It remained without material alterations 
 to times when some of the living remember its old-fashioned 
 and comfortable appearance, with its gardens, shrubbery, 
 trees and outbuildings. The Bliss elm in West Bushnell 
 Park survives to mark the location. A famous spring under 
 the hill supplied this homestead and its tanvats with water. 
 It is said to have been connected in recent times with a 
 drain emptying into the Little River. 
 
 This early ideal of a home did not demand a large house. 
 The dug-outs of the pioneers were for temporary use. They 
 began at once the erection of houses. Some of them were 
 
322 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 of logs, built to serve until a more convenient season. When 
 they had erected frame buildings, these were utilized as 
 barns. Log houses continued in use during early years 
 among the poorer settlers. They were of small size — 
 perhaps about twenty or thirty feet long — with a chim- 
 ney at one end, and a thatched roof. Probably Richard 
 Lyman was living in such a house, at his death in 1641, as 
 his inventory names no rooms, and he had on hand "squared 
 tymber, planke & board" necessary for a framed house. 
 Some of the early framed houses were small, only a story, 
 or a story-and-a-half, in height. They had a chimney in 
 the middle. On one side, was the hall or living-room; and, 
 on the other, the parlor, sometimes called in such houses a 
 "chamber," being used for that purpose. There was a low 
 lodging room or "loft" above, lighted by small end windows. 
 It was reached by a narrow stairway in front of the chim- 
 ney, at the foot of which was the main doorway. From the 
 inventories of William Spencer, Seth Grant and Robert Day, 
 who died early, it seems probable that they occupied such 
 houses, expecting doubtless to build greater shortly. The 
 rule, however, for those who had means, was to erect two- 
 story houses. These were generally accepted as models for 
 many years. It is evident that Timothy Stanley, William 
 Whiting, Rev. Thomas Hooker, William Pantry, John 
 Talcott, Richard Lord, Rev. Samuel Stone, Edward Steb- 
 bins, Nathaniel Ruscoe, Gregory Wolterton and others, who 
 died before King Philip's War, had houses of this type, with 
 perhaps a leanto added, or alterations made after the origi- 
 nal house was erected. The leanto appeared as early as 
 1643, and probably earlier. It served such a useful purpose 
 in providing a kitchen, buttery, or closet, and kitchen- 
 chamber, that it found general favor, especially with increas- 
 ing families. Such houses had a great central chimney, with 
 a fireplace on one side for the hall, and on the other for the 
 parlor. With a leanto, a kitchen flue was added to the 
 chimney, sometimes providing a brick oven. The front door 
 opened into a small entry, called a porch, whence there was 
 a stairway to the second floor, and another under it to the 
 cellar. The porch occasionally projected, with a gable above, 
 as in the house that Barber in his Historical Collections, 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 323 
 
 has attributed to Rev. Thomas Hooker. The room above 
 this porch was his study. It was often called a "porch 
 chamber," or "little chamber." On the second floor, there 
 were usually two chambers, named, according to their loca- 
 tion, the "hall chamber" and "parlor chamber." Often 
 there was a fireplace in each. The garret, also, was some- 
 times furnished with a bed, and always used more or less 
 for storage, especially of grain. On account of the projec- 
 tion or "overhang" of the second floor, the upper story 
 rooms were slightly larger. A few inventories mention 
 rooms that suggest another arrangement, or an addition 
 to the house. In most cases, this was occasioned by a 
 division of certain large rooms with a partition, anticipating 
 the four room plan of later times. In Rev. Samuel Stone's 
 house, we find a study with a fireplace, but there was no 
 such provision in his hall chamber. He evidently divided 
 the latter room into two, using the rear one, which had access 
 to the chimney, for his study. Sometimes this room was 
 called the "middle chamber," being between the little hall 
 chamber and the chamber above a leanto kitchen. The 
 inventory of Richard Lord, who died in 1662, refers to a 
 "Little Chamber over the Hall," which apparently had 
 no fireplace. It also mentions a "Middle Chamber over 
 the Hall," which was furnished with andirons. In some 
 larger houses, the hall itself was divided. John Pantry 
 had an "old parlor" and a "new parlor." The house of 
 Rev. Thomas Hooker had the same rooms. Over each, in 
 the pastor's house, there was a chamber in connection with 
 which the chimney is mentioned. There was apparently 
 no such accommodation in either his hall or hall chamber. 
 As the chimney could have served only four rooms of the 
 main building, we conjecture that his new parlor was the 
 rear of the divided hall, as in other instances. Probably it 
 had a fireplace, though none is named in his inventory made 
 two years after his death, when there may have been another 
 arrangement of furniture. There were no beds on the first 
 floor of this house. The pastor's books were doubtless 
 kept in his study over the porch; but it would be strange if 
 he used that small room in the winter time, with a snug 
 apartment below, like his new parlor. This arrangement 
 
324 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 was precisely like that in Mr. Stone's house, only the teacher 
 used the second floor. 
 
 The records furnish little information concerning the 
 size of these early houses. The report sent to the Com- 
 mittee for Trade, in 1680, states that their buildings were 
 generally of wood, though there were some of stone and 
 brick, "many of them of good strength and comelynesse" 
 for a wilderness. The following added words were crossed 
 out in the record: "many 40 foot long and 20 foot broad, 
 and some larger: three and four stories high." These 
 dimensions were not far from those of the town's larger 
 houses at that date. A journal speaks of the removal of 
 one in 1775, exactly that size. Messrs Isham and Brown, 
 who have made a thorough and interesting study of Early 
 Connecticut Houses, have given us the measurements of some 
 that have remained to recent years. The dimensions of 
 the Robert Webster or Dorus Barnard house, erected in 
 1660 and standing until 1899, on Retreat Avenue, were 
 about 40 by 20 feet. The Captain John Barnard house, 
 erected near it about 1680 and surviving to recent years, 
 was 40 feet 4 inches long and 32 feet 7 inches wide, includ- 
 ing the leanto. These represent the larger mansions. The 
 majority were smaller. We should expect this of one story 
 houses, but some of two stories, in which large families 
 dwelt, were of small proportions. The leanto, if it extended 
 the entire length in the rear, and was from ten to fourteen 
 feet wide, added considerably to the size, both in capacity 
 and appearance. In houses that had only a hall and a par- 
 lor on the first floor, the rooms were sufficiently spacious 
 to display no little dignity, notwithstanding their low 
 ceilings. 
 
 It is sufficient for our purpose to deal in a general way with 
 the materials of these early houses, and the manner in which 
 they were constructed. The volume above cited is an 
 admirable text-book for further study. The red sandstone 
 quarried along the Little River was a desirable material 
 especially for underpinning and their large chimneys. The 
 ease with which it could be obtained, and its convenient 
 flat surfaces, rather than a scarcity of brick, accounts for its 
 general use in early Hart lord. From the beginning, bricks 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 325 
 
 were put into chimneys. In 1639, John Gennings was 
 allowed for sweeping "6 d for bricke & 3 d for Clay." Their 
 framing timbers were hewn, often in the woods and hauled 
 by oxen to their house-lots. Plank and boards were prepared 
 at the saw-pit. William Goodwin established the first 
 sawmill on the Hockanum River. He early acquired land 
 there, but, at what date his mill was in operation, is un- 
 certain. In 1654, he was granted liberty by the General 
 Court to take timber from waste land, "to keep his sawe 
 mill in imployment." The property passed to his son-in- 
 law, John Crow; but it is doubtful if this mill was of large 
 assistance in early building operations. John Allyn had a 
 saw-mill on the same river, in 1672. The framing of these 
 colonial houses has always won admiration. It demanded 
 great labor, and was well done. For the average settler, 
 it was the most difficult part of house-building. Surviving 
 examples represent, however, the better class of dwellings. 
 All early houses were not so well built, and, in comparison, 
 did not stand long, as the records prove. The house frame 
 being set up, most of the work on the walls could have been 
 done by the settler himself. Between the studs or posts, 
 they filled in with bricks plastered on the sides, or, when 
 the walls were boarded, with clay. In New London, they 
 sometimes used seaweed, and other materials were doubtless 
 utilized in Hartford. Wide horizontal weather-boards, set 
 close with bevelled edges, are thought to have been the rule 
 in the outside finish of early framed houses. Clapboards 
 were used on better buildings, nailed directly to the studs. 
 Their roofs were steep and shingled. The floors were of wide 
 and thick oak, or hard pine boards. Doors were usually 
 plain. The windows were small. At first, wooden shutters 
 were generally used, probably protecting an inside window 
 of cloth or oiled paper, which admitted the light. For the 
 better houses, window-frames were provided, leaded with 
 small diamond-shaped panes of glass. These frames were 
 at first brought from England. Early houses must have 
 varied greatly in their inside finish. The poor had always 
 plenty of our red clay, mixed with a wiry meadow grass. 
 This was skillfully used in those times, and gave an interior 
 the appearance of a plastered house. Uncovered beams and 
 
326 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 studs — into which they drove wooden pegs on which to 
 hang their arms, hats or garments — were a relief to the 
 interior. Houses of the wealthier inhabitants, especially 
 their halls and parlors, were sometimes lined with unpainted 
 wainscoting. Such a hall might have been very attractive, 
 with walls to which the escaping smoke of a blazing fire 
 had given the hues of age, and furnishings of antique pattern, 
 which many of them contained. 
 
 It is well known that the prevailing plan of colonial houses 
 changed with the advance of years. The view that the land 
 and probate records reveal connects these changes very 
 closely with the internal prosperity and social conditions of 
 New England during certain periods. As the conquest of 
 the Pequots in 1637 awakened new life in the Colony, so 
 did their later wars. Large and costly houses built before 
 King Philip's War were few, and were owned by the 
 wealthier families. The leanto was an addition. One who 
 needed more room sometimes erected an extension to his 
 house. After that war there was a revival of interest in 
 house-building. Many early houses disappeared. Most of 
 the original settlers, who had been content with pioneer 
 conditions, had died. Their children had entered into the 
 rewards of economy and thrift. The houses of the new era 
 were much the same in interior arrangement, but they were 
 generally larger, and the division of rooms was more com- 
 mon. In the rear we have the long, sloping roof covering 
 the leanto, which had become an integral part of the house. 
 The middle of the eighteenth century witnessed another 
 revival of building interest. Homestead lots within the 
 town were divided up. On outlying farms, new and better 
 houses were built. The increase of wealth and trade also 
 exerted an influence. Commercial intercourse between the 
 river towns and other colonies introduced new fashions. 
 The gambrel-roof house then found favor. It had a central 
 hall-way, with rooms on each side and end chimneys. An 
 ell for a kitchen was often added. This plan continued in 
 vogue for years after the Revolutionary War, and until 
 the introduction of those classic features that have been 
 attributed incorrectly to colonial times. Throughout these 
 changes, their houses preserved, as a rule, that plain and 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 327 
 
 unpainted exterior, which was in harmony with their Puri- 
 tan taste and fashion. 
 
 The inventories of colonial times show that housekeepers 
 differed in the use they made of similar rooms and hence 
 in their furnishings. In small houses without a leanto, the 
 hall was their kitchen and dining-room. Richard Seymour 
 had such a house, the "out room" being used as a kitchen 
 and dining-room and the "inner room" as a chamber. The 
 house of John Maynard, afterwards owned by the Day 
 family, had two stories. At the former's death in 1657, 
 the kitchen and hall occupied the first floor. Above each, 
 there was a chamber. In the hall he had "one long Table, 
 one short table, 6 Joynd stooles, Two cubberds w th Iroware 
 and oth r implements w th one Mufket and sword, 3 books." 
 Additions made for cooking purposes altered the interior 
 of their halls. The parlor was usually provided with a bed, 
 presumably the best one, as it was assigned to guests; but 
 the mention of other articles indicates that this room was 
 put to general uses. Their most valuable furniture is often 
 found in it, with their best clothes, linen, dishes and personal 
 treasures. The contents of second floor chambers was 
 limited, and much the same in all houses. In Rev. Samuel 
 Stone's parlor chamber the furnishings were "a liuery Cub- 
 board, Andirons, Bedsted, 2 Chests, cushions, Curtaines 
 & Valions, Boulsters and Pillowes, Brushes, blancketts, 
 Goods, Broadcloth searge, earthen ware, Two sadles, Nap- 
 kins, Table Cloath, sheets, pillow Beers, Towels, glasses, a 
 wheel & reale, and a press." The chamber over Rev. 
 Thomas Hooker's old parlor contained "a featherbed and 
 boulster, 2 pillowes, a strawbed, 2 blankitts, a rugg, and 
 couerlitt, darnix hangings in 7 peeces, window curtaines, 
 curtaines and valence to the bed, a bedstead, 2 chaires, and 
 3 stooles, andirons &c in the chimny, & a courte cubberd, 
 curtaines and valence to the same bed of green say, and a 
 rugg of the same, with window curtaines." Trundle-beds 
 were common in such apartments, and greatly needed where 
 there were large families of children. Such beds continued 
 in New England homes to recent times. 
 
 The furnishings of these houses, at least in early years, 
 were very plain and not so costly as some have thought. 
 
328 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 From England they brought chests filled with sheets, 
 pillow-biers, blankets, rugs, table-cloths, napkins, towels, 
 curtains, cushions and the like. Most every family had one 
 or more chests. Wealthier settlers unquestionably brought 
 some furniture. All of them came provided with certain 
 kitchen utensils, kettles, pewter dishes and implements 
 necessary in their simple culinary service. It is evident, 
 however, that some of their early furniture was of home 
 manufacture. The inventory value of such articles varies 
 greatly, in comparing the poor with the rich. We know, 
 also, that there were skilled cabinet-makers among them, 
 who could never have made a living on their lands. It was 
 not long before these and other artisans supplied some of 
 their needs. Most of their stools and forms were home- 
 made. These were commonly their seats, according to the 
 custom in England. In the inventories of seventy-five 
 householders from 1641 to 1659, Dr. Irving W. Lyon found 
 only one hundred and fifty chairs. Some poorer families 
 had none. Such rare specimens as he shows in his volume 
 on the Colonial Furniture of New England, were the posses- 
 sions of the wealthy. The average family may have had a 
 few treasures brought from an ancestral home; but, for the 
 most part, the settlers of the first generation were content 
 with the simple furniture that could be readily secured, or 
 was made in their cabinet shops. Nor is any marked in- 
 crease of luxury in their interior furnishings apparent 
 throughout most of the colonial period. The Haynes 
 family will suffice for illustration. Governor John Haynes 
 died in 1653. His home-lot was on the northwest corner 
 of Arch and Front streets. At his death, he had a spacious 
 "Mansion House," "with Outhouses, Barns, Stables, Or- 
 chards & Gardens." He had expended, of his own fortune, 
 several thousand pounds in establishing the Colony, and 
 his character and public services deserve a lasting memorial. 
 Of the interior of his house, the hall is the best index. It 
 was probably a room the size of a small double parlor. 
 Often it must have been put to public uses. The furnish- 
 ings were, "5 leather Chaires, 4 flagg bottome Chaires, one 
 table. 3 Joined stooles, one tinn hanging Candelftick, 7 
 Cufhins, fire lock mufkett, 1 Carbine, 1 match-lock mufkett. 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 329 
 
 one rapier, 1 pare Cobirons, 1 Iron Back, 1 gilded looking 
 glafe, 1 greate bible, 1 fmothing Iron." It has been thought 
 that Governor John Winthrop lived in this house, after he 
 was chosen to office in 1657. He was then invited to "come 
 & Hue in Hartford, w th his family, while hee gou r nes," 
 and the General Court then offered him the yearly use of 
 the "housing & lands in Hartford belonging to Mr. John 
 Haynes." At his death in 1676, he had considerable house- 
 hold property in Hartford, valued at £73 1 s. 4 d. Perhaps 
 Rev. Joseph Haynes lived in the same house. When he 
 died in 1679, the hall contained, "one Cupboard w th Cup- 
 board cloths w th some earthen ware standing upon it, two 
 tables & chairs, 3 chishens, 2 Andirons, 1 brafs candlestick." 
 In due time this home was occupied by his son, Judge John 
 Haynes, who died in 1713. At that time the hall's furnish- 
 ings were, "a great Table, Carpet, Lefser Table, 9 Leath r 
 Chairs, Seven Lefser Chairs, a Looking glafs, hour glafs, 
 pa. Iron doggs, fire slice, pa. Tongs, gridiron, Trevitt, Lamp, 
 a Toafting Iron, Earthen Ware, drinking glafses and Small 
 Vialls, Knives and forks, chaffing difh." 
 
 The arms of those times were usually kept in the hall. 
 Every home was provided with some weapon of defense, and 
 certain warlike individuals seemed to have a small armory. 
 The inventory of Richard Lord, 1711, exhibits an exceptional 
 collection of arms — "A short new fuzee, Do. longer, a 
 Carbine, a small peice, long peice, round barrel, 1 Do, Old 
 Carbine, a long gun, Cafe piftolls and holsters, hoosing and 
 caps, A plate belt Sword, Another Sword, two old blads, 
 An old Sholder belt, Cane w th plate head, do ivory, An 
 hunting whip, a musquet." Sometimes a saddle and riding 
 bridle were apparently kept in the hall, but they are found 
 in the parlor, a chamber, or a closet. In the hall we would 
 naturally look for the family clock; but time-pieces of any 
 kind were scarce. George Wyllys, at his death in 1644, 
 bequeathed a watch to his son Samuel. The inventory of 
 Captain Richard Lord, 1662, mentions a watch, which, 
 perhaps, descended to his grandson, Richard Lord, and is 
 valued at his death, in 1711, at £12. In the estate of Elisha 
 Lord, 1725, a watch is noted. Rev. Samuel Stone, 1663, 
 Lt. Col. John Talcott, 1688, Judge Nathaniel Stanley, 1712, 
 
330 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 and others, had hour-glasses. The inventory of Rev. 
 Thomas Hooker, 1649, is the earliest to mention a clock. 
 It was kept in his new parlor, the entire furnishings of which 
 were valued at only £5. It was probably a small brass 
 clock, hung high on the wall, with its weight exposed. A 
 clock in the estate of Governor Thomas Welles, 1659, was 
 valued at £l. Major James Richards, 1680, had one valued 
 at £3. About the middle of the eighteenth century, a 
 "clock reall" is common. Among the possessions of Rev. 
 Nathaniel Hooker of Hartford, who died in 1770, there was 
 "A Clock and Cafe" valued at £5. This was doubtless 
 a tall, cased eight-day clock, of the pattern introduced 
 into New England late in the seventeenth century, but 
 rarely found in towns like Hartford until after the Revolu- 
 tionary War. 1 Isaac Sheldon, who died in 1786, had a 
 "Mohogony Clock" valued at £12. It is interesting to see 
 in some early inventories pieces of furniture that were 
 highly valued, such as livery-cupboards, inlaid tables and 
 the like. To many an inhabitant, these were doubtless 
 the cherished reminders of an English home. There were 
 many, however, especially young men without families, the 
 circumstances of whose departure from England did not 
 permit them to bring such articles. Occasionally, some one 
 like Major Richards had a piece of armor. Many, doubt- 
 less, had swords, which they had carried in England. 
 Nathaniel Hooker's inventory in 1763, mentions a "Coat 
 of Arms of the family." In 1796, John Haynes Lord's 
 estate included a "cote of arms." Captain Joseph Talcott, 
 in 1799, had a " Family Seal." Others had the like, and they 
 were used in sealing documents. 
 
 The ancient houses of Hartford that have survived to 
 recent times have become generally known. Those that 
 still remain are interesting to some, as representatives of 
 the architecture of a by-gone age. To others, their great 
 charm is in the fact that they are memorials of colonial life. 
 They have been stripped of those verdant beauties with 
 which they were once surrounded, and mutilated by those 
 who have adapted them to modern service; but they were 
 once the homes of honored generations that have passed 
 
 1 The Hartford Courant, June 26, 1906. 
 
The Amos Bull and Joseph Whiting Houses 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 331 
 
 away and left their habitations desolate. If we can, in some 
 measure, restore their environment by the use of the records, 
 the reader's imagination may be assisted in picturing some 
 of Hartford's colonial homes. 
 
 The youngest son of Major William Whiting, the mer- 
 chant, was Joseph, born in 1645. He married, first, Mary, 
 the daughter of Hon. John and Amy (Wyllys) Pynchon of 
 Springfield, and, second, Anna, the daughter of Colonel 
 John Allyn. He settled in Westfield, but returned in 1676 
 to Hartford. His father's old home was on Governor Street. 
 Rev. John Whiting, his brother, was then pastor of the 
 Second Church, and lived on the former home-lot of Nathan- 
 iel Ward, on Sheldon Street. Joseph Whiting purchased, 
 in 1682, from Zachary Sandford, one-half acre on the corner 
 of Main and Charter Oak streets, with a tenement stand- 
 ing thereon. It was, perhaps, the same house, which the 
 grantor had bought from Francis Barnard in 1667, and can 
 not be older, for the house of the original owner, Andrew 
 Bacon, stood on the north end of his lot. In this house, 
 or in another which he built, Joseph Whiting lived during 
 his remaining years, being the Treasurer of Connecticut from 
 1678 to his death, in 1717. The house has been fully de- 
 scribed by Mr. Isham in Early Connecticut Houses. It stood 
 a short distance from the corner, with its gable toward the 
 street and was demolished in May 1914. Most of the early 
 houses of Hartford faced either east or south. There were 
 trees about it and an orchard on the east, beyond which was 
 the South-side pound. In Joseph Whiting's day, there were 
 not more than three or four houses and the Second Church 
 meeting-house between this corner and the Little River. 
 The surroundings were those of a country village. Joseph 
 Whiting left an estate of £2546 5 s. 5 d. "The Mantion 
 Houfe and homestead" were valued at £155. After his 
 widow's death in 1735, the estate was divided, the surviving 
 children being Susanna, the wife of Thomas Warren, Anna, 
 the wife of Nathaniel Stanley, Margaret, the wife of Rev. 
 Jonathan Marsh of Windsor, and Colonel John Whiting, 
 who married Jerusha, daughter of Richard Lord. The son 
 succeeded his father as Treasurer of Connecticut, and died 
 in 1766. In 1749, Nathaniel Stanley and his wife sold this 
 
332 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 property to Captain Aaron Bull, and it was for many years 
 the hitter's homestead. It comprised when purchased three- 
 fourths of an acre, with a dwelling-house and other buildings. 
 A passway on the north separated it from the Freeman 
 Gross homestead. Captain Bull looked out of his west 
 windows, upon the building of the second meeting-house of 
 the South Church. The Whiting, Stanley, Bull and Warren 
 families were its staunch supporters. In this house the 
 Ecclesiastical Council convened in 1784, and marched in 
 procession across the street, to install Rev. Benjamin Board- 
 man. In 1788 the owner sold the north part of his home- 
 stead to Amos Bull, who erected upon it a brick house, now 
 known as the Spencer house. Captain Bull died in 1793, 
 aged 82 years. The rooms mentioned identify the old house. 
 The property was divided among the widow and her daugh- 
 ters. A grandson, Aaron Bull, inherited eventually the 
 house and a portion of the lot, which he sold in 1809 to 
 George Burr. After a few years, other buildings began to 
 crowd in around it, and this homestead disappeared into 
 modern life. To how much of Hartford's South-side his- 
 tory this ancient house has been a witness, will never be 
 known. Its history covers most of the life of the church to 
 which it has always been a neighbor. Many public men 
 must have crossed its threshold. Prominent Hartford 
 families have been its tenants. All are gone. Still, if the 
 builder of it could return, he would recognize in this struc- 
 ture the work of his hand. So, many a man has builded 
 better than he knew. 
 
 On the east side of Governor Street, near the corner of 
 Sheldon, there stood until recently an ancient mansion- 
 house, with which none in Hartford could compare as a 
 memorial of early days. It was known in the last century 
 as the Sheldon W T oodbridge house. Mr. Isham has dis- 
 cussed its architectural features. This interest may be 
 enhanced by the family history that gathers about this 
 house or its predecessor. The land upon which it stood was 
 originally a part of John White's home-lot. Governor 
 Hopkins acquired three lots east of it before 1G39, and also 
 exchanged a strip of his own land for the north portion of 
 White's lot. The original Hopkins house stood some dis- 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 333 
 
 tance east of this, probably on his own allotment. In 1639, 
 he had outhouses, yards and gardens adjoining it. The 
 Hopkins trustees sold this property in 1665, to Mr. James 
 Richards, a son of Thomas of Plymouth and a brother of 
 Major John Richards of Boston. The new owner had lived 
 in Hartford several years, and had married Sarah, the daugh- 
 ter of William Gibbons. It is said that "in calling he was 
 a merchant, and traded extensively in real estate." This 
 family lived in the Hopkins mansion. Four daughters 
 and a son Thomas, were the children of this circle. 1 In the 
 autumn of 1675, Major James Richards's warehouse and 
 barn were destroyed by fire. The Hopkins mansion must 
 then have been nearly forty years old. The owner, appar- 
 ently, considered the loss of his buildings an opportune 
 time for a change of location. He had, in 1665, secured 
 land from the town, "at y e North end of his home lott w * 1 
 was M r Edward Hopkins," and had probably then erected 
 the buildings that had been burned. In 1676, he petitioned 
 for "a smale parcell of land on the North of his Home lott 
 between it & the riuer to set a Barn." 2 His request was 
 granted. The land was laid out February 5, 1676-7. 3 It 
 was west of his former grant and along the river. This 
 would have been northerly from the corner tract secured 
 from Elder John White, who then lived south of it. Major 
 Richards was probably then establishing his new home 
 in this location. In 1679, he recorded this property as a 
 tract of nearly twenty acres. It was that "on which his 
 now dwelling houfe standes" — an expression that meant, 
 in some instances at least, the owner's present dwelling 
 house. This house faced the main highway on the west; 
 but it would doubtless have had, like others, a side exposure 
 toward the south, with the garden usually found near such 
 homesteads. On June 11, 1680, Major Richards died — a 
 man highly respected, who had served as a magistrate six- 
 teen years. His gravestone in the ancient burying-ground 
 
 1 Sarah Richards married Captain Benjamin Davis; Mary married Mr. Benja- 
 min Alford; Jerusha married Rev. and Governor Gurdon Saltonstall; and Eliza- 
 beth married Rev. John Davie of Groton, later Sir John Davie of Creedy, Co. 
 Devon, England. 
 
 2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 149, 176. 3 Original Distribution, p. 543. 
 
334 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 bears the coat of arms of his family. The inventory of his 
 estate amounted to £7931 Is., which he had acquired by 
 inheritance, marriage and trade. It was the largest estate 
 that had been probated in Hartford. About one-third of it 
 consisted of lands in England. He had also some estate 
 and housing in Boston. His real estate in Hartford was 
 valued at £1753. In his house there were the following 
 rooms: parlor, hall, space-room, kitchen, green chamber, 
 parlor chamber, porch chamber, space chamber, kitchen 
 chamber, little parlor chamber and garret chamber. 1 Widow 
 Sarah Richards married, as his second or third wife, Hum- 
 phrey Davie Esq. of Boston, the father of her son-in-law. 
 He died at Hartford in 1688, and his inventory mentions 
 the same rooms above noted. Mrs. Sarah Davie married, 
 in 1706, Colonel Jonathan Tyng of Dunstable. Meanwhile 
 the son, Thomas Richards, born in 1670, had become of age 
 and married Joanna Dodd. In 1694, by the death of his 
 uncle Major John Richards, he inherited property in Boston. 
 Thus, in 1704, he leased to Thomas Seymour, for one-half 
 the revenue, "all that Cappitall Mefuage or Tenement 
 wherein the said Thomas Richards now dwelleth," the same 
 to run seven years from April 1, 1705. 2 If the above expres- 
 sion may be taken as equivalent to "capital manse," the 
 dignity of a manor-house was claimed for this residence. 3 
 Mr. Thomas Richards died at Boston in 1714. His widow 
 Joanna Richards, and her daughters Joanna and Mary, were 
 
 1 The obsolete terms "space-room" and "space-chamber" determine the plan 
 of this house. The passage or " middle pace" dividing a house was anciently called 
 a "space way." The space-room was at the end of this passage and the space- 
 chamber was above that room. The front room on the second floor was the porch - 
 chamber. We have met with no mention of space rooms in other contemporary 
 Hartford inventories. The contents of this space-room in 1680 were as follows: 
 "Armour & small artillery, musket, pike, pistolls, small guns with carriages, ammu- 
 nition, 4 leather & 1 flag chair, small table, two chests, i saddles, sword, lanthorn, 
 curry comb & spinning wheel." 
 
 2 "Seymour Papers: Madam Richards's Land," in Boardman Collection, State 
 Library, Nos. 138-146. 
 
 3 The term messuage (messuagium) was applied to a dwelling-house, when taken 
 in connection with and including all adjacent outbuildings and the lands belonging 
 thereto. The owners of several often applied the term "capital messuage" to the 
 one he occupied. A manor-house was a capital messuage, and the terms were 
 sometimes used interchangeably. Thomas Richards had other properties that 
 were rented. 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 335 
 
 the heirs. 1 Madam Richards was not an agreeable person 
 with whom to transact business. Nor did she appreciate 
 the faithful stewardship of her tenant, Captain Thomas 
 Seymour. He finally induced Jonathan and Isaac Sheldon 
 of Northampton to join with him in purchasing the estate. 
 It was conveyed to them in 1715. Ten years later, the 
 daughters, Joanna Brooker and Mary Evitt of Boston, 
 released to Jonathan and Isaac Sheldon their interest in 
 "One Certain Mansion or Dwelling house," with the home- 
 lot of one acre and several other tracts of land. The con- 
 sideration was £1108. A statement of Captain Seymour 
 concerning this transaction implies that the house and 
 buildings were then out of repair. Mr. Isaac Sheldon, 
 having acquired the whole of this homestead, made it his 
 residence until his death in 1749. He was a man of some 
 means and standing. He was chosen a deacon in the Second 
 Church, where his children were baptized. 2 The inventory 
 of his estate is missing. His will mentions his house, but 
 does not assist in identifying it. The homestead descended 
 to his son Isaac, who died in 1786. In his inventory rooms 
 are named that correspond reasonably well with those in 
 Major Richards's house. Again the "space-chamber" is 
 mentioned. 3 His widow had a right in the "space ways and 
 stairs," as also in the garden south of the house. Thus 
 this homestead passed to the heirs of his daughter Elizabeth, 
 
 1 Mrs. Joanna Richards subsequently married Dr. John Cutler of Boston. The 
 younger daughter, Mary, married Benjamin Evitt, and died intestate in 1743. 
 Joanna Richards, in 1720, married William Brooker, he having executed an ante- 
 nupital agreement to give her the control of her property. In 1759, Joanna 
 Brooker, being then a widow, made a will in which, after sundry legacies to her 
 kindred, she remembered the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 
 Foreign Parts," King's Chapel in Boston, and gave the residuum of her estate to 
 the Selectmen of Boston for the relief of poor widows and sick people. She died 
 the same year. Her estate amounted to something over £1600. The real estate 
 in Connecticut was bequeathed to the children or legal representatives of Edward 
 Dodd, Gent, of Hartford. 
 
 2 Dea. Isaac Sheldon, b. Aug. 26, 1686, was the son of Isaac and Sarah (Warren) 
 Sheldon. He is said to have married, 1st Elizabeth Pratt of Hartford, who d. in 
 Sept. 1745, ae., 53. He married, 2nd, June 26, 1746, Theoda, eldest daughter of 
 Jonathan and Martha (Williams) Hunt. Dea. Sheldon's children, all by his first 
 wife, were, Elizabeth (Marsh), Sarah (Woodbridge), Isaac, Daniel, Joseph, Rebecca 
 and Hannah. 
 
 3 The contents were: "1 Bedsted & Bed, 1 p r Pistols & Holster, 1 p r Saddle 
 Bags, 1 do Portmanteau, 1 Gun, 1 New Saddle, 1 Womans Saddle." 
 
336 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 the wife of Joseph Woodbridge, and mother of Mr. Sheldon 
 Woodbridge. It seems probable, therefore, when judgment 
 is based upon the historical evidence, that the ancient house 
 made famous by its peculiar construction, was that erected 
 by Major James Richards, with subsequent alterations and 
 improvements. The price paid for the property by Mr. 
 Sheldon indicates that there was exceptional value in the 
 buildings upon it. Major Richards was very wealthy, with 
 a large acquaintance throughout New England, an estate 
 in County Norfolk, England, and decided aristocratic in- 
 clinations. He made several voyages to the mother country 
 and was often in Boston with his family. It would have 
 been natural for him to erect a manor-house. Upon a close 
 acquaintance with Deacon Sheldon, he does not seem to 
 have been a man for such a venture. He valued lands 
 above houses, and acquired, by frugality and enterprise, 
 large tracts of the former. Such a man would hardly have 
 torn down one of the most pretentious mansions of its day, 
 to erect in the same place a counterpart of it. He doubtless 
 found it in need of repairs, which he and his son made with- 
 out unnecessary expense. In the recent destruction of this 
 ancient house, the original frame was seen to be very old, 
 as were the chimneys at either end. The north wall stood 
 as originally built. Its bricks were of early date and laid 
 in clay. On the other hand, the wall at the south end of 
 the house had been rebuilt, the bricks being laid in lime 
 mortar. At this time, tie-anchors were used. It is conjec- 
 tured that this rebuilding was done about 1721, which is the 
 date upon an old hand-made brick in the author's possession. 
 Both walls had been carefully pointed with mortar, appar- 
 ently several times. The stones of the cellar wall were 
 mostly of red sandstone, from the quarry at the lower falls 
 of the Little River, only a few rods distant. The panelling 
 was of exceptional quality, but comparatively modern, as 
 were the dormer windows of the third story. The door in 
 the south wall, afterwards closed up, furnished an exit from 
 the hall into the garden on the south side of the house, 
 and the southern windows admitted the winter sunshine. 
 About the house there were once buttonwood trees. On the 
 east, at no great distance, was an orchard, planted originally 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 337 
 
 by Governor Edward Hopkins. There was a well, also, 
 near the house. As the town votes indicate, the barns and 
 outbuildings were on the north, where the cattle had access 
 to the clear water of the riveret. Restore all these features 
 of the surroundings in the imagination; adorn the picture 
 with shrubs, vines and flowers, from an old English garden — 
 then you have, as nearly as may be, a historical representa- 
 tion of an ancient mansion of Hartford, which the records 
 encourage us to term a "manor-house" — a homestead 
 with an ancestral interest for many of the Seymour and 
 Sheldon families. 
 
 There are still standing within the limits of the colonial 
 town, a number of houses that were erected about the middle 
 of the eighteenth century. Some that were older, have 
 been destroyed during the last thirty years, though pictures 
 of them have been preserved in the "Taylor Collection." l 
 The fact is, however, that any catalogue is quite incomplete, 
 because we look merely for mansions. It should include 
 those smaller buildings, or parts of them, that are hidden 
 away behind modern structures. Some of these are of brick, 
 and were once dwelling-houses. The old-time custom of 
 moving houses to adapt them for further use, has also taken 
 some out of the environment that gave them a charm. If 
 we deal merely with the house, our field of interest is limited. 
 In the study of ancient homesteads, the records contribute 
 materially, both to the scope of investigation and the relia- 
 bility of the results. 
 
 Such a story may be told of the Captain Jonah Gross 
 homestead, included within the early boundaries of the 
 meeting-house yard, and now in the midst of Hartford's 
 business life. The southern bound of that yard was Clement 
 Chaplin's house-lot, as seen in the Plan of Hartford in 1640. 
 At an early date, the town granted, on the south side of this 
 yard, two parcels of land. That on the west contained two 
 roods, and was owned at our earliest record by William 
 
 1 This collection of photographs of old Hartford houses was made, in anticipa- 
 tion of their destruction, by the late Mr. Samuel Taylor, a resident of this city 
 nearly all his life, and it is now in the possession of the Misses Taylor, 30 Charter 
 Oak Place, Hartford. 
 
338 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Hubbard. 1 East of this, was a rood owned by Thomas 
 Hubbard, who sold to John Morris. The latter conveyed 
 it, in 1665, to John Mitchell, with "a mefuag or Teniment 
 Standing thereon." At that time, the grantee appears to 
 have had land on the east, which was increased in 1667, by 
 the town's grant of the "peice of Ground that hee hath now 
 fenced in for his hay yard." In 1672, he received a further 
 grant of land against his house, and he moved out to a line 
 with his neighbor. 2 John Mitchell was a barber by trade. 
 He had the first shop that we know of in that locality. 3 
 He also had the honor of impounding any hogs that were 
 found in the highway or commons, "not sufficiently ringed." 
 In 1683, he died. His inventory mentions "the New houi'e" 
 in which he had lived. He left some estate to his widow, a 
 son and five daughters. The son, John Mitchell, occupied 
 the homestead for a dozen years. He was the town's brander 
 of horses and kept the record book. In 1694, he made a 
 voyage to Barbadoes, and died there the following year. 
 His widow Elizabeth Mitchell continued in the homestead. 
 Her daughter Sarah, a spinster, sold this property in 1705, to 
 John Butler, a shoemaker, being about two roods with a 
 dwelling-house. On August 10, 1708, John Butler conveyed 
 the same to Jonah Gross. He was the son of Simon Gross 
 of Hingham, Mass., and was born there April 2, 1683. 4 
 His father was a "boatman," and the son also followed the 
 sea. This purchase of the Mitchell homestead is our earliest 
 acquaintance with Captain Gross in Hartford. He was then 
 master of the sloop "Diamond alias Tryal." In 1709, a 
 libel was filed against him and the sloop was seized. 5 Three 
 years later, he was transporting provisions to Boston in his 
 vessel. For the Colony, he carried "3 bbls porke, 86 bushels 
 Indian Corn, 26 bushels wheat & 3 bushels of Rye." In 
 
 1 Original Distribution, pp. 180, 511; Hartford Land Records, 2: 221; 3: 187; 
 4: 216. 
 
 2 Original Distribution, pp. 180, 511, 374; Hartford Town Votes, I: 153, 167. 
 
 3 His inventory has the folowling items: " In the fhop one Looking glass — 0-6- 
 0"; " By Rafors, Combs, fiffers, a Bafon, a hair brufh & Bottle — 0-16-0." The 
 "Houfe, barn & home lot" were valued at £35. He also kept three cows, a horse 
 and two swine. 
 
 4 MS. Gross Genealogy, by Charles E. Gross, Esq. 
 6 Conn. Col. Bee., V: 149. 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 339 
 
 the autumn of 1712, he kept his sloop in waiting for a week, 
 to fulfill an engagement with Cornelius Peck for a voyage to 
 South Carolina, out of which a lawsuit arose. It was 
 probably to raise funds for some voyage that he transferred 
 his homestead, in 1715, to Elizabeth Wadsworth, a "mantee 
 maker," who returned it two years later. He married March 
 13, 1717-18, Susannah, daughter of Samuel Howard, by 
 whom he had children Samuel, Susannah, Lucretia, Rebecca 
 and Lorenzo. These were all baptized in the First Church, 
 where he had owned the covenant in 1720. The town gave 
 him liberty, in 1722, to build a vessel where the selectmen 
 should appoint. Thereafter for twenty years, he was one 
 of Hartford's most prominent sea captains, engaged largely 
 in the coast trade. He had an adventurous voyage in 1741. 
 Having mortgaged his homestead to John Austin, probably 
 to secure the means, he sailed for some unknown port. The 
 sequel is best told by his pastor, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth. 
 July 14, 1742 — "This day Jonah Gross came Home, he 
 was taken by y e Spaniards May 30, 1741 and carried to 
 Porto Valla from there to Leguvia, from thence over Land to 
 Crokus and kept in prison there till sometime in april Last 
 and then released. May god give him a thankful heart for 
 his deliverance." July 15. "This day . . . rejoyced at 
 the return of one of my people from Captivity." * The 
 debt of £250 to John Austin was paid, and the homestead 
 released. In 1745, his sloop the Rebeckah was doubtless 
 one of the transports engaged by the Colony for the Cape 
 Breton expedition. It was his last voyage. Ere he sailed, 
 he had, in his will, committed his "body to the grave either 
 in the land or sea," but his resting place is unknown. Proba- 
 bly he died at Cape Breton of the sickness that carried off 
 more than one-quarter of the troops. 
 
 We attribute to Captain Gross the erection of a brick 
 house near the west end of his lot, soon after the above 
 marriage. This house, afterwards known as his "mansion," 
 is still standing, as the records prove, on the corner northeast 
 of the entrance to Bond's restaurant, in the rear of Central 
 Row. It is about nineteen feet square and two and one-half 
 stories high. The roof has the steep pitch then common. 
 
 1 Wadswortk's Diary, p. 87. 
 
340 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Windows that were originally small have been enlarged. 
 The door that entered it through a leanto kitchen on the 
 west has long since been closed. A well was near at hand, 
 with outbuildings and a mulberry tree. On the east the 
 house looked out upon the garden. After the death of Cap- 
 tain Jonah Gross, this homestead experienced various for- 
 tunes. The widow conveyed it to her son Samuel Gross, a 
 mariner, reserving the use of certain rooms. 1 He sold forty- 
 five feet on the east end in 1750, to his brother-in-law, Dr. 
 Roderick Morrison. 2 The land was increased by a grant 
 from the town. 3 In 1754, Captain Samuel Gross died, 
 intestate and without issue. In his inventory, this house 
 and land were valued at £2400, in the currency of that 
 date. 4 One-third was set off to the widow, Amy Gross. 
 She sold it to her mother-in-law, Susannah Gross, who died 
 in this homestead in 1762. The residue was divided among 
 the decedent's three sisters, Susannah Morrison, Lucretia 
 the wife of Daniel Sheldon, Rebecca the wife of Abijah 
 Clark, and the younger brother, Lorenzo Gross. In 1765 
 the latter died in the homestead, unmarried. It was this 
 divided interest in the property, which continued until 1824, 
 that prevented the destruction of the old house. 5 The 
 brick addition on the north, and probably that next on 
 the east, were improvements made by William Gove who 
 acquired the Sheldon interest in 1781, and conducted a 
 store there. 
 
 The early house of Susannah Gross Morrison is also stand- 
 ing, though in another location. Its story is a fitting con- 
 clusion to a chapter that might be indefinitely extended. 
 Roderick Morrison was a brother of Normand Morrison of 
 Hartford. Both were well-known physicians in their day. 
 On January 16, 1744-5, Dr. Roderick Morrison married 
 Susannah, the daughter of Captain Jonah Gross. They had 
 five children of whom Roderick, alone, survived the perils of 
 infancy. Having acquired, in 1750, the east end of the Gross 
 
 1 Hartford Land Records, 7: 457. 
 * Ibid., 8: 302. 3 Ibid., 8: 7. 
 
 4 This inventory has the interesting and surprising item : "one fountain Pen 2s ." 
 '- Hartford Land Records, 10: 318; 12: 426, 510; 13: 19, 32, 68, 417, 467; 15: 
 344; 16: 319; 17: 458; 20: 102; 42: 448,449,451; 43: 145. 
 
House of Captain Jonah Gross 
 
 House of Dr. Roderick Morrison, 1750 
 
HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 341 
 
 homestead, now the corner of Central Row and Prospect 
 Street, Dr. Morrison tore down certain buildings thereon 
 and erected a large gambrel-roof house. Here he resided, 
 conducting his medical practice and the sale of drugs. His 
 remaining years were few. On January 14, 1755, his inter- 
 ment occurred in the old burying-ground. His widow 
 became, several years later, the third wife of Lieutenant 
 Joseph Phelps of Hebron, who died June 16, 1764. She 
 soon married Colonel Samuel Gilbert of the same town, a 
 distinguished man in his day. After his death, having con- 
 tracted the matrimonial habit, she married in 1775, as his 
 second wife, Nathaniel Chauncey of Middletown, and herself 
 departed in peace in 1795. 
 
 At the death of Dr. Morrison, his home was bequeathed 
 to his widow and son Roderick. They sold it, July 16, 
 1765, to Colonel Samuel Gilbert, her husband. Sylvester 
 Gilbert conveyed it, in 1778, to Peter Verstille, who kept a 
 store there. From his administrator it passed, in 1784, to 
 Captain John Chenevard. His son John Chenevard Jr., 
 lived there, and, in 1803, received it by deed of gift. From 
 his estate, Henry Seymour secured it in 1821, and the next 
 year sold it to Jonathan Ramsey. 1 In 1829, Henry L. 
 Ellsworth was engaged in the improvement of Central Row 
 property. Having acquired this house and lot from Mr. 
 Ramsey, he petitioned the Common Council for permission 
 to remove the old gambrel-roof house to a new location on 
 Prospect Street, "next north of the house lot of Thomas 
 S. Williams, Esq.," and make alterations in it. 2 His request 
 was granted, and the Roderick Morrison house, now over 
 one hundred and sixty years old, was placed in its present 
 location, north of the Connecticut Humane Society building. 
 
 This ancient house, when it stood on the corner of Central 
 Row, south of the Market Place, and was owned by Colonel 
 Samuel Gilbert, was the home of Thomas Green, the founder 
 of The Connecticut Courant,hefore his removal to New Haven. 
 The following advertisement in that journal establishes this 
 fact: "To be sold, or let, A good convenient Dwelling-Houfe 
 
 1 Ibid., 8: 302; 11: 467; 12: 414; 13: 372; 15: 438; 16: 131; 24: 326; 
 38: 157; 42: 214; 48: 166; 49; 361. See also The Hartford Times, Nov. 8, 1912. 
 
 2 Common Council Records, Book C, p. 342. 
 
342 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 and Garden in Hartford near the Court Houfe, well fituated 
 for any kind of Bufinefs, lately occupied by Mr. Thomas 
 Green. For further Particulars, enquire of Samuel Gil- 
 bert of Hebron, or the Printer hereof. N. B. The one Half 
 of faid Houfe will be let, to any Perfon who fhall not incline 
 to hire the whole." ! Moreover, in 1830, George Goodwin, 
 then seventy-four years of age, who had been connected with 
 the Courant from his boyhood, was called upon to testify 
 as to the property where Parsons Theatre now stands. He 
 then stated that he had "lived when an apprentice in the 
 House lately owned by Jon a Ramsey, South of the Old 
 Market." 2 So it was in this house that George Goodwin 
 lived with the family of his master while he was preparing 
 for his life work. The alterations that have been made in 
 the building can easily be traced. It has been divided into 
 two tenements, the rear portion has been added, and the 
 gambrel-roof has given place to a third story. Probably, 
 it was here also, that Thomas, the son of Thomas and 
 Desire (Sanford) Green, was born in 1765. He was one of 
 the founders of The Middlesex Gazette of Middletown. His 
 baptism, on August 17, 1766, had been recorded at Christ 
 Church in that town. In 1799, he became the partner of 
 his father in the publication of The Connecticut Journal of 
 New Haven. He died in 1825, aged 60 years. This house 
 has associations, therefore, with the early days of The 
 Connecticut Courant, and that remarkable family of printers, 
 of which its founder was a member. 
 
 1 The Connecticut Courant, Feb. 8, 1768. 
 
 2 "Report on the Petition of Samuel Olcott" in State Street Papers, City Clerk's 
 Office. 
 
CHAPTER XX 
 INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 
 
 In the year 1784, five cities were incorporated in Connecti- 
 cut. The General Assembly, at its January session, granted 
 such privileges to New Haven and New London, and, at 
 its May session, to Hartford, Middletown, and Norwich. 
 These are now, by many years, the oldest municipalities in 
 New England, for Newport, incorporated that year, soon 
 abandoned the experiment. 1 New York and Albany were 
 made cities in the seventeenth century. Philadelphia fol- 
 lowed in 1701. Richmond, Va., was incorporated in 1782, 
 and Charleston, S. C, the next year. These five constituted 
 the sisterhood of American municipalities, when the number 
 was augmented by five others, brought forth, as it were, at 
 one birth in Connecticut. None of this latter group had 
 over four thousand inhabitants within the territory incor- 
 porated. All of them had conducted in their ships before 
 the Revolutionary War, a limited trade, which had made 
 them acquainted with commercial life. We have no evi- 
 dence that in any of them, except New Haven, this or any 
 other reason had suggested the expediency of incorporation. 
 The inference is that a movement originated in that town 
 which spread to others. This could not have been due to 
 any popular whim; nor did it arise from any jealousy among 
 them. It had sufficient grounds to furnish the inhabitants 
 in all of them with substantial reasons for seeking some 
 departure from their ancient town government, in order to 
 meet the conditions with which they were all confronted at 
 the close of the Revolutionary War. As early as 1771, 
 action had been taken in New Haven toward incorporation. 
 A committee had then been appointed to consider the 
 matter; but it never reported. This purpose was revived 
 
 1 R. I. Col. Rec, X: 30, 217, 233, 234. 
 
344 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 in 1783. No doubt some local antagonism between "The 
 Town-Born" and "The Interlopers" of New Haven was 
 involved in the movement, but this has not been discovered 
 in Hartford. 1 The real issue arose out of the liberal, ambi- 
 tious and progressive spirit of those who had long been 
 engaged in commercial affairs. In the discouraging condi- 
 tions that followed the Revolutionary War, this spirit was 
 manifest in all of the five towns concerned. It demanded a 
 corporate agency more enterprising than the town system 
 could afford. To examine this development in the incorpora- 
 tion of the City of Hartford, is the writer's purpose. Thus 
 the ancient town made its escape from the ultraconserva- 
 tive, narrow and often sordid opinions that had grown up 
 in colonial times. 
 
 During the Revolutionary War, no hostile party of the 
 enemy set foot within the bounds of Hartford. It furnished 
 a large quota of soldiers for the army; and the sacrifices 
 of its inhabitants were equal to those of any community 
 in Connecticut. Members of its prominent families were 
 engaged in the struggle, either in a civil or a military capacity. 
 Prisoners of war were incarcerated in its jail. They were 
 often seen in its streets, on parole, which an inland location 
 was thought to render comparatively safe. There is evidence 
 also that Hartford was a favorite resort for soldiers, some of 
 whom were sick, or convalescing from wounds. It is well 
 known that at certain times of inactivity, soldiers were 
 allowed liberal absences, when better food and care were 
 needed than the army could provide. At one time, some of 
 Connecticut's militia were sent home to procure their daily 
 bread. Provisions were often gathered at Hartford. Wagon- 
 loads of supplies were continually being dispatched thence 
 to the seat of war, or were tarrying for the night at its inns. 
 Thus, throughout the war, the town was in the ferment of 
 patriotism from other causes than the periodical gathering 
 of the General Assembly, meetings of the Council of Safety 
 and the important conferences, which were held by General 
 Washington or his messengers at the home of Colonel 
 Jeremiah Wadsworth. The effect of these conditions upon 
 
 1 The Republic of New Haven, by Dr. Charles H. Levermore, in Johns Hopkins 
 Historical Studies, 1886. 
 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 345 
 
 the inhabitants was marked. It helped to strengthen the 
 influence of certain patriotic leaders in the town's councils. 
 There was developed among those who were most active, 
 a hopeful energy in public affairs. The value of united 
 effort, which had not been characteristic of colonial times, 
 had an opportunity to prove itself in the midst of difficulties. 
 Men who had been engaged in business recognized their 
 common cause in the solution of problems, which peace 
 would inevitably propound. Indeed, the Revolutionary 
 War, like many another in history, created a new type of 
 man, more progressive than those of colonial times. To 
 him it was given to meet the issues of American independence. 
 The close of the war found Connecticut greatly impover- 
 ished. The financial burdens of the inhabitants had been 
 heavy. The demands that had been made upon this state 
 for provisions, are said by Governor Trumbull to have been 
 "vastly beyond" her just proportion. Other states, not 
 so favorably located for uninterrupted continuance of agri- 
 culture, could not furnish the supplies that were repeatedly 
 asked of "Brother Jonathan." Payment was usually made 
 in a depreciating currency, which involved financial loss 
 and caused discontent. Connecticut had also borne the 
 cost of defending her own sea-coasts, an expense which the 
 national government was unwilling to assume. In 1783, 
 when the commutation or pension issue, and the proposal 
 to grant Congress the right to lay an impost tax were under 
 discussion, the people throughout the state were anxious 
 and depressed, as they confronted the payment of an enor- 
 mous debt, which, it was thought, would fall largely upon 
 their agricultural interests. It was this situation that led 
 to the creation of the progressive party of that day, and 
 summoned the patriotic to action. They all saw that the 
 state's brighter prospects lay in the revival of her commercial 
 life. Money was very scarce, but, as Connecticut yankees, 
 they knew that an export trade would bring it back. Thus 
 merchants, whose business had been ruined by the war, 
 reopened their warehouses, and sea captains began to make 
 ready their vessels, which had bleached in the sun for years. 
 This movement originated in New Haven, and Roger 
 Sherman, who had been chairman of the committee in 1771 
 
346 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 and was again appointed in 1783, bore a conspicuous part 
 in it. The action of the various towns concerned, will show 
 how rapidly it spread. 
 
 There is no doubt that current agitation of the impost 
 question exerted an influence in this incorporation move- 
 ment. Some thought that the right to place a duty upon 
 articles imported from foreign lands, should be reserved by 
 the states. Governor Trumbull, the Senate, and progress- 
 ives generally, including several afterwards elected mayors 
 of the new cities, considered a national impost essential to 
 the Government's credit and standing. On this matter, 
 the inhabitants of Hartford were divided. At a town meet- 
 ing September 16, 1783, the freemen voted to oppose en- 
 croachments of the American Congress upon the sovereignty 
 and jurisdiction of the states. On the same occasion, they 
 urged the General Assembly to regulate and encourage 
 commerce within the state. This power of impost was not 
 given by the Connecticut House of Representatives until 
 May 20, 1784, nine days before the granting of Hartford's 
 charter. The town's early opposition illustrates the unpro- 
 gressive character of the action that might be expected at a 
 freemen's meeting, and it must have made many of the new 
 party aware of the fact. After that date, the impost ques- 
 tion was more widely discussed. In the issue of The Con- 
 necticut Gazette, December 12, 1783, a contributor, under 
 the pseudonym Philo-Patriae, stated the matter thus: 
 "This State ought at leaft to fecure the avails of her own 
 hands: but if we are ftill to go on blind-fold, hiring Bofton 
 and New York to import for us, at the fum of twelve and 
 an half, and many times twenty-five per cent, they will 
 have prudence enough to purchafe our cargoes at their own 
 price, and make us pay for the purchafe in the goods they 
 import with them." It then began to appear more clearly 
 to many, that Connecticut must take whatever action would 
 further the importation of foreign goods by her own mer- 
 chants, in ships sailing from Connecticut ports. To this, 
 their incorporation was considered essential. Governor 
 Trumbull, who had already signified his intention of re- 
 tiring to private life, took a prominent part in this discussion. 
 He is credited with being the author of a series of six articles, 
 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 347 
 
 which had been recently written, and had appeared in the 
 above-named newspaper, beginning with the issue of March 
 26, 1784. Their title was the "Policy of Connecticut." 
 A prefatory note was signed by "S.M.," who may have been 
 Samuel Marsh, a warm advocate of incorporation at Hart- 
 ford. In these articles the author claimed that Connecticut 
 consumed, annually, three hundred and fifty thousand 
 dollars worth of imported goods, one-eighth of which only 
 she imported herself, the residue being purchased from states 
 that had, or would soon have — unless the power was granted 
 to Congress — a local impost for the benefit of their own 
 treasuries. 1 He advocated, in the fifth article, the incorpora- 
 tion of towns, with independent jurisdiction in certain local 
 matters. "The original plan of thefe incorporations in 
 Connecticut," he says, "was suggefted with a view of pro- 
 moting the commercial intereft of the diftrict propofed to 
 be incorporated. In this refpect the plan is good and no 
 doubt deferves the patronage of the Legiflature. But I 
 conceive that fuch incorporations will have a provincial 
 influence and that even afide of local advantages, the State 
 at large will derive important benefits from the inftitution." 
 He then reviewed the value of incorporation in European 
 cities, and declared that opposition to such action in Con- 
 necticut proceeded "from unreafonable jealoufy or from 
 ignorance." It was a movement in which mechanics and 
 farmers, as well as merchants, had an interest. "To the 
 low ftate of commerce in Connecticut," he wrote, "muft be 
 afcribed the prefent fcarcity of cafh which is always plenty 
 where bufiness is lively." His concluding observation had 
 such a direct application to the conflict of opinions in Hart- 
 ford, that we may infer his acquaintance with the situation 
 and intended reference: "The farming intereft muft bear 
 all the public burdens till we improve our natural advantages 
 and give extenfion to commerce." 2 
 
 The plan for municipal incorporation in Connecticut was 
 itself an admission of the impossibility of advancing com- 
 
 1 The Connecticut Gazette, New London, April 9, 1784. Cf. Stuart's Life of Jona- 
 than Trumbull, pp. 638, 639. 
 
 2 The Connecticut Gazette, May 28, 1784. The same article had been published 
 in The Connecticut Courant, May 18th. 
 
348 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 mercial interests under town government, as developed in 
 colonial times. Its advocates stated that "a due regulation 
 of the Internal police" was needed. "It is a matter of no 
 small importance," they said, "that wharves, Streets & 
 Highways be commodious for Business, & kept continually 
 in good repair." That none of these towns would undertake 
 such improvements, was too obvious to be disputed by many. 
 All of them were agricultural communities, with a large 
 outlying population of farmers, and only a small area within 
 the town-plot. The tract along the water-front, especially 
 devoted to commercial pursuits, was still more limited. 
 Farmers living at a distance could not discover any advan- 
 tages accruing to them by the building of wharves in Hart- 
 ford; nor were they interested in the regulation of the town's 
 streets. Governor Trumbull declared that "in the incor- 
 porated towns in Connecticut the value of lands will in- 
 creafe in two years, fufficient to defray the city-charges of 
 twenty years." Such was probably the sequel, but, in 1784, 
 the farmers of Hartford could not believe it. The contest, 
 therefore, in all the five towns, was between the progressive 
 inhabitants, seeking the revival of business life and the 
 improvement of the town-plot, and the agricultural classes, 
 which throughout colonial times had controlled the free- 
 men's vote and persistently thwarted progress. The former 
 thought it essential to create a corporate agency having the 
 power to advance local interests. It need hardly be added 
 that the same causes have operated since for the multipli- 
 plication of Connecticut cities, and the assumption by the 
 State of responsibilities that the towns have neglected. 
 Under the conditions of 1784, the wonder is that any vote 
 for incorporation was secured in Hartford. The difficulties 
 had been lessened, however, by the incorporation of all the 
 territory east of the Connecticut River, as East Hartford, 
 which town held its first meeting on December 9, 1783. 
 Thus the number of farmers in Hartford had been greatly 
 reduced. 
 
 The memorial of New Haven to the General Assembly 
 was dated September 22, 1783. New London and Norwich 
 took similar action before anything was done in Hartford, 
 although the matter had been discussed. At a town meeting, 
 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 349 
 
 held in the Court House, January 6, 1784, a committee of 
 fourteen was appointed "to confider and fix the Limitts of 
 that Part, or the Whole of this Town, which is propofed to 
 be incorporated into a City." This meeting adjourned to 
 January 9th, when Colonel Thomas Seymour and Mr. 
 Chauncey Goodrich were instructed to present a memorial 
 to the General Assembly, then in session at New Haven, 
 asking for "the Incorporation of part of the Town of Hart- 
 ford into a City with City privileges." That document is 
 dated January 8th, and was probably the result of the de- 
 liberations of the first committee. It employed much of 
 the language of New Haven's memorial. The limits therein 
 defined extended along the river, from Wethersfield to 
 Windsor, and some distance westward. It also asked for 
 "Jurisdiction in all commercial matters on said Connecticut 
 River opposite to said Town of Hartford." This memorial 
 was referred to the next General Assembly, meeting May 13th 
 at Hartford. Meanwhile, both parties were active in their 
 cause. The opposition prepared a remonstrance, dated 
 April 29th and signed by seventy-one inhabitants. This 
 was perhaps written by Captain George Smith, who was 
 afterwards charged by twelve of its signers with using "vari- 
 ous Arts & Misrepresentations of the design and tendency 
 of said act of Incorporation" to secure signatures. It was 
 accompanied by lists of certain inhabitants of both parties, 
 and some who were neutral, with their taxable estate in 1783, 
 designed to minimize the importance and standing of the 
 progressives. 1 The remonstrance claimed that their ancient 
 town government was vested with ample powers to make and 
 enforce "Laws and Regulations for their Internal Police." 
 This may have been true, but there were also ample votes 
 to prevent the use of those powers for improvements within 
 the town-plot. It claimed, too, that a corporation with 
 city privileges would conflict with the town and involve 
 much expense, trouble and confusion; that they were 
 groaning under "large and heavy taxes occasioned by the 
 war," and that many would be obliged to dispose of a part 
 or all of "that Patrimony which hath descended to them 
 from their Pious fore Fathers Who sought an Assyllyum in 
 
 1 Slate Archives: Towns and Lands, X: 12 a., 13 a., 13 b. 
 
350 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 this then howling wilderness." The progressives, however, 
 prepared a new memorial, dated May 6th. It was probably 
 written by Mr. Chauncey Goodrich, the second mayor of 
 the city and United States senator from Connecticut, 1807- 
 1813, his associate in the Senate being James Hillhouse, 
 one of the originators of the incorporation movement in 
 New Haven. This memorial was signed by two hundred 
 and nine inhabitants. The limits of the proposed city were 
 admitted to have been "too extensive," and were altered 
 as in the charter. The plea for jurisdiction in commercial 
 matters on the east side of the river, was not repeated, but 
 it was granted. Specific reference was made to the privileges 
 that had been extended to New Haven and New London, 
 and, for similar reasons, this patronage was asked for 
 Hartford. The hope was also expressed that such action 
 would be "the means of uniting the Efforts and Wealth of 
 the commercial Part of the State in such useful and liberal 
 plans of Trade as may rescue it from its dependence on our 
 sister States and be an increasing emolument to our own." 
 This petition was granted and "An Act for Incorporating a 
 Part of the Town of Hartford" was passed May 29, 1784. 
 
 The limits of the city thus established were substantially 
 those embraced within the settled portion of the town in 
 1640. They were defined as follows: "Beginning at a place 
 called the Dutch Ground, upon the high land on the bank 
 of the Great River, on the southerly side of said river as it 
 now runs in the lot belonging to Thomas Seymour, Esq. 
 [North of Charter Oak Avenue] and from thence a strait 
 line to the northwest corner of Joshua Hempstead's dwelling- 
 house [The southwest corner of Wethersfield Avenue and 
 Wyllys Street], thence a westerly line to the northwest 
 corner of James Steele's dwelling-house [The corner of Wash- 
 ington and Jefferson streets], from thence a northwesterly 
 course to the southwest corner of James Shepard's malt- 
 house [Near the corner of Park and Lafayette streets], 
 from thence northerly, a strait line to the Upper Mills, so 
 called, including said mills [Imlay's Mills], thence northerly 
 in a strait line to the northwest corner of Capt. John 01- 
 cott's dwelling-house, including said house [The corner of 
 Windsor Avenue and Belden Street], and from thence 
 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 351 
 
 turning and running due east a strait course to the Great 
 River." l The municipal government they had formed 
 would now be considered somewhat crude. It was chiefly 
 designed to carry out effectively the purposes for which it 
 had been sought. With amendments and special acts, this 
 charter served the city until 1821, long after most of their 
 original purposes had been accomplished. The corporate 
 name was, at first, "The Mayor, Aldermen, Common Council 
 and Freemen of the city of Hartford." It was not until 
 1859 that this name was changed to "The City of Hartford." 
 The charter provided that, at an annual meeting of the 
 freemen in March, they were to elect the mayor — who held 
 his office during the pleasure of the General Assembly — 
 four aldermen, and not more than twenty councilmen. 
 These were to meet together as the Court of Common 
 Council to deliberate on city affairs. The freemen were 
 also to choose a clerk, treasurer and two sheriffs. A legal 
 meeting of the freemen was made necessary to levy taxes, 
 and they were to approve all by-laws made by the Court 
 of Common Council. In the first memorial, the petitioners 
 had asked the General Assembly to "institute a Court to 
 be holden within said jurisdiction, with full Powers and 
 Authority to hear, try and determine all Personal actions 
 (where the Title of Land is not concerned) grounded on 
 any Contract made or injury happening within said Limits, 
 and that said Court may have a concurrent Authority in 
 said Causes with the other Courts of Common Law in the 
 State." The charter established this City Court, in which 
 the mayor and two aldermen presided as judges. It was a 
 common feature of all these Connecticut cities. 
 
 Accordingly, the first freemen's meeting was held June 28, 
 1784. The moderator was George Wyllys, Esq., the senior 
 justice of the peace. Hon. Thomas Seymour was elected 
 
 1 Connecticut Statutes, Revision of 1784, PP- 283 ff.; City Code, Hartford, 1856, 
 pp. 265 ff. The City's limits were extended north to Capen Street, and south to 
 Wawarme Avenue in 1853 (Private Laws of Conn., Ill: 392 ff.). Territory, mainly 
 on the west, was added in 1859 (Ibid., V: 316 ff.). Another tract on the south was 
 annexed in 1871 (Special Laws of Conn., VII: 136). In 1873, the remainder of the 
 town was included, except a strip on the north, the addition of which, in 1881, 
 made the town and city bounds coincident (Ibid., VII: 620; IX: 245). The City 
 as originally chartered, covered 1700 acres, or one-sixth of the present area. 
 
352 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 Mayor, an office which he filled for twenty-eight years. 
 The aldermen chosen were: Col. Samuel Wyllys, Jonathan 
 Bull Esq., Jesse Root, Esq., and Capt. Samuel Marsh. 
 Twenty councilmen were elected, as follows: Capt. John 
 Chenevard, Mr. Barnabas Deane, Ralph Pomeroy, Esq., 
 Mr. James Church, Chauncey Goodrich, Esq., Mr. Peter 
 Colt, Capt. John Olcott, Capt. John Caldwell, Mr. Zebulon 
 Seymour, Mr. Zachariah Pratt, Mr. Ashbel Steele, William 
 Nichols, Esq., John Trumbull, Esq., Mr. Barzillai Hudson, 
 Capt. William Bull, Mr. Caleb Bull, Mr. John Morgan, 
 Capt. Israel Seymour, Mr. Daniel Olcott, and Mr. Daniel 
 Hinsdale. William Adams, Esq. was chosen City Clerk, 
 Hezekiah Merrill, Esq., treasurer, and Capt. Joseph Talcott 
 and Mr. James Wells, sheriffs. 
 
 This roll represents the progressive inhabitants of Hart- 
 ford, to whose efforts its incorporation was due. With the 
 exception of two or three, who were neutral, presumably for 
 good reasons, all of these were among the memorialists of 
 May 6th. During the next five years, nine of them were 
 displaced by others; but all of the new men, with two excep- 
 tions, were memorialists. Strange to relate, one of the 
 exceptions was Captain George Smith, who was chosen a 
 councilman in 1785. He was the only one of the opposition 
 who was thus honored for many years. Whether he experi- 
 enced a change of mind, or was surrounded with fagots for 
 torture, is unknown. The other exception was Colonel Jere- 
 miah Wadsworth, who did more than any in Hartford to 
 push forward the improvements of the infant city. He was 
 absent on his mission to France and England during the 
 controversy; but he was informed of the movement by his 
 business representative, Peter Colt, and favored it. On 
 April 25, 1784, Mr. Colt wrote him as follows: "The people 
 in this State seem desirous of having our Goods imported 
 directly from Europe — with this view they have granted 
 City Privileges to N. Haven & New London, hoping that 
 Measure would serve to collect the trading Interest to a 
 point — but our Merchants seem too shy & reserved to 
 consult their true Interest — Great dependance is had upon 
 your returns to this Country & setting down in this your 
 native spot. They know your knowledge & activity in 
 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 353 
 
 Business is great & believe your Capital is equal to the occa- 
 sion." The citizens of Hartford were not disappointed in 
 Colonel Wads worth. This letter passed on the ocean another 
 from him, in which he intimates his purpose of using some 
 of his means in "building up my [his] Native Town." Im- 
 mediately upon his return, he began this labor. He was 
 elected first alderman in 1785, serving six years, and a second 
 term from 1795 to 1798. Then for four years he was first 
 councilman. Besides this, he represented Hartford for eleven 
 years in the councils of the State. The value of these services 
 to the new city can only be measured by an examination of 
 municipal improvements to his death, in 1804. He was 
 worthy of the tribute paid to him by Brissot de Warville 
 upon his visit to Hartford: "It is the refidence of one of 
 the moft refpectable men in the United States, Col. Wadf- 
 worth. He enjoys a confiderable fortune, which he owes 
 entirely to his own labour and induftry. Perfectly verfed 
 in agriculture and commerce; univerfally known for the 
 fervice he rendered to the American and French armies 
 during the war; generally ef teemed and beloved for his 
 great virtues; he crowns all his qualities by an amiable and 
 fingular modefty. His addrefs is frank, his countenance 
 open, and his difcourfe fimple. Thus you cannot fail to love 
 him as foon as you fee him; efpecially as foon as you know 
 him." 
 
 By an examination of early improvements in the City of 
 Hartford, the reader can clearly see, as in a mirror facing 
 the colonial period of its history, the ancient town with all 
 its old customs, disorder, encroachments, muddy highways, 
 wooden buildings and long-standing needs. What the new- 
 born citizens did to improve Hartford was what they 
 admitted had been very unsatisfactory. No party of citizens 
 since, has surpassed them in wisdom, method or enthusiasm, 
 at the task of building a city. The powers they had sought, 
 and received in the city's charter, disclose the failures of their 
 town government. The Court of Common Council, at its 
 first meeting July 13th, appointed a committee to prepare city 
 by-laws, and one after another, as they were reported, the 
 freemen approved them. The better regulation of trade and 
 commerce was one of their first concerns. Inspectors were 
 
354 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 appointed for everything they exported. Goods were sent 
 out, with the brand of Hartford upon them. Conferences 
 were held with representatives of other Connecticut cities, to 
 further their common interests. An act was passed relative 
 to weights and measures, providing for sealing the same and 
 punishing all fraud. Meanwhile, a committee of these new 
 citizens had been observing the nuisances in their streets. 
 Their first act reforming these was to restrain swine from 
 going at large. In 1797, a similar ordinance was passed 
 with reference to cattle, sheep and horses, and, a few years 
 later, they suppressed the geese. On September 6th, this 
 committee reported "that in each and all Streets and High- 
 ways in the City, Nuisances and Obstructions are so numer- 
 ous, multiplied and varied into too many Shapes and Forms 
 to admit of a particular Description or enumeration." 
 They were then authorized "to run the lines of the several 
 Streets within the City and to Ascertain and Mark out and 
 fix the Limitts and Bounds of the same and sett up Monu- 
 ments and Marks descriptive thereof." In their report on 
 September 27th, they gave names to their main highways. 1 
 This report was accompanied with "a plan or map of the 
 Bounds and Limits of the City, and also of the Highways 
 and landing-places in the same, with their Bounds and lines, 
 and of the encroachments made thereon." It was ordered 
 on file, but has disappeared. Most likely it was a prelim- 
 inary map, and was made by Solomon Porter, who after- 
 wards carried his work to completion, in 1790. The records 
 prove that his survey was exhibited at a City meeting, 
 March 28, 1791. The Court of Common Council at a meet- 
 ing March 31, 1792, having before it "Solomon Porter's 
 Plan and Chart of the City, and Survey and Field Book," 
 formally accepted and approved the same. 2 The establish- 
 ment of the city's streets, after one hundred and fifty years 
 of the town's careless administration, was one of their 
 most difficult tasks in building the City of Hartford. Their 
 
 1 "History of Hartford Streets" by Albert L. Washburn and Henry R. Buck 
 in Publications of the Municipal Art Society, Bulletin No. 9., pp. 5-10. 
 
 2 The original of this map is preserved among the collections of the Connecticut 
 Historical Society, as also a copy. The Field Book is in the City Engineer's De- 
 partment, where there is also a working copy of the map. Solomon Porter's sur- 
 vey has been proved in court as a legal authority by Mr. Albert L. Washburn. 
 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 355 
 
 ambitions were not satisfied with this. Throughout colonial 
 times, the inhabitants had not demanded any radical altera- 
 tions in their old roads. Workhouse Lane, from Trumbull 
 to Ford streets, had been opened in 1725. Talcott Lane 
 had been deeded to the town in 1761, by Samuel Talcott. 
 Perhaps the inhabitants had begun to indicate, by the paths 
 they made across lots, the location of other future highways. 
 But, in 1788, several new streets were laid out. Colonel 
 Wadsworth and others then deeded to the City land for 
 Commerce Street. Morgan Street was laid out that year, 
 from Main Street to the Connecticut River. In 1785, Cap- 
 tain Daniel Phelps conveyed to the City land for Theatre, 
 now Temple Street, which was opened in 1788. About the 
 same time, also, Prospect Street was laid out, and it soon 
 became a fashionable location for residences. The inhab- 
 itants then began to take more particular notice of their 
 buildings along these streets. An ordinance was passed in 
 1789, with reference to this matter, by which an undesirable 
 nearness to the street could be prevented. The obstruction 
 and misuse of sidewalks, which were then constructed by 
 abutting owners, was forbidden in 1793. Public lamps were 
 not provided by the City until 1821. Of course, there was 
 then no public water supply, although "The Proprietors of 
 the Hartford Aqueduct" conceived one in 1797, when they 
 purchased Babcock's well, and they laid some wooden pipes. 1 
 A few householders probably had private drains. An 
 amendment to the City's charter in 1843, empowered the 
 Court of Common Council to construct sewers. 2 The pres- 
 ervation of the new city from fire was one of their earliest 
 considerations. Apparently, a fire-engine was owned in 
 Hartford in 1785, when Captain William Bull was appointed 
 to have it repaired. Ladders and buckets had been the 
 chief part of their fire apparatus in colonial times. The city 
 was soon divided into fire wards. In 1789, they organized 
 a fire department under an engineer. 3 The Court of Com- 
 mon Council also enacted some by-laws that reflect very 
 
 1 The Hartford Times, Jan. 15 and Feb. 10, 1891. 
 
 2 The Hartford Courant, Sept. 20, 1907. 
 
 3 The Hartford Times, Nov. 16, 1907: The Hartford Courant, June 7, 1910. 
 Sept. 25, and Dec. 28, 1913. See also Theodore Broome's Record Book, Ex-Chief 
 Henry J. Eaton. 
 
356 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 
 
 unpleasantly the sanitary conditions of the colonial town. 
 Deeds have been found that prove the actual existence of 
 hog-pens and barns along their streets. Factories for the 
 manufacture of soap and tallow candles, tanneries and slaugh- 
 ter-houses, were not far away from some pretentious man- 
 sions. Within the town-plot there were ponds of water, 
 more or less stagnant, and pools that served for drainage of 
 their barns. An acquaintance with such conditions enables 
 us to appreciate the wisdom and energy of the city fathers 
 in dealing with them. 
 
 The progressive citizens, to whom Hartford owed its 
 early incorporation, did not limit their efforts to these 
 reforms and improvements. Their interest in commercial 
 affairs became profitable in a way they did not at first an- 
 ticipate. After the Revolutionary War, emigration up the 
 Connecticut River became popular. Many who removed 
 were from Connecticut. Then the era of up-river trade was 
 inaugurated. Some of Hartford's leading merchants were 
 engaged in it. "It is only six or seven years," says a writer 
 in 1792, "since the first boat was built at Windsor, Vt. and 
 business is now increased to hundreds of tons yearly." At 
 that time sloops discharged their cargoes at Warehouse Point ; 
 but, after 1810, when the bridge was built, Hartford was the 
 head of sloop navigation for eight years. In 1788, Colonel 
 Wadsworth became interested in improving the river's 
 channel. The sequel was the incorporation of John Cald- 
 well, John Morgan and others in 1800 as the "Union Com- 
 pany," with the privilege of collecting tolls. A lottery was 
 granted in 1789, for the purpose of erecting wharves at 
 Hartford. In these and other commercial schemes, these 
 same citizens were interested. The Hartford Bank was 
 incorporated in 1792 "to facilitate commercial operations." 
 Its officers and most of its directors were among the me- 
 morialists of 1784. Indeed, wherever one finds in the records, 
 newspapers or manuscripts of those years, the details of 
 any new enterprise, which it was thought would be for the 
 up-building of the City of Hartford or the welfare of its 
 inhabitants, there the names of these citizens testify to their 
 devotion. 
 
 Thus it happened, in the year 1792, when the erection of 
 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 357 
 
 a State House was proposed, these were the men to claim 
 it for Hartford's square. A proposition had been made that 
 very year, by a writer in The Connecticut Courant, with 
 much plausibility, to sell from that area two rows of store 
 lots, to "raise money to extend the public landings on the 
 river. It was then described as "a valuable but now ufe- 
 lefs furplus . . . large, rough, muddy, deformed fquare, 
 commonly called State-Square, one fourth of the year 
 almoft impaf sable by man or be*aft; moft of it of little ufe 
 except as a lumberyard, and from the peculiar nature of 
 the foil and the prefent ftate of the town, there is little 
 profpect of its being improved by leveling, paving &c." l 
 As early as April, however, "the Subscribers for a New 
 Court-Houfe" had been requested to meet "at Mr. David 
 Bull's Long Room" on "business of importance." 2 Their 
 subscription paper is dated June 1st. The leading signers 
 were: Jere Wadsworth, Tho s Seymour, George Wyllys, 
 John Trumbull, John Caldwell, Jn° Morgan, Bar 8 Deane, 
 David Bull, Hudson & Goodwin, Wm, Jos. & R. Hart, 
 Tho s Hopkins & Charles Hopkins, W m Moseley and Chauncey 
 Goodrich, who subscribed sums from one hundred to five 
 hundred dollars, and forty-five others, whose subscriptions 
 were smaller. Most of those here named had been, or then 
 were, members of the Court of Common Council. All of 
 the subscribers were the City's friends — the representa- 
 tives of the memorialists of 1784. So it has come to pass, 
 by no purpose of theirs but the fortunes of time, that the 
 historic edifice, which they and their associates did so much 
 to erect, survives as a memorial of the early struggles of the 
 City of Hartford. 
 
 "Post Nubila Phoebus." 
 
 1 The Connecticut Courant, Feb. 27, 1792. 
 
 2 Ibid., April 23, 1792. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Adams, 274, 305-307, 352. 
 
 Adams, Jeremy, 32, 125, 139, 216-219, 
 
 233-235, 257, 258. 
 Adams's inn, 216-219, 233-235. 
 Adventurers' Field, 12, 55, 140, 141. 
 "Adventurers" of Hartford, 12, 13. 
 Agawam, see Springfield. 
 Agriculture, 156, 157, 345, 348. 
 Allyn, John, 117, 129, 145, 164, 184, 
 
 185, 202, 227, 265, 277, 285, 320, 325, 
 
 331. 
 Allyn, Mathew, 11, 12, 32, 60, 67, 124, 
 
 140, 142, 144, 146, 277, 285. 
 Allyn's mills, 12, 55, 182-185. 
 Almshouse, 292-294. 
 Andrews, 125, 145. 
 Andrews, William, 33, 90, 124, 184, 
 
 196, 227, 253, 254, 256. 
 Andros, Sir Edmund, 218, 228. 
 Arms, 236, 242, 243, 329, 334. 
 Arnold, John, 32, 125. 
 Arnold, Jonathan, 145. 
 Arramamet, 93, 94. 
 Ashley, Jonathan, 145. 
 Ashton, Joseph, 238. 
 Austin, 170, 246, 290, 313, 315, 339. 
 Averill, 189. 
 Ayres, William, 284. 
 
 15 
 
 Babcock, James, 189. 
 
 Bacon, Andrew, 32, 108, 114, 125, 162, 
 
 205, 206, 215, 331. 
 Badger, Daniel, 186. 
 "Badger's Road," 185, 186. 
 Balch, Ebenezer, 309. 
 Baptists, 214. 
 Barding, Nathaniel, 125. 
 Barnard, 88, 155, 164, 165, 289, 316, 
 
 324. 
 
 Barnard, Bartholomew, homestead of, 
 164. 
 
 Barnard, Francis, 259, 331. 
 
 Barnard, John, 2, 6, 11, 12, 125, 195, 
 254. 
 
 Barnes, Mary, 285, 286. 
 
 Barnes, Thomas, 125, 146, 149. 
 
 Barrett, Joseph, 179. 
 
 Bartlett, Robert, 125. 
 
 Bassaker, Peter, 303. 
 
 Bates, Albert C, 132, 315. 
 
 Bayard, William, 321. 
 
 "Bay Path," 35, 37-46. 
 
 Baysey, John, 32, 125, 247. 
 
 Beach, Miles, 308. 
 
 Beach, Rev. Abraham, 308. 
 
 Benjamin, Asher, 226. 
 
 Benjamin, Gideon, 238, 240. 
 
 Benton, 177, 195, 207, 305. 
 
 Betts, Widow Mary, 125, 254. 
 
 Bibbins, Elijah, 88. 
 
 Bidwell, John, 125, 185, 195, 209. 
 
 Bigelow, 169, 175, 179, 238. 
 
 Billings, Richard, 127. 
 
 Birch wood, Thomas, 125. 
 
 Bird, Thomas, 167, 168. 
 
 Bissell, John, 44. 
 
 Blachford, Peter, 147. 
 
 "Black Horse Tavern," 235, 236. 
 
 Blackleach, John, 299. 
 
 Blackley (Blatchley, Blakesley), Thom- 
 as, 127, 147. 
 
 Blair, John, 291. 
 
 Blakeley, Josiah, 313. 
 
 Bliss, Isaac, homestead of, 321. 
 
 Bliss, Thomas, 126, 149. 
 
 Block, Adriaen, 92, 93, 99. 
 
 Blue Hills, 137, 138, 143. 
 
 Blumfield, William, 2, 33, 125, 146, 149. 
 
 Boardman, Rev. Benjamin, 239, 332. 
 
 Bolles, John, 214. 
 
 Boosey, James, 215, 287. 
 
 Boswell, Sir William, 111, 112. 
 
 Bowen, Consider, 305. 
 
360 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Brace, Thomas, K., 172. 
 Bradley, Aaron, 178, 194, 310. 
 Brainard, Adonijah, 194. 
 Brewster, Jonathan, 3, 8. 
 Brick-kiln, 12, 140. 
 Brick-kiln Brook, see Gully Brook. 
 Brick School House, 270, 271. 
 Bricks, 155, 156, 324, 325. 
 Bridgeheld, 133, 134, 144, 145. 
 Bridges, 143, 176, 183-185, 187-192, 
 
 356. 
 Buckingham, Joseph, 211, 305, 306. 
 Buckingham, Rev. Thomas, 209, 305, 
 
 306. 
 Buckland, William, 92. 
 Bulfinch, Charles, 224. 
 Bulkeley, Stephen, 219. 
 Bull, 169, 172, 177, 178, 195, 238, 245, 
 
 307, 316-318, 332, 352, 355, 357. 
 Bull, Aaron, homestead of, 307, 332. 
 Bull, Amos, homestead of, 332. 
 Bull, Daniel, homestead of, 321. 
 Bull, Dr. Jonathan, 206, 207, 308. 
 Bull, Lieut. Thomas, 32, 33, 36, 87, 88, 
 
 125, 147, 206, 209, 262-264. 
 Bull, Major Jonathan, 87, 206, 299. 
 Bull's tavern, 238. 
 Bunce, 219, 230, 235, 306, 308. 
 Bunce, Thomas, 126, 147, 149, 188, 
 
 189, 207. 
 Burnham, 93, 175, 194, 206, 238, 
 
 306-308, 312, 313. 
 Burr, 72, 73, 162, 189, 196, 332. 
 Burr, Benjamin, 33, 125, 147, 148. 
 "Burt's Mills," 189. 
 Buryiug-grounds, 115, 135, 138, 314. 
 Bushnell, Rev. Horace, 195. 
 Butler, 194, 196, 286, 308, 310, 338. 
 Butler, Moses, 195, 239, 308. 
 Butler, Richard, 32, 125. 
 Butler, William, 6, 11, 13, 14, 125. 
 Butler's tavern, 238, 308. 
 
 Cable, John, 194. 
 
 Caddy, William, 170. 
 
 Cadwell, 145, 169-174, 216, 238. 
 
 Calder, John, 179. 
 
 Caldwell, 179, 223, 291, 300, 309, 310, 
 
 352, 356, 357. 
 Camplx-ll, John, 229. 
 
 Canonchet, 96. 
 
 Carrier, Titus, 291. 
 
 Carrington, 110, 283. 
 
 Carter, Joel, 195. 
 
 Cattle of settlers, 8, 9, 16, 33, 35, 116, 
 135, 156, 157. 
 
 Causeways, 160, 161. 
 
 Cedar Mountain, 139. 
 
 Centinel Hill, 10, 162-165. 
 
 Chalker, Benoni, 313. 
 
 Chaplin, Clement, 3, 11, 13, 14, 32, 62, 
 63, 80, 142, 236. 
 
 Chapman, Elisha, 274. 
 
 Charter secreted, 218, 219. 
 
 Chase, Levi B., 38, 41. 
 
 Chauncey, Nathaniel, 341. 
 
 Chenevard, 172, 177, 178, 193, 236, 
 300, 309, 310, 315, 341, 352. 
 
 Cheney, Benjamin, 240. 
 
 Chester, 144, 223, 224, 280. 
 
 Chicopee River, 35, 42, 43. 
 
 Christ Church, 214, 226, 318. 
 
 Church, 260, 300, 316, 352. 
 
 Church, Richard, 125, 260. 
 
 City Hall, 226, 227. 
 
 Clark, 145, 222, 237, 285, 302. 
 
 Clarke, John, 2, 33, 125, 126, 147. 
 
 Clarke, Nicholas, 6, 11-13, 125, 146. 
 
 Clocks, 202, 329, 330. 
 
 Colden, Alexander, 231. 
 
 Cole, James, 125, 197. 
 
 Cole, John, 284. 
 
 Collier, Joseph, 142. 
 
 Collins, Rev. William, 252-254. 
 
 Collyer, 237, 238, 302, 315. 
 
 Colt, Mrs. Elizabeth, 90. 
 
 Colt, Peter, 352. 
 
 Commerce and trade, 166-172, 176-179, 
 295-318, 338, 339, 345-348, 356. 
 
 Commission for a Provisional Govern- 
 ment, 17-29, 65-«8. 
 
 "Committee," 70, 77, 78. 
 
 Connecticut cities incorporated, 343- 
 350. 
 
 Connecticut, constitutional govern- 
 ment of, 64-80. 
 
 Connecticut Courant, 229, 230, 306, 
 308, 311-313, 315, 316, 341, 342. 
 
 "Connecticut Path," 35, 37-46. 
 
 Connecticut River, 2, 8, 14, 16, 85, 87, 
 99-104, 166, 168, 356. 
 
 Constables chosen, 6, 7, 27. 
 
 Converse, Thomas, 318. 
 
INDEX 
 
 361 
 
 Cook, Aaron, 179, 221. 
 
 Corning, Ezra, 309. 
 
 Corning Fountain, 185. 
 
 Cornwall, William, 126, 146, 149. 
 
 "Country Road," 43-46. 
 
 Court chamber in the inn, 217, 219; 
 
 in the meeting-house, 201, 202, 
 
 220. 
 Court houses proposed, 220. 
 Cowles, John, 285. 
 Cow Pasture, 137, 138. 
 Cow-yard, 135. 
 Craftsmen, 295, 296, 303, 304. 
 Crimes and misdemeanors, 278-294. 
 Criminal courts, 276, 277. 
 Crosby, Ebenezer, 305. 
 Crow, John, 86, 87, 125, 127, 168, 325. 
 Cullick, John, 127, 147, 260, 262, 277. 
 Currecombe, 97. 
 Currie, Robert, 315. 
 
 1) 
 
 Daniels, Leonard, 189. 
 
 Davenport, Rev. John, 260-264. 
 
 Davenport, William, 203. 
 
 Davie, 333, 334. 
 
 Davis, 147, 333. 
 
 Davis, Rev. John, 258, 259. 
 
 Davy, Evan, 155, 288. 
 
 Day, Maynard, 318. 
 
 Day, Robert, 2, 10, 11, 13, 32, 125, 322. 
 
 Deane, Barnabas, 178, 352, 357. 
 
 Deane, Silas, 273. 
 
 "Deputy," 70, 80. 
 
 de Rasieres, Isaak, 100. 
 
 Desborough, Nicholas, 125, 145, 148, 
 265, 303. 
 
 Devotion, Rev. John, 271. 
 
 De Vries, 98, 107, 114, 115, 152, 181. 
 
 Dodd, 312, 313, 334, 335. 
 
 Doolittle, Enos, 224, 308, 311-313. 
 
 Dorr, Rev. Edward, 269. 
 
 Drinking customs, 240, 241. 
 
 "Dug-outs," 9, 11, 15. 
 
 Dunbar, Moses, 291. 
 
 Dutch, claims of, 21-23, 84, 85, 98- 
 115; lands occupied by settlers, 26- 
 28, 106, 107; conflict with English, 
 107-113; lands sequestered, 113, 114. 
 
 Dutch Point, 23, 106, 135, 192, 193. 
 
 E 
 
 East Hartford, 118, 172, 173, 213, 348. 
 Easton, 155, 279. 
 Easton, Joseph, 2, 32, 125. 
 East-side distributions, 117, 118, 123, 
 
 126-128, 140. 
 Eaton, Gov. Theophilus, 260, 262. 
 Edwards, 172, 175, 203, 237, 248, 290. 
 Edwards, William, 142, 184, 248, 287. 
 Election Day, 244. 
 Eliot, Rev. John, 35, 39, 42, 95. 
 Ellery, 170, 186, 192, 230, 231, 310. 
 Ellsworth, Oliver, 309, 310. 
 Elmer, Edward, 6, 11, 13, 125, 146, 163, 
 
 164, 320. 
 Ely, Nathaniel, 2, 6, 11-13, 125, 140, 
 
 163. 
 Encroachments, 161, 162, 353, 354. 
 Endicott, Dr. John, 317. 
 Ensign, James, 2, 32, 108, 114, 125, 
 
 208. 
 Evans, John, 63. 
 Exports, 295, 298, 300. 
 
 Fairbanks, Richard, 228. 
 
 Fairs, 296, 297. 
 
 Farmington, Indians of, 81, 97, 117. 
 
 Farnsworth, David, 291. 
 
 Fashions of dress, 245-250. 
 
 Fellows, Richard, tavern of, 43. 
 
 Fenwick, Mistress Mary, 280. 
 
 Ferries, 88, 170, 173-176. 
 
 Field, Zachary, 125, 146, 148. 
 
 First Church, land of, 87, 88, 165; 
 meeting-houses, 197-204, 210, 211; 
 proposes union with Second Church, 
 209, 210; controversy in, 258, 259. 
 
 Fish, Dr. Eliakim, 318. 
 
 Fisher, Thomas, 148. 
 
 Fitch, 166, 256, 287-289. 
 
 Fitch, Rev. James, 245, 256. 
 
 Fitch, Samuel, 256-259. 
 
 Flagg, Samuel, 130, 235, 236. 
 
 Flagg's tavern, 235, 236. 
 
 Folly Brook, 139. 
 
 Ford, Thomas, 61, 72, 216, 233, 287. 
 
 Ford's inn, 216. 
 
 Fordways, 26, 189, 193. 
 
 Fortified houses, 164. 
 
362 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Foxcroft, Thomas, 230. 
 Foxen, 94. 
 Francis, Asa, 306. 
 Franklin, Benjamin, 230. 
 "Freemen," 77. 
 
 Fundamental Orders, adoption of, 72- 
 77. 
 
 G 
 
 Gabiel, Mary, 245. 
 
 Gallows, 286, 289, 291. 
 
 Gardiner, William, 309. 
 
 Gardner, 127, 171. 
 
 Garret (Garrad), Daniel, 96, 125, 148, 
 285, 288. 
 
 "General Court," 71, 72. 
 
 Gennings, John, 126, 325. 
 
 Gennings, Nicholas, 2, 146, 148. 
 
 Gibbons, William, 33, 114, 121, 125, 
 259, 278, 333. 
 
 Gibbs, 44, 72, 313. 
 
 Gilbert, 114, 192, 195, 237, 238, 283, 
 341. 
 
 Gilbert, Jonathan, 168, 170, 171, 173, 
 236, 237, 253, 285, 296. 
 
 Gildersleve, Richard, 63. 
 
 Goodhue, Betsy, 292. 
 
 Goodman, Richard, 6, 11-13, 125, 137, 
 142, 145, 146, 287. 
 
 Goodrich, Chauncey, 349-352, 357. 
 
 Goodrich, Elizur, 211. 
 
 Goodwin, 299, 300, 315, 342. 
 
 Goodwin, Elder William, leader of 
 pioneers, r 6, 9, 16, 25, 80, 107; house - 
 lot of, 11, 309; proprietor, 124; land 
 granted to, 13, 86, 87, 137, 142, 145; 
 purchases Sequassen's land, 22-24, 
 27, 116; represents Governor Hop- 
 kins, 257-264; sawmill of, 325. 
 
 Gove, William, 315, 340. 
 
 Graham, Benjamin, 186. 
 
 Grannis, Edward, 196. 
 
 Grant, Mathew, 9, 44, 62. 
 
 Grant, President U.S., 225. 
 
 Grant, Seth, 32, 125, 142, 254, 322. 
 
 Grave, George, 32, 125, 205, 208, 285. 
 
 Great Swamp, 139. 
 
 Green, Henry, 287. 
 
 Green, Thomas, 311-313, 315, 341, 342. 
 
 Greene, Bartholomew, 127. 
 
 Greene, Gen. Nathaniel, 178. 
 
 Greenhill, 257, 258, 265. 
 
 Greenhill, Samuel, 2, 32, 257. 
 Greensmith, Nathaniel and Rebecca, 
 
 283-287. 
 Gridley, Thomas, 126, 147. 
 Griswold, Edward, 285. 
 Gross, 300, 307, 332, 338-340. 
 Gross, Jonah, homestead of, 337-340. 
 Gully Brook, 55, 140, 151, 152. 
 Gurney, John, 143. 
 
 II 
 
 Hale, Samuel, 125, 146, 148, 285. 
 
 Hale, Thomas, 125, 146, 149. 
 
 Hall, John, 125, 147, 182-184. 
 
 Halsey, Jeremiah, 223. 
 
 Hamilton, Andrew, 229. 
 
 Hamlin, Alanson, 274. 
 
 Hancox, Thomas, 288. 
 
 Hannison, Martha, 90. 
 
 Hart, 222, 285, 357. 
 
 Hart, Stephen, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 124, 
 142, 146. 
 
 Hartford, town organization of, 47-80; 
 named, 54, 166; original bounds of, 
 116-118; early population, 152, 153; 
 city incorporated, 343-357; bounds 
 of, 350, 351; corporate seal of, 166, 
 167. 
 
 Hartford Aqueduct, 355. 
 
 Hartford Bank, 356. 
 
 Hartford Grammar School, 260-270, 
 272-275. 
 
 Hartford jail, inmates of, 95, 214, 
 282-286, 288, 289, 291; erection of, 
 286-288, 290-292. 
 
 Harvard College, 261, 263. 
 
 Hayden, William, 3, 125, 146, 148, 149. 
 
 Haynes, Gov. John, arrival of, 33; 
 Governor of Massachusetts Colony, 
 67; Magistrate and Governor in 
 Connecticut, 71-73, 79, 98, 108, 110, 
 117, 277; proprietor, 124; land 
 granted to, 137, 142, 145; pasture 
 of, 177, 192; home of, 328. 
 
 Haynes, John, 129, 142, 329. 
 
 Haynes, Rev. Joseph, 142, 196, 204, 
 205, 285, 329. 
 
 Hayward, Henry, 195. 
 
 Hayward (Howard), Samuel, 168, 195, 
 239, 267, 268, 308, 339. 
 
 Hempstead, Joshua, 350. 
 
INDEX 
 
 363 
 
 Hender, Thomas, 194. 
 
 Higginson, Rev. John, 125, 199, 251, 
 252, 254. 
 
 Highways, 10, 26, 43, 44, 139, 141-144, 
 153, 158-160, 169, 178, 354, 355. 
 
 Hill, 61, 315. 
 
 Hilldrup, Thomas, 231, 315, 317. 
 
 Hillhouse, James, 350. 
 
 Hills, John, 147. 
 
 Hills, Jonathan, 211. 
 
 Hills, William, 27, 125, 253, 254, 263, 
 264. 
 
 Hinsdale, Amos, 238, 305. 
 
 Hinsdale, Barnabas, 306. 
 
 Hinsdale, Daniel, 193, 312, 313, 352. 
 
 Hoadly, Dr. Charles J., 17, 19, 200, 
 203, 283. 
 
 Hockanum Indians, 81, 91-94, 117, 118. 
 
 Hog River, 143, 182. 
 
 Holbrook, Samuel, 273. 
 
 Holloway, John, 3, 125, 146, 148, 165, 
 304. 
 
 Holmes, Lieut. William, 46, 103, 106. 
 
 Holton, William, 2, 125, 149. 
 
 Homesteads, 319-321, 326. 
 
 Hooker, 130, 196, 223, 246, 249, 307, 
 308, 311, 313, 330. 
 
 Hooker, Rev. Samuel, 285. 
 
 Hooker, Rev. Thomas, purposes a 
 removal from Newtown, 1-10, 18-22; 
 pilgrimage of, 34—46; arrival at 
 Hartford, 24, 25; leader in the emi- 
 gration, 30; company of, 5, 11, 13, 
 24, 30-34; lot reserved for, 11; polit- 
 ical opinions of, 20, 21, 64, 65, 73, 
 74; favors the Pequot War, 83, 84; 
 acquires land, 137, 142, 145, 169; 
 proprietor, 124; is given meeting- 
 house by the town, 198, 199; en- 
 gaged in trade, 299; home of, 193, 
 322-324, 330. 
 
 Hopewell, Sarah, 88. 
 
 Hopkins, 155, 178, 279, 310, 357. 
 
 Hopkins, Dr. Lemuel, 318. 
 
 Hopkins, Gov. Edward, arrival of, 33; 
 chosen committee, 72, 73; Magis- 
 trate, 79, 277; Governor, 108; pro- 
 prietor, 124; engages in trade, 298, 
 300; builds a bridge, 187, 188; 
 acquires land, 135; homestead and 
 buildings of, 96, 193, 332, 333; favors 
 a grammar school, 255-258; makes 
 a bequest for education, 260-264; 
 
 coat of arms in the schoolhouse, 
 265. 
 
 Hopkins, John, 2, 32, 125. 
 
 Hosmer, 129, 222, 270, 272, 314. 
 
 Hosmer, Thomas, 33, 108, 124, 209, 
 233. 
 
 House of Hope, 3, 11, 16, 100, 103, 107, 
 109, 110, 112-115, 136, 181, 193. 
 
 Houses, building of, 55, 154-156; 
 schools in, 252-265, 321-327; fur- 
 nishings of, 327-331. 
 
 Hubbard, 337, 338. 
 
 Hubbard, George, 72, 80, 126. 
 
 Hudson and Goodwin, 194, 312, 357. 
 
 Hudson, Barzillai, 306, 307, 312, 352. 
 
 Hull, George, 72. 
 
 Humphrey, Lemuel, 189. 
 
 Hunt, Jonathan, 335. 
 
 Hurlbut, Thomas, 147. 
 
 Huske, Ellis, 229. 
 
 Hutchinson, Gov. Thomas, 34-36. 
 
 Hutchinson, Mrs. Ann, 252. 
 
 Hyde, Ezra, 195, 308. 
 
 Hyde, William, 32, 125. 
 
 Imlay, 115, 186, 196, 316. 
 
 "Imlay's Mills," 185-187. 
 
 Imports, 295, 298, 299, 346, 347, 352. 
 
 Ince, Jonathan, 124, 127, 146. 
 
 Indian fort, 84-90. 
 
 "Indian Land," 84-89. 
 
 Indian paths, 9, 10, 35-46, 81. 
 
 Indian village, 10, 81-83. 
 
 Indians, lands purchased from, 14, 
 
 22-24, 116-118. 
 "Inhabitants," 49-51, 69, 70, 72, 73, 
 
 116, 117, 120, 123, 136. 
 Inns, ordered, 215, 216, 233; courts 
 
 convened at, 215-220; social life of, 
 
 232-235. 
 Ipswich, 1, 2. 
 Islands, 114, 137, 167, 168, 185, 193, 
 
 195, 196. 
 
 Jackson, President Andrew, 225. 
 
 Janes, Jonathan, 292. 
 
 Jeffrey, John, 273. 
 
 Jepson, Dr. William, 231, 306, 317. 
 
364 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Johnson, Mary, 283. 
 Johnson, President Andrew, 225. 
 Jones, 143, 177-179, 309, 310. 
 Judd, Thomas, 2, 32, 125. 
 
 K 
 
 Kake, Goodwife, 267. 
 
 Keeler, Ralph, 125. 
 
 Keith, John, 316. 
 
 Kellogg, Nathaniel, 125. 
 
 Kelsey, William, 6, 11, 13, 125, 196, 
 
 303. 
 Ketchell, Samuel, 93. 
 Kieft, Director William, 111, 112. 
 Kilbourn, Samuel, 178. 
 King Philip's War, 42, 94, 96, 240. 
 Knowles, John, 145, 179. 
 Knox, William, 172, 175, 179, 238. 
 
 La Fayette, Marquis, 225, 226. 
 
 Lands, recorded, 4, 52, 58, 60, 62, 132; 
 forfeited, 13, 14, 121; purchased 
 from the Indians, 22-24, 27, 104-106, 
 116, 118, 120; granted by the town's 
 courtesy, 119, 120; distribution of, 
 10, 12, 13, 53, 54, 60, 63, 78, 79, 83, 
 84. 
 
 Landing-place, 169-172, 176. 
 
 Langdon, John, 274. 
 
 Latimer, John, 127. 
 
 Lawrence, John, 200, 270, 316, 321. 
 
 Laws, code of, 78, 277, 278. 
 
 Lay, Edward, 126, 147, 149. 
 
 Ledlie, Hugh, 230, 316. 
 
 Ledlie, Samuel, 186, 196. 
 
 Ledyard, John, 130, 186, 231. 
 
 Lello, Sir Henry, 260. 
 
 Lewis, 172, 273, 304. 
 
 Lewis, William, 11, 32, 124, 142, 145, 
 304. 
 
 Lincoln, President Abraham, 268. 
 
 Little Meadow, 10, 82, 83, 134, 135, 
 168, 177-180. 
 
 Little Ox Pasture, 13, 138. 
 
 Little River, 10, 16, 26, 133, 181-196. 
 
 Livingston, Peter R., 195. 
 
 Long, Thomas, 185. 
 
 Loomis, 189, 222, 274. 
 
 Lord, 129, 195, 207, 227, 228, 301, 
 
 329. 
 Lord, John Haynes, 177, 315, 330. 
 Lord, Richard, 32, 114, 125, 298. 299, 
 
 301, 322, 323, 329. 
 Lord, Thomas, 3, 32, 33, 55, 125, 155. 
 Lord, Thomas, Jr., 32, 125. 
 Loveridge, William, 264, 265. 
 Ludlow, Roger, 8, 17, 20, 39, 60, 62, 
 
 66-68, 72, 73, 79, 80. 
 Lyman, Richard, 32, 125, 156, 322. 
 
 M 
 
 Manchester, 118. 
 
 Manorolos, 85-87. 
 
 Manufactures, 193, 194, 196, 242, 303, 
 
 304, 313, 314. 
 Maps and plans, 11, 38, 44, 85, 88, 93, 
 
 134, 182, 183, 306, 354. 
 Maritime Company, 179. 
 Markets, 194, 296, 297. 
 
 Marsh, 145, 185, 186, 196, 300, 331, 
 
 335, 347, 352. 
 Marsh, John, 32, 118, 125. 
 Marshall, 72, 285. 
 Marvin, Mathew, 3, 6, 11, 12, 16, 124, 
 
 135, 142. 
 Mashoot, Robin, 89. 
 
 Mason, Major John, 72, 80, 233, 242. 
 Massachusetts, jurisdiction of, 1, 18, 
 
 19, 21. 
 Massecup, 96, 97. 
 Mathews, William, 288. 
 May, Hezekiah, 211. 
 Maynard, John, 32, 125, 327. 
 McDowell, Alexander, 291. 
 McKnight, John, 229, 230, 299, 301, 
 
 302. 
 McLean, 293, 310. 
 Meaking, Thomas, 288. 
 Meers, Stephen, 309, 310. 
 Meeting-houses, 197-214. 
 Meeting-house yard, 10, 153, 162, 200, 
 
 227, 296, 297, 337-342, 357. 
 Merchants, 297-303. 
 Merrill, 155, 196, 309, 310, 352. 
 Messenger, Daniel, 174, 175, 179. 196, 
 
 238. 
 Methodists, 214. 
 Miantinomo, 84, 86, 94-96, 106. 
 Middle Ox Pasture, 13, 141. 
 
INDEX 
 
 365 
 
 Military trainings, 241-244. 
 
 Mills, 12, 182-189, 193, 325. 
 
 Mitchell, John, homestead of, 338. 
 
 Mitchell, Mathew, 62, 72. 
 
 Monroe, President James, 225. 
 
 Moody, John, 32, 56, 123, 124, 305. 
 
 Mookler, James, 314, 315. 
 
 Moor, 317. 
 
 Moore, 61, 219. 
 
 Moraheick, 93. 
 
 Morgan, Elias, 292. 
 
 Morgan, John, 223, 317, 352, 356, 357. 
 
 Morgan, Joseph, 144. 
 
 Morris, John, 125, 216, 338. 
 
 Morrison, Dr. Normand, 178, 179, 230 
 
 317. 
 Morrison, Dr. Roderick, homestead of, 
 
 340-342. 
 Morse, Moses, 318. 
 Moseley, William, 291, 317, 357. 
 Moween, 288. 
 Moxon, George, 72, 73. 
 Mudge, Jarvis, 284. 
 Munn, Benjamin, 126, 146, 148. 
 Munnumquask, 89. 
 Munson, Thomas, 146, 149. 
 Murray, Cotton, 195, 238, 313, 318. 
 Mygatt, Joseph, 32, 125, 126, 185, 186 
 238, 321. 
 
 N 
 
 Namerick Brook, 44-46. 
 
 Nassehegan, 97. 
 
 Natawanute, 81, 84, 94, 103, 104, 106. 
 
 Neale, Thomas, 229. 
 
 Neck, 16, 138. 
 
 Nevins, 316. 
 
 Newberry, Roger, 291. 
 
 Nichols, 118, 129, 189, 193, 194, 273 
 
 352. 
 North Meadow, 10, 135, 136. 
 North-side Plantation, 15, 22, 52-57, 
 
 73, 123, 131-133. 
 Norton, Jacob, 194. 
 
 
 
 Olcott, 164, 165, 177, 178, 208, 286, 
 
 300, 309, 350, 352. 
 Olcott, Thomas, 125, 146, 240. 
 Oldham, John, 37, 107. 
 
 Old Ox Pasture, 142. 
 
 Olmsted, James, 11, 12, 32, 124 135 
 
 142, 156. 
 Olmsted, John, 32, 125, 149. 
 Olmsted, Nicholas, 12, 14, 147, 285. 
 Olmsted, Richard, 32, 125, 135, 146. 
 Onepenny, Sarah, 88, 89. 
 Opdyck, Gysbert, 107, 108. 
 "Original Distribution," 131-133, 320. 
 Osborn, John, 45. 
 Ox Pasture, 138. 
 Ox Pasture River, 141, 182. 
 
 Packs, Henry, 202. 
 
 Palisado, 10, 16, 215. 
 
 Palmer, Cotton, 211, 212. 
 
 Pantry, 143, 169, 177, 323. 
 
 Pantry, William, 2, 6, 11, 12, 124 142 
 169, 322. 
 
 Parker, James, 229, 230, 231. 
 
 Parker, Rev. Thomas, 1. 
 
 Parker, William, 32, 125, 142, 147. 
 
 Parkman, Elias, 45. 
 
 Parsons, Isaac, 274. 
 
 Patten, George J., 222, 274. 
 
 Patten, Nathaniel, 194, 313. 
 
 Patten, Rev. William, 274, 306. 
 
 Payne, Benjamin, 299, 309. 
 
 Pease, Nathaniel, 175, 238. 
 
 Peck, Paul, 126, 149. 
 
 Peirce, John, 125, 146, 148, 149. 
 
 Pelton, Samuel, 238. 
 
 Penalties and punishments, 277-282 
 
 286. 
 "Pequot Heads," 89, 90. 
 "Pequot Path," 39. 
 Pequot War, 33, 48, 55, 71, 83, 84, 90 
 
 117, 146-150, 242. 
 Perkins, Enoch, 275. 
 Perkins, Frederick B., 187. 
 Perry, John, 228. 
 Pesiponck, 90, 91. 
 Peters, Rev. Hugh, 18, 19, 111. 
 Phelps, 317, 341, 355. 
 Phelps, William, 60, 66-68, 72. 
 Phillips, William, 125, 146, 149. 
 Physicians, 239, 306, 316-318. 
 Pinefield, 141. 
 Pin Tree Hill, 145. 
 Pioneers of Hartford, 4-16. 
 
366 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Piper's River, 145. 
 
 Pitkin, 92, 238. 
 
 Pitkin, William, 221, 259, 260. 
 
 "Plantations," 48-63. 
 
 Plumb, John, 72. 
 
 Plymouth traders, 8, 17, 100-104, 107. 
 
 Podunk Indians, 81, 94, 95, 117, 118. 
 
 Poke Hill, 139. 
 
 Polk, President James K., 225. 
 
 Pomeroy, Ralph, 194. 
 
 Porter, Solomon, 177, 191, 193-195, 
 
 274, 354. 
 Porter, Thomas, 127. 
 Porter, William S., 11, 82, 134, 136, 
 
 138, 167. 
 Post, Stephen, 2, 32, 125, i.01. 
 Postal service, 228-231. 
 Pounds, 53, 162. 
 
 Pratt, 165, 186, 222, 317, 318, 335, 352. 
 Pratt, John, 32, 125, 126, 287. 
 Pratt, William, 125, 146, 148. 
 Proprietors of Hartford, 116-130. 
 Proprietorship, 50, 60, 63, 78, 79, 119, 
 
 120, 127. 
 Parehase, John, 125, 146, 149. 
 Pynchon, John, 201, 331. 
 Pynchon, Rev. William, 39, 50, 51, 66, 
 
 •17, 72. 
 
 (i 
 
 "Quabaug Path," 41. 
 
 R 
 
 Ramsey, Jonathan, 341, 342. 
 Randall, Abraham, 44. 
 Raynor, Thurston, 72. 
 Reed, Joseph, 194, 308. 
 Revolutionary War, 179, 194, 308, 
 
 317, 318, 321, 344-346, 356. 
 Richards, 259, 333, 334. 
 Richards, James, 96, 117, 155, 209, 
 
 246, 264, 330, 332-337. 
 Richards, Nathaniel, 32, 125, 142. 
 Richards, Thomas, 126. 
 Richards, Thomas, son of James, 129, 
 
 334, 335. 
 Risley, Richard, 125, 149. 
 Rocky Hill, 139. 
 Rogers, 288, 291. 
 Root, Thomas, 125, 146, 148. 
 
 Rosseter, Bray, 60-62. 
 
 "Rule of Division," 122, 124, 125. 
 
 Ruscoe, Nathaniel, 283, 322. 
 
 Ruscoe, William, 3, 32, 124, 142, 283, 
 
 286-288. 
 Russell, Dr. Gurdon W., 163, 222. 
 
 Sable, John, 125. 
 
 Sadd, John, 196. 
 
 Sadler, John, 237. 
 
 Saltonstall, Gov. Gurdon, 42, 220, 333. 
 
 Saltonstall, Sir Richard, 19, 28. 
 
 Sandford, Zachary, 139, 218, 219, 
 
 233-235, 331. 
 Sanford, 147, 308. 
 
 Sanford, Andrew and Mary, 284, 285. 
 Saybrook, 18, 25-28. 
 Saye and Sele, Lord, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 
 
 28, 106, 111. 
 School districts, 269-272. 
 Schools, 251-275. 
 Scipio Two Shoes, 88, 89. 
 Scott, 216, 280, 288. 
 Scott, Thomas, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 55, 124, 
 
 142, 169, 183, 197, 216, 279, 280. 
 Seager, Richard and Elizabeth, 284- 
 
 286. 
 Second Church, formed, 204, 205; 
 lands of, 87, 88, 189, 305-307, 311; 
 meeting-houses, 190, 205-208, 211- 
 213. 
 Sedgwick, Eben, 212. 
 Selden, Thomas, 125, 149. 
 Sequassen, 23, 81, 85-87, 92, 96, 116, 
 
 117. 
 Seymour, 145, 155, 186, 193, 194, 207, 
 230, 239, 240, 307, 309, 321, 341, 352. 
 Seymour, Captain Thomas, 334, 335. 
 Seymour, Mayor Thomas, 268, 349- 
 
 352, 357. 
 Seymour, Richard, 126, 148, 327. 
 Seymour, Thomas, Esq., 212, 267, 268, 
 
 272, 308. 
 Seymour, Thomas Y., 268, 274. 
 Sexton, Knight, 230. 
 Sheldon, 193, 194, 305, 330, 335. 
 Sheldon, Isaac, homestead of, 835-337. 
 Shepard, 193, 194, 257, 309, 317, 350. 
 Shepard, Rev. Thomas, 4-7, 24, 261. 
 Sherman, Roger, 345. 
 
INDEX 
 
 367 
 
 Ships, arrival of, 2-4, 18; owned at 
 
 Hartford, 299, 300, 338, 339; trans- 
 port provisions, 8, 31, 338. 
 Shipyards, 178, 179, 192, 300. 
 Shops and stores, 165, 192-195, 297, 
 
 303-318. 
 Short, Thomas, 229. 
 Sidewalks, 161. 
 Skinner, 194, 195, 290, 310. 
 Skinner, John, 32, 125, 183, 184. 
 Sloan, Robert, 301, 302. 
 Sloan, Thomas, 318. 
 Smith, 178, 237, 238, 315. 
 Smith, Arthur, 32, 125, 147. 
 Smith, Captain George, 317, 349, 350, 
 
 352. 
 Smith, Dr. Solomon, 178, 302, 316. 
 Smith, Giles, 126. 
 Smith, Rev. Henry, 62. 
 Smyth, Henry, 66, 67, 72. 
 Social morality, 281, 282. 
 Social vices, 240, 241, 244, 245. 
 Soldiers' Field, 82-84, 132, 146-148. 
 Songonosk, 93. 
 Southfield, 139. 
 
 South Meadow, 13, 84-90, 135, 136. 
 South-side Plantation, 22, 26-28, 52- 
 
 57, 73, 123, 131-134. 
 Sowheag, 81. 
 
 Spencer, 142, 184, 196, 332. 
 Spencer, Thomas, 33, 146, 163. 
 Spencer, William, 33, 54-56, 67, 78, 
 
 80, 123, 124, 141, 184, 198, 200, 260, 
 
 322. 
 Springfield, 31, 43, 50-52, 72, 73, 94, 
 
 131, 201. 
 Stanley, 118, 129, 147, 170-172, 189, 
 
 191, 194, 207, 290, 311, 329, 331. 
 Stanley, Thomas, 2, 6, 11, 12, 124, 125, 
 
 137, 142, 148, 311. 
 Stanley, Timothy, 2, 11, 32, 124, 126, 
 
 322. 
 Stanton, Thomas, 32, 125, 147, 285, 
 
 290, 298. 
 State House, of 1719, 221, 222; of 1792, 
 
 222-226, 356, 357. 
 Stebbins, Edward, 11, 13, 32, 125, 135, 
 
 145, 173, 257, 258, 262, 264, 287, 322. 
 Steele, 164, 259, 306. 
 Steele, George, 32, 114, 125, 146, 149. 
 Steele, John, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 55-58, 
 
 62, 66-73, 80, 124, 126, 132, 135, 142, 
 
 169, 184, 215-217, 227. 
 
 Stiles, Francis, party of, 8, 17. 
 
 Stiles, Henry, 44. 
 
 Stocking, George, 2, 32, 125. 
 
 Stone, John, 11, 13, 32, 147. 
 
 Stone, Rev. Samuel, a leader, 2, 4, 30, 
 80; removal of, 24-27; lot reserved 
 for, 11; proprietor, 124; land granted 
 to, 109, 137, 142; purchases Sequas- 
 sen's land, 22-24, 27, 116; serves in 
 the Pequot War, 147; examines the 
 witches, 283-285; in church contro- 
 versy, 258; home of, 322, 323, 327, 
 329, 330. 
 
 Stone Pit Hill, 145. 
 
 Stone quarries, 55, 155, 324. 
 
 Strong, Nehemiah, 273. 
 
 Strong, Rev. Nathan, 302, 309. 
 
 Stuart, Hon. Isaac W., homestead of, 
 218, 219. 
 
 Stuyvesant, Director Peter, 113. 
 
 Suckiaug, agents visit, 2, 3; Indians 
 of, 2, 10, 23, 81-84; pioneers at, 
 7-16; lands purchased, 22-24. 
 
 Swaine, William, 66-68. 
 
 Swift, Rowland, 210. 
 
 Tantiusque, 38, 42. 
 Tantonimo, 92, 93. 
 Talcott, 117, 118, 129, 164, 165, 172, 
 
 196, 235, 265, 267, 317, 329, 330. 
 
 352, 355. 
 Talcott, John, 11, 12, 32, 55, 56, 67, 
 
 72, 73, 110, 124, 126, 142, 145, 163, 
 
 188, 216, 217, 254, 258, 259, 277, 287, 
 
 322. 
 Taverns, 175, 179, 236-240. 
 Taxation, 54, 57, 119-123, 127, 128, 
 
 345-348, 351. 
 Taylor, 189, 193, 195. 
 "Taylor Collection," 337. 
 Terry, Nathaniel, 226. 
 Thomas, John, 195, 314. 
 Thompson, Andrew, 195, 273. 
 Thornton, 61, 175, 176. 
 Tidmarsh, Dr. Richard, 317. 
 Tiley, 172, 179, 213, 214, 237, 315, 316 
 Tillotson, Joseph, 186. 
 Todd, Ira, 189. 
 Toocker, Joseph, 179. 
 Toto of Windsor, 94. 
 
368 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Town clerk, 57-60, 62, 227, 228. 
 
 Town Common, 128-130, 143, 144, 146. 
 
 Town court, 59-63. 
 
 Town Votes, 54, 55. 
 
 Town's courtesy grants, 119, 120, 125- 
 
 127, 134. 
 Townsmen, 51, 52, 55, 57, 61, 62. 
 Trumbull, 166, 223, 224, 244, 246, 260, 
 
 265, 274, 352, 857. 
 Trumbull, Dr. J. Hammond, 23, 67, 
 
 93 259, 283. 
 Trumbull, Gov. Jonathan, 230, 297, 
 
 345-348. 
 Tryper, Sally. 245. 
 Tucker, Isaac, 230, 307, 308. 
 
 I' 
 
 Uncas, 86, 92, 94, 95. 
 Uncas, Joshua, 93, 118, 128. 
 Underhill, Captain John, 113, 114. 
 Updike, John, 113, 114. 
 Updike, John, 303. 
 Upson, Thomas, 125. 
 
 Van Curler, Jacob, 103-105. 
 
 Vane, Henry, Jr., 18, 19. 
 
 Van Twiller, Director Wouter, 102, 107. 
 
 Varlett, 246, 284. 
 
 Venturers' Field, see Adventurers' 
 
 Field. 
 Verstille, Peter, 341. 
 Vibbard, Elisha, 178. 
 Visiting customs, 242. 
 
 W 
 
 Warehouses, 165, 170-172, 176, 178, 
 
 300, 301, 303, 313, 317. 
 Warren, Thomas, 208, 331. 
 Warren, William, 206, 265. 
 Warwick, Earl of, 17, 28, 67, 111. 
 Warwick Patent, settlement under, 14, 
 
 17-29, 65-68, 106, 107. 
 Washburn, Albert L., 114, 314, 354. 
 Washington College (Trinity), 192. 
 Washington, President George, 194, 
 
 237, 344. 
 
 Watkinson, Robert, 228. 
 
 Watson, 177, 178, 306, 307. 
 
 Watson, Ebenezer, 306, 307, 311-313, 
 
 315. 
 Watson, Rev. Caleb, 266. 
 Watts, Richard, 125, 149. 
 Watts, Thomas, 90, 149, 209. 
 Watts, William, 126, 149. 
 \Y;i\varme, 97. 
 
 Webb, Richard, 6, 11, 12, 124, 142. 
 Webster, 227, 240, 285, 316, 324. 
 Webster, Gov. John, 32, 72, 73, 78, 
 
 124, 126, 135, 258, 277. 
 Webster, Noah, 273. 
 Welles, Gov. Thomas, 32, 55, 69, 72, 
 
 73, 80, 124, 126, 135, 277, 330. 
 Welles, Hon. Gideon, 268. 
 Wells, 177, 179, 220, 268, 352. 
 West Division, 117, 118, 128, 143, 152. 
 
 213, 269. 
 Westfield, 140. 
 
 West India Company, 26, 99-101. 
 Westley, William, 125, 149. 
 West River, 141. 
 Westwood, William, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 
 
 56, 66-69, 123, 124, 130, 142, 163, 
 
 179, 188. 
 Wethersfield, settlers of, 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 
 
 17-20; Indians, 81; town organiza- 
 tion of, 47, 48, 62, 63. 
 Wharves, 169, 172, 175-177. 
 Wheelock, Rev. Eleazar, 274. 
 White, Elder John, 24-27, 124, 209, 
 
 258, 259, 332. 
 Whitefield, Rev. George, 212. 
 Whitehead, Samuel, 32, 147. 
 Whiting, 88, 89, 170, 185, 207, 257, 
 
 274, 288, 307, 331. 
 Whiting, Joseph, homestead of, 307, 
 
 331, 332. 
 Whiting, Rev. John, 204-209. 284, 285, 
 
 331. 
 Whiting, William, 32 124, 257, 277, 
 
 298-301, 322, 331. 
 Whitman, Rev. Elnathan, 289, 308. 
 Wigglesworth, Rev. Michael, 258. 
 Wilcox, John, 32, 125, 185, 242. 
 Willetts, Nathaniel, 265, 285. 
 Williams, 93, 196, 231, 313, 335. 
 Williams, Rev. Roger, 90. 
 Williamson, 237, 299. 
 Willoughby, Francis, 261. 
 Wilson. 237. 2t<). 
 
 
INDEX 
 
 369 
 
 Windsor, settlers of, 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 
 17-20, 41, 44-46, 49, 50; Indians, 
 81, 88, 89; town organization of, 
 47, 48, 59-62. 
 
 Windsor Town Votes, 61, 62. 
 
 Winslow, Gov. Edward, 102. 
 
 Winthrop, Gov. John, Jr., regent under 
 the Warwick patentees, 18-20; 
 65-€8; at Saybrook, 25-29, 33; 
 grant of Tantiusque to, 38; journey 
 of, 38, 41, 216; a resident of Hartford, 
 329. 
 
 Witchcraft, 282-286. 
 
 Wolcott, 61, 285. 
 
 Wolcott, Hon. Oliver, 224. 
 
 Wolterton, Gregory, 32, 56, 114, 125, 
 209, 285, 322. 
 
 Wolves, 139. 
 
 Wood, Benjamin, 186, 194. 
 
 Woodbridge, 224, 240, 332, 335, 336. 
 
 Woodbridge, Mrs. Abigail, 272, 309. 
 
 Woodbridge, Rev. Samuel, 249. 
 
 Woodford, Thomas, 125. 
 
 Woods River, 141, 142. 
 
 Woodward and Saffery, 38, 41, 42, 44. 
 
 Work-house, 289-294. 
 
 Worthington, William, 238. 
 
 Wright, 273, 288, 315. 
 
 Wyllys, George, 33, 78, 79, 124, 135, 
 
 277, 329. 
 Wyllys, George, Esq., 219, 228, 351, 
 
 357. 
 Wyllys, Hezekiah, 228. 
 Wyllys, Samuel, 117, 129, 164, 218, 264. 
 
 277, 285, 329. 
 Wyllys, Col. Samuel, 166, 302, 352. 
 
 Yale, Ann, 260. 
 Yale College, 221, 261, 263. 
 Yeomans.. Jonathan, 186. 
 Young, Alse, 283. 
 Young, Seth, 212.