HISTORY OF NEW LONDON COUNTY, CONNECTICUT,
WITH BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF MANY OF ITS PIONEERS AND PROMINENT MEN.
COMPILED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF D. HAMILTON HURD
J. W. LEWIS & CO., PHILADELPHIA, 1882
PRESS OF J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO., PHILADELPHIA

[transcribed by Janece Streig]

CHAPTER IX.

NEW LONDON
Pages 137 - 143

Geographical - Topographical - The Founder of New London - John WINTHROP the Younger - The First Grant -Fisher's Island - Government Commission for the Founding of New London - Naming the Town - Home Lots - The Town Plot - The Removal of WINTHROP - Initial Events - The First Birth, Marriage, and Death - Indian Troubles - Fortifications - Early Dissensions - Patent of New London.

         



The town of New London lies in the southern part of the country, and is bounded as follows: on the north by Waterford; on the east by New London Harbor, which separates it from Groton; on the south by Long Island Sound; and on the west by Waterford. It is the smallest town in area in the State, the town and city limits being identical.

The Founder of New London.-To John WINTHROP the younger is ascribed the honor of having been the founder of New London. It seems that he entered into the project with the same zeal which marked the advent of Maj. PYNCHEON at Springfield, Roger LUDLOW at Fairfield, and other intrepid pioneers, who have left imperishable records of their enterprise and wisdom.

The first grant of WINTHROP was of Fisher's Island, by the State of Massachusetts, Oct. 7, 1640. That State, however, reserved the right of Connecticut, provided the island should be decided to belong to that colony. Under date April 9, 1641, the General Court of Connecticut, upon application from Mr. WINTHROP for a clearer title to the island, answered as follows:

"April 9, 1641. "Upon Mr. WINTHROP's motion to the Court for Fysher's Island, it is the mind of the Court that so far as it hinders not the public good of the country, either for fortifying for defence, or setting up a trade for fishing or salt, and such like, he shall have liberty to proceed therein."

In 1664, Fisher's Island was included in the patent of New York, and in 1668, Governor NICHOLS, of New York, confirmed to him the possession of the island by patent bearing date March 28, 1668. By this patent it was declared to be "an entire enfranchised township, manor, and place of itself, in no wise subordinate or belonging into, or dependent upon, any riding, township, please, or jurisdiction whatever."

It seems, however, that Mr. WINTHROP was in no haste to occupy his grant, for it was not until 1644, three years after its confirmation by Connecticut, that he located upon the island. In the opening of that year he commenced improvements, and on June 28, 1644, he obtained a grant from Massachusetts of a "plantation at or near Pequot for iron-works."

This location was thus described by Capt. STOUGHTON in 1637, while here on his expedition against the Pequots. After noting the absence of meadows and stating that the uplands were good, he says,--

"Indeed, were there no better, 'twere worthy the best of us, the upland being, as I judge, stronger land than the bay upland.

"But if you would enlarge the state and provide for the poor servants of Christ that are yet unprovided (which I esteem a worthy work), I must speak my conscience. It seems to me God hath much people to bring hither, and the place is too strait [i.e., the settlements in the Bay], most thin. And if so, then considering, 1st the goodness of the land; 2d, the fairness of the title; 3d, the neighborhood to Connecticut; 4th, the good access that may be thereto, wherein it is before Connecticut, etc.; and 5th, that an ill neighbor may possess it, if a good do not. - I should readily give it to my good word, if any good soul have a good liking to it."

The "neighborhood to Connecticut" mentioned by Capt. Stoughton meant the plantations on the river. Pequot was not a part of it.

In the summer of 1645, Mr. WINTHROP had become an actual settler of the plantation at Pequot, and was engaged in "clearing up the land and laying out the new plantation." He was assisted in the enterprise by Thomas PETERS, a Puritan clergyman from Cornwall, England, who had been chaplain to Mr. FENWICK and the garrison of the fort at Saybrook.

As an evidence that Mr. WINTHROP was here in 1645, is a letter written by Roger WILLIAMS, under date June 22, 1645. "For his honored, kind friend, Mr. John WINTHROP, at Pequot - THESE." The letter closes with these words, "Loving salutes to your dearest and kind sister." The lady referred to was Mr. WINTHROP's sister, Mrs. Margaret LAKE. Here, then, we have conclusive evidence that three pioneers were on the grounds of the new plantation in 1645. In addition to the above, there were, doubtless, others here at the same time, for in 1645 the meadow at Lower Mamacock was mowed by Robert HEMPSTEAD, Upper MAMACOCK by John STEBBINS and Isaac WILLEY, and at Fog-plain by Cary LATHAM and Jacob WATERHOUSE. Thomas MINER and William MORTON were doubtless also among the band of pioneers who commenced improvements where in 1645.

Government Commission for the Founding of New London.-The following order of the General Court, recognizing the settlement in the "Pequot Country," was made under date of May 6, 1646:

"At a General Court held at Boston, 6th of May, 1646. Whereas, Mr. John WINTHROP, Jun., and some others have, by allowance of this Court, begun a plantation in the Pequot country, which appertains to this jurisdiction as part of our proportion of the conquered country; and whereas, this court is informed that some Indians who are now planted upon the place where the said plantation is begun are willing to removed from their planting-ground for the more quiet and convenient settling of the English there, so that they may have another convenient place appointed; it is therefore ordered that Mr. John WINTHROP may appoint unto such Indians as are willing to remove, their lands on the other side; that is, on the east side of the Great River of the Pequot country, or some other place for convenient planting and subsistence, which may be to the good liking and satisfaction of the said Indians, and likewise to such of the Pequot Indians as shall desire to live there, submitting themselves to the English government, &c.

"And whereas, Mr. Thomas PETERS is intended to inhabit in the said plantation, this court doth think fit to join him to assist the said Mr. WINTHROP, for the better carrying on the work of said plantation. A true copy," &c.-New London Records, Book vi.

The elder WINTHROP records the commencement of the plantation under date of June, 1646:

"At a General Court held at Boston, 6th of May, 1646. Whereas, Mr. John WINTHROP, Jun., and some others have, by allowance of this Court, begun a plantation in the Pequot country, which appertains to this jurisdiction as part of our proportion of the conquered county; and whereas, this court is informed that some Indians who are now planted upon the place where the said plantation is begun are willing to remove from the planting-ground for the more quiet and convenient settling of the English there, so that they may have another convenient place appointed; it is there fore ordered that Mr. John WINTHROP may appoint unto such Indians as are willing to remove, their lands on the other side; that is, on the east side of the Great River of the Pequot country, or some other place for their convenient planting and subsistence, which may be to the good liking and satisfaction of the said Indians, and likewise to such of the Pequot Indians as shall desire to live there, submitting themselves to the English government, &c.

"And whereas, Mr. Thomas Peters is intended to inhabit in the said plantation, this court doth think fit to join him to assist the said Mr. WINTHROP, for the better carrying on the work of said plantation. A true copy," &c.-New London Records, Book vi.

The elder WINTHROP records the commencement of the plantation under date of June, 1646:

"A plantation was this year begun at Pequod river by Mr. John WINTHROP, Jun. [and] Mr. Thomas PETER, a minister (brother to Mr. PETER, of Salem), and [at] this Court power was given to them two for ordering and governing the plantation till further order, although it was uncertain whether it would fall within our jurisdiction or not, because they of Connecticut challenged it by virtue of a patent from the king, which was never showed us." "It mattered not much to which jurisdiction it did belong, seeing the confederation made all us one; but it was of great concernment to have it planted, to be a curb to the Indians." 1 [1. Sav. WINTHROP, vol. Ii. P. 265.]

The uncertainty with respect to jurisdiction hung at first like a cloud over the plantation. The subject was discussed at the meeting of the commissioners at New Haven, In September 1646. Massachusetts claimed by conquest, Connecticut by patent, purchase, and conquest. The record says,--

"It was remembered that in a treaty betwixt them at Cambridge, in 1638, not perfected, a proposition was made that Pequot river, in reference to the conquest, should be the bounds betwixt them, but Mr. FENWICK was not then there to plead the patent, neither had Connecticut then any title to those lands by purchase or deed of gift from Uncas."

"The decision at this time was, that unless hereafter Massachusetts should show better title, the jurisdiction should belong to Connecticut. This issue did not settle the controversy. It was again agitated at the Commissioners' Court, held at Boston, in July, 1647, at which time Mr. WINTHROP, who had been supposed to favor the claims of Massachusetts, expressed himself as 'more indifferent,' but affirmed that some members of the plantation who had settled there, in reference to the government of Massachusetts and in expectation of large privileges from that colony, would be much disappointed if it should be assigned to any other jurisdiction.

"The majority again gave their voice in favor of Connecticut, assigning the reason-'Jurisdiction goeth constantly with the patent.' 2 [2. Records of the United Colonies. (Hazard, vol. Ii.)]

"Massachusetts made repeated exceptions to this decision. The argument was in truth weak, inasmuch as the Warwick Patent seems never to have been transferred to Connecticut,--the colony being for many years without even a copy of that instrument. The right from conquest was the only valid foundation on which she could rest her claim, and here her position was impregnable.

"Mr. PETERS appears to have been from the first associated with WINTHROP in the projected settlement, having a co-ordinate authority and manifesting an equal degree of zeal and energy in the undertaking. But his continuance in the country, and all his plans in regard to the new town, were cut short by a summons from home, inviting him to return to the guidance of his eminent flock in Cornwall. He left Pequot in the summer of 1646." 3 [3. Miss CAULKINS.}

Mr. WINTHROP, accompanied by his family and brother, Dean WINTHROP, left Boston in October, 1646, and resided the first winter on Fisher's Island. The following summer, having erected a house on the "townplot" at New London, he removed his family to the new location comprising that part of the town afterwards known by the name of "WINTHROP's Neck," now East New London.

"STUBENS and Thomas MINER, for the yeare following, to act in all towne affaires, as well in the disposing of lands as in other prudentiall occasions for the towne."

Voted that the Town Be called London.-"The same day the inhabitants did consent and desire that the plantation my be called London."

It was also proposed that the town should be styled "Pequit Plantation, or London." The General Court declined to sanction the name chosen, and it continued to be called by the Indian name Mameeug. The town, however, soon became known as Lon'on Town or New Lon'on.

House-Lots.-The grantees of house-lots were thirty-six in number. The five lots after WINTHROP's were probably John GAGER, Cary LATHAM, Samuel LOTHROP, John STEBBINS, and Isaac WILLEY, whose homesteads lay northwest of Mr. WINTHROP's on the upper part of what are now William Street and Main Street.

"7. Jacob WATERHOUSE is granted by a general voate and joynt consent of the townsmen of Mameeug to have six ackers for an house-lot next to John STUBENS, be it more or less."

Thomas MINER, William BOARDMAN, William MORTON. These three were in the southwest part of the town plot, between Bream and Close Coves, covering what is now known as Shaw's Neck. MINER's lot was one of the earliest taken up in the plantation. BOARDMAN in a short time sold out to MORTON, and left the place. 4 [4. A William BOARDMAN died a few years later at Guilford, leaving no issue. He was probably the same person. (JUDD MS.)]

"After these are William NICHOLLS, Robert HEMPSTEED (whose lot is said to lie 'on the north side of his house between two little fresh streams'), Thomas SKIDMORE, John LEWIS, Richard POST, Robert BEDELL, John ROBINSON, Deans WINTHROP, William BARTLETT (on the cove called Close Cove; this lot is dated in the margin 15th October, 1647), Nathaniel WATSON, John AUSTIN, William FORBES, Edward HIGBIE, Jarvis MUDGE, Andrew LONGDON ('at the top of the hill called Meeting-house Hill, by a little run of fresh water'), William HALLETT, Giles SMITH, Peter BUSBRAW, James BEMIS, John FOSSECAR, Consider WOOD, George CHAPPELL. After these the grants are recorded in a different hand, and are of later date. Mr. Jonathan BREWSTER, Oct. 5, 1649. Thomas WELLS, Peter BLATCHFORD, Nathaniel MASTERS, all dated Feb. 16, '49-50.

"In the above list of grants, those which are crossed, or indorsed as forfeited, are WATSON, AUSTIN, HIGBIE, MUDGE, HALLET, SMITH, BUSBRAW, FOSSECAR, Wood, CHAPPELL. MUDGE and CHAPPELL, however, settled in the town a little later.

"The list of cattle-marks in the writing of this first clerk, that is, before 1650, furnishes but sixteen names, viz., WINTHROP, MORTON, AITKINS, WATERHOUSE, STEBBINS, WILLEY, NICHOLLS, SKIDMORE, LOTHROP, BEDDELL, LATHAM, LEWIS, HEMPSTEED, BORDMAN, GAGER, MINER, BARTLETT. Mr. BREWSTER is next added same date, and the Cape Ann party.

"Thomas STANTON's house-lot consisted of six acres on the bank, northeast of BREWSTER's. This locality might be now designated as fronting on Bank Street, north of Tilley, and extending back to Methodist Street. He sold it in 1657 to George TONGUE. Robert BROOKES had a house-lot given him, but forfeited it.

"Kempo SYBADA, the Dutch captain, was accommodated with a lot fronting on Mill Cove, the town street running through it, and extending west to the present Huntington Street. In later times it was SHAPLEY property, and Shapley Street was cut through it. Next south was Thomas DOXEY's lot, reaching to the present Federal Street, and still further south the lots of Edward STALLION and Thomas BAYLEY (Bailey), extending nearly to State Street. BAYLEY's lot of three acres was granted in August, 1651. West of STALLION and BAYLEY was Peter BLATCHFORD's lot, that had been laid out the previous year and was estimated at eight acres, but much encumbered with swamp and rock. Church Street now intersects this large lot, which had its front on State Street, extending east and west from Union to Meridian Streets.

"On the town street, east of STALLION and BAYLEY, a lot of ample dimensions was laid out to John GALLOP, eight acres in the very heart of the town, covering the space east of the town street to the beach, and extending north from State Street to Federal.

"George CHAPPELL's lot, granted Feb. 20, 1651-52, was afterwards the MANWARING homestead, on Manwaring's Hill.

"William COMSTOCK's location was on Post Hill, near the present corner of Vauxhall and Williams Streets. Mrs. LAKE and John ELDERKIN had a lot of eight acres divided between them, next south of COMSTOCK. The dividing line between them was directly opposite the intersection of the highway now called Granite Street. South of them, near the intersection of the present Broad Street, was Matthew WALLER. This elevated neighborhood was called Waller's Hill. Thomas HUNGERFORD had a lot on the bank next above STANTON's Edward SCOTT and Thomas STEDMAN forfeited their grants, though at a period fifteen years later STEDMAN, or another person of the same name, became an inhabitant.

"TRUMBULL, in the 'History of Connecticut,' treating of the plantation at Pequot, places the removal of Mr. BLINMAN under 1648:

"This year Mr. Richard BILNMAN, who had been a minister in England, removed from Gloucester to the new settlement, in consequence of which a considerable addition was made to the numbers who had kept their station.

"This date is too early. A comparison of the records of Gloucester with those of New London shows that he did not remove till 1650. The records of neither place afford us any clue to the causes which led to this change of abode. No disagreement of Mr. BLINMAN with his parishioners at Gloucester is mentioned. Ecclesiastical dissensions, however, existed in the colony, from which he may have wished to escape. He appears to have been desirous also of living near to some settlement of the natives, in order to devote a part of his time to their instruction.

"The original contract of the town with Mr. BLINMAN has not been preserved; but from subsequent references it appears that a committee had been sent to confer with him, who had pledged liberal accommodations of land, with a salary of sixty pounds per annum, which as to be enlarged as the ability of the town increased. A house-lot of six acres, on Meeting-House Hill, was confirmed to him Dec. 20, 1650, 'three acres whereof,' says the record, 'were given by the town's agents, as appears in the articles, and the other three by public town-meeting.' This house-lot covered some of the highest land in the town plot, and was directly north of that of Mr. PARKE. Described by modern boundaries, it occupied the space between the old burial-ground and Williams Street, along the north side of Granite Street. The town built his house for him, as appears from various references and charges respecting it, but on what part of the lot it stood is uncertain.

"The whole Eastern or Cape Ann Company that proposed removing with Mr. BILNMAN could not have been less than twenty families. Nearly this number of planters came on the next spring, but some of them merely to explore and view the country. Perhaps a dozen brought with them their families, cattle, and goods, and became permanent inhabitants. Several of these are supposed to have been members of Mr. BLINMAN's church at Chepstowe, in Monmouthshire, England, before his ejection. They had accompanied him over the ocean, had kept with him at Marshfield and at Gloucester, and now followed his fortunes to the shore of the Sound. They were farmers and mechanics, who had found Gloucester, which was then little more than a fishing station, an unfavorable place for their occupations, and hoped by coming further south to meet with a less sterile soil and a fairer field for enterprise. It was certainly an object for the faithful pastor and his tried friends to keep together, and as Pequot was without a minister and casting about to obtain one, the arrangement was an agreeable one on all sides. The settlement of the Parkes in the plantation was also very probably linked with the removal of Mr. BLINMAN, he being connected with them by family ties. 1 [2. It is probable that Mr. BLINMAN's wife Mary and Dorothy, wife of Thomas PARKE, were sisters. In various deeds and covenants on record Mr. BLINMAN calls Thomas PARKE his brother, and in a deed of 1653 he conveys land which he says 'I had of my brother-in-law, Thomas PARKE.']

"In March, 1651, the principal body of these Eastern emigrants arrived; in addition to those already names, John COITE the younger, William HOUGH, Thomas JONES, Edmund MARSHALL and his son John, William MEADES, and James MORGAN belonged to the same company. With then came also Robert ALLYN, from Salem, and Philip TABER, from 'Martin's Vineyard.' The plantation at this period was a place of considerable resort, and a number of persons enrolled their names and obtained grants, whose wavering purposes soon carried them elsewhere. The younger COITE, the two MARSHALLS, and Thomas JONES, after a short residence, returned to Gloucester. Philip TABER commenced building a house on Foxen's Hill, which he never occupied or completed. It was sold by his brother-on-law, Cary LATHAM, in 1653.

"Several other persons also appear among the grantees or planters of the town at this flood-time of increase, but no certain date can be given for their arrival. These are Matthew BECKWITH, the BEEBY brothers (John, Samuel, and Thomas), Peter COLLINS, George HARWOOD, Richard POOLE, and John PACKER. Samuel BEEBY, and perhaps John, had been for some time in the plantation, in the service of Mr. WINTHROP. Thomas is supposed to have come with the Eastern Company. All had house-lots given them in the spring of 1651.

"Next to Mr. BLINMAN, the person of most note in the Cape Ann Company was Obadiah BRUEN. He had been recorder and one of the townsmen of Gloucester for several years, and in transferring his residence seems to have taken his pen and his official duty with him. His latest registration in Gloucester was made in December, and the succeeding February he was recorder and one of the townsmen of Pequot. The house-lot accorded to him was on Meeting-house Hill, and covered a considerable part of what is now the town square, leaving only narrow highways on the north and west, and extending south to the present Broad Street. Portions of it were afterward given up to the town by himself and subsequent owners. He sold it in 1653 to William HOUGH.

"Early in 1651, New Street, in the rear of the town plot, was opened for the accommodation of the Cape Ann company. This position was designated as "beyond the brook and the ministry lot.' It was carved into house-lots and took the name of Cape Ann Lane. The lots on this street were nine in number, of six acres each, extending both sides of the narrow street from the alder swamp in front to Cedar Swamp on the west. Beginning at the lower end, Hugh CALKINS had the first lot by the Lyme road, or highway to Nahantick, as it was then called, and next him was his son-in-law Hugh ROBERTS, then COIT, LESTER, AVERY, ALLYN, MEADES, HOUGH, ISBELL. The BEEBYS and MARSHALLS were yet farther north. James MORGAN was 'on the path to New Street' (i.e., Ashcraft Street). William KENNY was nearly opposite the south entrance to New Street, on the Nahantick road. PARKER was next below him, at the head of Close Cove, and WELLMAN on the same cove, southeast of PARKER. WELLMAN and COITE, however, exchanged lots; the latter was a ship-carpenter and wished to be near the water, where he could be accommodated with a building-years.

"The house-lots accorded to the new-comers were mostly in the rear of the town plot, where the position was inconvenient and dreary and the soil hard to cultivate. Many were discouraged and went away who would perhaps have remained had their home-lots been more inviting.

The Town Plot.-"The first home-lots were laid out chiefly at the two extremities of the semicircular projection which formed the site of the town. Between these were thick swamps, waving woods, ledges of rock, and ponds of water. The oldest communication from one to the other was from Mill Brook over Post Hill, so called from Richard POST, whose house-lot was on this hill, through what is now William Street to Manwaring's Hill, and down Blackhall Street to Truman Street was the harbor's north road. Main Street was opened, and from thence a cut over the hill westward was made (now Richards and Granite Streets). Bank Street was laid out on the very brink of the upland, above the sandy shore, and a space (now Coit Street) was carried around the head of Beacon Cover to Truman Street, completing the circuit of the town plot. No names were given to any of the streets for at least a century after the settlement, save that Main Street was uniformly called the Town Street, and Bank Street the Bank. Hempstead Street was one of the first laid out, and a pathway coincident with the present State Street led from the end of the Town Street west and northwest to meet it. Such appears to have been the original plan of the town. The cove at the north was Mill Cove; the two coves at the south Bream and Close. Water Street was the beach, and the head of it at the entrance of Mill Cover, now Sandy Point." 1 [1. Miss CAULKINS.}

Removal of WINTHROP.-In 1657, Mr. WINTHROP was chosen Governor of the colony, which necessitated his removal to Hartford, the town thereby losing its friend and patron. His homestead passed into the possession of Edward PALMES, who married his daughter Lucy.

"Before Mr. WINTHROP's removal to Hartford he leased the town mill to James RODGERS, a baker from Milford, who had traded much in the place, and in 1657 or 1658 became an inhabitant. As an accommodation to Mr. ROGERS in point of residence, he also alienated to him a building spot from the north end of his home-lot next to the mill, on which Mr. ROGERS erected a swelling-house and bakery, both of stone.

"Mr. WINTHROP's own homestead, in 1660 or 1661, passed into the occupancy of Edward PALMES, who had married his daughter Lucy. Mr. PALMES was of New Haven, but after his marriage transferred his residence to the WINTHROP homestead, which, with the farm at Nahantick, the Governor subsequently confirmed to him by will. In that document this estate is thus described:

"The Stone-house, formerly my dwelling-house in New London, with garden and orchard, as formerly conveyed to said PALMES, and in his use and possession, with the yard or land lying to the north of the said house to join with James ROGERS:" "also a lot of six acres lying east of the house, bounded north by the oxe-pasture and east by the Great River, and having two great oak-trees near the south line."

"This stone house, built in 1648, stood near the head of the cove on the east side, between the street (since laid out and appropriately named Winthrop Street) and the water. The ox pasture to which the will refers was inclosed the same year. Samuel BEEBY, in a deposition of 1708, testified that he and his brother made the fence to it 'sixty years since,' and that "Mr. WINTHROP's goats and cattle were kept therein as well as his oxen.' The "old stone house' is mentioned in the will of Maj. PALMES in 1712, who bequeathed it to his daughter Lucy, the only child of his first wife, who, having no children, left it to her brothers, Guy and Bryan PALMES. This homestead is supposed to have been for more than a century the only dwelling on the Neck, which was then a rugged point, lying most in its natural state, and finely shaded with forest-trees. It was sold about 1740 to John PLUMBE.

"The mill being a monopoly, could not fail to become a source of grievance. One mill was manifestly insufficient for a growing community, and the lessee could not satisfy the inhabitants. Governor WINTHROP subsequently had a long suit with Mr. ROGERS for breach of contract in regard to the mill, but recovered no damages. The town likewise uttered their complaints to the General Court that they were not 'duely served in the grinding of their corn,' and were thereby 'much damnified,' upon which the court ordered that Mr. ROGERS, to prevent 'disturbance of the peace,' should give 'a daily attendance at the mill.'

"After 1662 the sons of the Governor, Fitz John and Wait Still WINTHROP, returned to the plantation and became regular inhabitants. Between the latter and Mr. ROGERS a long and troublesome litigation was maintained in regard to bounds and trespasses, notices of which are scattered over the records of the County Court for several years. In 1669, Capt. Wait WINTHROP set up a bolting-mill on land claimed by Mr. ROGERS, who as an offset immediately began to erect a building on his own land, but in such a position as wholly to obstruct the only convenient passage to the said bolting-mill. This brought matters to a crisis. Richard LORD, of Hartford, and Amos RICHARDSON, of Stonington, were chosen umpires, and the parties interchangeably signed an agreement as a final issue to all disputes, suits at law, and controversies from the begging of the world to the date thereof. Mr. WINTHROP paid for the land on which the mill stood, ROGERS took down his building frame and threw the land into the highway, and all other differences were arranged in the like amicable manner. 1 [1. Duties of selectmen.]

"In March, 1658-9, the General Court appointed John SMITH commissioner of the customs at New London. This was the first regular custom-house officer in the town, and probably in the colony.

"In May, 1660, the General Court granted New London to have an assistant and three commissioners with full power to issue small causes. For the year ensuing Mr. John TINKER was chosen assistant; Mr. BRUEN, James ROGERS, and John SMITH, commissioners."

The first birth in the new plantation is believed to have been "Mary, daughter of Robert HEMSTEAD, born 26ht of March, 1647."

The next birth was that of Manasseh, son of Thomas and Grace MINER< born April 28, 1647.

Robert HEMSTEAD is supposed to have been the first person married.

The first death was that of Jarvis MUDGE, in March, 1651-52.

The first registered death was that of "Ann, daughter of Thomas and Grace MINER, born 28th of April 1649, died 13th of August, 1652.

The first permanent blacksmith was John PRENTISS, of Roxbury, who came in 1651-52, and was a welcome addition to the little settlement. "The town built him a house and shop and furnished him with half a ton of iron, also twenty or thirty pounds of steele." His house-lot of two acres was located on the corner of State and Bank Streets. Lieut. Samuel SMITH located here about this time. He was a prominent citizen, and was chosen "the towne's lewetenant."

Indian Troubles.-In 1652 a general apprehension existed throughout the country that the Indians were preparing for hostilities. The Narragansetts were especially regarded with suspicion, and preparations were made in the frontier towns to guard against surprise. At Pequot the town orders were peremptory for arming individuals and keeping a vigilant eye upon the natives. Watchmen were kept on the look-out both night and day. A fresh supply of ammunition was procured and the following directions published:

"July 8, 1652.
"Forfeiture of false raising of an alarum, 10l.
"Forfeiture of not coming when an alarum is raised, 5l.
"Forfeiture of not coming to there pticular squadron, 5l.
"It is agreed yt it shall be a just alarum when 3 gunnes are distinctly shot of, and the drum striking up an alarum.
"If the watchmen here a gunn in the night, they well considering where the gunn was firing if they conceive to be in the Towne may raise an alarum.
"For the seting of a gunn for a wolfe they yt set a gunn for that end shall acquaint the constable where he sets it that he may acquaint the watch."

Three places in the town were fortified, the mill, the meeting-house, and the house of Hugh CAULKINS, which stood at the lower end of the town, near the entrance of Cape Ann Lane. The inhabitants were divided into three squadrons, and in case of an alarm Sergt. MINER's squadron was to repair to Hugh CAULKINS', Capt. DENISON's to the meeting-house, and Lieut. SMITH's to the mill.

Severe restrictions were laid upon the trade with the Indians in the river, which was to be confined to BREWSTER's trading-house. No individual could go up the river and buy corn without a special license, which was only to be given in case of great scarcity. Happily no alarm occurred, and all fear of an Indian war soon died away. But Mr. BREWSTER was allowed for several years to monopolize the Indian trade. This granting of monopolies was perhaps the greatest error committed by the fathers of the town in their legislation.

"The years 1661 and 1662 were noted for strife and turbulence among the inhabitants. Cases of calumny and riot were common. The disorderly elements of society were in motion, and the influence of the wise and good was scarcely sufficient to keep them in subjection. No clear account of any one case can be given, as they appear before us only in the form of depositions, protests, suits at law, fines, and complaints. Several of the inhabitants accused Mr. TINKER, the assistant and first magistrate in town, of speaking treasonable words, and of using dishonorable means to obtain testimony against his adversaries; and Mr. TINKER brought suits for defamation against Messrs. HOUGHTON, MORTON, and THOMSON, the Indian missionary. The trials were in the Particular Court, and the issue may be gathered from a passage in the records of the General Court:

"This Court, upon consideration of Mr. TINKER's encouragement in his place and employment, do order 12 to be paid to him by the treasurer out of the fines imposed on MORTON, HAUGHTON, and Mr. THOMSON.' 1 [1. Con. Col. Rec., vol. 1. p. 382.]

"Mr. TINKER was popular both with the town authorities and the General Court, and had been chosen townsman, list and rate-maker, deputy and assistant. He had established a distillery in the town, and was not only licensed by the court to distill and retail liquors, but empowered to suppress all others who sold by retail in the township. It was with little chance of success that accusations against a character so highly respected were carried before the magistrates at Hartford. That venerable body doubtless regarded with apprehensive foreboding the new and boisterous community that was growing up under their shadow. We can at least imagine them to have had some misgivings when William MORTON, the constable, led off with the follow pompous protest:

"'To all whome it may concerne.
"'You may please to take notice that I William MORTON of New London being chosen by the Towne of New London to be a Constable and by oath being bound to execute that place faithfully as also being a free Denison of that most famos country of England and haven taken an oath of that Land to be true to his Royall Majesty of now Gracious King Charles the Seacond of Glorious renowne, I count that I cannt be faithfull unto my oath nor to his majestie, neither should I be faithfull to the Country wch lyes under reproaches for such maner of speeches and carriages already wherefore having evidences that Mr. John TINKER, who is lookt at as one that should exsicute Justice and sworne by oath soe to doe, espetially to studdie the honor of or Royall King and of his Life and happie being, yet notwithstanding the saide TINKER although it was notoriously knowne unto him that some had spoaken Treason against the king in a high degree to the greate dishonor of his Royall majestie and father some pressed him againe and againe to doe Justice for the king yet although they declared what and what was to be testified by one there present, he flung away the testimony, wherefore in the name of his majesty whose deputy I am doe protest against the said TINKER, that he has consealed treason against the king contrary to the Lawes of England, so I conceive has brought himselfe under treason, And as I doe protest against him I desire all that reade this or heare of it to be my witnesses-published by me. 20, March: 1662.

"'William MORON,
"'Constable.'
"'In new London in New England.

"A writ of attachment was issued by the court, at their May session, against William MORTON and Richard HOUGHTON, bringing them under a bond of 500 to appear and answer to the suit of Mr. John TINKER, before his majesty's court of justice in Hartford, the next September. IN October of the same year, before any accommodation or decision had taken place, Mr. TINKER died suddenly in Hartford, and was honored with a funeral a the public expense. Though the principal party was thus removed from all participation in the suit, it was prolonged for several years. It was finally referred to a committee of the Legislature in May, 1666. 2 [Ibid., vol. Ii. P. 27.] A curious reference to what took place in the trial of the case in September, 1662, is found in a deposition of Mr. THOMSON, recorded in New London:

"'I William THOMSON, Clarke, being present when Mr. MORTON had a tryall in Hartford in New England in the year of our Lord God 1662 about treason spoken against his sacred Majestie when Mr. Mathew ALLIN being the moderator in the Governor's absence did deny to try the said cause by the laws of Old England when it was required by the said MORTON that he would doe justice for the king, he answered tauntingly to the said MORTON-he should have justice, if it were to hang half a duson of you.-Further saith not.

"'Jurator coram me, George JORDAN, April 26, 1664.
"'Test Georgius WILKINS, Clercus County Surry, Virginia.'"

Patent of New London.

"Patent of New London sanctioned by the Governor and Company, 14. Oct. 1704.

"To all persons to whom these presents shall come,--The Governor and Company of her Majesty's Colony of Connecticut in General Court assembled send greeting:--Whereas we the said Govr and Compy by virtue of Letters Patent to us granted by his Royal Majy Charles the Second of England &c. king, bearing date the 23d day of April, in the 14th year of his reign, A. D. 1663, have formerly by certain acts and grants passed in Gen. Assembly given and granted to John WINTHROP Esq, Waite WINTHROP Esq, Daniel WETHERELL Esq, Richard CHRISTOPHERS Esq, Mr. Nehemiah SMITH, Capt. James MORGAN, John ALLYN, William DOUGLAS, Joseph LATHAM, Capt. John AVERY, David CALKINS, Capt. John PRENTIS, Lievt John HOUGH, John STUBBIN, John KENNEY, Robert DOUGLAS, John BURROWS, Samuel FISH, Thomas CROCKER, Richard DART, Samuel ROGERS Senr, John ROGERS Senr, James Rogers, John LEWIS, Daniel STUBBIN, George GEARES, Thomas BOLLES, Benjamin SHAPELY, John EDGECOMBE, Jonathan PRENTIS, Peter HARRIS, Samuel AVERY, Robert LATTIMORE, Lawrence CODNER, John TURRELL, John RICHARDS, Peter STRICKLAND, Stephen PRENTIS, John PLUMBE, Samuel ROGERS Jun., John FOX, Samuel BEBEE, Oliver MANWARING, John COIT, George CHAPPELL, Joseph MINER, John BECKWITH, Philip BILL, Thomas STARR, John DAVIE, James MORGAN, Jun., Charles HILL, Joshua HEMPSTEAD, Jonas GREENE, Joseph TRUMAN, Thomas WAY, Jeremiah CHAPMAN, Thomas BAYLEY, Daniel COMSTOCK, Joshua BAKER, John WICKWIRE, Benjamin ATWELL, Thomas WILLIAMS, Samuel WALLER, Peter CRARY, Joshua WHEELER, Richard WILLIAMS, Richard MORGAN, Abel MORE< Adam PICKET, James AVERY, John DANIELS, Christopher DARROW, Andrew LESTER, John CHAPPELL, Daniel LESTER, Samuel ROGERS (Joseph's son), with divers other persons and to their Heirs or Assigns or such as shall legally succeed or represent them, or either of them forever, a just and legal propriety in a certain tract of land now commonly called and known by the name of New London, lying and being within the Colony aforesaid, to us by the said Letters Patent granted to be disposed of as n the said Letters Patent is directed, and bounded as hereafter followeth, and the said John WINTHROP, Waite WINTHROP, &c.-[here the names are all repeated]-with such other persons as are at this present time by virtue of the aforesaid acts and grants proprietors of the said tract of land, having made application to us for a more ample confirmation of their propriety n the said tract of land which they are now in possession of, by a good and sufficient instrument signed and sealed with the seal of this Corporation, therefore Know Ye, that the said Govr and Compy in Genl Court assembled, by virtue of the aforesaid Letters Patent and for divers good causes and considerations pursuant to the end of said Letters Patent, us hereunto moving, Have given, granted and confirmed and by these presents do further fully, clearly and amply, give grant and confirm to the aforesaid John WINTHROP Esq, Waite WINTHROP Esq, Daniel WETHERELL Esq, Richard CHRISTOPHERS Esq, Mr, Nehemiah SMITH, Capt. James MORGAN, with all the other above-named persons, and all other persons at this present time proprietors with them of the said tract of land, now being in their full and peaceable possession and seisin, and to their Heirs and Assigns or such as shall legally succeed or represent them or either of them forever, the aforesaid tract of land commonly called and known by the name of New London, lying in the colony aforesaid, and bounded as followeth-that is to say,--on the West by a ditch and two heaps of stones on the west side of Nayhantick Bay, on the land formerly called The Soldier's Farm, about 40 rods eastward of the house of Mr. Thomas BRADFORD, and from thence North by a line that goes three rods to ye west of ye falls in Nayhantic river and from thence North to a black oak tree 8 miles from the ditch aforesaid, which tree hath a heap of stones about it, and is marked on the west side WE, and on ye east side IP, being an antient bound mark between New London and Lyme, and from that tree East half a mile and 16 rods to a black oak tree with a heap of stone about it, marked with the letter L and from thence north to the northeast corner of the bounds of the town of Lyme and from the said N. E. corner bounds of Lyme upon a straight line to the Southwest corner of the south bounds of the town of Norwich:--On ye North by the south bounds of the aforesaid Norwich, as the said bounds are stated from the aforesaid S. W. corner down to a Cove commonly called Trading Cover, and from thence by the sd Cover to ye Great River, commonly called New London river and from the place where ye said Cove joins to the said river by a line crossing the river obliquely eastward to the mouth of a Cove commonly called Paukatannuk Cover, and from thence by the said Paukatannuk to the head thereof, and from thence upon a direct line to an oak tree marked and standing near the dwelling house of Thomas ROSE, which tree is ye S. E. corner of the bounds of ye aforesaid Norwich, and from thence by an East line to the bounds of the town of Stonington, which line divided betwixt New London and Preston.-On the east by a line which runneth south from the place where the above mentioned north bounds of New London aforesaid meets with the said bounds of Stonington till it comes to the place where the Pond by Lanthorn Hill empties itself into the Brook, and from thence by ye main stream of sd brook till it falls into ye river called Mistick River and from thence by ye said Mistick River till it falls into the Sea or Sound to ye north of Fisher's Island:--On the South by the Sea or Sound from the mouth of the aforesaid Mistick River to the west side of Nayhantick Bay to the aforesaid ditch and two heaps of stones about it.-Together with all and singular the Messauges, Tenements, meadows, pastures, commons, woods, underwoods, waters, fishings, small islands or islets, and hereditaments whatsoever, being parcel belonging or anyways appertaining to the tract aforesaid, and do hereby grant and confirm to the said Proprietors, their Heirs, or Assigns, or such as shall legally succeed or represent them, his or their several particular respective proprieties in ye said premises given and confirmed according to such allotments or divisions as they the said present Proprietors have already made, or shall hereafter make of the same-

"To have and to hold the said tract of land with the premises aforesaid, to them the said John WINTHROP Esq, Waite WINTHROP Esq, Daniel WITHERELL Esq, Richard CHRISTOPHERS Esq, Mr. Nehemiah SMITH, Capt. James MORGAN, and all ye rest of the above mentioned persons, and all other the present Proprietors of ye said tract and premises, their Heirs or Assigns, or such as shall legally succeed and represent them forever, as a good, sure, right, full, perfect, absolute and lawful estate in fee simple, and according to ye aforesaid Letters Patent after the most free tenor of her Majestys Manor of East-Greenwich in the County of Kent,--

"To the sole, only and proper use and behoof of the said John WINTHROP Esq, with all the above named persons and all others the present Proprietors of said tract and premises, their Heirs and Assigns, or such as shall legally succeed and represent them forever, as a good, sure rightful estate in manner as aforesaid,--Reversing only to her present Majesty, our sovereign Lady Ann of England &c. Queen, and her successors forever one fifth part of all gold or silver mines or ore that hath been or shall be found within the premises so granted and confirmed.

"Always provided that whatsoever land within the aforesaid tract which formerly did and now doth belong unto, and is the just and proper right of Uncas late Sachem of Mohegan, or Owaneco his son or any other Indian Sachem whatsoever, and hath not yet been lawfully purchased of the said Sachems, or acquired by the English, doth and shall still remain ye right and property of ye said Indian Sachems or their Heirs, and shall not be entered upon, or improved, or claimed as property by the aforesaid persons to whom the said tract is hereby confirmed, or any of them by virtue of this instrument, nor shall anything herein contained be at any time deemed, taken or constructed to the prejudice of any of the said Sachems or their Heirs right to the said land within the said tract aforesaid which hath not yet been sold or alienated by them, but their said right shall be and remain good and free to them to all intents and purposes in the Law, and the said land which they have right in aforesaid shall be and remain as free for their proper occupation and improvement as if it had not been included in the bounds of the aforesaid New London, as specified in this instrument-

"And further, we the said Govr and Compy ye aforesaid tract of land and premises and every part and parcel thereof hereby granted and confirmed to the said John WINTHROP, Waite WINTHROP, Daniel WETHERELL &c.-[here all the names are again repeated]-and the rest of the present proprietors thereof, their Heirs and Assigns, or such as shall legally succeed and represent them to their own proper use and uses in the manner and under the limitation above expressed against us and all and every other person or persons lawfully claiming by, from or under us, shall and will warrant and forever defend by these presents-

"In witness whereof we have ordered the present instrument to be signed by the Deputy Govr of this Corporation and by ye Secretary of the same as also that the seal of the Corporation be affixed hereunto this 14th day of October in ye third year of her Majs Reign A. D. 1704.

"Robert TREAT Dep. Govr.
"Eleazer KIMBERLY Secy"

"Though only seventy-seven names are registered in the patent, the whole number of full-grown men having a right in the town was perhaps at that time one hundred and sixty, or one hundred and seventy. A man might have three or four sons of mature age, yet generally in the patent, only the father, or the father and eldest son, were mentioned. Other names were also omitted which ought to have been enrolled, and which were added to the list of patentees afterwards. These were Lieut. John BEEBY, Thomas (son of Sergt, Thomas BEEBY), Samuel FOX, Samuel CHAPMAN, William GIBSON, Nicholas and Amos HALLAM, Sampson HOUGHTON, Jonathan HAYNES, William HATCH, Alexander PYGAN, Joshua RAYMOND, and Hon. Gurdon SALTONSTALL.

"13 Decr 1703. "Voted, that the Town Patent, be forthwith drawn upon parchment and that all the freeholders of this town who are desirous to have their names entered therein, shall bring them to the Moderator within a month."

"This vote was never carried into effect.

Blind Counter


HOME