i
ee
PEseere.
bem as
Pe ae 4
paesies ele a
Orrin " os
ya
aL
: 5 ali dade ad
: 3 : :
5 Rea aba banhathi abe ane Hr
ec
he
ssh Sith re
| eae
ay
kad
tet i
retain
. ae ss
Zr eeney
ee ee ee isceonetnmadin
— Pre Aa NS go Sh ct
itis -wtaeee an heen hh ia
ara aa ~~
ioe ee ee
lee te
Jt | ae ele
2 iat
—
CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
Date Due
STM ere
Cornell oe Library
F 104N7 C371895
‘i ini
3 1924 028 842 890
olin
HISTORY
NEW LONDON,
FROM THE FIRST SURVEY OF THE COAST IN 1612, TO 1860.
BY FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
WITH MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
“‘T have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.” Ps. LXxvil. 5.
The Seal of New London, adopted in 1784.
NEW LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY H. D. UTLEY.
1895.
Bay,
JL
jap
Ny ce,
lIsq95-
B 357 40
PRESS OF THE DAY PUBLISHING COMPANY,
NEW LONDON, Conn.
a a ee
Fines M, Cth
MEMOIR
OF
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
FRANCES ManwarinG, daughter of Joshua and Fanny (Manwar-
ing) Caulkins, was born in New London, Conn., April 26, 1795, and
died there February 3, 1869. Her ancestry, on the paternal side,
can be traced to the early settlers of the vicinity of Plymouth.
Mr. Richard Blinman, minister in Chepstow, Monmouthshire,
England, having been silenced for non-conformity to the established
church, immigrated to this country, and is supposed to have arrived
at Plymouth in the autumn of 1640. He was accompanied in his
voluntary exile by several members of his church, with their families,
and all taken together were styled the ‘‘ Welch party.’? Monmouth
shire borders upon Wales, and probably most of them were of Welch
origin, but English appears to have been their native language. The
exact time of their arrival is not known, but a part of them, including
Mr. Blinman and Hugh Cauken, were propounded for freemanship
at Plymouth, March 2, 1640; which was too early for any immigrant
vessel to have arrived that year.!
In the first New England record the family name is written as
above, Cauken, and it may be interesting to notice here the changes
which have taken place in the spelling of this surname, since it first
appears in the old country. It has been heretofore stated by a writer
in the pages of the ReGisTER,? that the original name was probably
Colkin. William Colkin lived in King John’s reign, 1199-1216, and
founded a hospital in Canterbury, which bore his name. The
Caulkins and Gookings, with the different variations and changes,
1 Records of the county of Plymouth.
2 Vol. ii. page 167—Art. Gookin Family.
iv FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS..
in the spelling and pronunciation of the names, are all supposed by
the writer referred to, to have descended from a Colkin. At the
present time, there is great diversity, even among acknowledged
relatives of the same stock, in spelling the name; some using « and s,
and others rejecting one or both of these letters.
The ‘‘ Welch party’’ located first at Green’s Harbor, near Marsh-
field, Mass., but the previous settlers not harmonizing with the new
comers, the latter removed the next year to Gloucester, near Cape
Ann, in the ‘‘ Massachusetts colony.’’! Hugh Caukin is on the list
of persons nominated as freemen of Massachusetts, at Salem, Dec.
27th, 1642. He was deputy to the general court from Gloucester in
1650-1, and served as one of the selectmen in that town from 1643
to 1651. In 1645 ‘“‘Hugh Cawlking appointed to end small causes
for ye towne of Glocester for this yeere ensuing.’’ May 23, 1652,
Hugh Calkin, deputy from Gloucester, having moved out of the
colony, is to have the place supplied.”
The Rev. Mr. Blinman removed from Gloucester, where he had
been a minister for eight years, to New London, then called Pequot
Harbor, in the fall of 1650. He seems to have been accompanied on
his first visit by Obadiah Bruen, a man of unusual intelligence and
education, and sound mind and judgment. He was clerk or recorder
of Gloucester for several years, and held the same offive in New
London during his entire residence in that town, which was sixteen
years. Hugh Calkin and several others, who came from the old
world with Mr. Blinman in 1640, followed him to New London, and
strengthened the little colony there by the addition of about twenty
families. Oct. 19, 1650, the records show grants of land to Mr.
Blinman, ‘‘ Hughe Caukin,’’ and six others, and, under the same date
six house lots were pledged to them, which were laid out in March
of the following year, mostly in ‘‘ New Street,’’ a narrow road on the
west side of the town which was opened to accommodate the Glou-
cester immigrants, and acquired from them the familiar name of
‘¢Qape-Ann Lane,’’ by which it is still quite generally known, though
now designated on the city map as Ann Street. Hugh Calken had
the first lot on the south and east end of this ‘street set off to him.
It consisted of six acres, and the precise spot can easily be identified
at the present time.
1 Savage’s Winthrop (edit 1853), vol. ii. page 77.
2 Records of the general court of Massachusetts.
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS. Vv
He was chosen a deputy to the general court at Hartford in Sep-
tember, 1651, and was at that time the deputy to the general court
of Massachusetts from Gloucester. He does not appear, how-
ever, to have been present at the session in Hartford. He was also
selectman in 1651 in both towns. It is evident from these facts that
he was esteemed a man of unusual good judgment and capacity,
whose services New London, then called Pequot, was anxious to
secure, and Gloucester unwilling to lose. While residing in New
London he held the office of selectman, or townsman as it was then
generally called, without interruption; being chosen annually for
ten or eleven successive years. He was also their representative to
the general court for twelve sessions, from 1652 to 1660.
It cannot positively be stated that he was a member of the church
in New London; for the records preserved do not commence until
1670, or ten years after his removal. The business of hiring a min-
ister and providing for the worship of God was all done by the town
in its corporate capacity in those days, consequently church records
were of less importance. There can be no reasonable doubt, how-
ever, that with the arrival of a minister and many of his faithful
flock, who seem to have followed him not only from the old country
but also in all his removals in New England, a church was regularly
formed and all the ordinances administered. Indeed, it is hardly
possible that it could have been otherwise, as Mr. Blinman is uni-
formly styled ‘‘ Pastor of the church.’’ When he removed to New
London, the town had been on the lookout for some time for a
minister, and in 1648 the Rev. Sam’! Dudley, son of Gov. Dudley,
and son-in-law of Gov. Winthrop, had some thoughts of settling
there.! It is likely that the little community felt themselves too
feeble to undertake the support of a minister until after the acces-
sion of the colony from Gloucester.
Mr. Blinman was a man of good repute in New England, and is
spoken of by Gov. Winthrop as ‘‘godly and able.’? The town
pledged him a salary of £60 per annum, to be increased with their
ability, and liberal donations of land. .The records show that they
abundantly fulfilled the last pledge, and he was probably quite accept-
able to the people, as they built him a new house on a high, pleasant
lot, now Granite street, west of the first burial ground. The reasons
for relinquishing his charge are not given, but he left New London
1 Winthrop’s letter to his son. Savage’s Winthrop, vol. ii. page 355.
vi FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
early in 1658, and removed to New Haven, where he resided about
a year. He embarked from New London in 1659, for England, via
Newfoundland, and was living in ‘‘the castle,’’ city of Bristol,
January, 1670-1.1
Soon after his pastor removed, Hugh Calkin joined a Saybrook
company, who had associated themselves for the purchase and settle-
ment of Norwich, and a church being organized at Saybrook for the
new town, he was made a deacon. He seems not to have removed
immediately, but to have alternated in his business enterprises
between the two towns for a couple of years. He owned some large
tracts of land in the vicinity of New London which he retained for
several years, but sold his house, barn and home-lot on ‘‘ New Street”’
to William Douglass, in February, 1661. An incident which gives
us some insight into the habits and customs of the people of that day
may here be mentioned. In February, 1672-3, Deacon Caulkins, of
Norwich, was served with a writ from Mr. Leake, of Boston, for
£3, 10s., the amount due to William Rogers from the town of New
London, for the rent of a building that had been used for a meeting-
house, some fifteen years before, and for which Mr. Caulkins was
the surety. The endorser satisfied the debt and applied to the town
for repayment. The obligation was acknowledged, but hardly with
the promptitude which would be expected at the present time; as
appears from the following note on the town records: ‘‘ Upon demand,
by Hugh Calkin, for money due to Mr. Leake, of Boston, for improve-
ment of a barn of Goodman Rogers, which said Calkin stood engaged
for to pay, this town doth promise to pay one Barrel of Pork to said
Calkin some time next winter.’? Hugh Calkin took a prominent
part in the town and church affairs of Norwich, and died there about
the year 1690, and as he was by his own deposition 72 years old in
1672, he must have been about 90 at his death. He was doubtless
interred in the old burial ground in that town.
Of his wife we only know that her name was Ann. Hugh and
Ann Calkins are believed to have-been the common ancestors of all
persons bearing the name in the United States. They had six chil-
dren: Sarah, Mary, John, Rebecca, Deborah and David.2
Deborah was born at Gloucester, March 18, 1644, and probably
David? was also born there. It is likely that all the others were born
1 The Journal of Thomas Minor, of Stonington, says—Mr. Blinman “ taught” in New London,
July 27th, 1659; probably a farewell service.
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS. vii
in England. David’s birth is not recorded, but he was the youngest
child. The older son, John, removed with his father to Norwich,
and settled and died there.
Davi? located in the Nahantick grant of his father, near the Ni-
antic river, or Rope ferry bar, in what was then New London, now
Waterford, and the farm remained in the possession of the descend-
ants, in direct line, until 1855. He married Mary, daughter of
Thomas Bliss, of Norwich, and had eight children. The second was
Ann, and at her baptism, Feb. 4, 1676-7, Mr. Bradstreet, minister
at New London, makes this record :—‘‘ Child of David Caulkins bap-
tized on account of his wife, a member in full communion of the
church in Norwich.’’
JONATHAN? was the third child of David? and Mary. He was born
Jan. 9, 1678-9, and married Sarah Turner, daughter of Ezekiel and
Susannah, Dec. 11, 1700. He was a lieutenant in the frontier wars
with the French. He had six children. His will, dated Aug. 7, 1738,
is in the possession of D. O. Caulkins, of Brooklyn, N. Y., one of his
descendants. He died July 17, 1750, and was interred in the old
burial-ground at New London, where his grave-stone is still pre-
served. His wife died Aug. 15, 1718.
Tuomas! was the youngest child of Jonathan, and was born July
29, 17138. He married Mary, daughter of Samuel Rogers. The date
of marriage has not been ascertained. They were published as in-
tending marriage, Feb. 21, 1734-5. They had, from the best infor-
mation obtained, six children, of whom the two oldest, bearing the
names of his parents, Jonathan and Sarah, were twins and born in
1736. Thomas Caulkins died July 2, 1750, thirteen days before his
father, aged 39.
JONATHAN® married Lydia, daughter of Nehemiah Smith, April 24,
1764, by whom he had 18 children. He was a captain in the war of
the revolution ; a brave soldier, resolute and independent in thought
and action. He served under Benedict Arnold, and on one occasion,
in consequence of additional information obtained after receiving
his orders, changed his whole route and captured and brought into
camp a party of stragglers. Gen. Arnold was so exasperated with
him for violating his orders that he struck him with his sword. Capt.
Caulkins restrained his anger and retired, expecting the next morn-
ing to be arrested. Instead of that, Arnold made him a handsome
apology. He commanded a company in Col. Ely’s regiment, raised
by voluntary enlistment in November, 1776, and was stationed that
e
vill FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
winter in Providence; and though a wife and large family of small
children were to be cared for at home, he was out more or less every
year of the war, and performed six or seven tours of arduous military
duty. He died September 21, 1787, aged 51, and all his children
survived him, excepting the youngest, who died two days before,
Sept. 19th.
His wife Lydia was a woman of great energy and discretion. She
was tall, erect and fair; of handsome features and commanding pre-
sence. She survived her husband many years, managed the farm
with good judgment, and left it unimpaired to her numerous chil-
dren. Being a faithful Christian of the Baptist denomination, she
often took part in religious meetings, after their custom, and her
gifts and graces, led to the frequent remark:—‘‘She talked like a
minister.’’ Mrs. C. died in 1813, aged 70. One of their children,
Sarah, wife of Gurdon Crocker, is still living in New London with
her husband. They celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of their
marriage, Nov. 19, 1867.
JosHua,® the fifth child of Jonathan and Lydia, was born Jan. 19,
1772. He married Fanny Manwaring in 1792, by whom he had two
children, and died of yellow fever at Port au Prince, early in 1795,
while on a trading voyage to the island of .St. Domingo.
Frances’ Manwaring Caulkins, second child of Joshua and Fanny,
was born in New London, April 26, 1795.
On the maternal side, the ancestry of Miss Caulkins can also be
traced back to the first settlers of the country. In England the family
have long been prominent, with many titles and large landed estates.
Sir Ranulphus de Mainwaring, or, as the name was then spelt, Mes-
nilwarin, was justice of Chester in the reign of Richard I. (1189-
1199). Sir William Mainwaring was killed in the streets of Chester,
defending it for the king, Oct.9,1644. Sir Henry Mainwaring,
who died in 1797, among other large estates possessed the manor of
Peover, the seat of his ancestors; which is one of the estates de-
scribed in the Doomsday survey, as belonging to Ranulphus. In the
church at Over Peover are several monuments, with arms and nu-
merous implements of the Mainwarings; among them an altar tomb
to Randal Mainwaring, who died in 1456, and to Margery his wife.
Over Peover was the residence of the family for thirty generations.
In 1615, ‘‘Sir Henry Mainwaring was at Newfoundland with five
good ships.’’
The first record relating to the Manwarings in this country of
e
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS. ix
which we have knowledge, bears date Nov. 3, 1664, when Joshua
Raymond purchased house, home-lot and other land in New London
belonging to ‘‘ Mr. William Thomson, missionary to the Indians near
New London,”’ for Oliver Manwaring his brother-in-law. A part
of this purchase still remains in the name, being owned by R. A.
Manwaring, M. D.,a lineal descendant, and has never been alienated.
It is one of the finest situations in the city, commanding a beautiful
view of the harbor and Long Island Sound.
Whether OLIVER! Manwaring had then just arrived, or had previ-
ously been an inhabitant of the colony, is unknown. His wife was
Hannah, the daughter of Richard Raymond, who was made a free-
man, at Salem, Mass., 1634, afterwards removed to Norwalk, and
thence, in 1664, to Saybrook. Hannah was baptized at Salem, Feb-
ruary, 1643. The date of their marriage is unknown. She united
with Mr. Bradstreet’s church in New London in 1671, and four of
their children, all daughters, were baptized Sept. 10, in that year.
They had ten children. OLIVER! Manwaring died November 8, 1723,
nearly 90 years of age. Hannah died Dec. 18, 1717, aged 74. His
will was dated March 15, 1721, and all his children were living at
that time. He bequeathed to his grandson, John Richards, among
other things, ‘‘that bond which I had from my nephew Oliver Man-
waring in England.’’ The Manwarings who settled in the vicinity
of New London, are said to have been noted for a sanguine temper-
ament, resolution, impetuosity, and a certain degree of obstinacy.
They were lovers of discussion and good cheer. A florid complexion,
piercing black eyes and dark hair are described as personal traits,
which are still represented in their descendants.
RIcHARD,? the fifth child and oldest son, was baptized July 13,
1673. He married Eleanor, daughter of Richard Jennings, May 25,
1710. They had seven children. No record is preserved of the
death of either of them, but the inventory of his estate was taken
May 10, 1763, and probably indicates the correctness of the tra-
dition, that he lived to the age of 90.
CHRISTOPHER,? the sixth child and youngest son was born Sept. 1,
1722, and married Deborah-—born Dec. 9, 1722—daughter of Rob-
ert Denison, Jan. 31, 1745. They had thirteen children. He died
in 1801, aged 79, and his will was proved May 8, of that year. His
wife survived him, and died March 22, 1816, in her 94th year.
Ropert,‘ the oldest child of Christopher and Deborah, was born
Dec. 16, 1745, and married Elizabeth, daughter of Capt. James
x FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
Rogers, Oct. 8, 1772, and by her hadseven children. His wife died
Aug. 31, 1798, aged 57, and was buried in New London. He was
twice married afterwards, having one child by each wife. Robert
Manwaring was a man of good information, and strong character.
He was for many years a deacon of the church in New London, and
removed to North Parish, now Montville, in 1799, and to Norwich,
Conn., in 1800, where he died March 24, 1807, aged 61 years. He
was buried in the old yard in Norwich Town.
Fanny, the third child of Robert and Elizabeth, was born Nov.
6, 1776, and married, first, Joshua Caulkins, 1792; second, Phile-
mon Haven, Sept. 18, 1807. The news of the death of her young
husband came to Mrs. Caulkins before the birth of her daughter
Frances, and at 19 years of age she found herself a widow with two.
children. She had never left the paternal roof, and most of the time
of her widowhood was spent in the family of her father, Robert Man-
waring.
Having thus briefly traced the ancestry of Miss Caulkins in both
branches, from their first settlement in New England, the further
object of this sketch will be to note briefly some of the more inter-
esting events of her life, and the striking beauties and excellencies
of her character.
During the year 1806, she became the pupil of Rev. Joshua Wil-
hams, who taught a select school for young ladies on the green in
Norwich Town, and though only eleven years of age, she appreci-
ated and improved the advantages enjoyed under this excellent
teacher. He was an accomplished, Christian gentleman, of fine taste
and literary culture, and she always retained the pleasantest recollec-
tions of him, and, indeed, revered his memory. As an illustration
of that untiring industry and love for valuable information which
characterized her entire life, we may mention that while attending
this school, and before she had entered her twelfth year, she pa-
tiently wrote out from memory a volume of educational lectures as
they were delivered, from week to week. The elements of science
which she acquired at this time were the foundation of all her fu-
ture knowledge and attainments in literature; for, with occasional
opportunities of instruction from the best teachers, she was yet ina
great measure self-taught; and when once aided in the rudiments
of a study or language would, herself, make all the progress she
desired. She was an insatiable reader, and it might almost be said
that when very young she devoured every book that came within her
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS. xi
reach. While she enjoyed fiction and works of a lighter character,
her taste for solid reading was early developed, and at eleven years
of age she was familiar with the English translation of the Iliad and
Odyssey, and the thoughts of the standard English writers of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries entered into and gave a cast
to her expanding mind. The germ of the strong love for historical
literature which characterized her later life was seen occasion-
ally in her early years. At one time, when only about ten years old,
she was missed while visiting at the house of a relative, and after
much search was found seated on an unused loom in the garret,
deeply absorbed in reading the history of Connecticut. As might
be expected, such a young person was a great favorite, not only
among her juvenile acquaintances, but with older persons who could
appreciate her talents and maturity of mind. Often would her
young friends gather around her and beg her to tell them a story;
and then, with a sweet and animated countenance, she would com-
mence the recital of some tale of romantic interest, reproduced per-
haps from her reading, or, not unfrequently, drawn from her own
imagination. These recitals carried captive her youthful audience,
and invariably won their admiration and frequently their boisterous
applause.
In 1811 and ’12, Miss Nancy M. Hyde, and Miss Lydia Huntley,
afterwards Mrs. Sigourney, were teaching a young ladies’ school in
Norwich, and she enjoyed the superior advantages thus afforded for
atime, entering their school September, 1811. A book written in
that school and preserved by her, contains her first composition ; the
subject was ‘ Antiquities.’? These ladies were both persons of su-
perior literary taste and culture, and doubtless exercised a very fa-
vorable influence on her mind. Miss Huntley removed to Hartford
in 1815, and married Mr. Charles Sigourney, June 16, 1819, and
until her death, June 10, 1865, remained a very warm friend and
frequent correspondent of Miss Caulkins. Miss Hyde died March
26, 1816. A volume of her letters, &c., published after her death,
contains a poetical tribute to her memory from her former pupil.
Frances evinced a remarkable aptitude for the acquisition of lan-
guages, and with some advantages enjoyed under different teachers,
she added patient, private study, and acquired a thorough knowl-
edge of Latin, and was able to read and teach both that language
and the French with facility and acceptance. She spent some time
in the family of Rev. Levi Nelson, of Lisbon, in 1825, for the special
xi FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
purpose of advancing her knowledge of Latin, and took lessons in
the French language, of M. Roux, a native and accomplished teacher
of that tongue, who then resided in Norwich. Later in life, while
living in New York, she pursued the study of German, and under
the instructions of Maroncelli, an eminent political exile, gained
such a knowledge of Italian, as enabled her to read Dante and Tasso
in the originals.
Never having been permitted to look upon the face of her own
father, her knowledge of parental affection came only through her
step-father, and to him she was tenderly and deservedly attached ;
and her affection was thoroughly reciprocated. His death, which
took place Nov. 12, 1819, left her mother again a widow, with three
young childrenand limited means. Having before this been occasion-
ally employed in teaching small schools, Frances now determined to
support herself, and if necessary aid her mother. On the 4th of Janu-
ary, 1820, she opened a select school for young ladies in Norwich
Town. Asher talent for teaching was developed, her scholars in-
creased, and the school acquired an excellent reputation and was
well sustained for nine years. In 1829, she accepted an invitation
from the trustees of the female academy at New London, to take
charge of that institution. She was invited back to Norwich city—
or Chelsea, as it was then called—in 1832, and was principal of the
academy there, with a large number of pupils, until the close of the
year 1834, when she relinquished finally the duties of a teacher.
During these fifteen years she had under her charge nearly 400
different young ladies; many of whom are still living and retain a
very pleasant remembrance of their school-days and a strong personal
attachment to their instructor. Among her pupils were the lamented
wives of Senators Jabez Huntington and William A. Buckingham;
and three daughters of Charles Lathrop, afterwards missionaries to
India. Very many of her pupils became themselves teachers, and
others, as wives of clergymen and layman in positions of respectabil-
ity and honor, have so conducted themselves, that, as a teacher, we
may say of her, in the words of Scripture: ‘Let her own works
praise her.”’
The year following the close of her school she spent in visiting her
friends and in recreation. In the spring of 1836 she went to New
York and resided in the family of her cousin, D. H. Nevins, until
May, 1842, when she removed to New London and found a home in
the family of the writer until the day of her death.
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS. xill
She early manifested an unusual talent for versification as well as
for prose writing, but was not encouraged by the advice or approba-
tion of friends to thrust herself forward into notice by offering the
productions of her pen to the public prints. Among her manuscripts
are many fugitive pieces of poetry without date, but evidently writ-
ten in early life. The first, in apparently the oldest book, is entitled
the ‘‘ Indian Harp,’’ and would do credit to her later years. The
fourth in order, in this book, is a long poem on ‘‘Thanksgiving,’’
and the only one dated. This is stated to have been written in 1814.
One earlier piece only has been found, and that is on a loose sheet,
dated Oct. 26, 1818, and entitled ‘‘The Geranium’s Complaint.’’
A considerable portion of her time, from 1812 to 1819, while her
mother resided in Norwich, was spent by her in the family of her
uncle Christopher Manwaring, Esq., at New London. He had re-
cently erected a fine mansion, on the beautiful grounds which he had
inherited from his ancestors, and was a gentleman of literary taste
and cultivation. He was a great admirer of Pope, Johnson and the
old English authors. He hada good library, and being of kind and
winning manners, it is not strange that a strong mutual attachment
grew up between them, and that he became very fond of the society
of his neice, and proud of her talents. He was a great friend of
Madison, and a early admirer of General Jackson. The first of her
writings, now known to have been printed, appeared in the Connecti-
cut Gazette, April 17, 1816, addressed to the hero of New Orleans.
The contributor acknowledges that he stole it from the ‘‘fair tyro,’’
and no author’s name is attached.
Her contributions to the local papers of New London have been
very numerous, and with any striking event in the domestic history
of the place, or with the decease of any aged or distinguished per-
son, its citizens were sure to be favored with an interesting article, in
which passing events were so interwoven with previous history as to
command the attention of all classes of readers. During the past
few years quite a number of inhabitants of that city have been able
to notice the fiftieth anniversary of their marriage. She was sure to
be a welcome guest at all such gatherings, and her congratulatory
lines were ever regarded as a golden present. Holding the pen of a
ready writer, her choice thoughts flowed in chaste and beautiful
words, whether in prose or poetry, and it is not too much to say, that
only her own modesty and humility prevented her from coming before
xiv FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
the world and claiming a position among the distinguished writers of
the day.
It will be proper, in this connection, to speak of her published
works and contributions to the religious and historical literature of
the country. During her residence in New York, she was intimate-
ly acquainted with Rev. Messrs. Hallock and Cook, secretaries of the
American Tract Society. In 1835, that society published a premium
tract entitled, ‘‘ Do your Children reverence the Sabbath ?’’ and the
following year, ‘‘The Pequot of a Hundred Years,’’ both from her
pen, and of which they have issued 1,058,000 copies. She next pre-
pared for them, in 1841, ‘‘ Children of the Bible,’’ all in verse and
original ; and in 1846, ‘‘ Child’s Hymn-Book,”’ partly a compilation.
In 1847, she furnished the ‘‘ Tract Primer,’’ one of the most popular
and useful books ever published by that society. They have printed
950,000 copies of it in English, and tens of thousands have been
published in Armenian, and other foreign languages. The society,
at a meeting of their publishing committee, April 23, 1849, by vote
invited her to prepare asuitable series of books for children and
youth, to follow the Primer. In compliance with this request, she
furnished six volumes of ‘‘ Bible Studies,’’ forming an illustrative
commentary on the whole Scriptures, and showing accurate scholar-
ship and biblical research, interesting to the young, but full of valu-
able information for all who love the word of God. She was five
years (from 1854 to 1859) in preparing this series, and contributed
to the society, in 1861, one more work, entitled ‘‘Eve and her
Daughters,’’ being sketches of the distinguished women of the Bible
in verse. She was also, up to the close of her life, a frequent con-
tributor to their ‘‘ American Messenger,’’ furnishing them, but one
week before her death, ‘‘The Aged Emigrant,’’—a few verses of
poetry—the last line being ‘‘ A Stepping-stone to Heaven.’’
A deep sense of her religious obligation pervaded her life, and
was never lost sight of in her literary labors. An ardent thirst for
knowledge, so deep as to amount to almost insatiable craving, early
took possession of her soul, and she could only be satisfied as she
gathered and stored up the wisdom of the past. With a deep venera-
tion for the piety and principles of our Puritan forefathers, she
loved to linger among the graves and written records of their lives
and deeds ; and lke ‘‘Old Mortality,’’ she recovered many an al-
most obliterated tomb-stone, and preserved its story from oblivion.
Nearly every burial-place in the county was personally examined, and
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS. xV
any stone of great age or special interest was faithfully transcribed.
Doubtless all these researches into the records of the past, whether
town or church-books, or on tomb-stones, were in accordance with
her natural tastes; still we believe that something of the feeling
which animated Walter Scott’s hero was ever present with her. She
would not let the worthy and pious dead pass out of mind, nor allow
the good deeds of our ancestors to be forgotten.
Something from the mass of historical and genealogical informa-
tion which she had accumulated, was first given to the public in the
form of a history of the town of Norwich, in 1845. It was a book of
360 pages, with some local illustrations, and was well received and
appreciated by the public. In 1852, she published a larger work,
The History of New London, of 672pages. This was very carefully
and thoroughly prepared, and won many commendations from dis-
tinguished scholars and antiquaries. In 1860, some of the volumes
of this history being still in sheets, twenty pages were added and
bound up with the original book, thus giving eight years additional
records. Her materials having greatly increased since the issue of
the first history of Norwich, and the edition being out of print, she
re-wrote the entire work, and a new volume of 700 pages was given
to the public in 1866.
Miss Caulkins had now become widely known to many of the lead-
ing writers, particularly of antiquarian tastes, in different parts of
the country. Edward Everett, Robert C. Winthrop, George Ban-
croft and others frequently corresponded with her, and acknowledged
her ability and accuracy. The late Sylvestor Judd, of Northampton,
and the Hon. James Savage, of Boston, fully appreciated her his-
torical knowledge, and frequently availed themselves of her stores
of information respecting the early colonists of New England. Roger
8. Baldwin and Henry White of New Haven were among those
who highly esteemed her works; and the latter ina letter under
date of June 8, 1864, cf the history of New London, writes :—
‘¢T have met with no town history which, in my judgment, is quite
equal to it.’’ Rev. Dr. Sprague, of Albany, in very complimentary
terms, says :—‘‘I imagine there are few in our country, of either
sex, whose opinion or accuracy in respect to the past is as good as
yours.’’ She was elected to honorary and corresponding member-
ship by several historical societies, which appreciated her historical
researches and her accumulated antiquarian lore. She was the only
woman upon whom the Massachusetts Historical Society conferred
that honor.
xvi FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
Justice to the religious element in her character requires some
more particular notice of her views and feelings on the great ques-
tion of immortality, and fitness for the life which is to come. It is
very evident from her early writings that she fully accepted and be-
lieved the main doctrines of the Scriptures as they were received
and held by her Puritan ancestors. She was profoundly impressed
with a sense of her accountability to God, and the responsibility
which ever rested upon her to use the talents which He had given
her to his own honor and glory. Amidst her highest aspirations,
she retained a prevailing sense of subjection to the Divine Will. The
great doctrines of religion were especially the subject of anxious
thought and solemn reflection, from 1826 to 1831. During the
latter year the deep yearnings of her soul for a knowledge of God
were satisfied. Under the preaching of Rev. Dr. McEwen, for 54
years pastor of the First Church in New London, her heart became
deeply touched with a sense of personal sinfulness and need of a
divine saviour; and she publicly acknowledged her deliverance from
doubts and fears, and her confidence in Jesus as her Redeemer, by
a public profession of her faith and union with the First Church,
July 5, 1831. The exercises of her mind were of a peculiarly inter-
esting character, and from a state of gloom and doubt she emerged
into a hopeful light, and Jaid hold on truth with a calm and cheerful
faith which abided with her to the end. She immediately engaged
in Sunday School work, and gave some time each week to regular
Biblical study with her own school. In removing to Norwich she
became connected with the Second Congregational Church there,
and, while in New York, united with the Mercer Street Presbyterian
Church. After taking up her permanent abode at New London. she
transferred her connection to the Second Congregational Church in
that city, in February, 1843. Ever ready for good words and works,
cheerfully codperating with fellow Christians (especially as secre-
tary of the Ladies’ Seamen’s Friend Society for more than twenty
years), she will ever be remembered in the community in which she
spent the last years of her life, as worthy of the commendation
which her Master bestowed upon one of whom he said, ‘‘ She hath
done what she could; ’ ; words which her pastor appropriately used
as the text of a memorial sermon, Feb. 14, 1869.
In the summer of 1866, she was brought by a long and slow fever
very near to the gates of death. The second edition of her hist
of Norwich had just gone into the printer’s h ae
ands, and the last,
FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS. xvll
proofs had been corrected, when her frame, for many years feeble
and frail, yielded like a strained bow, and fell withered and almost
broken. Fully conscious of her condition, and willing to go if the
Master called, she had, at that time, a strong desire to remain longer
among her friends, and said to a dear relative: ‘‘ While 1 would be
resigned, yet my prayer is, ‘Spare me that I mav recover strength
before I go hence and be no more.’’’ That prayer was graciously
answered. She slowly regained a comfortable measure of health
and strength, and was able to resume her literary labors, which were
continued until the last week of her life. Never possessing a strong
physical frame, and very often suffering from weakness and pain,
yet she was ever cheerful and pleasant, and by her animated coun-
tenance, her chaste and intelligent conversation, shed a fragrant in-
cense upon those into whose society she was thrown. Like many
other cultivated minds who rise far above the ordinary level of those
around them, her private papers show that she was sometimes touch-
ed in her inner life with a shade of sadness, almost of melancholy,
and especially felt, as others of the most faithful have often done,
that she had accomplished but very little.
A large mass of historical information and genealogical notes, and
hundreds of pages of moral and religious prose, remain among her
manuscripts. Many of her poetical effusions relating to the private
affairs of family and life are now exposed, for the first time, to the
eyes of her friends; but the most precious papers to them are a
number of pieces written, apparently, within a few months before
her death, in which her muse seems almost to have been inspired ;
for her themes are of the coming life, then so near to her that its
beauties and its glories were already opened to her gaze.
A large collection of autographs—many of them not names alone,
but letters of distinguished men and women, attest her interest in
that department of antiquarian research ; and a valuable assortment
of ancient and modern coins had been assiduously gathered during
the last fifty years. Specimens of continental currency, with many
curious and rare pamphlets, and sermons of ancient date, have been
treasured up, and the peculiar issues of corporate, state and gov-
ernmental paper, representing fractional parts of a dollar, which
were so general in the early years of the late war, have been to a
good extent preserved in a specimen book.
Many pages might be added here, from letters of sympathy which
have come to the relatives of the deceased since she left them, all
xviii FRANCES MANWARING CAULKINS.
testifying to the respect and esteem with which she had inspired her
friends. Perhaps the writer will be pardoned for introducing two
or three of these. ‘‘She has done so much toperpetuate the mem-
ory of the good deeds of others, that her own name and services to
the State ought to be commemorated. Her moral and religious worth
every one will acknowledge, but it is not every one who knows or
can appreciate her industry, skill, enthusiasm, or success as the pi-
oneer among our local historians.’’! ‘‘I never had the pleasure of
seeing Miss Caulkins but once, and then only for an hour; but her
fine conversational powers, and amiable and gentle qualities left an
impression upon me which I have never lost. She seemed to mea
truly noble specimen of a woman.’’? ‘‘ Her historical labors and
her Christian character alike were worthy of all praise.’’?
A mass of genealogical and antiquarian lore, as has been already
stated, remains in manuscript in the possession of her relatives. It
is prized by them not only for its intrinsic value, but as a memorial
of her diligent and patientindustry. It will give them pleasure, as
it ever did the deceased, to communicate any information they pos-
sess to all who love to search for their own ancestry among those of
whom it was well said, two hundred years ago, ‘‘ God sifted a whole
nation that he might send choice grain over into this wilderness.’’
1 Prof. Daniel C. Gilman, New Haven.
2 Rev. Dr. Sprague.
3 Hon. R. C. Winthrop.
PREFACE,
Tuts work has not been hastily written, but is the result of several
years of patient research. It originated in the first place, from a
deep interest in the subject—a fondness for lingering in the avenues
of the past, and of linking places, persons and events in historic
association. The pleasure connected with the occupation has thus
lightened the toil; yet it is not pretended that the work was under-
taken with no view to its being published. It has been from the
first, the aim and hope of the author to produce a work worthy of
publication—a history that would be honorable to her native place,
and to those neighboring towns that were connected with it in their
origin. New London county is a locality no way inferior in interest
to any part of the state. Its early history is full of life and vivid
anecdote. Here the white and the red race flourished for a time
side by side; while hardships, reverses and adventures of various
kinds marked its subsequent progress. A conviction of the fertility of
this unexplored field of research, connected with the sentiment of
veneration for a region that had been the refuge and home of her
ancestors, in all their branches, led to a design, early formed and
perseveringly cherished by the author, to write the history both of
Norwich and of New London. Taste, leisure, opportunity, and
above all the kind permission of a benignant providence, have con-
curred in allowing this design to be accomplished. :
The divine command to ‘‘remember the days of old, and consider
the years of many generations,’’ so often repeated in varying terms
in Holy Writ, is an imperative argument for the preservation of
memorials of the past. The hand of God is seen in the history of
towns as well as in that of nations. The purest and noblest love of
the olden time is that which draws from its annals, motives of grati-
tude and thanksgiving for the past—counsels and warnings for the
future. It is the ardent desire of the writer to engage the present
generation inthis ennobling study of their past history, and to awaken
4 PREFACE.
a sentiment of deeper and more affectionate sympathy with our an-
cestors, than has hitherto been felt. In the first place we find a
band of exiles, far from their native land, and in great part strangers
to each other, collecting together, acting together, and amid trials
and embarrassments cheerfully encountered and bravely overcome,
effecting a settlement upon this rugged coast; and following the
course of years, we meet with generation after generation, who en-
dured great and manifold fluctuations of fortune, as they successively
labored to improve and enlarge their inheritance into those ample
accommodations and facilities for future progress which we now
enjoy.
The work is extended into a larger volume than was at first anti-
cipated; yet such is the affluence of materials, that a second of equal
size might easily have been prepared, had the author chosen to wan-
der at large into the paths of family genealogy and individual biogra-
phy. A prevalent object in view, was to illustrate the gradual prog-
ress of society, from the commencement of the township among the
huts of the Indians, where the first planters found shelter, to its
present maturity of two centuries. Many simple and homely traits,
and slight incidents, are therefore admitted, which by themselves
would seem trivial and below the dignity of history.‘ Posterity,””
said John Quincy Adams, ‘‘ delights in details.’’ This is true; but
details are great incumbrances to the easy flow of narrative writing.
Less precision on minor points, fewer dates and names, and greater
license of description and imaginative sketching, would have rendered
the work more uniform and interesting, yet it might have diminished
its value for local reference.
In the spelling of Indian names entire uniformity has not been pre-
served. These names have not yet been reduced to any common
standard, and the variations are innumerable. The point most per-
plexing to an historian is the transmutation that gradually takes
place in the course of a series of records in the same name, as in
Nayhantick or Naihanticut, now Niantic, and in Naywayonck, now
Noank. There appears to be an absurdity in writing Niantic and
Noank. when treating of the early history, and a species of affecta-
tion in nai the old name against the popular orthography of
pes seas as oe and some others, a
§ has not been preserved,
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Introduction and outline map of the harbor 13-17
CHAPTER I.—BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT.
Pequots, Mohegans and Nahautics, 19-21 | Ravage of Block Island, 30
Block’s survey of the coast, - 21-24 | Visit to Pequot Harbor, = - 30
Dutch map, 1616, 23 | Skirmish on the Groton side, 32
Chart of the coast by R. Williams, 24 | Skirmish on the New Londonside, 33
Outline map of the coast, 265 | Why Uncas joined the English, 34, 35
English settlements on the Connecticut, 26 | Mason’s expedition, - 35
Winthrop’s contract for Nahantick, - 27 | His march to Pequot Harbor, 36
Stone and Norton, killed by Pequots, 28 | Stoughton’s encampment, 36
Oldham, killed at Block Island, 29 | Prisoners of the Owl’s Nest, 37
Endicot’s expedition, = 29 | End of the Pequot War, 38
CHAPTER II.—FOUNDATION OF THE TOWN.
Winthrop family sketch, 39 | Natal day of New London, 44
Grant of Fisher s Island, 40 | Commission of Winthrop and Peters, 45
First grant at Pequot, 41 | Contest for the jurisdiction, 46
Stoughton’s recommendation, 42 | Winthrop brings his family, - 47
Peters, the coadjutor of Winthrop, 43 | Bride Brook marriage, 48, 49
Proofs of a beginning in 1645, 44 | Indian name of Bride Brook, 49
First European female at N. ‘London, 44 | Outline map of the vicinity, 49
CHAPTER III.—INDIAN NEIGHBORS.
Cochikuak, - 51 | Winthrop favors the Nameaugs, 53
Uncas, arrogant and surly, 51, 52 | Waweequawthe most troublesome Ind., 63
The Ni ameaugs, timid and friendly, 52 | Foxen the wisest Indian, - - 54
Indian hunt, 52 | Counsel of the elder Winthrop, 64
Uncas favored by the commissioners, 53 | Horror of the Pequot name, - 55
CHAPTER IV.—EARLIEST TOWN ACTS.
Town officers, - 66 ; Name “Fair Harbor” proposed, 64
By-laws of Nameaug, 57, 68 | Bounds of the town enlarged, 64
Alewife Brook, Foxen’ s Hill, 67 | Soldier grant, - 65
Poquanuck, Quittapeag, 58 | Deed of Uncas to Brewster, 66
Nameaug, called Pequot, 58 | The town mill, 66
First thirty-six grantees, 59, 60 | Grantees of 1650 and 1651, 67, 68
Mamacock, Upper and Lower, 60 | Arrival of the minister 69
Land division east of the river, 61 | Grantees from Cape Ann, 70
General sketch of the town plot, 62 | New, or Cape Ann Street opened, 7
Court orders respecting Pequot, 63 | Earliest births, = 72
6 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER V.—GRANTEES AND TOWN AFFAIRS.
Preservation of records,
Moderator’s minutes,
At work on the mill dam, - 74
Green Harbor. Robin Hood’s Bay, 15
Ballot for Deputies, 75
The name “London” proposed, 76
Various grantees, - 15, 78
Grant of the present Parade, 77
Mason’s grant. at Mystic, - 78
Chesebrough versus Leighton, 78
Chippachaug. Pequot-sepos, 78
Indians of Nawayonk, —- 79
Autographs of Mason and Gallop, 79
Preservation of trees, - 19
Grant of the Mystic Islands,
Division of the Neck. Uhuhioh,
Cowkeeper’s agreement,
Salt-marsh.
Earliest deaths, - -
The blacksmith. The lieutenant,
Measures of defense against Indians,
Grantees. Harris legend,
Bream Cove. Lake’s Lake,
Innkeepers. Ferry lease,
Winthrop’s removal to Hartford,
His homestead and mill, -
Duties of the townsmen, (selectmen,)
Additional residents to 1660,
CHAPTER VI.—FARM GRANTS.
94
Winthrop’s Ferry farm,
95
Nahantick and Neck gent, -
eck. Fog
Poquiogh. Bruen’s Plain, 95
Cohanzie. The Mountain, - - 95
Farms on the river, (west side,) 95, 96
Poquanuck and Mystic Fort Hill, "- 96
Groton Bank, and Pocketannuck, 97
Mashantucket. Lantern Hill, - 97
Grants at Mystic, = - - ~ 98
Wampassok. Mistuxet. Quonaduck, 99
Beginnings at Pawkatuck, - 99
Chesebrough at Wickutequock, 99, 100
Stanton on the Pawkatuck,
Minor’s grantat Tagwourcke,
Grant to Gov. Haynes, -
Sold to Walter Palmer,
Controversy to the jurisdiction,
Pawkatuck assigned to Mass., —
Made atown and named Southerton,
The decision reviewed and confirmed,
Annulled by the charter of Chas. II.,
Southerton named ‘*Mistick,”
“Mistick” named Stonington,
Border difficulties, -
CHAPTER VII.—ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS.
The Barn meeting-house, - 108
First regular meeting-house, 109
The Sabbath drum and drummer, 109, 110
The cupola a watch-tower, - 110
Ancient burial-ground,
111
Early notices of Mr. Blinman, 111, 112
‘Who composed the Welsh party
Of what class were the pilgrims,
Mr. Blinman at Green Harbor,
At Gloucester. At New London,
His departure and autograph,
; At Newfoundland and Bristol,
CHAPTER VIII.—LOCAL NAMES.
Derivation of Nameaug & Tawaw-wog, 118
Sanctiou of the name ** New London,’ 119
What was the Indian name of the Thames? 119
Mashantuck suggested,
Original local names,
List of Indian names, -
CHAPTER IX.—INDIAN NEIGHBORS.
Committee to conciliate Uncas, 126
Narragansetts overrun Mohegan, 127
Uncas besieged and relieved, - 127
Invaded by Pocomticks and Narragansetts, 127
Brewster’s complaints, % ~ 18
Uncas and Foxen, wanderers,
Appointment of » Pequot missionary,
Youths educated for Indian teachers,
The two Pequot bands, -
Where settled, = 2
CHAPTER X.—TOWN AFFAIRS TO 1670.
Contract with a new minister, 1381
Parentage of Mr. Bulkley, - 132
Moderator’s minutes, - 182, 183
Fort Hill. Sandy Point. The Spring,
Tongue’s Rocks, and the Bank, —
The book of laws. Town grievance,
ears. Quaganapoxet,
85,
101
107
118
113
122-
113
114, 115
116
116, 117
120
125
128
129
129
130
133
135
CONTENTS. a
Allusion to whalin, - 136 :
“ Nahantick way-side,’ 2 named Jordan, 136 eae Pian clerks in
Various minutes. Pawcatuck rates, - 136, 7 Scrivener or attorney. J: ail, - 141
Guns from Saybrook, = ei - 187 | Wolves. Highways laid out, 142, 148
Mr. Bulkley’s ministry terminates, 137 | Mr. Bradstreet’s ordination. 143
epi ealions for a minister, - 138 | Members of his church, z 144
r, Bradstreet engaged, 139 | New inhabitants to 1670, 144-146
CHAPTER XI.—DIGRESSIONS.
Court on bankruptcy, - 147 | Rate lists and assessments, - 151, 152
Affairs of Addis and Revell, 147, 148 | Deceased and non-resident proprietors, - 152
Mr. Tinker’s popularity, - - 149 | Richard Lord’s decease and epitaph, 152, 3
The constable’s protest, - 149 | Removals before 1670, - 154
Thomson’s deposition and autograph, 150 | Doubts respecting Mrs. Lake, - 154
Lieutenant Smith absconds, = - 151 | Biography of those who removed, 155-60
CHAPTER XII.—BOUNDARIES.
Committees and reports on bounds, 161, 2 | The Hammonassets, and the iant, 170
Claim of Uncas disputed, - - 163 | The soldier grant. Obed land, 171
Winthrop’s letter to James Rogers, 164 | A glance at Lyme, 172
Treaty made and Uncas paid, - - 165 | Tomb of Lady Fenwick, - 178, 174
Contest with Lyme, — - 165-168 | Lyme organized into a town, 175
Mowing skirmish at Black Point, - 168 First settlers of Lyme, - 175, 176
Winthrop’s testimony at the trial, 169 | Black Hall. Mesopotamia, - 176, 177
Indians of Black Point, 170 | Meeting-house arbitration, - 177
CHAPTER XIII.—TOWN AFFAIRS TO 1690.
Characteristics of the inhabitants, 179 | Death of Winthrop, the founder, 188
Original plan of the town, 180 | His family and estate, - — 189
Breaking out of Philip’s War, 181 | Second meeting-house built, 190-192
‘Wait Winthbrop’s expedition, 182 | What became of the old one, - 192
Six houses fortified, 183 | Illness and death of Mr. Bradstreet, 193
Major Treat’s expedition, 184 | His church record, - 194.
Swamp fight, —- 184 | Ministry of Mr. Oakes and Mr. Barnet, 195
Indian auxiliaries, - 184 | Mr. Saltonstall ordained, - 197
Wounded men brought to N. London 185 | ‘* A large brass bell’ procured, 197
Three expeditions of Major Talcott, 185, 6 | Saltonstall Sunday procession, 198
The ten border raids, —- 187 a fever and its victims, - 198
Men killed in Connecticut, 188 eting-house burnt and another built, 200
CHAPTER XIV.—THE ROGERENES.
James Rogers and his family, 201, 202 | The perewig contribution, 211
Founder of the Rogerene sect, 203 | The prison proclamation, 212
First Sabbatarians of New London, 203 | Mittimus against Rogers, - 212
Baptism in Winthrop’s Cove, - 204 | Long imprisonment in Hartford, - 213
Rogerene principles, - 204, 205 | Suit of Mr. Saltonstall against Rogers, - ae
Penalties of the law, 205, 206 | Apology for both sides, - 214,
Will of James Rogers, - - 207 | Self-performed marriage rite, - Sie
Elizabeth Rogers Sivorced | from John, 208 | Voluntary separation of the parties, 217
Her subsequent marriages, - 208,9 | Warrant against Rogers as insane, 218
Peter Pratt’s book against Rogers, 209 | He escapes to New York, 219
Rejoinder of John Rogers, Jr., - — 210 | His last outbreak, - 219
Persecution on both sides, - 210, 211 | His death, burial and writings, 220, 221
CHAPTER XV.—THE LIVEEN LEGACY.
History of John Liveen, 222 | Mrs. Liveen’s death and will, - 224
His will and executors, 223 | The Hallams contest the first will, 224
8 CONTENTS.
i j : 27, 226
idi tablished by the courts 995 | Appeal of Major Palmes, 227,
et eae Hialleme to England, , 295 | Sketch of the Liveen legacy, 228
The will sustained, - 226
CHAPTER XVI.—EARLY COMMERCE.
Petition of the colony that New London Coit’s building yard, 238
might be made a free port, - 229 | Newspaper notices, = 239
Duties imposed on liquors, 230 | English officers of the customs, 239
First vessels and their builders, 231 | Marine list in 1711, - - 240.
Coasters and skippers, 231, 332 | Commercial memoranda, 240, 241
Protests of Mr. Loveland, 233 | Jeffrey’s large ships, ‘i 242
Trade with Newfoundland, 934 | The society of trade and commerce, 243
Trade with Barbadoes, - Dissolution of the society, - - - 244
Vessels, builders, owners and masters, 235-238 Marine items and fleet of 1749, 244, 245
CHAPTER XVII.—COURT RECORDS.
General remarks, - - 246, 247 , County court. Its officers, - 249
Cases before the justices’ court, 248 | Cases before the county court, 250, 253
Cases before the assistants’ court, 248 | Prerogative or probate court, 253
Capt. Denison’s difficulties, 248 | Courts for trial of horse-coursers, 254-55
CHAPTER XVIII.—EVENTS TO 1700.
Winthrop’s campaign in New York, 256 | The province galley, 258
Capt. Livingston’s exile and marriage, 257 | Act of addition to the town, 259
Petition to the mother country for aid in The patent and patentees, 259, 262
fortifying New London, - 257 | The town commons, - - 263
Fort built on the Parade, - 258 | Bank lots sold and court-house built, - 263
Guns brought from Saybrook, 258 | New inhabitants to 1700. - 264-266
CHAPTER XIX.—OBITUARIES.
Customs at funerals, 267 | Catalogue of the dead, - - 268-374
Tools and furniture, - 268 | See index of names at the close of the
Ancient men living in 1700, 268 volume.*
CHAPTER XX.—EVENTS TO 1750.
Post-offices and postage in 1710, 375 ) Death of Gov. Saltonstall, 382
Scraps from the Boston News Letter, 875 | His family, - - 384
Death of Gov. Fitz-John Winthrop, 375 | Strite with Norwich respecting the courts, 384
Mr. Saltonstall chosen governor, - 376 | Memorialto the governor on fortification, 385
Summary of his character and ministry, 376 | Appeal to the king threatened 387
Mr. Adams ordained his successor, - 379 ar with France and Spain, ; 887, 388
Seating the people. Pew rivalry, - 379 | Second memorial rejected, 389
Briefs and contributions, - 380 | Petition to the king drafted, - 890
List and census for 1708 and 1709, 380 | Expedition against Louisburg, 391, 92
Incidents of the French War, - 381 | Glimpse of D’ Anville’s fleet. - 393
Superior court first held held in N. London, 382
*The ancient apple-tree which is depicted in this chapter, (p. 284,) supposed a have been
nearly coeval with the town, and to have borne fruit for one hundred and fifty years, was blown
down ina high wind Sept. 11th, 1852, shortly after the page on which it appears was printed,
and while the latter part of the work was yet in the press.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXI.—MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS.
Children’s manners, - 395 | Jordan mill. Other mills,
Bartlet’s legacy to the town school, 396 | Wolves continue troublesome,
Grammar-school established, 397 | The great snow and snow sermon,
First school-house, - - 398 | The moving rock at Jordan Powe, -
A free school among the farmers, 399 | Various amusements; -
Grammar-school in the North Parish, 400 | Memoranda, -
Rope ferry established, - 402 | First execution, - .
Account of the Ferry farm, 402 | Severe season of 1740-41, -
Winthrop’s mill, 403 | Death of Winthrop in England,
CHAPTER XXII.—GROTON.
Groton incorporated, 414 | Autograph of Davie,
Account of Sir John Davie, 415 | Ministers of Groton,
Packer’s visit to Creedy, 417 | Baptist church of Groton,
CHAPTER XXIII.—THE NORTH PARISH.
First white settler in Mohegan, 425 | Cesar’s deed to New London,
Death of Uncas and Owaneco, - 426 | Protest of Gov. Saltonstall,
Meaning of their names, : 426, 427 | Committee to settle the North Parish,
Early grantees of Indian lands, 427, 428 | Ministry of Mr. Hillhouse, - -
Great purchase at Mohegan, - 428 | Ordination of Jewett,
Deed of feoffment - 428 | Deacons of the church, -
CHAPTER XXIV.—BAPTIST CHURCH.
First regular Baptists, - - 436 | The Rowe legacy, -
Church built at Fort Hill, on the neck, b, Gorton driven ae the pulpit,
First and Seventh Day Baptists united, 486 | Dissolution of the church,
Ministry of Elder Gorton, - 487 | Baptist church organized i in Lyme,
CHAPTER XXV.—EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
Formation of an Episcopal society, 440 | Glebe house built,
Subscribers to build a church, = 440 | Ministry of Mr. Graves, -
Church erected on the Parade, 441 | Difficulty during the Revolution,
Anecdote concerning the steeple, 442 | Compelled to relinquish the pulpit,
Seabury family, 443 | Retires to New York. His death,
Ministry of Mr. Seabury in N. London, 443 | Church destroyed in ‘1781,
CHAPTER XXVI.—THE GREAT AWAKENING.
Preaching of Mr.Tennent, — - 449 | Davenport’s last visit,
Of Mr. Parsons and Mr. Davenport, 450 | Burning of the books “and garments.
Council at Killingworth, = 450 | Trial of those concerned in it, - -
Brainerd’s letter to Dr. Bellamy, - 452 | Accounts of it by Trumbull and Peters,
Members withdraw from the church, - 452 | Whitefield’s visits to New London,
The Shepherd’s Tent society formed, 453 | Notice of Rev. Jonathan Barber,
CHAPTER XXVII.—EVENTS TO 1774.
New Style. - 462 | Execution of Sarah Bramble,
A Bonin yéacel arrives in distress, - 462 | Visitof Col. Washington, -
The cargo landed and partly stolen, 463, 4 | Arrival of French neutrals,
Conclave in Cedar Swamp, - 465 | News paragraphs,
Escape of the culprits, - - 466 | First newspaper established,
Conclusion of the affair, 467,468 | Public eveuts, -
oO
403, 404
404
405
- 406
406-409
409
410
- 41
412, 413
417
418, 421
492, 423
437
438
439
454
455
456
458
9, 460
461
468
469
470, 471
472
473
10 CONTENTS.
Lotteries. Light-house, - 474 | Anecdotes of the Cygnet, 479
Alms-house. Ferry wharf. Bridge, 475 | Edict against barberry bushes, 480
Fire engine. Business sketch, : 476 | Celebration of the 5th of Nov., - 481, 2
Shipping and custom-house, 477 | Effects of the Stamp Act, - 482, 3
Second newspaper commenced, 478 | Sketch of the trade of the port, - 483-85
CHAPTER XXVII.—ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS.
Ministry of Rev. Mr. Adams, 486, 7 | Tarring and feathering, _ : 494
Meeting-house struck by lightning, - 487 | Mr. Byle’s relinquishes his office, 495-98
Ministry of Rev. Matthew Byles, 489 | Settlement of Mr. Woodbridge, 498
Outbreak of the Rogerenes, 2 490-494 | His ministryanddeath, - 499, 500
CHAPTER XXIX.—REVOLUTIONARY TOPICS.
Townships in 1744, . 501 , What was done in respect to tea, 507
Various committees and delegations, 502, 3 | Shaw’s purchases of powder, - 608
Records removed, - : - 503 | Expedition of Commodore Hopkins, 509, 10
Vote on the confederation, - 504 | English collectors, - 511
Early advocates of freedom, 505,6 | The Shaw family, 512
CHAPTER XXX.—MILITARY AFFAIRS.
Details of militia, =e, 615, 14 | The garrison. Militia in service, 521
Companies at Bunker Hil’, 514 | Marauders. Long Island traders, 522, 23
Nathan Hale at New London, 515 | A year of alarms, 523-526
Attack on Stonington, - 516 | Army details, - - 526
First alarm at New London, 517 | Exchanges of prisoners, 527, 28
Reports on fortification, - 517-519 | Further alarm and distress, 529-531
Building Fort Trumbull, 520, 621 | Various worthy soldiers named, 531-34
CHAPTER XXXI.—NAVAL AFFAIRS.
qtivatenrine - 535-542 ; Severe winter of 1779-80 , 543
State armed vessels, - 638 | Acconnt of the ship Putnam, - 543
Continental vessels, 539, 40 | Combat between the Trumbull and Watt, 543
French ships in port, 642 ,
CHAPTER XXXII.—ARNOLD’S INVASION.
British expedition against the town, 545 | Incid
Debarkation of the troops, 546 Gaur a oe
Flight of the inhabitants, 547 | Train laid to blow up the fort 566
March of the troops over Town Hill, 549 | Fire extinguished by Major Peters - 666
Fort Trumbull evacuated, = 549 | Loss on both sides _ we 567, 570
March of Upham’s division, 5 551 | Compensation by fire lands ” 570
Destruction of the town and incidents What records were burnt, ” .
connected with it, - - - 552-557 | Anniversary celebrations, ba
Landing on the Groton side, 557 | Groton monument, 2 a5
Storming ofthe fort and massacre of : z ep
the garrison, - - - 657-564
CHAPTER XXXIII.—EVENTS TO 1800.
Morals and manners, - 673 | C a 7
Various seamen commemorated, 574, 75 iieats meee ou
The plank vessel built, - - 676 | French emigrants. 578
Execution of Hannuh Okkuish, 576 | Loss of seamen in the West Indi ervi oa
Death of Capt. John Chapman, 577 | Account of the yellow fever, es sewees Oetee
CONTENTS. 11
CHAPTER XXXIV.—CHURCHES.
Transient ministers, 586 | Bishop Seabury’s ministry, 593
Death by lightning, - 587 | His successors, 594
Congregational church of 1786, 588 | The Gothic church built, - 594
Ministry of Rev. Henry Channing, 589 | History of the Methodist society, 595
Settlement of Rev. Abel McEwen, 690 | History of the Baptist churches, 599
The Granite church built, - 591 | Universalist church, 599
Second Cong. Church established, 591 | Roman Catholics, 600
Church of St. James re-erected, 592 | Epitaph on Bishop Seabury, 600
CHAPTER XXXV.—THE ANCIENT TOWN REVIEWED.
Groton churches, 601, 2 | Waterford incorporated, 609
Groton village, - 602 | Niantic Bay and River, 610
Sketch of Ledyard, - 603 | Ancient Baptist church, 611
Present condition of the Pequots, 604 | Elder Darrow’s ministry, 612
Montville organized, 605 | Other Baptist churches, 613, 14
Its ecclesiastical history, 606-609 | Sketch of East Lyme, - - 614, 15
Mecting-house struck by lightning, 606 | The old Synagogue, the stone church, 616
Establishment of various churches, 607, 8 | Black Point and Niantic Indians, - 617
CHAPTER XXXVI.—EVENTS TO 1815.
City of New London incorporated, 619 | Execution of Pequot Harry, 629
Succession of mayors, 620 | Second war with Great Britain, - 630
The town grammar-school, 621 | Decatur’s squadron chased into the port, 631
The Union school, - 622 | Blockade by the British fleet, = 631
Female academies, 623 | The torpedo attempt, - 632
The Bulkley bequest, 623 | Gen. Burbeck takes command, - 633
The fort land, - 624 | The blwe light excitement, 635
The second burial ground, - 625 | Trips ofthe Juno, - 636
Alms-house built, 626 | Peace and festivity, 637
General survey of streets, 626-629
CHAPTER XXXVII.—WHALING.
First whaling edict in Connecticut, 638 | The earliest whale ships employed, - 642
Progress of American whaling, 639 | Successful voyages and noted captains, 643, 4
Its commencement at Sughar! or, 640 | Statistics of the whaling business, = - 645
The business commenced at N. Iondon, 640 | And of the California trade, - - 646
And pursued from 1805 to 1808, - 641 | Whaling merchants in 1852, and number of
Revival in 1819, 641 ships owned by each firm, - - 647
CHAPTER XXXVIII.—SUMMARY TO 1852.
Collectors of the port from 1789, 648 | Fire companies, turnpike companies, 658
Commercial memoranda, - - 649, 650 | Ferry to Groton, 659
Light-houses of New London district, - 650 | Severe winters and width of the river, 660
Dangers on the coast, - - 651 | Funeral of the Walton family, 661
Fort Trumbull, - 652 | Interment of the remains of Commodore G,
First steam navigation, - 652 W. Rodgers, - 6
Voyage of the steam-ship Savannah; its Banks and other incorporations, - 662, 63
captain and sailing master from New Railroads. Cedar Grove Cemetery, - 664
London, - 653 | Population at different periods, - 5
Newspapers published i in 1852, 654 | Various catalogues, - - - 667-672
Review of newspaper history, 655-658
NEW LONDON IN 1860.
Sketch of State street, 674 | Recent events, - “ 682
Churches and ministers, 678 | Rescue of the ‘Resolute, 684
Schools, - - 681 | Census returns, t 686
Railroads, 682 | Blue lights, - : 688
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
INTRODUCTION.
In the eastern part of Connecticut is a river, named in honor of
the Thames of England, which, about two miles from its mouth,
forms the harbor of New London.
“Here fond remembrance stampt her much loved names;
Here boasts the soil its London and its Thames,” 1
The mouth of the river lies directly open to Long Island Sound.
It has no intricate channel, no extensive shoals or chains of islands,
to obstruct the passage, but presents to view a fair, open port, in-
viting every passing sail, by the facility of entrance and security of
anchorage, to drop in and enjoy her accommodations. The harbor
is a deep, spacious and convenient, basin ; abounding in choice fish,
and its margin furnished with sandy beaches, finely situated for the
enjoyment of sea air and sea bathing.
In the lowest spring tides the harbor has twenty-five feet of
water, and this. depth extends several miles above New London.
Ships of the line may therefore enter at all times of the tide and
ascend as far as Gale-town, seven miles from the mouth of the
river. To this place there is usually in the channel a depth of
twenty-seven feet, and vessels drawing eight feet of water find no
difficulty in reaching Norwich, twelve miles from the mouth.
New London harbor is the key of Long Island Sound and the
only naval station of importance between Newport and New York.
In its capacious bosom a large fleet may find anchorage and ride
out a tempest; nor is there any port on the coast more advan-
tageously situated for the reception of a squadron pursued by an |
1 Philip Freneau.
14 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
overmastering enemy. This was proved in the last war with Great
Britain, when the United States, Macedoman and Hornet, closely
pursued by a superior British force, put into the harbor and found a
secure shelter. Commodore John Rodgers, who wintered here with
his squadron in 1811, said it was the best ship harbor he had ever
visited, except one: the exception was understood to be in Europe.
Tt is seldom closed by ice; remaining open through the whole
winter, except in seasons of intense frost, which occur at intervals,
sometimes of many years. Nor is it ever troubled with float-
‘ing ice, for that which is made within the harbor or comes down
the stream, owing to the course of currents off the mouth of the
river, drifts directly out to sea.
The township of New London originally extended on the Sound
from Pawkatuck River to Bride Brook, in Lyme, and on the north
to the present bounds of Bozrah, Norwich and Preston. Within
these limits there are now, east of the river Thames, Groton, Led-
yard and Stonington, and west of the river, New London, Mont-
ville, Waterford and East Lyme. At the present day, in superficial
extent, it is the smallest town in the state—less than four miles in
length and only three-fourths of a mile in width. The city boun-
daries coincide with those of the town. The compact portion of
the city is built upon an elevated semicircle, projecting from the
western bank of the river, between two and three miles from the
Sound.
Latitude of New London light-house, 41° 18’ 55”.
Longitude west of Greenwich, 72° 5’ 44”.*
The outward appearance of New London, down to a period con-
siderably within the precincts of the present century, was homely
and uninviting. The old town burnt by Arnold, could boast of very
little elegance; many of the buildings, through long acquaintance
with time, were tottering on the verge of decay; and the houses
that replaced them, hastily built by an impoverished people, were in
general, plain, clumsy and of moderate dimensions. Neatness, ele-
gance and taste were limited to a few conspicuous exceptions.
Moreover, the town had this disadvantage, that in approaching it,
either by land or water, its best houses were not seen. It was
therefore generally regarded by travelers as a mean and contemp-
tible place. Within the period in which steamboats have traversed
1 United States Coast Survey, 1846.
HISTORY OF ‘NEW LONDON. 15
the Sound, a passenger, standing by the captain on deck, as the
boat came up the harbor, exclaimed with energy, ‘If I only had the
money!”? —* What would you/ do?’’ inquired the commander.
“Buy that town and burn it,”’ hg quickly replied.
Since the utterance of this dire threat great improvements have
been made. The city now gontains ten structures for public wor-
ship, two of them new and elegant stone churches, in the Gothic style
of architecture; a custom-house, and county prison, both of granite;
several extensive manufacturing establishments, two of which em-
ploy engines of great power and several hundred men; several
blocks of stately brick buildings, in one of which is a spacious hall
for public exhibitions; and many elegant private mansions. A
railway, starting from the city and running nearly seventy miles
north to the great Western road of Massachusetts, furnishes an eligi-
ble route to Boston andto Albany. "one Dy
§ 8
7 D 8
§
Po % ; 2 a
ne
gg? Caen,
SKETCH OF BRIDE BROOK.
It received the name of Bride Brook on the spot, at the time of
the nuptial celebration. Winthrop in his deposition, (which is on
file among the state records at Hartford,) says, ‘and at that time the
place had (i. e., received) the denomination of Bride Brook.’? That
a considerable company had assembled is evident from the narrative,
which alludes to those present from Pequot, and to the gentlemen of
the other party, who ‘‘ were well satisfied with what was done.’’
Thus it appears that Bride Brook was originally the western
boundary of New London. It had been fixed upon as the terminus
between her and Saybrook, anterior to the marriage solemnized upon
its eastern brink, though it obtained its name from that occurrence.
CHAPTER III.
Indian Neighbors.—The Nameugs and Mohegans.—Hostility of Uncas.—Proceedings of the
Commissioners relative to the Pequots.
THE whole extent of the new settlement was a conquered country.
No Indian titles were to be obtained, no Indian claims settled. It
was emphatically, as it was then called, Pequot; the land left by
an extinguished tribe; or if not extinguished in fact, legally held to
be so, and doomed to extinction. According to Winthrop’s own
testimony,* before laying out the plantation, he collected all the
neighboring Indians in one assembly in order to ascertain the
legitimate bounds occupied by the Pequot tribe, that no encroach-
ment might be made on the rights of the Mohegans, and that Uncas
then made no pretence to any land east of the river, nor claimed on
the west side any further south than Cochikuack, or Saw-mill brook,
and the cove into which it flows.* This therefore was the northern
boundary.
Uneas was at first much in favor of the settlement of Winthrop in
his neighborhood, and made him a present of wampum in token of
satisfaction. He was then in want of aid against the Narragansetts.
But his strong attachment to Major Mason,. and others of the
Connecticut magistrates, operated to produce distrust of a company’
that belonged to another jurisdiction. To add to this estrangement,
a local jealousy arose. The remnant of the Pequots that survived
the struggle of 1637, (and they were more numerous than had been
supposed at the time, ) were principally assigned to the care of Uncas,
and subjected to a burdensome tribute. A small settlement of these
Indians was found by the Engllsh on the site selected for their planta-
tion. They were Pequots, but called, from the place they inhabited,
1 Letter of the governor, June 1666, on Co. Court Records.
2 About six miles north of New London Harbor, where is now the village of Uncasville. se
52 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
by the distinctive name of Nameaugs or Namearks. The chief man-
among them was Cassasinamon, to whom the Englislt gave the
familiar name of Robin. .
These Indians received the English with open arms. Themselves,
their huts, and all their scanty accommodations, were at their disposal.
They served as guides, messengers, assistants and servants, and
they were repaid with friendship and protection. The English inter-
fered to soften the rigor of Uncas, and abate his unreasonable
exactions. The courtesy with which he at first received them, there-
fore, was soon changed to jealousy and distrust. The first years of
the plantation were rendered tumultuous and uneasy by his threats.
Straggling bands of savage warriors, surly and defying, were often
seen hovering about the settlement, to the great terror of the
inhabitants.
‘The agents of the plantation say:
“ He quickly took offense and fell to outrages; his carriage hath been since as if he intended by
alarums and affrightments, to distrust and break up the plantation.’’1 ‘
The first considerable breach of the peace occurred in the summer
of 1646. The circumstances were briefly these. Mr. Peters had
been indisposed, and while recovering, requested the Nameaugs to
procure him some venison. The latter hesitated, through fear of
Uneas, their liege lord, who arrogated to himself the sole privilege
of making a hunt within his dominions. Being encouraged, however,
to make the attempt, and counseled to hunt east of the river, and to
go, as if from an English town, with Englishmen in company, Robin,
with twenty of his men, and a few of the whites, crossed the river,
and uniting with another band of Pequots and Eastern Nahanticks,
under Wequashkook, went forth in bold array, to drive the deer
through the vast wilderness on that side of the river. But Uncas
obtained notice of their design, and lay in wait for them with 300
men, armed for war. Seizing the favorable moment, he burst forth,
upon the unprepared sportsmen, with all the noise and fury of an
Indian onset, and pursued them with great clamor and fierceness.
back to the plantation. The arrows flew thick, and some of the.
Pequots were wounded. Some Indian habitations were plundered,
and cattle driven away. Slight losses were also sustained by the
English. The Mohegan warriors, on their return homeward, showed
1 Records of the Commissioners in Hazard, vol. 2.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 53.
themselves on the hills near the town plot, making hostile demon-
strations, that filled the small band of settlers with perplexity and
apprehension.
The Court of Guar of the United Colonies, to whom the
adjustment of all Indian affairs belonged, met in September at New
Haven. Mr. Peters, by letter, complained of the outrage committed
by Uncas. Wm. Morton also appeared in person as agent of the
plantation, accompanied by three Nameaugs, and preferred various
charges against Uncas; all corroborating the fact that he maintained
an insolent and threatening attitude toward the English, and was
uniformly cruel and oppressive to the Pequots. The sachem being
confronted with his accusers, had the address to prove them in the
wrong, except in the matter of alarming and disturbing the English,
by vindicating his right, and punishing his rebellious subjects, so
immediately in their vicinity. For this offense he apologized, and
was let off with a reprimand. Mr. Morton and his three witnesses.
were rather unceremoniously dismissed, and the Nameaugs were *
imperatively commanded to return to their allegiance to Uneas.
At the next meeting of the commissioners, (July, 1647,) Winthrop
was himself present, and presented a petition signed by sixty-two
Indians ‘‘now dwelling at Namyok,’’ entreating to be released from
subjection to Uneas, and allowed to settle together in one place under
the protection of the English. In the debate upon this petition the
whole conduct of Uncas was reviewed, and the court acknowledged.
that the outrage of the preceding summer had been too lightly treated
by them. In addition to former complaints, it was stated that he
had been more recently guilty of extensive depredations upon the
Nipmucks, who had settled on the Quinebaug river, under the pro-
tection of the Massachusetts government.
The charge also of insolent bearing, and hostility toward the new
settlement at Pequot was reiterated against the sachem. Winthrop
stated, that Nowequa,' the brother of Uncas, had made a descent
with his men upon the coast of Fisher’s Island, destroyed a canoe and
alarmed his people who were there. The same chief, on his return
to Mohegan,
“ Hovered around the English plantation in a suspicious manner, with forty or fifty of his men,
many of them armed with guns, to the affrightment not only of the Indians on the shore (so that
some of them began to bring their goods to the English houses) but divers of the English them-
selves.’?2
1 The same as Waweequa or Waweekus. 2 Hazard, vol. 2.
54 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Foxon, the deputy of Uncas at this court, was a prudent and
skillful counselor, esteemed by the natives ‘‘ the wisest Indian in the
country.’’* He used his utmost endeavors to exculpate the sachem
from the various charges brought against him, but admitted the guilt
of Waweequa, under whom, he said, and without the knowledge of
Uncas, the hostile incursion had been made on the Nipmucks.
The court rebuked Uneas for his ‘‘sinful miscarriages,’’ and
amerced him in one hundred fathoms of wampum, but repeated the
order that the Pequots should return to his sway and become
amalgamated with his people:
“Yet they thought fit that the old men who were at Nam-e-oke before Mr. Winthrop’s coming,
should continue there, or be so provided for as may best suit the English at Pequot, but under
subjection to Uncas as the rest.”
The refusal of the court to comply with the earnest petition of the
oppressed Nameaugs, may seem harsh at the present day. But it
must be remembered that the Pequots were then a terror to the whole
country. The very name caused an involuntary shuddering, or
excited strong disgust. The commissioners excuse their decision
by saying, that they had not forgotten ‘‘the proud wars some years
since made by them, and the decree subsequently passed that they
should not be suffered to retain their name, or be a distinct
people.’’?
It can not be denied that in all controversies between the Mohegans
and other Indian tribes, the colonial authorities were inclined to favor
Uneas. This chief, by the destruction of his enemies, and the
gratitude of the English, was daily rising into importance. The elder
Winthrop counseled his son, to cultivate the friendship of a chief,
whose proximity would render him an inconvenient enemy:
“T hear that Uncas is much at Connecticut, soliciting, &c. Seeing he is your neighbor, I would
wish you not to be averse to reconciliation with him, if they of Connecticut desire it.’3
Several years elapsed before these amicable relations were estab-
lished. It is doubtful whether Mr. Winthrop and the sachem were
ever cordial friends.
The decision of the commissioners that the Nameaugs should be
amalgamated with the Mohegans was never carried into effect. The
English planters countenanced them in throwing off the yoke, and
1 Letter of Elliot, Mass. Ifis. Coll., 2d series, vol. 4, p. 57.
2 Wazard.
3 Letter of 1647. Savage’s Winthrop.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 55
boldly stood between them and their exasperated chief.' The decree
was solemnly reénacted by the court in October, 748. ‘‘ And it was
now thought fit,’’ says the record, ‘‘that Mr. John Winthrop be
informed of the continued minds and resolutions of the commis-
sioners for their return;’’ that in case Uncas should be obliged to
enforce the order, he should not be opposed by him and his company,
nor the Pequots sheltered by them. Again in July, ’49, the commis-
sioners uttered their testimony against the continued withrawing of
the Pequots from Uncas. The country at large could not allow the
hated name to be perpetuated. Though some of the Nameaugs had
never taken any part in the strife with the English, others had
undoubtedly been numbered among the warriors of Sassacus, and
some were even accused by the Mohegans of having been in the
Mystic fort fight, and to have escaped under cover of the smoke.
Those of the tribe that had taken part in the barbarous outrages
committed at Saybrook and Wethersfield in 1636, were regarded
with yet greater detestation.
So late as 1651, Major Mason and Thomas Stanton were commis-
sioned by the General Court to make a rigid inquest whether any of .
those ‘‘murtherers of the English before the Pequett warres,’’ could
be found, that they might ‘‘be brought to condign punishment.”’
1 Letter of R. Williams to Winthrop in Oct., 1648, notices ‘‘the outrageous carriage of Onkas
among you.”
CHAPTER IV.
Ancient Records.—Early Regulations.—First Grantees.—First division of lands.—Court orders
for the Government.—Enlargement of Bounds.—Indian trading house.—First Minister.
Earliest Births. ,
THE earliest records of the town were made in a loosely stitched
book, which is now in a fragmentary state. Some succeeding scribe
has labeled it ‘‘The Antientest Book, for 1648, 49, 50,’’—but a few
fragments are found in it dated yet earlier,—in 1646 and ’7.
Who was the clerk or recorder of this old book is not ascertained.
He uses the orthography, Hempsteed, Lothroup, Winthroup, Isarke
Willie, Minor, &c. Instances of provincialism in employing and
omitting the aspirate occur, as huse for use; eavy for heavy. The
two Winthrops, John and Deane, are uniformly entitled Mr., as are
* also Jonathan Brewster and Robert Parke, when they appear in the
plantation; but all others are styled Goodman, or mentioned by
Christian and surname, without any prefix.
The public officers at this time were one constable, five townsmen,
among whom Winthrop held a paramount authority, two fence-viewers
and clearers of highways, and two overseers of wears. The annual
meeting was held on the last Thursday in February. The legal or
‘dating year began on the 25th of March. Subsequently, though not
in this oldest book, the double date was used between the 25th of
February and 25th of March. In one end of the book was kept the
account of town meetings and regulations made by the inhabitants,
» or by the townsmen, and in the other, (the book being turned,) a
record of house-lots and other grants.
That which appears to be the oldest remaining page of this
‘‘ Antientest Book,’’ and consequently the oldest fragment of record
extant in the town, begins with No. 13 of a series of by-laws; the
first twelve being lost. It is dated July, the year gone, but we learn
from the dates following that it was 1646.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 57
13. ‘It is agreed by the inhabitants of Nameeug? that the land liing between the oxe pastuer
at the end of the field by John Robinsons and so between the highway and the great river aloung
to alwife brooke? shall be for a coren [corn] field for the use of the town to make a generall
filde.
“The 17 of Desember William Mortons meadow was recorded and the same day Robert
Hempsteeds plot by the cove 2 pole.”
The ox-pasture was on the river, north of Winthrop’s Neck. The
fencing of this pasture, to receive the cattle of the planters, and the
building of a bridge over the brook at the north end of the town
plot, were probably some of the first preparatory steps toward the
settlement.
The next regulations are unimportant; relating to trespasses of
cattle and laying out of lots.
‘John Stubens and Robert Hempsteed are chosen to view the fences for this year, [1647.]”
‘©25 of februarrie 1647, [1648, New Style.]
“The inhabitants of Nameeug did chuse with a joynt consent Mr. John winthroup, Robert
lempsteed, Samuell lothroup, Isarke willie and Thomas Minor to act in all Towne affaires as the
other fouer did the last yeare with Mr. John winthroup having the same power as he did have
the last yeare only no planting grounde must be granted or laid out for this yeare but in the
generall coren [corn] fielde at foxens hills the other side of the great river4 we may lay out, by
lot only must it be laid out.
“the same day Isarke willie was granted by the said inhabitants to have a planting lot at the
other side of the cove by Mr. deane winthroups lot.
“Tt is ordered the 2 of march [1648] whosoever from this time forward shall take up any lot
that if he com not in six months time to inhabit his lot shall be forfite to the Towne—and further
it is agreed that no prsons or pson [person] shall have admittance into the Towne of Nameeug
there to be an inhabitant except the pties or ptie [party] shall bring some testimonie from the
magestrates or Elders of the place that they com from or from some neighbor plantations and
some good Christian, what their carriage is or have been.”
This last order has aline drawn overitas expunged. Itwas probably
1 This rugged Indian name 1s the only one used in the records to designate the plantation till
1649.
2 Alewife Brook, three miles north of the town plot, a stream flowing into what is now called
Bolles Cove. On the Great Neck, southwest of the town, were another stream and cove, bearing
the same name, and still retaining it.
3 Foxen’s Hill was that beautiful ridge of land on the west side of the river, north of the town
plot, where is now the mansion of Capt. Lyman Allyn, with the Congdon place, and the farms of
the Messrs. Bolles.
4 Great River, or Great River of Pequot is the name uniformly given in the early records, to
the river opposite the town, while farther up the stream, it was invariably called Mohegan
River. :
2
58 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
proposed, but not sanctioned by a majority. No such stringent law
in regard to inhabitancy was ever in operation. The following
regulation of the same date, would be regarded at the present day as
sufficiently exacting and arbitrary.
“Jt is agreed by the inhabitants that any man being lawfully warned to apear at any generall
towne meeting, that refuse, or that do not com at the time appoynted, or within half an houre of
the apointed time, if he be at home, or have notice of the citation, that man shall pay to the
constabell two shillings and six pence for the use of the towne, or if any person do voate after the
companie be com to voate, or before the meeting be ended, without the companies leave, that
partie shall likewise pay two shillings and six pence for his disorder; and further it is agreed that
if any failes in either of these two thinges before mentioned, and refuse to pay the penaltie, when
the constabell demandes it, the constabell shall have power to distraine.
“March, 1648. It is agreed if any person do kill any wolfe or wolfs within the town of
Nameeug, he that kills the wolf shall have of everie familie in towne six pence conditionaly that.
he bring the head and the skin to any two of the townsmen. ;
‘The 16 of Januarie, 1648. [1649.]
“It is agreed by the townsmen of Nameeug that Mr. John winthroup is granted toset up a were
and to make huse of the river at poquanuck1 at the uper end of the plaine for to take fish and
so to make improvement of it, to him and his heires and asings.
The 17 of februarie, 1648. The meadow that Robert hempsteed did formerly mow liing by
quittapeage Rocke? is granted to Andrew loungdon and giles smith from the great Rock at the
north end and so to hould in breadth of the pon as far towards the plombeech as any was mowed
by Robert hempsteed.”’
Young as the township was, we find that this last extract reverts
to what had formerly been done. This and other similar references.
add strength to the intimations given that a band of planters was here
as early as 1645, making preparations for a permanent settlement.
It will be observed that in the record of the next annual meeting
the formula is varied; the name Nameeug is dropped and apparently
no more authority is given to Winthrop than to the other townsmen.
‘22 Feb. 1648, [’49.] The inhabitants of Pequit plantation have chosen by a joynt consent Mr.
John Winthroup, Robert Hempsteed, Carie Latham, John Stubens and Thomas Minor for this
1 Poquanuck is the name ofa small stream which runs south through Groton and enters a
cove or creek of the Sound, about two miles east of the Thames.’ The name is also applied to
the village and plain in its vicinity, but it is now generally written Pequonuck. The aboriginal
name of Windsor and of a part of Stratford was similar.
2 Quittapeag Rock, may have given name to what are now known as Quinnapeag Rocks, om
the west side of the river’s mouth, byt the former must have stood farther in upon the shore.
Quittapeag was either the Light-House ledge or Long Rock, half a mile south-west of the Light-
House.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 59
yeare following to act in all towne affaires as well in the disposing of lands as in other prudentiall
occasions for the towne.
“The same day the inhabitants did ‘consent and desier that the plantation may be called
London.”
It was proposed also that in the records the town should be styled
‘¢Pequit plantation or London,’’ joining the two together.
Thus early did the inhabitants select their name; fixing upon the
one, which of all others should be most generally enwessliiee of the
far-off home they had left behind. To this choice they faithfully
adhered through many discouragements. The General Court
demurred at their favorite name, declined to sanction it, and as we
shall see suggested another, which the inhabitants refused to adopt.
The Indian names therefore continued to be used in the records,
though we may readily suppose that the chosen designation of the
planters came into colloquial use, and that the growing settlement
was soon known in the abbreviated style of the olden time, as Lon’on
town or New Lon’on.
Other regulations made in 748 and ’49, are not of sufficient interest
to be given at large. They relate to the marking of cattle ;—the
impounding of cattle and swine, and the disposition to be made of
strays,—the order in which the owners of cattle were by turns to
relieve the cowkeeper on the Sabbath,—the laying out of highways
east of the river, and the penalty attached to taking away another
person’s canoe, when fastened to the shore. The cattle of the
inhabitants, the swine, the corn-fields, the salt marsh, and the wears,
were evidently their principal pecuniary concerns. Waterhouse and
Stubens were chosen overseers of the wears for the year ’49.
We turn now to the record of house-lots, and the names of the first
planters. It is plain that no grants had been recorded before 1647,
but many of the planters were before this in actual possession of lots.
When therefore, they were confirmed and registered, reference was
occasionally made to the fence that inclosed the lot, or the house
built upon it.
The home-lots were originally numbered up to thirty-eight; but
erasures and alterations were made, reducing the names of grantees
to thirty-six; of these, the first six are missing, and several of the
remainder are partially erased, but by comparison with subsequent
records, the whole thirty-six can be ascertained.
1. John Winthrop, Esq., whose home-lot was undoubtedly selected
by himself before all others: it covered the Neck still known by his
name. The next five were probably John Gager, Cary Latham,-
60 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Samuel Lothrop, John Stebbins, and Isaac Willey, whose homesteads
lay north-west of Mr. Winthrop’s, on the upper part of what are now
Williams Street and Main Street.
“7, Jacob Waterhouse is granted by’a general voate and joynt consent of the townsmen of
Nameeug to have six ackers for an house lot next to John Stubens, be it more or less.”
Such is the style of the house-lot grants: a parcel of meadow,* and
of upland, at a distance from the home-lot is added to each.
8. Thomas Miner; 9. William Bordman; 10. William Morton.
These three were in the south-west 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 planta-
tion. Bordman in a short time sold out to Morton, and left the
place.*
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, Deane Winthrop, William Bartlett, (on the
cove called Close Cove; this lot is dated in the margin 15 Oct., 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.
5th, 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, Hallett, 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,
1
1 The “ salt meadow on Mamaquacke”’ was added in portions of two acres each to the house-
lot grants, as far as it went. A marsh called Spring meadow was exhausted in the same way.
Mamaquack, or as written afterward, Mamacock, was the neck of land on which Fort Trumbull
is situated. .A neck of land two miles up the river bore ‘the same name.
2 A William Boardman died a few years later at Guilford, leaving no issue. He was probabl.
the same person. [Judd, MS8.] : eee
HISTORY OF:-NEW LONDON. 61
Waterhouse, Stebbins, Willey, Nicholls, Skidmore, Lothrop, Bedell,
~ Latham, Lewis, Hempstead, Bordman, Gager, Miner, Bartlett.
That of Mr. Brewster is next added.
Preparatory to a division of lands on the east side of the river, two
grants are recorded to Mr. Winthrop, who was allowed a first choice
of his portion, while the other shares went by lot. The first is a farm
of princely dimensions at Poquonuck, and the other a lot on the river.»
The lands in these situations, on the Sound and on the river, being
those which the inhabitants could immediately make available, were
the first divided. The upland on the river furnished planting fields,
and the Poquonuck plains, meadow and grass land. ;
Winthrop’s farm embraced a tract about three miles in length from
north to south, averaging perhaps a mile in breadth, lying between
Poquonuck Creek or River and what was then called Hast or Straight
Cove, (since known as Mumford’s Cove.) On the south it was
washed by the Sound and intersected by inlets of salt water. In
this compass were all the varieties of forest and meadow, arable land,
pasture and salt marsh, which are useful to the farmer, and pleasing
to the eye of taste. It lay also in an opposite position to Winthrop’s
island farm, so that the owner of these two noble domains could look
over Fisher’s Island Sound, from either side, and rest his eye on his
own fair possessions.
Winthrop’s grant on the east bank of the river was ‘‘right against
the sandy point of his own home lot, the length eight score pole and
the breadth eight score pole;’’ that is, on Groton bank, opposite the
eastern spur of Winthrop’s Neck. These grants being settled, the
other planters drew lots for their shares on the 17th and 31st of
January, 1648-9. From these lists we obtain two catalogues of those
who may be considered as first comers.
“A division of lands on the east side of the Great River of Pequoet, north of Mr. Winthrop’s
lot.”
The list contains but eighteen names: the shares were of twenty,
thirty and forty acres. The division of Poquonuck plain was in lots
of the same average size, and the number of grantees twenty-two,
viz., Austin, Bartlett, Bedell, Bemas, Bordman, Bussbraw, Fossiker,
Gager, Hallet, Hempstead, Latham, Lewis, Longdon, Lothrop,
Miner, Morton, Nicholls, Robinson, Smith, Stebbins, Waterhouse,
Willey. These were undoubtedly all actual residents of the town
plot at that time, and expecting to cultivate the land the next season;
but Austin, Bordman, Bussbraw, Hallet, Robinson and Smith soon
62 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
disappeared from the plantation, forfeiting or selling their grants.
Deane Winthrop, after a short residence with his brother, returned
to Boston, and is no further connected with our history.. It is no
matter of surprise that a portion of the planters determined to look
further for a more favorable position. The sterile soil, yielding but
a scanty return in proportion to the labor required for its cultivation,
must have discouraged many, who were expecting to gain a liveli-
hood by husbandry.
The first house 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 Williams St. to
Manwaring’s Hill, and down Blackhall St. to Truman St. and the
Harbor’s Mouth Road. Main St. was opened, and from thence a
cut over the hill westward was made, (now Richards and Granite
Sts.) Bank St. was laid out on the very brink of the upland, above
the sandy shore, and a spur (now Coit St.) was carried around the
head of Bream Cove to Truman St., 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 St. was uniformly
called the Town St. and Bank St. the Bank. Hempstead St. was
one of the first laid out, and a pathway coincident with the present
State St. led from the end of the Town St., west and north-west, 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 St. was the Beach, and the head of it at
the entrance of Mill Cove, was Sandy Point.
The streams were larger than at present. Mill and Truman’s
* Brooks were called little rivers. A considerable stream! crossed the
Town St., (above the intersection of Church St.,) and flowing east
and north-east ran into the cove not far from Federal St. A rivulet,
meandering from Manwaring’s Hill, along the side of Robert Hemp-
stead’s lot into Bream Cove, was called Vine Brook. Small gushing
rills of pure water were numerous; and ponds and miry thickets,
from whence the shrill-voiced frogs announced approaching spring,
were freely scattered over the surface of the town plot.
1 Afterward called Solomon’s Brook, from Solomon Coit, through whose garden it flowed
i
‘
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 63
The earliest houses were undoubtedly built of timber that grew
on or near the spot where they stood. Along Mill Cove some large
trees were left standing ;! the hill-side, sloping from the summit to
the water, was probably at the time of the settlement a dense wood-
lot, very rugged and in some parts precipitous and rocky. It seems
to have been Winthrop’s original design, that a meeting-house should
be built on this height, and therefore from the first, the whole
ridge lying between the present First and Second Burial-Grounds, |
was called Meeting-house Hill.
Near the center of the town plot was a prominent ledge of gran-
ite, lying north and south; (near Union St.,) which was left for a
century and a half in its native condition, forming a kind of back-
ground to the eastern portion of the town, with only here and there
a house west of it. This ledge is now in the crowded part of the
city, having all its projecting and rugged points lowered, or entirely
blasted away, and wearing a beautiful crown of churches.
Nothing appears on the town books from first to last, relative to
the contending claims of Massachusetts and Connecticut for the ju-
risdiction of the place. No one would even conjecture, from any
thing recorded here, that the right of the latter colony was ever
called in question. After the decision of the commissioners in
July, ’47, in favor of Connecticut, the jurisdiction was quietly con-
ceded to her.
An order of the General Court, Sept. 9th, 1647, intimates that
the question of jurisdiction is at rest.
“The Court thinks meet that a Commission be directed to Mr. Wynthrop to execute justice
according to our lawes and the rule of righteousnes.”
This commission was renewed the next year, and Winthrop con-
tinued in the magistracy until chosen to higher office in the colony.
At the session of the General Court in May, 1649, the following
regulations were made respecting Pequot:
1. The inhabitants were exempted from all public country charges, i. e., taxes for the eupport
of the colonial government, for the space of three years ensuing.
2. The bounds of the plantation were restricted to four miles each side of the river, and six
1 These particulars are gathered from the descriptions of grants, bound-marks, and old deeds.
2 The First Congregational Church, the old Methodist, and two Baptist Churches, are on this
ledge.
64 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
miles from the sea northward into the country, “ till the court shall see cause and have encourage-
ment to add thereunto, provided they entertain none amongst them as inhabitants that shall be
obnoxious to this jurisdiction, and that the aforesaid bounds be not distributed to less than forty
families.”
3. John Winthrop, Esq., with Thomas Miner and Samuel Lothrop as assistants, were to have
power as a court to decide all differences among the inhabitants under the value of forty
shillings.
4. Uncas and his tribe were prohibited from setting any traps, but not from hunting and
fishing within the bounds of the plantation.
5. The inhabitants were not allowed to monopolize the corn trade with the Indians in the
river; which trade was to be left free to all in the united colonies.
6. “The Courte commends the name of Faire Harbour to them for to bee the name of theire
Towne.”
7. Thomas Miner was appointed “ Military Sergeant in the Towne of Pequett,” with power
to call forth and train the inhabitants.
At the same session, orders were issued with respect to certain
individuals at Pequot, viz., Robert Bedell, Cary Latham and Isaac
Willey, charged with resisting a constable, and letting go an In-
dian committed +6 their charge; ‘‘one Hallet,’’ accused of living
with another man’s wife; and Mary Barnes,! whose offense is not
specified; all of whom were summoned to appear at Hartford and
answer for their conduct. The inspection of the General Court at
that period apparently extended to every household, and took cog-
nizance of the character and conduct of every individual within
their jurisdiction.
‘William Hallet about this period, and probably in consequence of
the warrant against him from the court, forfeited his grants and
left the plantation.
In May, 1650, the General Court added to the bounds of the
town two miles from the sea northward; and a year later extended
the western boundary to Bride Brook, where it had been at first
marked out by Winthrop. This grant, with the condition annexed,
was in the following terms:
“ Act of Assembly, May 15, 1651.
“This Court taking into consideration the proposition of the inhabitants of Pequoet for some
enlargement of meadowe at Naihanticot and whereas there was 500 ackers of ground lying in
Pequoet granted to five of Captin Mason’s souldiers at the Pequoet’ warr, wch being taken up
by Pequoet they doe desire may be recompensed at Naihanticot: the Court desires and appoynts
1
1 This person has not been further traced.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 65
John Clarke and Thomas Berchard of Scabrooke should goe to Pequoet and vewe the said
parcell of land there given to the souldicrs and taken up by Pequoet as before, and then goe to
Naihanticot and lay out there unto the said souldiers such and+soe much land, as may be fully
equivalent to there former grant of land at Pequoet.
“And for the inhabitants of Pequoet the'Court grants that there bounds shall come to Bride
Brook, (the former grant excepted) provided that it doth not come within the bounds of Sea-
brooke, and provided that what meadowe or marsh there is above 200 ackers it shall be reserved
for the Countries use and for there dispose.’?1
The above named grant was laid out to Lieut. Thomas Bull and
four others of Mason’s soldiers. The town record says, ‘‘the land
given to Lieutenant Bull and other well deserving soldiers, lies at a
place called Sargent’s Head, on the west side of Nahantick Bay.”’
The next election of town officers, which was probably the fourth
regular annual election, is recorded in a different hand from the
previous records, and varies from them in orthography.
“At a town meeting at Namearke,? the 25th of Feb. 1649 [’50] these fower men chosen for
townesmen.
Mr. John Winthrop,
Mr. Johnnathan Brewster,
Robert Hempstead,
William Nicholls.
“At the same meeting John Stubbines is chosen Constable for the towne Namearke.”
Mr. Brewster must have been chosen clerk or recorder about the
same time. The succeeding records of that year are in his hand,
and he adds to his signature ‘Clarke of the Towne of Pequett.’’
His business as an Indian trader, kept him much abroad, and he
held the office but one year.
Winthrop and Brewster were made freemen of Connecticut
colony, in May, 1650. In September of that year Mr. Brewster
and Thomas Miner appeared at the General Court as the first depu-
ties from Pequot.
The first town grants to Brewster were in September, ’49. He
established a trading-house with the Mohegans, at a point on the
1 See Col. Rec. of Conn., p. 221. The text is copied from New London Town Book, No. 1, p.
89, The only variations from the colonial record are in the spelling: the latter has Niantecutt,
Pequett; the town copy, Nuihanticot, Pequoet.
2 In the orthography of Indian names some clerks made use of k, where others employed g.
Thus, one class wrote Nameeug, Mohegan or Monhegun, Massapeag, Nipmug, and another
Nameark or Namy-ok, Mauhekon, Massapeak, Neepmook.
\
66 HISTORY OF -NEW LONDON.
east side of the river opposite to their principal settlement. At
this place which is still called by his name, Brewster’s Neck, he
laid out for himself a large farm. The deed of the land was given
him by Unceas, in substance as follows :+
“ April 25, 1650. I, Unquas, Sachem of Maubekon, doe give frecly unto Jonathan Brewster of
Pequett, a tract of land, being a plaine of arable land, bounded on the south side with a great
Coave called Poceatannoc ke, on the north with the old Poceatuck path that goes to the Trading
Coaye, &e. For, and in consideration thereof, the said J. B. binds himself and his herrs to keep
a house for trading goods with the Indians.” ‘ “i
[Signed by the Sachem and witnessed by William Baker and John Fossiker.]
This deed was confirmed by the town, Nov. 30th, 1652, and its
bounds determined. It comprised the whole neck on which the
trading-house stood, ‘450 acres laid out by the measurers.’’2
The General Court in May, 1650, censured Mr. Brewster for the
steps he had taken in establishing this trade.
“Whereas Mr. Jonathan Brewster hath set up a trading house at Mohegan, this Court declares
that they cannot but judge the thiug very disorderly, nevertheless considering his condition,
they are content he should proceed therein for the present and till they see cause to the
a3
contrary.
On the 10th of Nov., 1650, a town meeting was held to arrange
a system of coiperation with Mr. Winthrop, in establishing a mill
to grind corn. Sixteen persons were said to be present, though
only fifteen are enumerated, viz.
Mr. Winthrop, Mr. Parke, Jonathan Brewster, Robert Hempsted, William Nicholls, John
Gager, Thomas Stanton, William Bartlett, Peter Blatchford, William Comstock, William Taylor,
My. Blinman, Samuel Lothrop, John Lewis, William Morton.
The establishment of a mill was an object of prime importance.
It was decided that the inhabitants should be at the charge of
‘(making the dam and heavy work belonging to the milne;’’ six
men were selected to perform the work, and make it substantial
1 New London Deeds.
2 Actually, 60: or 700, It was subsequently left to Myr. Brewster’s option to have his farm
included within the bounds of New London or of Norwich. He chose to belong to the latter.
3 Colonial Records, p. 209.
Mr. Brewster had been previously engaged in trading along the coagt from New England to
Virginia, and had met with losses. When he came to Pequot his Bay creditors had stripped him
of his estate. This explains the reference of the Court to his condition. See Mass. Hist. Coll
2d series, vol. 9, p. 281. ;
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 67
and sufficient, (to be paid two shillings per day,) and six others
“were to rate the town, to defray the charge.
“Further, it is agreed that no person or persons shall set up any other milne to grind corn for
the town of Pequett within the limits of the town either for the present, nor for the future, so long
as Mr. John Winthrop or his heirs, do uphold a milne to grind the town corn.”
A considerable addition was made to the number of grantees dur-
ing the year 1650. Robert Parke and his son Thomas had resided
for several years in Wethersfield, from which place the former was
deputy to the General Court in 1641 and ’42. They came to the
Pequot plantation in the spring of 1650. Mr. Parke purchased the
house lot of Mr. Brewster, with its improvements, on Meeting-
house Hill, (corner of Granite and Hempstead Sts.) Mr. Brewster
received a new lot from the town, (which better accommodated
him as an Indian trader,) at the lower end of the bank, south of
the present Tilley St. It was long afterward known as the Picket
lot. Robert Burrows removed from Wethersfield, about the same °
time with the Parkes. His first grant is dated June 2. He had a
house lot in the southern part of the town, but appears to have set-
tled at Poquonuck that year or the next. Grants were also made
during the summer to Richard Belden, Philip Kerwithy, (Car-.
withy,) Samuel Martin and William Taylor, but they proved to be
transient inhabitants. Taylor remained till 1653; the others for-
feited their grants.
On the -19th of October, 1650, grants were made by the towns-
men to
“Mr. Blynman, Obadiah Bruen, ‘Hughe Caukin, Hughe Roberts, John Coite, Andrew Lester,
James Ayerye, Robert Isbell.”
These were all from Gloucester, a town on the eastern coast of
Massachusetts, situated upon the peninsula of Cape Ann. Mr. Rich-
ard Blinman had been the minister of Gloucester, for eight years,
and was now engaged to become the minister of the Pequot planta-
tion. The others were a party of his friends, who purposed to re-
move with him, and came on to make preparatory arrangements.
William Keeny, Ralph Parker, William Wellman, Robert Brookes,
Thomas Stanton and John Elderkin,! all had grants of nearly the
same date, and the three first named probably belonged also to the
Cape Ann party.
1 One of the grants to Elderkin was “four acres of upland on the neck by the English house.”
This is supposed to refer to the ruins of the building erected by the Massachusetts forces as
68 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Thomas Stanton’s house lot consisted of six acres on the Bank,
‘ north-east 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 int 1657 to George Tongue. Robert
Brookes had a house lot given him, but forfeited it.
Before the end of the municipal year, Feb. 25th, 1650-1, we find
the names of George Chappell, William Comstock, Thomas Doxey,
John Gallop, Thomas Hungerford, Mrs. Lake, Captain Sybada, Ed-
, ward Scott, Edward Stallion, Thomas Stedman, and Matthew
Waller, all applicants for house lots.
Kempo Sybada, the Dutch captain, was accommodated with a lot
fronting on Mill Cove, the town street running through it, aad ex-
tending 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 farther south the lots of Edward Stallion and
Thomas Bayley, (Bailey,) extending nearly to State Street. Bay-
ley’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 ateight 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. 20th, 1651-2, was afterward
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 oppo-
site 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
related in Chapter I. It is never referred to in such a manner as to designate its locality. But
it seems to have been near the town plot, and ona ack. Winthrop’s Neck was engrossed by
his house lot. Where could it have been, if not ov the upland part of Mamacock, 4. e. where Fort
* Trumbull now stands? :
.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 69
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 Corinecticut, treating of the planta-
tion at Pequot, places the removal of Mr. Blinman under 1648:
“This year Mr. Richard Blinman, 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 Glouces-
ter 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. Blin-
man with his parishioners at Gloucester is mentioned. Ecclesias-
tical 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 com-
mittee had been sent to confer with him, who had pledged liberal
accommodations of land, with a salary of £60 per annum, which was
to be enlarged as the ability of the town increased. A house lot
of six acres, on Meeting-House Hill, was confirmed to him Dee.
20th, 1650, ‘‘three acres whereof, (says the record,) were given
by the town’s agents, as appears in the articles, and the other three
by a 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 remov-
ing with Mr. Blinman, could not have been less than twenty fami-°
lies. 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 be-
1 If conjecture might be allowed, we should fix the site on the slope of the hill upon the north-
west side, nearly opposite Richard Post’s lot, where is yet remaining an ancicnt well on the
street side.
70 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
came 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 accom-
panied 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.'
In March, 1651, the principal body of these eastern emigrants
arrived; in addition to those already named, 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 them 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-in-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
1 lt 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 /is brother;
and in a dced of 1653, he conveys land which he says “I had of my brother-in-law Thomas
Parke.”
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 71
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 towns-
men 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.
Harly in 1651, New Street, in the rear of the town plot, was
opened for the accommodation of the Cape Ann qompany. _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 Coite, Lester, Avery, Allyn, Meades, Hough,s
Isbell. The Beebys and Marshalls were yet farther north. James .
Morgan was ‘‘on the path to New Street,’’ (i. e., Ashcraft Street.)
William Keeny 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, south-east 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 yard.
The house-lots accorded to the new comers were mostly in thé 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. These remarks particularly apply to that series of
home lots laid out at this time through New Street and northward
of it. Ever those who had the courage to settle down in this part
of the plantation, soon abandoned the land to pasturage or waste, and
found other homesteads. It is but recently that this quarter of the
town has resumed some importance. Cape Ann and Lewis Lanes,
after nearly two hundred years of desolation, are beginning once
more to be peopled and cultivated.
72 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
EARLIEST BIRTHS.
“ Mary, daughter of Robert Hempstead, was born 26 March, 1647.”
This is supposed to be the first birth after the settlement. It is not
recorded in the town book, but is taken from the will of Robert
Hempstead, at the close of which is an indorsement of the births of
all his children, certified by himself. No birth anterior to this date
can be ascertained; and the uniform current of tradition gives to
this the priority. Joshua Hempstead, great-grandson of Robert, in
a memorandum made in his diary about seventy years after the
settlement, stated that the above-named Mary Hempstead was the
first born of English parents in New London.
Robert Hempstead may also have been the first person married in
the settlement. The above-named Mary was his oldest child. His
wife Joanna is supposed to have been a daughter of Isaac and Joanna
Willie. Winthrop was undoubtedly the officiating magistrate, in the
earliest marriages, but no record of any marriage by him, or
incidental notice of any other than the one at Bride Brook, has come
down to us.
It should be noticed that in the town registry of births there are
several which bear an earlier date than that of Mary Hempstead;
_ but on a close investigation, it will be found that these took place in
other towns. The registry entitled ‘‘ Births in New London,’’ begins
with the following record:
“Hannah, the daughter of James Avery, was born 11 Oct. 1644.
«James, the son of do.—l5 Dec. 1646,
“Mary, the daughter of do.—19 Feb. 1647.”
Yet James Avery did not settle in the place till 1651, and upon
examination of the records of Gloucester, Mass., from whence he
removed, we find the births of these children recorded there. This
is not a solitary instance of loose and inaccurate registry, calculated
to mislead inquirers.
Next after Mary Hempstead, and the first-born male of New
London, was Manasseh, son of Thomas and Grace Miner, born
April 28th, 1647. Nor can we find any other births recorded earlier
than the next two children of Thomas Miner. But we know from
other authority, that Winthrop’s daughter Martha! was born here in
July or August, 1648. Other births, also, may have taken place, of
which the record, if any were made, is lost.
1 Savage’s Winthrop, vol. 2, upp., p. 355.
CHAPTER V.
New Recorder and Moderator.—Extracts from the Moderator’s Memorandum Books, with a
running commentary.—Grauts, Grantees and Town Affairs, 1651-1661.
Fes. 25th, 1650 [51.] The four townsmen chosen were Messrs.
Winthrop, Stebbins, R. Parke and Bruen. This was the last year
in which Winthrop acted in that capacity, though he continued to
be consulted in all important affairs. His duties as an assistant of
the colony, and his various private undertakings, in setting up mills
and forges, and his large trading and farming operations, sufficiently
account for his retiring, in a great measure, from town concerns.
At the same annual election of town officers, a very important
appointment was made.
“By a generall consent Obadiah Bruen was chosen Recorder of the towne of Pequot.”
Mr. Bruen continued in this office without interruption for sixteen
years, and was usually moderator of the town meetings; so that
scarcely any record of deeds, votes, choice of officers, accounts, bills
of lading, or copies of legislative acts, can be found belonging to
that period, in any other handwriting than his. Ten years after this
appointment, a resolution was adopted by the five townsmen, which
shows a laudable desire to preserve the public documents, and as it
relates to the matter now in hand, it may be copied here, though not
in the order of time.
“Feb. 6, 1660.
“For the settling perfecting and fairly recording of all records, for the town’s use and good of
after posterity, wee agreed that there shall be a towne booke, with the Alphabet in it, wherein
all acts passed, orders or agreements, shall hereafter be fairly recorded, whether past or to come,
for the effecting hereof, we agree that all the old bookes of records shall be searched into for what
material concerning the public good, to be drawn out into a booke provided and paid for by
74 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
the Recorder, who shall have 6d. paid him out of the town rate for every act, law or order
recorded.”
[Signed by the townsmen, Obadiah Bruen, Hugh Calkin, James Rogers, James Avery,
Willian Nichols.]
“The old bookes of records’? were those sheets which furnished
matter for the foregoing chapter, and several subsequent small mem-
orandum books kept by the moderators and town-clerk. Extracts
from these were now engrossed into a larger book, which is labeled
“Town Book No. 1, Letter E.’’ Those regulations which continued
in force, and other items important to the well-being of the town,
were transferred to the new book, but not in regular order, and some-
times strangely intermixed with the current affairs of the period
when the copy was made. Grants were copied and registered with
more precise bounds, in a book by themselves, which is referred to
as the ‘‘old book under Mr. Brewster ;’’ the registration having been
commenced by him.
Fortunately, a part of the series of memorandum books from which
the extracts were made, remain, though in a fragmentary state and
sometimes illegible. But even in this state, they are of far greater
value than the subsequent copy. They are more ample and minute
in detail, and being made by the clerk upon the spot, they bring us
nearer to the scene and make the picture more vivid. These brief
jottings down, therefore, will be followed as far as they go. Their
suggestive tendency and the bold outlines they sketch, will more than
compensate for breaking the regular course of historical narrative.
Such explanations as may render them intelligible will be interwoven.
The earliest minute in Myr. Bruen’s hand is on a scrap of paper,
apparently part of the first leaf of a memorandum book. It is dated
July, 1651, and affords a full list of the actual inhabitants at that
time.
“The names of all y* wrought at the Mill Dam.
Kary Latham Taylor
Jn° Gallope Willey
Jn° Gager Hanshut
Thom. Parke Tabor
~Jn° Stubbin Waterhouse half a day.
Longdon Comstock
Mynor Beeby pr M* Parke
Chappell O Bruen
Tho® Welles Nichols
Lewis Masters
Bemas Blatehford
Mudg
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 7d
Keny Hungerford
Parker Stallon
Wellman Waller
Brewster Harwood
Bartlet Burrows
Morton Packer
Waterhouse Doxe
Hempsted Burden
Fossiker Marshall.
Stanton
Four names on the list belong to transient or fluctuating residents,
viz., Thomas Hanshut, Nathaniel Masters, John Fossiker and John
Borden; who, after remaining a year, or two years, and coming and
going several times, finally left the plantation.
«July 30—Richard Hauton a Boston man desires a lot.”
Though here called a Boston man, the name of Richard Haughton,
is dot found on the early records of that place, except in the convey-
ance of a dwelling-house and garden to Samson Shore, tailor, 27 of
8 mo. 51,! which probably was about the period that he removed his
family to Pequot. He had married the widow Charlet, of Boston,
and the tenement had probably belonged to her. Haughton had a
house lot granted on Foxen’s Hill.
“« Aug. 15th, 1651.
“Tt is agreed that there shall he a common field fenced in; the fence beginning about Greene
Harbor, and to run through the woods to Robin Hood’s Bay.”
This was for the planting of Indian corn. Robin Hood’s Bay is
now Jordan Cove. The former appellation was retained but a short
time. The name Green Harbor, still in familiar use, came in with
the emigrants from Cape Ann, and was probably so called in remem-
brance of Green Harbor, now Marshfield, where Mr. Blinman and
his friends had dwelt before going to Gloucester. 3
Aug. 29th. The following sketch is supposed from the votes that
follow, to show the result of a ballot for deputies to the General
Court.
Brewster | | 1 | 111 7
Mynor | 1/1/1111 1 10 etd 9
Parke I] 2 Lie 3
Stanton Lt 3 fe 2
Bruen q 1 | 1
Calkin, [| | | | | 5 ee ac) 10
1 James Savage, Esq., (MS.)
76 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
“The Towne have sent to the Court by there Deputys Hugh Calkin & Thomas Mynor that the
Towne’s name may be called London.
« And to know there enlargement to Pockatuck.
“ Also about indians powther.”’
This second application concerning the name of the town, was no
more successful than the former had been. The Court in September,
while it confirmed the enlargement of the bounds to Pawkatuck
River, called the town by its own name, ‘‘ Nameage.’”!
& Venorandums for town meeting, Sept. 20.
“To propound bying of Mr. Parks barne.?
«A yate for Mr. Blynmans half yeer : chuse rater.
“ Speak about new drum,
««Chuse one to run the lyne to Pockatuck.
«Read the Towne grant from the Court.
“A training day. A rate for the book of lawes.
«‘ Amos Richerson is to have a lot.”
- Richardson was from Boston, and had commercial dealings with
the planters. Instead of taking up a new lot, he purchased that of
Richard Post, on Post Hill. The conveyance was made to him by
Richard Post, hammersmith, who henceforth disappears from the roll
of inhabitants.
Under this date a minute is made of several rate lists, which are
interesting as illustrative of the simplicity of the times. They are
the statistics of a fresh-settled, frugal people, with food, raiment and
housekeeping of the plainest kind that could be called comfortable,
abounding only in land and the hope of future good. After enum-
erating house and house lot, meadow, marsh and upland, the planter
had from two to four cows; half a dozen calves, yearlings and two
years old; a litter of swine, and two or three sheep, or perhaps only
a share in a stock of two or three sheep. This was all the ratable
property of even some of the oldest settlers, as Willey, Waterhouse,
and Lewis. Waterhouse had one ox, and it is the only one mentioned
on five rate lists.
“ October.
' «John Picket, Mr. Stanton informed mee, (3 or 4 yeares agoe) desired a lott—now desires to
renew it, and desires a lott by the Dutch Captins, a seaman,—granted.
1 Col. Rec. Conn., vol. 1, p. 224.
2 Mr. Parke’s barn was used for the meeting-house, and the call to service was by beat of
drum.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 77
“Mrs. Lake requests for upland and meddo to her house lott.
““Cowkeeper expects pay for Cowes he desires to know from us what every one must pay.
“ About 6. to make up the mill dam.
“ Another rate for the ministry.
“A rate for the new meeting house.”
Other names that make their first appearance during the year 1651,
principally as grantees, are:
“Richard Aerie, /. 4 John Davies, Edward Messenger,
Goodman Barker, /. - Capt. Denason, John Pickworth, 7.
(of Charlestowne,) Goodman Garlick, f. John Read, f.
Lieutenant Bud, /. John Gesbie, 7. Thomas Roach,
John Coale, 7. John Ingason, 7. William Vincent, 7.”
Edward Codner,
Very few of these persons became permanent settlers. Most of
them, after a short residence and several changes of location,
forfeited their grants. It was the rule that lots not built upon or
fenced within six months, were forfeited. Grants made in the early
part of the year and neglected, were declared forfeit at Michaelmas ;2
but on application the time was often extended to nine months, or a
year.
Richard Aery was from Gloucester, and probably a mariner, as
he often visited the place in subsequent years.
Lieutenant Budd was from New Haven colony. The house lot given
him was directly in the center of the town plot, covering what
is now called the Parade, leaving only a strip of fort land on the
water-side and a highway on the north. The grantee forfeited his
lot, and it was given to Amos Richardson in exchange for his Post
lot. .
John Cole is called ‘‘a ploo-right,’’ (plow maker.) Among other
grants, ‘‘the marsh upon pyne island’’ was given him. This island,
or islet, which lies on the Groton shore, still retains its designation,
though long since denuded of the original growth of pines from
which it was derived.
Capt. George Denison, from Roxbury, Mass., had a house lot given ,
him on what is now Hempstead Street, opposite the present jail. It
has since been known as the old Chapman homestead.
Goodman Garlick was probably the Joseph Garlick afterward of
1 f,, forfeited.
2 The 20th of September. Mr. Bruen wrote the word mighelstide.
78 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
East Hampton, L. I., who became conspicuous in 1657, on account
of the arrest of his wife on suspicion of witchcraft.!
Thomas Roach is not recorded as a grantee of this year; but ina
deposition made by him in 1708, he states that he came to the town
‘‘nearly fifty-eight years ago,’’ which would place him in this list.
Noy. 15th, a house lot in the lower part of the town, near Close
Cove, was laid out to William Chesebrough; from which it may be
inferred that the grantee was purposing to transfer his residence from
Pawkatuck, where he had been living a wild and solitary life for
upward of two years, to the town plot. There is no evidence that
this plan was accomplished, or that he in any way occupied the grant
in town. It was afterward given to Mr. Bruen.
Just a month later, Mr. Chesebrough was again before the towns-
men, in regard to a private grievance, and obtained an order in his
favor.
‘Whereas Goodman Cheesbrough is as we are informed hindered of John Leighton to fetch
home his haie wee the townsmen of Pequot doe order that the said Goodman Cheesbrough? shall
have liberty to goe any way he shall see most convenient for him to bring it home without any
let or hindrance from the said John Leighton. This is determined by us untill the Towne shall
take further order to dispose both of the way and land.”
The town having had their claim to the lands lying east of Mystic
River confirmed by the General Court. made their first grant on that
side, November 15th, 1651, to Capt. Mason. At the session of the
Court in September, a grant had been made to the gallant captain
—as a bounty out of the conquered territory—of an island in Mystic
Bay (called by the Indians Chippachaug, but since known as Mason’s
Island) and one hundred acres of land on the adjoining main-land.
To this the town added their gratuity, joing another hundred acres
to the former grant; and at a subsequent period they extended his
boundary still further to the eastward. The main-land portion of this
noble farm was washed by the salt water on three sides, forming a
neck; and on the north-west was a small brook, called by the Indians
pequot-sepos, afterward a well known boundary between Mason and
Denison land.
1 Thompson’s Hist. Long Island, p. 189. Col. Rec., app., p.573. Mass. Hist. Coll., 3d series
vol. 10, p. 183. be
2 The older clerks were by no means consistent in their spelling. Mr. Bruen writes Cheese-
brooke in one passage and Cheesbrough in another. Ie often made the mistake of writing
Blatchfield for Blatchford. John Leighton may have been the same as John Lawton, afterward
of Westerly. .
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 79
Capt. Mason was at that time intent on obtaining the removal of
the clan of Indians that had settled under the rule of Cassasinamon
on the border of Mystic Bay, oppesite his island. At the same date
with his first grant from the town, a preamble and resolutions are
sketched in the moderator’s note-book, with interlineations in Capt.
Mason’s hand, portending a speedy change of habitation to this
forlorn remnant of the Pequot race, who are here called Nemeaks.
The townsmen declare that they have special use for the land and
the Indians must be removed ; ‘‘the worshipful Capt. Mason’’
engages to effect their removal and to place them with Uncas, where
they shall have land of their own ‘‘as long as Uncas doth hold his
interest there and they demean themselves in a quiet and peaceable
manner.’’ This proposition, if brought before the town, was not
carried: the Indians were not removed from Naiwayonk till sixteen
years later. An agreement, however, was made with the Indians,
obliging them to keep their planting grounds well fenced, and that
they should bear all damages made by cattle of the English on their
corn, as well as make good all damage by their cattle on the corn of
the English. This was signed by their chief, in behalf of his
company, on the moderator’s book, Nov. 18th, 1651.
f
Casesynamon a his mark.
oO
ma 4% ”
Le wllage
Witnesses.
* Nov. 27, 1651.
“Tt is ordered that no man shall transport pipe-staves, bolts, clap-boatds or shingles from this
side of the river without leave of the townsmen upon penalty of 5s. the hundred.”
“Feb, 21, 1651-2.
“None shall fell any trees upon the Common within 10 pole of any man’s fence, or about the
common field fence next unto the Commons.”
These regulations display a prudent forethought rather uncommon
in the first settlers of a well forested country. The first has a bearing
80 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
upon the wanton havoc of timber, and the other on the preservation
of trees for shade around the borders of the highways and fields.
The fathers of the town were solicitous, from the first, to prevent an
indiscriminate waste of the wood-lands. Ordinances to preserve the
timber upon the commons, and all trees that were desirable to be
left for shade in the streets and highways, and also in the broader
commons, may be traced downward into the next century. The
townsmen were directed to mark all such trees with marking irons
with the letter S, and a fine was imposed for cutting them down.
In their eagerness to clear the country and open to themselves a
broader scope of the sun and stars, they were not unmindful of beauty,
propriety and the claims of posterity—arguments which have had
less weight with some succeeding generations.
“Dec. 6.
“Myr. Winthrop hath a small island given him: one of the outermost of Mistick’s islands yt
lyes next his own island, yt upon which he puts his ram goates, now named Ram-Goat island.’!
Several of the larger farmers, at this period, made an attempt to
keep goats. On the east side of the river were several large herds
containing from twenty to fifty goats. A by-law was made for their
regulation :
“May 28, 1651.
“Tt is ordered that all dammage done by goates is to be vewed by three indifferent men, and
as they shall judge the real dammage, double dammage is to be allowed.”
Mr. Winthrop was probably the only one who persevered in raising
goats. At atime when the Narragansett Indians were considered
turbulent, (November, 1654,) a report was current ‘that they had
killed two hundred of Mr. Winthrop’s goats.’’2
The Mystic islands, with the exception of Chippachaug or Mason’s
Island, were small and of slight value, and yet were early solicited
from the town as grants.
“Dec. 15, 1651.
“Thomas Mynor hath given him at Mistick a small island lying between Chipichuock [Mason’s
Islund] and the Indians; at the east end of it there is a little upland full of bushes.”
x
1 Now Bradford's Island, a favorite summer resort.
2 Mass. Hist. Coll., 8d series, vol. 10, p. 4.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 81
The possession of this island was contested with Mr. Miner, and
he surrendered the grant. It is probable that Mr. Blinman had some
claim to it, and that it was the island granted to the latter, as
follows—
“Feb. 5, 1653, [74.]
“Mr. Blinman hath given him a small island, a woody island against Capt. Mason’s island at
Mistick : called by the Indian name of Ashowughcummocke.”
In May, 1655, ‘‘a small woody island near his island at Mistick’’
was granted to ‘‘Major Mason of Seabrook.’’ This is probably a
third grant of the same island. ‘‘Sixpenny island at the mouth of
Mistick,’’ was granted to Robert Hempstead and John Stebbins in
1652. Notwithstanding its derisive name it contained near twenty
acres of marsh.
During the winter of 1651-2 the common lands upon the Great
Neck, consisting of all the old grownd between the town and Alewife
Brook,! were laid out and divided by lot. The lots were arranged
in tiers upon the river to the brook, and then beyond, by what was
called ‘‘the blackamore’s river,’’? and from thence along the Sound.
These were for plowing and mowing lots, and in the rear was laid
out a series of woodland lots, double the size of the others and
reaching from the ox-pasture near the town to Robin Hood’s Bay.
If this were not sufficient, the measurers were to go forward toward
the north of Uhuhiock? River, until all had their lots laid out.
These difficult divisions appear to have been managed with skill and
fairness. It is interesting to note the care and precision with which
the townsmen form the plan and give the directions to the surveyors.
The one who had the first lot—that is, the lot nearest home—in the
mowing land, was to have the last in the wood-land: and the portions
of the common fencing were arranged in the same order. Care was
taken that all should have equal portions of old and new ground, and
it was a general rule that allowance should be made for defects. All
large rocks and swamps unfit for use, were to be left unmeasured
and cast into the nearest lots.
The agreements made with the cow-keepers display the same prin-
ciples of prudential care and equal justice. The cattle were divided
1 This is Lower Alewife Brook, a pleasant little stream on the Great Neck.
2 A brook beyond Alewife, so called at that time on account of some Indian wigwams remain-
ing near it. ”
3 Or Ubuhioh, the aboriginal name of Jordan Brook.
B2 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
into two herds, with each a keeper, who began his time at the 19th
of April, and received the herd at certain portions of the town, going
forth with them at sun half an hour high and bringing them home
half an hour before the sun set.
“For the Lords days he is to keep them every 4th Lords day and to give one days notice to
him that hath most cattle first to keep them upon the Lords day and so whoever hath one more -
than an other to warn him before he that hath fewer to keep them a Lord’s day and after he that
hath but one cow shall keep them his day, then to begin again with him that hath most, twice
warning them that have double the cattle that their neighbors have before once warning him
that hath but half that his neighbor hath.
“The keeper for his paines is to have 12s. a weeke—for his pay he is to have 1 pound of butter
for every cow, and the rest of his pay in wompum or Indiane Corne, at 2s. 6d. p. bushell in the
moneth of October.”
The waste marsh generally overflowed, was given to a company
of undertakers, viz., Mr. Denison, Hugh Caulkins, John Elderkin
and Andrew Lester, who undertook to drain it, and were to have all
the land ‘‘now under water forever.’' It was added:
“The undertakers have liberty to make a weare. They are to leave it open two nights every
week for the coming up of the alewives. The town to have freedom to take what they please at
the usual place or to buy them at the weare at 20 ale vives for a penny for their cating.”
The salt marshes were esteemed as the first class of lands by the
planters. Those near the harbor’s mouth were known by the Indian
name of Quaganapoxet and were mostly granted to the settlers from
Gloucester, as a kind of bonus to induce them to remove, and as
furnishing a ready-made food for the cattle they brought with them.
They are often referred to as ‘‘the marshes given to Cape Ann
”
men.
March 17th, 1651-2.
Among the subjects minuted to be brought before the towns-
men, is the following:
“ Mudge’s will:—his house und house lot: Thomas Mynor puts in for a debt of 20sh.” [i.e
due to him from cstate of Mudge.]
The decease of Jarvis Mudge probably occurred two or three
days before this date. It is the first death in the plantation to which
any allusion is made on records now extant. Thomas Doxey died
about the same time, but whether at home or abroad is not known,
as no contemporaneous reference is made to the event. He had a
grant of land recorded to him, Dee. 24d, 1651, and his wife is called
‘widow Kathren Doxey’’ on the 9th of April, 1652. Jarvis Mudge
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 83
was undoubtedly interred in the old burial-ground, as it lay con-
tiguous to his house lot and had not then been inclosed. It is
probable that these were the first relics left to molder in that vener-
able place. The families of these two deceased individuals soon
removed to other parts of the country, leaving none of either name
in New London. Wills and inventories were at that time engrossed
‘upon the town book, and sent to the Assistants’ Court at Hartford
for probate; but no papers relative to the estate of either Mudge or
Doxey are extant, except the following item.
“June 18, 1653. The Court at Hartford give liberty to the townsmen of Pequot to dispose of
the lot of the widow Mudge towards the paying of the debts, and the bettering of the children’s
portions.’’1
The first registered death was that of a child born in the town.
“Ann daughter of Thomas and Grace Minor born 28 April 1649: died 13 August 1652.”
A blacksmith is an important personage in a new settlement.
Richard Post and others of the first comers were of this profession,
but they had left the place, and an invitation was extended to John
Prentis, of Roxbury, to become an inhabitant and wield the hammer
for the public benefit. The town of Hadley had made a similar
proposal to him,? but he came to Pequot on a visit of inquiry, and
entered into a contract with Mr. Winthrop and the townsmen, who,
being authorized by the town, engaged, if he would remove, to build
him a‘house and shop, pay the expense of his transportation, and
provide him with half a ton of iron, also ‘‘ twenty or thirty pound of
steele,’’? to be ready by the middle of May. These articles were
signed Feb. 28th, 1651-2, and at the same date he received the
usual accommodations of a planter, house lot, upland and meadow.
The house lot of two acres was in an eligible and central position, at
the corner of the present State and Bank Streets.3
About the same period a house lot near the mill brook was laid
out to Lieutenant Samuel Smith, from Wethersfield, a person whose
respectable standing as an officer and capacity for business made him
a welcome inhabitant. He was subsequently chosen ‘‘the towne’s
leivetenant.’’
!
1 New London Town Book.
2 Sylvester Judd, Esq., of Northampton, (MS8.)
3 The Prentis lot with two houses upon it, one of them altered from the shop, was purchased
in Feb., 1658 by Joshua Raymond. A part of it was owned by the Raymonds for 150 years.
<
~
84 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
“May 20.
* «Water [Walter] Harries of Dorchester desires a house lot beyond the plot of land by John
Coites. Granted.”
This house lot was at the south end of the town, toward Green
Harbor. Additions were subsequently made to it from the ox pasture
on the opposite side of the way, and a quantity of ‘hideous rocks”’
near by were thrown in unmeasured.
“ Aug. 29,
“ John Stoder [Stoddard] hath a house lot given him at Foxen’s hill,—6 acres, highwaies to be
allowed to common land and to fetch stones.”
The transportation of stones alluded to in this grant refers to a
ledge of granite on the bank of the river, a mile from town, where
stones for building were quarried. ‘‘A highway to the Quarry”?
was reserved in grants near it. Winthrop’s house and some others
were built of stone, probably from this ledge.’
Other grantees and new inhabitants of 1652.
Thomas Griffin, afterward of Pawkatuck.
William Rogers, from Boston.
Nehemiah Smith, sometime of New Haven.
Richard Smith, from Martin’s Vineyard. He bought the Mudge
house lot, but after a few years removed to Wethersfield.
_ Nathaniel Tappin: grants forfeited.
The charge of the town-clerk for his services during the year
1652, was as follows:
“OQ. B. for writing and recording for the Towne, orders, agreements, petitions, letters, Court
grants, rates, gathering and perfecting rates, writing before, at, and after town meeting,
covenants of cow-keeper and smith, £6.”
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 :
1 The houses of James Rogers and Edward Stallion, both built before 1660, were of stone.
® Stallion’s was on the Town Street: afterward Edgecombe property.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 85
“ July 8, 1652.
‘forfeiture of false raising of an alarum 10/.
“forfeiture of not coming when an alarum is raised 5/.
‘forfeiture of not coming to there pticular squadron 5/.
“Tt is agreed y* it shall be a just alarum when 3 gunnes are distinctly shot of, and the drum
striking up an alarum.
“Tf 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 y? sett a gunn for that end shall acquaint the con-
stable 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 Sergeant.
Miner’s squadron was to repair to Hugh Caulkins’, Captain 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 per-
haps the greatest error committed by the fathers of the town in their
legislation.
“ April 25, 1653.
“‘ Captain Denison, Goodman Cheesebrooke, Mr. Brewster and Obadiah Bruen are chosen to
make a list of the male persons in town 16 years old and upward, and a true valuation of all real
and personal estate of the said persons according to order of the Court. Goodman Cheesebrooke
is chosen Commissioner to carry the list to the Court in September next.”
This was the first list of the town returned to the General Court,
the inhabitants having been heretofore free from the colonial tax.
The list amounted to £3,334, which ranked the town sixth in the
colony: the five river towns, Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield,
Farmington and Saybrook, took the precedence.
The house lot grants for this year were not numerous. After
1652 there was no general resort of settlers to the plantation. Feb.
20th a house lot on Lower Mamacock, with other accommodations,
was pledged to a Mr. Phillips im case he come. This}was perhaps
the same lot that had been given to John Elderkin and surrendered
by him. Mr. Phillips never came, and the next December the lot
86 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
was given to John Picket and Thomas Hungerford for fire-wood.
This is worthy of notice, as showing that the rugged promontory,
now almost denuded of trees, smoothed down, and crowned with a
noble fortress, could then boast of verdant boughs and forest walks.
August 9th, house’ lots were granted to ‘‘ Amos Richardson’s
brother the millwright’’—afterward called his brother-in-law—and
to ‘“Nehemiah Smith’s brother,’”’ without naming them. The former
subsequently had a grant of a large farm east of the river under the
same vague denomination: he has not been identified. The latter
was John Smith, who had been for some time resident in Boston, and
came to Pequot with wife and one daughter. At the same time
grant was made to ‘‘Goodman White, shoemaker, of Dorchester,”
of whom there is no subsequent notice. November 20th, grants were
made to Edward Culver of a farm at Mystic and a house lot in town.
“Dec. 5. Goodman Harries for his son Gabriell hath given him sixe ackers of upland for an
house lot ioyning next to his father’s.”
This was doubtless a preparatory step to the marriage of Gabriel
Harris and Elizabeth Abbot, which took place at Guilford, March
3d, 1653-4. Tradition adds to the simple record of the marriage
many romantic incidents. It is said that a vessel with emigrants
from England, bound to New Haven, put in to Pequot Harbor fora
shelter in foul weather and anchored near the lonely dwelling of the
Harris family, which stood upon the river side. Gabriel went off in
his fishing boat and invited the emigrants to his father’s house. The
whole party accordingly landed, and a great part of the night was
spent in feasting and hilarity. One of the emigrants was a young
female, to whom Gabriel was so assiduous and successful in his
attentions, that when the company returned to the vessel they were
betrothed lovers. Some, indeed, relate that a clergyman or magis-
trate was present, and the young couple were actually married that
night. But the tradition that harmonizes best with fact is, that the
emigrants went on their way, and the young man shortly afterward
new painted and rigged his father’s pinnace and following the wake
of the vessel through the Sound, came back merrily, bringing a
bride and her household gear.! .
Bream Cove was at this time a noted landing place. The decked
boats and pinnaces used in that day ran nearly up to the head, and
on the west side were several shore rocks, where it was convenient
1 The record of this marriage was communicated by Ralph D. Smith, Esq., of Guilford. Eliza-
beth Abbot was probably a daughter of Robert Abbot, of Branford.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 87
to land. The house lots of Robert Hempstead and James Bemas -
reached to the cove, with the highway (now Coit Street) separating
them into two divisions. In December, 1653, the remainder of the
land on the east side of the cove, was diviled. equally between three
other B’s, Beckwith, Bruen and Blatchford. About the same time,
also, Mr. Blinman removed to the lower part of the town and had
his house lot on the west side of the same cove, where it is supposed
that he dwelt until he left the place.! His house stood near where
the old bridge crossed the cove.
“Dec. 19. Mrs. Lake hath given her in the woods west from the town at a plaine, by a pond
called Plaine lake, 300 acres of upland with the meddo by the pond and the pond.”
The beautiful sheet of water here called Plain Lake has since been
called Lake’s Lake, or Lake’s Pond, and is now included in Chester-
field society, Montville. The farm laid out to Mrs. Lake, nominally
three hundred acres, being measured with the generous amplitude
so common in that day, was twice the size of the literal grant. It
was of a seven-cornered ‘figure, inclosing the beautiful oval lake.
Within the area were hill-sides and glens, wood-lands and swamps
almost impenetrable. This estate was bequeathed by Mrs. Lake to
the children of her daughter Gallop, by whom it was sold to the
Prentis brothers, sons of John Prentis.
The new inhabitants of 1654 were John Lockwood, William
Roberts, William Collins, Sergeant Richard Hartley and Peter
Bradley. Hartley appears to have come from England with a stock
of English goods, which he opened in a shop on Mill Cove. Peter
Bradley was a seaman, who married Elizabeth, daughter of Jonathan
Brewster, and bought the house lot of John Gallop. John Chynnery,
of Watertown,” at the same period bought Capt. Denison’s home-
stead, the latter having previously removed to Mystic.
April 9th. The order was reénacted enforcing attendance upon
town meeting and a fine of one shilling imposed upon absentees
when lawfully warned.
“ The aforesaid fyne also they shall pay if they come not within halfe an howre after the beat-
ing of the drum and stay the whole day or untill they be dismissed bv a publick voate.”
1 This swarm of B’s appears to have been unconsciously gathered around the cove. Peter
Harris afterward built on the spot occupied by Mr. Bliuman.
2 Perhaps this was the John Chenary, who was one of sixteen men, slain by the Indians Sept.
4th, 1675, at Squakeag. Coffin’s Newbury, p. 389,
88 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
The order for a town meeting was given by the townsmen to the
constable, who gave notice to the warner and drummer. The warner
left a summons at every house: the drum began to beat half an
hour before the time for business, and if a constable, two townsmen
and fifteen inhabitants appeared, it was a legal meeting.
“June 2. Goodiman Harries is chosen by the Towne ordinary keeper.
“June 20. Capt. Denison is chosen Commissioner and to him is chosen Mr. Brewster, Mr.
Stanton and Hugh Calkin to make a list of the state of the towne and the inhabitants and to
make the Country rate of Twenty pounds.”
August 28th. The former law granting a tax of sixpence from
every family for the killing of a wolf was repealed, and a bounty of
twenty shillings substituted.
“The Towne having nominated and chosen Goodman Cheesebrooke, Obadiah Bruen and Hugh
Calkin whom to present to the Court desire that they may have power together with Mr. Win-
throp and Captin Denison or any three of them for the ending of small causes in the town.”
This petition was not granted and the inhabitants were obliged
for some time longer to carry their law cases to Hartford for
adjudication.
“Nov. 6.
“John Elderkin was chosen Ordinary Keeper.
“An order from the Court forbidding the sale of strong liquors by any but persons lycensed by
the Court was published.
““Widdo Harris was granted by voat also to keep an ordinary if she will.”
Walter Harris died the day this vote was taken, and Elderkin
was chosen as his successor, who was confirmed in his office and
licensed by the General Court. At the northern extremity of the
town, on Foxen’s Hill, another inn was established about this period,
by Humphrey Clay and his wife Katherine. How far it was sanc-
tioned by the town we can not learn, as the note-books of Mr. Bruen
from the early part of 1655, to September, 1661, are lost and the
regular town book is scanty in its record. The inn of Mr. Clay
continued to be a place of notoriety until 1664, when it was broken
up and its landlord banished from the place for breaches of law and
order.
“ Ata General Town meeting Sept. 1, 1656.
we George Tongue is chosen to keep an ordinary in the town of Pequot for the space of 5 years,
who is to allow all inhabitants that live abroad the same privilege that strangers have, and all
other inhabitants the like privilege excepting lodging. He is also to keep good euiee and
sufficient accommodation according to Court order being not to lay it down under 6 months
warning, unto which I hereunto set my hand
“GEorGE TonGE.”
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 89
George Tongue about this period bought the house and lot of
Thomas Stanton on the Bank, north-east of the Picket lot; and here
he opened the house of entertainment which he kept during his life,
and which, being continued by his family, was the most noted inn
of the town for sixty years.
The establishment of a regular ferry over the river was an object
of prime importance to the inhabitants, all of whom had shares of
land in two or three parcels on the east side. The waters at this
spot may be technically termed rugged. There is no bar, as at Say-
brook, to mitigate the vehemence of the swell, and the mouth of the
river lying open to the Sound, it sometimes rolls like the sea. The
width across in the narrowest part opposite the town, is a little less
than half a mile, but it spreads both above and below this point to
nearly three-quarters of a mile. November 6th, 1651, articles were
drawn to lease the ferry to Edward Messenger for twenty-one years.
This arrangement lasted two or three years, and then Messenger
gave up his lease and removed to Windsor.
In 1654 the disposal of the ferry was left to Mr. Winthrop and
the townsmen, who entered into ‘‘articles of agreement’’ with Cary
Latham, granting him a lease and monopoly of
“The Ferry over Pequot river, at the town of Pequot, for fifty years—trom the twenty-fifth of
March,! 1655. The said Cary to take 3d. of every passenger for his fare, 6:7. for every horse or
great beast, and 3d. for a calf or swine :+and to have liberty to keep some provisions and some
strong liquors or wine for the refreshment of passengers.—No English or Indian are to pass over
any near the ferry place that they take pay for,—if they do the said Cary may require it.”
Mr. Latham, on his part, bound himself to attend the service
immediately with a good canoe and to provide, within a year’s time,
a sufficient boat to convey man and beast. He also engaged to build
a house on the ferry lot east of the river before the next October, to
dwell there and tokeep the ferry carefully, or cause it to be so kept,
for the whole term of years.
In October, 1654, the first levy of soldiers was made in the plan-
tation. The New England confederacy had decided to raise an army
of two hundred and seventy men and send them into the Narragan-
sett country to overawe the Indians. Connecticut was to furnish
forty-five men, with the necessary equipments; and of this force the
1 This was the first day of the civil year.
90 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
quota of Pequot was ‘‘four men, one drum, and one pair of
cullers.’’ The expedition was a fruitless one: the soldiers suffered
many hardships, but had little fighting to do.
In May, 1657, Mr. Brewster was made an assistant and Mr. Win-
throp chosen governor of the colony. This last act caused the re-
moval from town of its friend and patron. The varied information
of Mr. Winthrop; his occasional practice as a physician; his
economical science; his readiness to enter into new paths of enter-
prise; his charity, kindness and affability, made him extremely
popular. His residence in the town was a privilege, although public
affairs for two or three years, had kept him much of the time away.
But it was manifestly inconvenient for the chief magistrate to reside
at Pequot, which was then in a corner of the colony, with a wilder-
ness to be traversed in order to reach any other settlement. At the
solicitation of the General Court, he removed with his family and
goods to Hartford.
“12 Aug :1657—This Court orders that Mr. Winthrop, being chosen Governor of this Colony,
shall be again desired to come and live in Hartford, with his family, while he governs, they grant
him the yearly use or profits of the housings and lands in Hartford belonging to Mr. John
Haynes. which shall be yearly discharged out of the public treasury,”
“Oct. 1. The court doth appoint the Treasurer to provide horses and men to send for Mr.
Winthrop, in case he is minded to come to dwell with us,”
Before Mr. Winthrop’s removal to Hartford he leased the town
mill to James Rogers, 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 dwelling-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 snbsequently 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 6 acres lying east of the
1 Col. Ree., vol. 1., pp. 301, 306.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 91
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 is 1648, stood néar the head of the cove
on the east side, between the street (since laid out and appropriately
named Winthrop Street) and the water. The ow pasture to which
the will refers was inclosed the same year. Samuel Beeby, ina
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 Major 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 home-
stead is supposed to have been for more than a century the only
dwelling on the neck, which was then a rugged point, lying mostly
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 com-
munity, 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.
‘ Tt is said that Mr. Minor had selected this stone
from his own fields, and had often pointed it out to his family, with
the request—Lay this stone on my grave.
Mr. Minor bore a conspicuous part in the settlement, both of New
London and Stonington. His personal history belongs more particu-
larly to the latter place. His wife was Grace, daughter of Walter
Palmer, and his children recorded in New London, are Manasseh,
born April 28tH, 1647, to whom we must accord the distinction of
being the first born male after the settlement of the town; two daugh-
ters who died in infancy; Samuel, born March 4th, 1652, and Han-
nah, born September 15th, 1655. He had several sons older than
Manasseh, viz., John, Joseph, Thomas, Clement and Ephraim.
John Minor was for a short period under instruction at the expense
of the commissioners of the New England colonies, who wished to
prepare him for an interpreter and teacher of the gospel to the In-
dians. The education of John Stanton was also provided for in the
same way. ‘The proficiency of these youths in the Indian language,
probably led to the selection. Neither of them followed out the plan
of their patrons, though both became useful men, turning their edu-
1 This name is now commonly written Miner. We use in this work the original autograph
authority.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 327
cation to good account, as recorders, justices, &c. John Minor is
supposed to have emigrated to Stratford, in 1657 or 1658, and from
thence removed to Woodbury, where he served as town-clerk for
many years.|. The only son of Thomas Minor that settled perma-
nently in New London, was Clement.
Clement Minor married in 1662, Frances, relict of Isaac Willey, Jr.
Children of Clement and Frances Minor.
Mary, born Jan. 19th, 1664-5. William, born Nov. 6th, 1670.
Joseph, “ Aug. 6th, 1666. Ann, «Nov. 30th, 1672.
Clement, born Oct. 6th, 1668.
Frances, wife of Clement Minor, died Jan. 6th, 1672-3.
He married second, Martha, daughter of William Wellman, formerly of New London, but then
of Killingworth.
Phebe, daughter of Clement and Frances Minor, was born April 13th, 1679. (This is so recorded,
but Frances is a palpable mistake for Martha.)
Martha, wife of Clement Minor, died July 5th, 1681.
Mr. Minor usually appears on the records either as Ensign Clem-
ent, or Deacon Clement Minor. He married a third wife—Joanna
—whose death occurred very near his own, in October, 1700.
‘William Mynar, married Lydia, daughter of John Richards,
Nov. 15, 1678.’’ This was not a descendant of Thomas Minor, but
the person better known as William Mynard or Maynard.
George Miller, died in 1690.
This person had been a resident, east of the river, (in Groton, )
from the year 1679, and perhaps longer. He left four daughters,
Mary, wife of Stephen Loomer; Elizabeth, second wife of Edward
Stallion; Sarah, second wife of the second John Packer, and Pris-
cilla, then unmarried.
Robert Miller settled in the Nahantick district, upon the border
of Lyme, about 1687. He died May 14th, 1711, leaving sons Rob-
ert and John. No connection has been ascertained between George
of Groton, and Robert of Nahantick.
John Lamb.
This name is found on the New London Rate List of 1664, and
on the list of freemen in 1669. In December, 1663, he is styled
1 Capt. John Minor was deputy from Stratford to the General Court, in October, 1676. Conn.
Col. Rec., vol. 2, p. 286.
328 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
“John Lamb, now of Pockatuck, alias Southerton.’’? He purchased
land of Edward and Ann Culver ‘‘at a place called in Indian Won-,
tobish, near the house of the said Lamb.’’ This land was in 1695,
confirmed to Thomas, “‘ oldest son of John Lamb, deceased,”’ by John,
son of Edward Culver; and Thomas Lamb assigns a part of it to his
brother Samuel.}
Another John Lamb of Stonington died Jan. 10th, 1703-4, leaving
a wife Lydia—sons John, Joseph and David—and seven daughters.
Isaac Lamb was an inhabitant of Groton in 1696. He died in
1723—leaving six daughters. No other residents of this name have
been traced before 1700.
John Bennet, died September 22d, 1691.
This person was at Mystic as early as 1658. He had sons—Wil-
liam (born 1660;) John and Joseph.
James Bennet, shipwright, died in New London May 7th, 1690.
Thomas Bennet was a resident of New London from 1692 to
1710. He removed to Groton and there died Feb. 4th, 1722. His
wife was Sarah, the only surviving child of Lawrence Codner.
Henry Bennet of Lyme died in 1726, leaving three sons and four
married daughters. Itis probable that all these had a common
ancestor, whose name does not appear on our records.
John Prentis.
No account of the death of this early member of the community
has been found, but the probate proceedings show that it took place
in 1691.
Valentine Prentis or Prentice came to New England in 1631, with
wife Alice and son John, having buried one child at sea. He settled
in Roxbury, where he soon died, and his relict married (April 3d,
1634) John Watson.?
John Prentis, the son of Valentine and Alice, became an inhabi-
tant of New London in 1652, and probably brought his wife, Hester,
with him from Roxbury. Though living in New London he con-
1 The names are similar to those found in the family of John Lamb of Springfield, but a con-
nection with that family has not been ascertained.
2 Genealogy of the Prentis family, by C. J. F. Binney.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 829
nected himself with the Roxbury church in September, 1665, and
thither he carried most of his children to be baptized.
Children of John and Hester Prentis, recorded in New London.
John, born Aug. 6th, 1652. Stephen, Dec. 26th, 1666.
Joseph, born Apr. 2d, 1655, died 1676. Mercy, «1668, died 1689.
Jonathan, born July 15th, 1657. Hannah, born June, 1672.
Esther, born July 20th, 1660. Thomas, ;
Peter, born July 31st, 1668, died 1670. Elizabeth, twins, Nov. 6th, 1675.
In 1685, John Prentis married Rebecca, daughter of Ralph Parker,
by whom he had a son Ralph, who was infirm from his birth, and
maintained until death from the estate of his parents. These are all
the children that appear on record, but in the final settlement of the
estate of Prentis in 1706, a Valentine Prentis of Woodbury comes
in for a share, and gives a quitclaim deed to the executor, whom he
calls ‘‘my loving brother, Capt. John Prentis.’’ Again, on the death
_ of Capt. Thomas Prentis, youngest son of John, who died without
issue in 1741, his estate was distributed to seven brothers and sisters,
one of whom was Valentine Prentis of Woodbury. These facts
justify us in assigning to Valentine a place among the sons of John
Prentis, and probably he was the youngest child of the first marriage,
and born before 1680.
Esther Prentis married Benadam Gallop of Stonington.
Hannah Prentis married Lieut. John Frink of Stonington.
Elizabeth Prentis lived unmarried to the age of ninety-five.
She died December 18th, 1770.
It has been mentioned that John Prentis was by trade a black-
smith. He pursued his craft in New London for six or seven years
and then removed to a farm in the neighborhood of Robin Hood’s
Bay (Jordan Cove) near the Bentworth farm; but in a few years
once more changed his main pursuit and entered upon a seafaring
life. His sons also, one after another (according to the usual custom
of New London) began the business of life upon the sea. In 1675,
John Prentis, Jr., commanded the barque Adventure, in the Bar-
badoes trade. In 1680, the elder John and his son Jonathan owned
and navigated a vessel, bearing the family name of ‘‘ John and Hes-
ter.’? Thomas Prentis also became a noted sea-captain, making a
constant succession of voyages to Newfoundland and the West In-
dies, from 1695 to 1720.
‘John Prentis the second, married Sarah Jones, daughter of Mrs.
Ann Latimer, by her first husband Matthew Jones of Boston. They
had a family of five daughters, who were connected in marriage as
330 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
follows: Ann with Capt. Thomas Hosmer; Sarah with Thomas Mig-
hill, both of Hartford: Patience, with Rev. John Bulkley of Col-
chester; Elizabeth, with Samuel Green, (son of Jonas Green,) and
Irene with Naboth Graves—the two last of New London. Among
these children, the father, in 1711, distributed the Indian servants,
of his household—Rachel and her children—in this order:
“To my son-in-law Thomas Hosmer of Hartford, one black girl named Simone, till she is 30—
then she isto be free. To my son-in-law John Bulkley, Bilhah,—to be free at 32. To my daugh-
ter Surah, Zilpha—to be free at 32—To my daughter Eliz.beth, a black boy named Hannibal—to
be free at 35. To my daughter Irene, a boy named York, free at 35. To Scipio [ have promised.
freedom at 30. Rachel the mother, I give to Irene—also the little girl with her, named Dido,
who is to be free at 32.” To this bequest is added to the three youngest daughters, then unmar-
risd, each—‘‘ a feather bed and its furniture.”’1
Stephen Prentis, son of John the elder, inherited the farm of his.
father, near Niantic ferry, where he died in 1758, aged ninety-two.
His wife was Hiizabeth, daughter of John Rogers and granddaughter
of Matthew Griswold.
John Wheeler, died December 16th, 1691.
No connection has been traced between John Wheeler of New
London, and Thomas and Isaac Wheeler, cotemporary inhabitants of
Stonington. John is first presented to us, as part owner of a vessel
called the Zebulon, in 1667. He entered largely into mercantile
concerns, traded with the West Indies, and had a vessel built under
his own superintendence, which at the period of his death had just.
returned from an English voyage.
He left a son, Zaccheus, sixteen years of age, who died, without
issue in 1703; also sons Joshua, eleven years of age, and William,
eight. These lived to old age, and left descendants. Elizabeth,
relict of John Wheeler, married Richard Steer—a person of whom
very little is known, except in connection with the Wheeler family.
He appears to have had a good business education, and to have been
esteemed for capacity and intelligence, but his native place and
parentage are unknown, and he stands disconnected with posterity.
1A high bedstead, with a large feather-bed beat up full and round, with long curtains and ani
elaborately quilted spread, was an article of housekeeping highly prized by our ancestral dames..
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 3831
Avery.
Christopher Avery was one of the selectmenof Gloucester, Mass.,
between 1646 and 1654.1 On the 8th of August, 1665, he is at New
London purchasing the house, orchard and lot of Robert Burrows,
in the town plot. In June, 1667, he was released from watching
and training. In October, 1669, made freenian of the colony.
Charles Hill, the town-clerk, makes thismemorandum of his de-
cease.”
‘Christopher Avery’s death, vide, near the death of mother
Brewster.”
The reference is to Lucretia, relict of Jonathan Brewster, (mother-
in-law to Mr. Hill,) but no record of her death is to be found.
James Avery in 1685 gives a deed to his four sons, of the house,
orchard and land, ‘‘which belonged, (he says) to my deceased
father Christopher Avery.”’
No other son but James, has been traced. It may be conjectured
that this family came from Salisbury, England, as a Christopher
Avery of that place, had wife Mary buried in 1591.3
James Atvery and Joanna Greenslade were married, Nov. 10th,
1643. This is recorded in Gloucester. The records of Boston
church have the following entry.
“47 of 1 mo. 1644. Our sister Joan Greenslade, now the wife of one James Averill had
granted her by the church’s silence, letters of recommendation to the Ch. at Gloster,’4
The births of three children are recorded at Gloucester; these are
repeated at New London, and the others registered from time to
time. The whole list is as follows.
Hannah, born Oct. 12th, 1644. Rebecca, born Oct. 6th, 1656.
James, “Dec. 16th, 1646, Jonathan, ‘ Jan. 5th, 1658-9.
Mary, «Feb. 19th, 1648- Christopher, “* Ap. 30th, 1661.
Thomas, ‘ May 6th, 1651. Samuel, “Aug. 14th, 1664.
John, “Feb. 10th, 1653-4. Joanna, 1669.
James Avery was sixty-two years old in 1682; of course born on
the other side of the ocean about 1620. At New London he took
an important part in the affairs of the plantation. He was chosen
townsmen in 1660 and held the office twenty-three years, ending
with 1680. He was successively, ensign, lieutenant and captain of
1 Babson of Gloucester.
2 It appears from the Ms. Journal of Thomas Minor, that Mrs. Brewster was buried March
5th, and Christopher Avery, March 12th, 1679.
8 Mass. Hist. Coll., 83d series, vol. 10, p. 139.
4 Savage (MS.)
Dor HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
the only company of train-hands in the town, and was in active ser-
vice through Philip’s War. He was twelve times deputy to the
General Court, between 1658 and 1680, and was in the commission
of the peace, and sat as assistant judge in the county court.
He removed to Pequonuck, east of the river, between 1660 and
1670, where both he and his wife were living in 1698. Deeds of
lands to his sons, including the homestead farm, in Feb., 1693-4,
probably indicate the near approach of death. His sons Jonathan
and Christopher died young, and probably without issue. The de-
scendants of James, Jr., Thomas, John, and Samuel, are very nu-
merous, and may be regarded as four distinct streams of life.
Groton is the principal hive of the family.
Capt. George Denison, died Oct. 23d, 1694.
This event took place at Hartford during the session of the Gen-
eral Court. His grave-stone at that place is extant, and the age
given, seventy-six, shows that the date of 1621, which has been as-
signed for his birth, is too late. and that 1619 should be substituted.
This diminishes the difference of age between him and his second
wife Ann, who, according to the memorial tablet erected by her de-
scendants at Mystic, deceased Sept. 26th, 1712, aged ninety-seven.
The history of George Denison will not be fully attempted here,
but a few data gathered with care may be offered, as contributions
toward the task of berating the facts from the webs which ingen-
ious fancy and exaggerative tradition, have thrown around them.
William Denison is accounted a fellow-passenger with the Rev.
John Elliot, of Roxbury, in ‘‘the Lyon,”’ which brought emigrants
to America in 1631. His name is the third on the list of church
members of Roxbury, in the record made by Elliot. Heis known to
have brought with him three sons, Daniel, Edward and George.
The latter married in 1640, Bridget Thompson, who is supposed to
have been a sister of the Rev. William Thompson, of Braintree,
Mass. They had two children, Sarah, born March 20th, 1641, and
Hannah, born May 20th, 1643. Hiswife died in August, 1643.
Mr. Denison the same year visited his native country, and engaged
in the civil conflict with which the kingdom was convulsed. He
was absent a couple of years, and on his return brought with him a
second wife!—a lady of Irish parentage, viz., Ann daughter of
1 It is one of the many traditions respecting Capt. George Denison, that he started for Eng-
land to obtain a second wife, from the funeral of the first, only waiting to see the remains depos-
ited in the grave, but not returning to his house, before he set out.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 333
John Borrowdale or Borrodil. It is a probable conjecture that he
brought also an infant son with him. He is known to have had a
son George, of whose birth or baptism no record is found on this
side of the ocean. The elder Winthrop at this period calls him ‘a
young soldier lately come out of the warsin England,’’ whom the
young men of Roxbury wished to choose for their captain; but ‘‘the
ancient and chief men of the town,’’ gathered together, out-voted
them and prevented them from carrying their point.!. Two children
of George and Ann Denison are recorded in Roxbury, J ohn, born
June 14th, 1646; Ann, May 20th, 1649.2
In 1651, we find George Denison among the planters at Pequot,
where he took up a house lot, built a house and engaged in public
affairs. In 1654 he removed toa farm, on the east side of Mystic .
River, then within the bounds of the same plantation, but afterward
included in Stonington. In 1670 he had three children baptized by
Mr. Bradstreet, William, Margaret and Borradil, which makes his
number eight. On the old town book of Stonington is recorded the
death of Mary, daughter of George Denison, Nov. 10th, 1670-1.
This, we suppose to have been a ninth child, who died an infant.
Our early history presents no character of bolder and more active
spirit than Capt. Denison. He reminds us of the border men of
Scotland. Though he failed in attaining the rank of captain, at
Roxbury, yet in our colony, he was at his first coming greeted with
the title, and was very soon employed in various offices of trust and
honor—such as commissioner, and deputy to the General Court.
When the plantation of Mystic and Pawkatuck, was severed from
New London and placed under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts
with the name of Southerton, the chief management of affairs was
intrusted to him.
Yet notwithstanding Capt. Denison’s position as a magistrate and
legislator, we do not always find him in the strict path of law and
order. He had frequent disputes and lawsuits; he brought actions
1 Savage’s Winthrop, vol. 2, p. 307.
2 These dates from the Roxbury records were communicated by James Savage, Esq., of Bos-
ton, who observes that Margaret, the third wife of Rev. Thomas Shepard of Cambridge, and
after his death the wife of his successor, Rev. Jonathan Mitchell, bore the family name of
Borrowdale, and was probably sister to Mrs. Ann Denison. As these two females are the only
persons known in the new world of the name, their consanguinity can scarcely be doubted.
334 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
for slander and defamation against several of hisneighbors, and was
himself arraigned for violations of existing laws.
He was, however, encompassed with difficulties. The young town
of which he was one of the conspicuous founders was convulsed by
territorial and jurisdictional claims and he could not be loyal to two
governments at once. If he obeyed one, he must of course be stig-
matized as a rebel to the other.
As a magistrate of Massachusetts he performed the marriage rite
for William Measure and Alice Tinker, and was immediately prose-
cuted by Connecticut for an illegal act. and heavily fined. Asa
friend to the Indians and an agent of the commissioners of the Uni-
ted Colonies, he was in favor of allowing them to remain in their
customary hamlets by the sea, and haunts upon the neighboring
“hills; but the other authorities of the town and colony, were bent
upon driving them back, to settle among the primeval forests. This
of course, led to contention.
The will of George Denison dated Nov. 20th, 1693, was exhibited
and proved in the county court, in June, 1695.! The children named
in its provisions were three sons—George, John and William, and
five daughters—Sarah Stanton, Hannah Saxton, Ann Palmer, Mar-
garet Brown, and Borradil Stanton.
George Denison the second, became an inhabitant of Westerly, a
town comprising the tract so long in debate between the king’s
province and Connecticut colony. He had three sons, George, Ed-
ward and Joseph.
John Denison: married Phebe Lay, of Saybrook. The parental
contract between Capt. George and Mrs. Ann Denison on the one
part, and Mr. Robert Lay on the other, for the marriage of their
children, John Denison and Phebe Lay, is recorded at Saybrook, but
bears no date.
William, the third son of Capt. George, inherited the paternal
homestead in Stonington.
George Denison, son of John, of Stonington, and grandson of Capt.
George, (born March 28th, 1671,) graduated at Harvard College, in
1693, and settled as an attorney in New London, where he married
(1694) Mary, daughter of Daniel Wetherell, and relict of Thomas
Harris. The family of this George Denison belongs to New Lon-
don, but it can not be here displayed in detail. He had two sons,
Daniel and Wetherell, and six daughters. The latter, as they grew
1 The original will is not on file in the probate office, but is supposed to be extant.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 335
up, were esteemed the flower of the young society of the place.
They married Edward Hallam, Gibson Harris, John Hough, Jona-
than Latimer, Samuel Richards, and William Douglas.
In 1698, George Denison was chosen clerk of the county court,
and at the time of his death, January 20th, 1719-20, was recorder of
the town and clerk of probate. His signature so often recurring on
the files and books of the town, may appropriately be represented
here.
piege LZ enon
Robert Denison, brother of the lastnamed, (born September 17th,
1673,) purchased a tract of Indian land in 1710, near the north-west
corner of New London. It lay upon Mashipaug (Gardiner’s) Lake
where the bounds of Norwich, New London and Colchester, came
together. At what period he removed his family thither is not
known, but probably about 1712. He is known to the records as
Capt. Robert Denison, of the North Parish, and died about 1737.
His son Robert served in the French wars during several campaigns,
was a captain in Wolcott’s brigade, atthe taking of Louisburg, and
afterward promoted to the rank of major. Being aman of stalwart
form and military bearing, he was much noticed by the British offi-
eers, with whom he wasassociated. He married Deborah, daughter
of Matthew Griswold, 2d, of Lyme, and in 1760, removed with most
of his family to Nova Scotia.
Peter Spicer, died probably in 1695.
He was one of the resident farmers in that part of the township
which is now Ledyard. We find him a landholder in 1666. The
inventory of his estate was presented to the judge of probate, by his
wife Mary, in 1695. From her settlement of the estate, it appears
that the children were, Edward, Samuel, Peter, William, Joseph,
Abigail, Ruth, Hannah and Jane. Capt. Abel Spicer, of the Revo-
lutionary army, was from this family.
John, Leeds, died probably in 1696.
The following extracts from the town and church records, contain
allthe information that has been gathered of the family of John Leeds.
“ John Leeds, of Staplehowe, in Kent, Old England, was married to Elizabeth, daughter of
Cary Latham, June 25th, 1678.”"
336 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
“Mr, Leeds’ child John, baptized March 13th, 1680-1.
ss “ daughter Elizabeth, baptized October 16th, 1681.
ue “© gon William, baptized May 20th, 1683.
Widow Leeds’ two children baptized, Gideon and Thomas, August Ist, 169
7.2?
John Leeds is first introduced to us in 1674, as a mariner, com-
mander of the Success, bound to Nevis. He engaged afterward in
building vessels, and had a ship-yard on the east side of the river.
John Mayhew, died 1696.
This name appears after 1670, belonging to one of that class of
persons who had their principal home on the deep, and theirrendez-
vous in New London.
“ John Mayhew, from Devonshire, Old England, mariner, was married unto Johanna, daugh-
ter of Jeffrey Christophers, December 26th, 1676.”
Children of John Mayhew.
1. John, born December 15th, 1677.
2. Wait, born October 4th, 1680.
8. Elizabeth, born February 8th, 1683-4.
4, Joanna; 5. Mary; 6. Patience: these three were baptized July 9th, 1693.
Wait Mayhew, the second son, died in 1707, withoutissue. John
Mayhew, 2d, was a noted ship-master in the West India and New-
foundland trade, and attended the sea expedition against Canada, in
1711, in the capacity of pilot. The next year he was sent to Eng-
land to give his testimony respecting the disastrous shipwrecks in the
St. Lawrence, that frustrated the expedition. He died in 1727, leav-
ing several children, but only one son, John, who died without issue,
in 1745. The Mayhew property was inherited by female descend-
ants of the names of Talman, Lanpheer and Howard.
John Plumbe,! died in 1696.
Plumbe is one of the oldest names in Connecticut. Mr. John
Plumbe was of Wethersfield, 1636, and a magistrate in 1637.? He
had a warehouse burnt at Saybrook, inthe Pequot War. In Februa-
ry, 1664-5, he was appointed inspector of the lading of vessels at
Wethersfield.? He was engaged in the coasting trade, and his name
1 This is his own orthography; on the colonial records it is Plum.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., vol. 1, p. 18. In the 1860 edition of Miss Caulkins’ History of New London,
the following correction is made: ‘ It has since been ascertained that John Plumbe, of Weth-
ersfield, removed to Branford und there died in 1648. He could not, therefore, be the person of
that name who settled at New London.”
8 Ut Supra, p. 121.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 337
incidentally appears in the records of various towns on the river, and
along the coast ofthe Sound. An account hasbeen preserved among
the Winthrop papers of a remarkable meteor which he saw one night
in October, 1665. ‘‘TI being then (he observes) rouing in my bote
to groton;’’! probably from Seabrook, where his account is dated.
In 1670 he is noticed as carrying dispatches between Governors
Winthrop, of Hartford, and Lovelace, of New York.? We have no
account of him at New London, as an inhabitant of the town, until he
was chosen constable, in February, 1679-80. He was afterward
known as marshal of the county and innkeeper. He had three chil-
dren baptized in New London: Mercy, in 1677; George, in 1679,
and Sarah, in 1682. But he had other children much older than
these, viz., John, Samuel, Joseph and Greene. Samuel and Joseph
settled in Milford; John, was at first of Milford, but afterward of
New London, and for many years a deacon of the church. Greene
also settled in New London; George, in Stonington.
Joseph Truman, died in 1697.
Joseph Truman came to New London in 1666, and was chosen con-
stable the next year. Truman’s Brook and Truman Street are names
derived from him and his family. He hada tannery at each end of
this street, on Truman’s Brook and the brook which ran into Bream
Cove, near the Hempstead lot. In his will, executed in September,
1696, he mentions four children: Joseph, Thomas, Elizabeth and
Mary. Neither his marriage, nor the births of his children are in
the town registry.
Joseph and Jonathan Rogers.
These were the second and fifth sons of James Rogers, Senior, and
are supposed to have died in 1697, at the respective ages of fifty-one
and forty-seven, both leaving large families. The other three sons
of James Rogers lived into the next century.
Samuel Rogers died December Ist, 1713, aged seventy-three.
James Rogers ‘ November 8th, 1713, aged sixty-three.
John Rogers “ October 17th, 1721, aged seventy three.
1 Mass. Hist. Coll., 3d series, vol. 10, p. 57. This is the earliest instance that has been ob-
served of the application of the name Groton, to the east side ofthe river. Probably it was first
used to designate Winthrop’s farm at Pequonuck.
2 Ut Supra, p. 79.
338 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Ebenezer Hubbell, died in 1698.
A brief paragraph will contain all our information of this person.
He was a native of Stratfield, in Fairfield county, married Mary,
daughter of Gabriel Harris, and purchased the homestead of Samson
Haughton, (corner of Truman and Blinman Streets.) He had a
daughter Elizabeth, born in 1693, andason Ebenezer, in 1695. His
relict married Ebenezer Griffing. The son Ebenezer, died in 1720,
probably without issue.
The Beeby' brothers.
The phrase ‘‘ John Beeby and his brothers,’’ used in the early
grants to the family, leadstothe supposition that John was the oldest
of the four. They may be arranged with probability in the order of
John, Thomas, Samuel and Nathaniel. They all lived to advanced
age.
1. John Beeby married Abigail, daughter of James Yorke, of
Stonington. He had three children—John, Benjamin and a daugh-
ter Rebecca, who married Richard Shaw, of Easthampton. No
other children can be traced. He was for several years sergeant of
the train-band, but in 1690 was advanced to the lieutenancy, and his
brother Thomas chosen sergeant. No allusion has been found that
can assist in fixing the period of his death. His relict died March
9th, 1725, aged eighty-six or eighty-seven. The annalist who re-
cords it, observes, ‘‘ Her husband was one of the first settlers of this
town.”’
2. Thomas Beeby’s wife was Millicent, daughter of William Ad-
dis, he being her third husband. The two former were William Ash
and William Southmead, bothof Gloucester; though Southmead had
formerly lived in Boston, and owned a tenement there.2 Ash and
Southmead were probably both mariners or coast traders. Two sons
belonged to thesecond marriage, William and John Southmead, who
came with their mother to New London. Of their ages no estimate
can be formed. They became mariners, and their names occur only
incidentally. OfJohn we lose sight in a short time. Williamis
supposed to have settled ultimately in Middletown.
1 The brothers wrote the name indifferently Beebee and Beeby. The autograph sometimes
varies on the same page. :
2 It was sold in 1668, by Thomas and Millicent Beeby, for the benefit of the sons of William and
Millicent Southmend. Savage, (MS.)
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 339
The children of Thomas and Millicent Beeby, were one son,
Thomas, who lived to old age, but was a cripple and never married;
Millicent, wife of Nicholas Darrow; Hannah, wife of John Hawke,
and Rebecca, wife of Nathaniel Holt. Sergeant Thomas Beeby died
in the early part of 1699. His homestead descended to his son
Thomas, by whom it was conveyed in the latter part of his life, to
his nephew, William Holt.
3. Samuel Beeby, in a deposition of 1708, states his age at seventy-
seven, and says, ‘‘I came to this town nearly sixty years ago.’’ He
died in 1712, leaving a wife, Mary. His former wife was Agnes or
Annis, daughter of William Keeny. Whether the children all be-
longed to the first wife, or should be distributed between the two is
doubtful. They were Samuel, William, Nathaniel, Thomas, Jona-
than, Agnes, (wife of John Daniels, ) Ann, (wife of Thomas Crocker, )
Susannah, (wife of Aaron Fountain,) Mary, (wife of Richard Tozor. )
William Beeby, one of the sons of Samuel, married Ruth, daughter
of Jonathan Rogers, and was a member of the Sabbatarian commu-
nity on the Great Neck. Jonathan, probably the youngest son, and
born about 1676, was an early settler of East Haddam, where he
was living in 1750.
Samuel Beeby, second, oldest son of Samuel the elder, obtained in
his day a considerable local renown. He married (February 9th,
1681-2) Elizabeth, daughter of James Rogers, and in right of his
wife, as well as by extensive purchases of the Indians, became a great
landholder. He was one of three who owned Plum Island, in the
Sound, and living upon the island in plentiful farmer style, with
sloops and boats for pleasure or traffic at his command, he was often
sportively called ‘‘King Beebee,’’ and ‘‘Lord of the Islands.’? A
rock in the sea, not far from his farm, was called ‘‘ Beebee’s throne.”’
Plum Island is an appanage of Southold, Suffolk county, Long Island,
and Mr. Beeby, by removing to that island, transferred himself to
the jurisdiction of New York.
4, Nathaniel Beeby, supposed to be the youngest of the four
brothers, settled in Stonington. His land was afterward absorbed
in the large estates of his neighbors, the Denisons. In the will of
William Denison, (1715,) he disposes of the Beeby land, but adds,
‘‘T order my executors to take a special care of Mr. Nathaniel Beeby
during his life, and to give him a Christian burial at his death.’’
Accordingly we find the gravestone of this venerable man, near that
of the Denisons. The inscription states that he died December 17th,
340 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
1724, aged ninety-three. Estimating from the given data, the births
of Samuel and Nathaniel Beeby would both come within the verge
of 1631. Itis probable that Samuel’s was in 1630 and Nathaniel’s
in 1632,
William Chapman, died December 18th, 1699.
This name first appears in 1657, when William Chapman bought
the Denison house-lot on the present Hempstead Street, nearly oppo-
site the jail. No record is found of his family. The children
named in his will, were John, William, Samuel, Jeremiah, Joseph,
Sarah and Rebecca.
John Chapman, by supposition named as the oldest son, removed
in 1706, with his family, to Colchester, where he was living in May,
1748, when it was observed that ‘‘ he would be ninety-five years old
next November.’’ We may therefore date his birth in November,
1653.
William Chapman married Hannah, daughter of Daniel Lester,
and is supposed to have settled in Groton.
Samuel Chapman is the ancestor of the Waterford family of Chap-
mans. He lived in the Cohanzie district, reared to maturity nine
children, and died November 2d, 1758, aged ninety-three. Before
his death he conveyed his homestead to his grandson, Nathaniel.
Joseph Chapman was a mariner. He refoved his family to Nor-
wich, where he died June 10th, 1725.
Jeremiah Chapman, probably the youngest of the five brothers,
retained the family homestead. He died September 6th, 1755, aged
eighty-eight. All the brothers left considerable families, and their
posterity is now widely dispersed.
Stephen Loomer, died in 1700.
This name is not found in New London before 1687. Mr. Loom-
er’s wife was a daughter of George Miller. His children, and their
ages at the time of his death, were as follows: John, sixteen; Mary,
thirteen; Martha, eleven; Samuel, eight; Elizabeth, five. In fol-
lowing out the fortunes of the family, we find that John, the oldest
son, was a seaman, and probably perished by storm or wreck, as
in 1715, he had not been heard from for several years. Mary, relict
of Stephen Loomer, married in 1701, Caleb Abel, of Norwich, and
this carried the remainder of the family to that place.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 341
David Carpenter died in 1700.
The period of his settlement in the town was probably coincident
with his marriage to Sarah, daughter of William Hough—to both
events the conjectural date of 1676 may be assigned. Mr. Carpen-
ter lived at Niantic Ferry, of which he had a lease from Edward
Palmes. He left an only son, David, baptized Nov. 12th, 1682,
and several daughters. His relict married William Stevens, of
Killingworth.
Alexander Pygan, died in 1701.
On his first arrival in the plantation, Mr. Pygan appears to have
been a lawless young man, of ‘‘passionate and distempered car-
riage,’’ as it was then expressed; one who we may suppose ‘‘ left his
country for his country’s good.’’ But the restraints and influences
with which he was here surrounded, produced their legitimate effect,
and he became a discreet and valuable member of the community.
Alexander Pygan, of Norwich, Old England, was married unto Judith, daughter of William
Redfin, (Redfield,) June 17th, 1667. ,
Children.
1. Sarah, born Feb. 23d, 1669-70; married Nicholas Hallam.
2. Jane, ‘* Feb., 1670-1; married Jonas Green.
Mrs. Judith Pygan died April 30th, 1678.
e
After the death of his wife, Mr. Pygan dwelt a few years at Say-
brook, where he had a shop of goods, and was licensed by the county
court as an innkeeper. Here also he married an estimable woman,
Lydia, relict of Samuel Boyes, April 15th, 1684. Only one child
was the issue of this marriage.
8. Lydia, born Jan. 10th, 1684-5; married Rev. Eliphalet Adams.
Sathuel Boyes, the son of Mrs. Lydia Pygan, by her first husband, was born Dec. 6th, 1673.
Mr. Pygan soon returned with his family to New London, where
he died in the year 1701. He is the only person of the family name
of Pygan., that the labor of genealogists has as yet brought to light
in New England. His relict, Mrs. Lydia Pygan, died July 20th,
1734. She was the daughter of William and Lydia Bemont, of Say-
brook, and born March 9th, 1644.1
1 Der mother is said to have been a Danforth; perhaps daughter of Nicholas Danforth, of
Boston.
342 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Thomas Stedman, died in 1701.
This name is found at New London, at the early date of 1649, but
it soon afterward disappears. In 1666, Thomas Stedman is again
on the list of inhabitants, living near Niantic River. He married
(Aug. 6th, 1668) Hannah, daughter of Robert Isbell; and step-
daughter to William Nicholls. They had two children, John, born
Dec. 25th, 1669, and Ann, who married Benjamin Lester. John
left descendants.
Thomas Stedman, of New London, was brother of Lieut. John
Stedman, of Wethersfield, who, in 1675, was commander of a com-
pany of sixty dragoons, raised in Hartford county. The following
letter on record at New London, is evidence of this connection:
‘Loving brother Thomas Stedman.
“My love to yourself and your little ones, my cousins, and to Uncle Nicholls and to Aunt and
to the rest of my friends, certifying you that through God’s mercy and goodness to us, we are in
reasonable good health.
“Brother, These are to get you to assist my son in selling or letting my house which I bought
of Benjamin Atwell, and what you shall do in that business I do firmly bind myself to confirm
and ratify. As witness my hand this last day of October, 1672, from Wethersfield.”
Extracted out of the original letter under the hand of John Stedman, Sen.
Butler.
Thomas and John Butler are not presented to our notice as inhabi-
tants of New London, until after 1680. Probably they were brothers.
No account of the marriage or family of either is on record.
“Thomas Butler died Dec. 20th, 1701, aged fifty-nine.
John Butler died March 26th, 1733, aged eighty. .
Katherine, wife of John Butler, died Jan. 24th, 1728-9, aged sixty-seven. She was a daughter
of Richard Haughton.
Allan Mullins, chirurgeon, son of Doctor Alexander Mullins, of Galway, Ireland, was married
to Abigail, daughter of John Butler, of New London, April 8th, 1725.”
Thomas Butler’s family can not be given with certainty, but noth-
ing appears to forbid the supposition that Lieutenant Walter Butler,
a prominent inhabitant about 1712, and afterward, was his son.
Walter Butler married Mary, only child of Thomas Harris, and
granddaughter of Capt. Daniel Wetherell. The date of the marriage
has not been recovered.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 343
Children.
1, Mary, born Aug. 29th, 1714. 4, Jane, bap. July 10th, 1720.
2, Thomas, ** Jan. 81st, 1715-16. 5. Katherine, “* Aug. 26th, 1722.
8. Walter, “ May 27th, 1718. 6. Lydia, « Jan. 10th, 1724-5.
Lieut. Butler married, in 1727, Deborah, relict of Ebenezer Den-
nis, and had ason, John, baptized April 28th, 1728. e
The name of Walter Butler is associated with the annals of Tryon
county, New York, as well as with New London. He received a
military appointment in the Mohawk country, in 1728, and fourteen
years later removed his family thither. Mr. Hempstead makes an
entry in his diary:
“Nov. 6th, 1742, Mrs. Butler, wife of Capt. Walter Butler, and her children and family, is gone
away by water to New York, in order to goto himin the Northern Countries, above Albany,
where he hath been several years Captain of the Forts.”
Capt. Butler was the ancestor of those Colonels Butler, John and
Walter, who were associated with the Johnsons as royalists in the
commencement of the Revolutionary War.!_ The family, for many
years, continued to visit, occasionally, their ancient home.?
Very few of the descendants of Thomas and John Butler, are now
found in this vicinity ; but the hills and crags have been charged to
keep their name, and they have hitherto been. faithful to their trust.
In the western part of Waterford, is a sterile, hard-favored district,
with abrupt hills, and more stone and rock than soil, which is locally
called Butler-town—a name derived from this ancient family of But-
lers.
Capt. Samuel Fosdick, died August 27th, 1702.
Samuel Fosdick, ‘‘from Charlestown, in the Bay,’’ appears at
New London about 1680. According to manuscripts preserved in
the family, he was the son of J ohn Fosdick and Anna Shapley, who
were married in 1648; and the said John was a son of Stephen Fos-
dick, of Charlestown, who died May 21st, 1664.
1 See Annals of Tryon Co. and Barber’s New York Coll. In the latter work is a view of But-
ler House.
2 It was probably through the prompting of the Butlers, that Sir Wm. Johnson and his son,
afterward resorted to New London for recreation and the sea breeze. One of these visits is no-
ticed in the Gazette, May 4th, 1767. ‘Sir Wm. Johnson, Bart., arrived in town, for the benefit
of the sea air, and to enjoy some relaxation from Indian affairs. June 13, arrived Sir John
Johnson, Col. Croghan and several other gentlemen from Fort Johnson.”
344 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
“Samuel, son of John Fosdick, of Charlestown, New England, married Mercy, daughter of
John Picket, of New London, Nov. 1, 1682.” They had children:
1. Samuel, born Sept. 18th, 1684. 5. John, born Feb. 1st, 1693-4.
2. Mercy, ‘* Nov. 30th, 1686. 6. Thomas, ‘© Aug. 20th, 1696.
3. Ruth, «June 27th, 1689. 7. Mary, ‘ July 7th, 1699.
4, Anna, ‘“ Dec. 8th, 1691.
Mercy, relict of Samuel Fosdick, married John Arnold.
Capt. Samuel Fosdick was one of the owners of Plum Island,
and had thereon a farm under cultivation, well stocked and produc-
tive. His residence in town was on what was then often called Fos-
dick’s Neck, (now Shaw’s.) He also possessed, in right of his wife,
that part of the Picket lot, which was subsequently purchased by
Capt. Nathaniel Shaw. Another house-lot, owned by him on the
bank, comprising nearly the whole block between Golden and Tilley
Streets, was estimated, in the list of his estate, at only £30. It then
lay vacant, but afterward became the valuable homestead of his
youngest son, Thomas, and his descendants. A glance at the in-
ventory of Capt. Fosdick, will show the ample and comfortable style
of housekeeping, to which the inhabitants had attained in 1700.
Five feather beds, one of them with a suit of red curtains ; twenty
pair of sheets; sixteen blankets; three silk blankets; three looking-
glasses; three large brass kettles; two silver cups, and other ar-
ticles in this proportion, are enumerated. But there are also cer-
tain implements mentioned, the fashion of which has with time
passed away, viz., four wheels; twelve pewter basins; two dozen
pewter porringers, &c. The matrons of those days took as much
delight in a well-arranged dresser, and its rows of shining pewter,
with perhaps here and there a spoon, a cup, or a tankard of silver
interspersed, as they now do in sideboards of mahogany or rose-
wood, and services of plate.
Samuel, the oldest son of Capt. Samuel Fosdick, removed to Oys-
ter Bay, Long Island, where he was living in 1750. John, the sec-
ond son, went to Guilford. Thomas, remained in New London, and
is best known on record as Deacon Thomas Fosdick. He married,
June 29th, 1720, Esther, daughter of Lodowick Updike.
The daughters of Capt. Samuel Fosdick were also widely scat-
tered by marriage. Mercy, married Thomas Jiggles, of Boston;
Ruth, an Oglesby of New York; Anna, Thomas Latham, of Groton,
and Mary, Richard Sutton, of Charlestown.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 345:
Joseph Pemberton, died Oct. 14th, 1702.
James Pemberton had a son, Joseph, born in Boston in 1655,! with
whom we venture to identify the Joseph Pemberton, here noticed.
He resided in Westerly, before coming to New London. His relict,
Mary, removed to Boston, with her sons James and Joseph. Two
married daughters were left in New London, Mary, wife of Alexan-
der Baker, and Elizabeth, wife of Jonathan Rogers, both of the
north parish, (now Montville.)
William Walworth,2 died in 1708.
William Walworth is first known to us as the lessee of Fisher’s.
Island, or of a considerable part of it; and it is a tradition of the:
family that he came directly from England to assume this charge, at
the invitation of the owner of the island, Fitz-John Winthrop, who
wished to introduce the English methods of farming. William Wal-
worth and his wife owned the covenant, and were baptized with their
infant child, Martha, Jan. 24th, 1691-2. ‘Their children, at the
time of the father’s decease, were Martha, Mary, John, Joanna,
Thomas and James, the last two twins, and all between the ages of
two and twelve years. Abigail, relict of William Walworth, died
Jan. 14th, 1751-2; having been forty-eight years a widow. This.
was certainly an uncommon instance for an age, renowned not only
for early, but for hasty, frequent, and late marriages.
John Walworth, second son of William, had also a lease of Fish-
er’s Island, for a long term of years. He died in 1748. His inven-
tory mentions four negro servants, a herd of near fifty horned cattle,
eight hundred and twelve sheep, and a stud of thirty-two horses,
mares and colts. He had also seventy-seven ounces of wrought
plate, and other valuable household articles. It has been the fortune
of Fisher’s Island, to enrich many of its tenants, especially in former
days. Not only the Walworths, but the Mumfords and Browns,
drew a large income from the lease of the island. From John Wal-
worth descended the person of the same name, who commenced the
settlement of Painesville, Ohio, and at the period of his death in
1812, was collector of customs in Cleveland, Ohio.
R. H. Walworth, Esq., of Saratoga, is a descendant from William,
the oldest son of William and Abigail Walworth.
1 Farmer’s Register.
2 On early records the name is sometimes Walsworth and Allsworth.
346 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Edward Stallion, died May 14th, 1708.
When this person made his first appearance in the plantation, Mr.
Bruen, the clerk, recorded his name Stanley. It was soon altered
to Stallion, or Stallon. In later times it has been identified with
Sterling, which may have been the true name.
Edward Stallion was at first a coasting trader, but later in life be-
came a resident farmer in North Groton, (now Ledyard.) His
children are only named incidentally, and the list obtained is probably
incomplete. Deborah, wife of James Avery, Jr., Sarah, wife of
John Edgecombe, and Margaret. wife of Pasco Foote, were his
daughters. His first wife, Margaret, died after 1680. He married
in 1685, Elizabeth, daughter of George Miller, by whom he had two
children, names not mentioned. In 1693, he married, a third time,
Christian, relict of Wm. Chapell, who survived him. He lefta son,
Edward, probably one of the two children by the second wife, who,
in 1720, was of Preston, and left descendants there. The death of
Edward Stallion, Sen., was the result of an accident, which is suff-
ciently detailed in the following verdict:
“Wee the Subscribers being impaneld and sworne on « jury of inquest to view the body of
Edward Stallion—have accordingly viewed the corpse and according to the best of our judgments
and by what information wee have had doe judge that he was drowned by falling out of his
Canno the Mth day of this instant and that hee had noe harm from any person by force or violence.
New London May y® 31, 1703. -
Joseph Latham Wm. Potts
Win. Thorne (his mark. T.) John Bayley
Andrew Lester Joshua Bill
Phillip Bill Jonathan Lester
Gershom Rice James Morgan
Wim Swadle
Jobn Williams.”
Though dated at New London, this jury was impanneled in that
part of the township which is now Ledyard, and the names belong
to that place and Groton. The town had not then been divided.
Ezekiel Turner, died January 16th, 1703-4.
He was a son of John Turner of Scituate, and grandson of Hum-
phrey Turner, an emigrant of 1628. His mother was Mary, daughter
of Jonathan Brewster. At New London we have no account of him
earlier than his marriage with Susannah, daughter of John Keeny,
Dec. 26th, 1678. He left one son Ezekiel, and a band of ten daugh-
ters, the youngest an infant at the time of his decease. His neighbor,
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 347
Oliver Manwaring, had two sons and eight daughters of nearly coin-
cident ages, andit was a common saying, that these two families had
daughters enough to stock the town.
Ezekiel Turner, second, married Borradil Denison and settled in
Groton. Elisha and Thomas Turner, supposed also to come from
the Scituate family, settled in the town after 1720. From Thomas,
who married Patience, daughter of J ohn Bolles, (Nov. 23d, 1727,)
most of the Turner families of New London and Montville are de-
seended.
Jonathan Turner from South Kingston purchased in 1735, a farm
upon the Great Neck (Waterford) and has also descendants in New
London and its neighborhood.
Sergeant George Darrow, died in 1704.
From inferential testimony it is ascertained that George Darrow
married Mary, relict of George Sharswood. The baptisms but not
the births of their children are recorded:
1. Christopher, bap. Dec. 1st, 1678. 3. Nicholas, May 20th, 1683.
2. George, “Oct. 17th, 1680. 4, Jane, April 17th, 1692
Mary, wife of George Darrow, died in 1698.
George Darrow aud Elizabeth Marshall of Hartford were married Aug. 10th, 1702.
The above list comprises all the children recorded, but there may
have been others. Christopher Darrow married Elizabeth Packer,
a granddaughter of Cary Latham. In a corner of a field upon the
Great Neck, on what was formerly a Darrow farm, is a group of
four gravestones; one of them bears the following inscription :
“Tn memory of Mrs. Elizabeth Darrow, wife of Mr. Christopher Darrow, who died in Febru-
ary 1758, aged 78 years. She-was mother to 8 children, 43 grand-children, 30 great grand-
children. Has had 100” (descendants?)
Major Christopher Darrow, a brave soldier of the French and
‘Revolutionary Wars, who lived in the North Parish, and Elder Zadok
Darrow, a venerable Baptist minister of Waterford, were descend-
ants of Christopher and Elizabeth Darrow.
George Sharswood.
Only flitting gleams are obtained of this person and his family.
They come and go like figures exhibited for scenic effect. George
Sharswood appears before us in 1666; is inserted in the rate list of
348 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
1667 ; the next year builds a house, and apparently about the same
time becomes a married man, though of this event we can find no
record. His children presented for baptism were, George and Wil-
liam, April 2d, 1671; Mary in 1672, and Katherine in 1674. He
died May Ist, 1674, after a painful illness which he bore with much
patience and fortitude, In 1678, the relict married George Dar-
row. ‘The children being young, the estate was left unsettled, and
in a few years, only William and Mary were living.
June 24th, 1700, William Sharswood ‘‘ sometime of Cape May and
now of New London,’’ has the house and land of his father made
over to him by a quitclaim deed from Sergt. George Darrow. The
September following he has three children, Jonathan, George and
Abigail, baptized by the Rev. Mr. Saltonstall. He then disappears
from our sight.
In September, 1704, measures were instituted to settle the estate
of the elder Sharswood, and in the course of the proceedings we
learn that the daughter, Mary, was the wife of Jonathan’ Hill, and
that William Sharswood, the son, had recently deceased in New Cas-
tle county Delaware.
In 1705, Abigail, relict of William Sharswood, was the wife of
George Polly of Philadelphia. The estate in New London was not
fully settled till 1724, nearly fifty years after the decease of George
Sharswood. Jonathan Hill was the administrator, and the acquit-
tances were signed by Abigail Polly and the surviving sons of Wil-
liam Sharswood—William, of Newcastle, and George and James, of
Philadelphia.+ .
John Harvey, died in January, 1705.
The name of John Harvey is first noticed about 1682. He was
then living near the head of Niantic River, and perhaps within the
bounds of Lyme. He left sons John and Thomas, and daughter
Elizabeth Willey. ‘a
Williams.
No genealogy in New London county is more extensive and per-
plexing than that of Williams. The families of that name are de-
rived from several distinct ancestors. Among them John Williams
and Thomas Williams appear to stand disconnected; at least, no
1 The present George Sharswood, Esq., of Philadelphia, isa descendant of George of New
London.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 349
relationship with their contemporaries has been traced, or with each
other. They are entirely distinct from the Stonington family of
Williams, although the names are in many cases identical.
The first Williams in New London was William, who is in the
rate list of 1664. He lived on the east, or Groton side of the river,
and died in 1704, leaving four sons, Richard, William, Henry and
’ Stephen, all of fullage, and a daughter Mary, wife of Samuel Packer.
Thomas Williams appears in the plantation, about 1670. His
cattle mark was enrolled in 1680. He lived west of the river at or
near Mohegan, and died Sept. 24th, 1705, about sixty-one years of
age. He left a widow Joanna and eleven children, between the ages
of twelve and thirty-three years, and a grandchild who was heir of
a deceased daughter. Thesons were John, Thomas, Jonathan, Wil-
liam, Samuel and Ebenezer.
John Williams, another independent branch of this extended name,
married in 1685 or 1686, Jane, relict of Hugh Hubbard and daugh-
ter of Cary Latham. No trace of him earlier than this has been
noticed. He succeeded to the lease of the ferry, (granted for fifty
years to Cary Latham,) and lived, as did also his wife, to advanced
age. ‘‘ He kept the ferry,’’ says Hempstead’s diary, ‘‘ when Groton
and New London were one town, and had but one minister, and one
captain’s company.’’ When he died, Dec. 3d, 1741, within the same
bounds were eight religious societies, and nine military companies,
five on the west side and four in Groton. Heleftan only son, Peter,
of whom Capt. John Williams, who perished in the massacre at
Groton fort in 1781, was a descendant.
John and Eleazar Williams, brother and son of Isaac Williams,
of Roxbury. Mass., settled in Stonington about the year 1687, and
are the ancestors of another distinct line, branches of which have
been many years resident in New London and Norwich. The gen-
ealogy of this family belongs more particularly to Stonington.
" Ebenezer Williams, son of Samuel of Roxbury, and cousin of
John and Eleazar, settled also in Stonington, and left descendants
there. He was brother of the Rev. John Williams, first minister of
Deerfield, who was taken captive with his family by the French and
Indians in 1701. A passage from Hempstead’s diary avouches this
relationship :
Sept. 9, 1783. Mr. Ebenezer Williams of Stonington. is to come to sce a French woman in
town that says she is a daughter to his brother the late Rey. Mr. Williams of Deerfield taken by
the French and Indians thirty years ago.”
350 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
This passage refers to a young daughter of the Deerfield family
that was never redeemed from captivity, but lived and died among
the Indians. She was probably often personated for sinister ends.
The French woman mentioned above was unquestionably an impostor.
Capt. John Williams, of Poquetannock, (Ledyard, ) was yet another
original settler of the name. He is said to have come directly from
Wales and to have had no relationship with other families in the ~
country. We quote a cotemporary notice of his death:
“Jan. 12, 1741-2. Capt. John Williams died at Pockatonnock of pleurisy, after 7 days’ illness.
He was a good commonwealth man, traded much by sea and land with goodsuccess for many
years, and acquired wholly by his own industry a great estate. He was a very just dealer, aged
about 60 years,’’!
Brigadier-General Joseph Williams of Norwich, one of the West-
ern Reserve purchasers, was a sonof Capt. John Williams.
Benjamin Shapley, died August 3d, 1706.
Benjamin, son of Nicholas Shapleigh of Boston, was born, accord-
ing to Farmer’s Register, in 1645. We find no difficulty in appro-
priating this birth to Benjamin Shapley, mariner, who about 1670
became an inhabitant of New London. The facts which have been
gathered respecting this family are as follows: *
«Benjamin, son of Nicholas Shapley ot Charlestown, married Mary, daughter of John Picket,
April 10th, 1672.”
Children.
Ruth, b. Dee. 24th, 1672—married John Morgan of Groton.
Benjamin, b. Mar. 20th, 1675—m. Ruth, daughter of Thomas Dymond.
Mary, b. Mar. 26th, 1677—married Joseph Truman.
Joseph, b. Aug. 15th, 1681—died young.
Ann, b. Aug. 31st, 1685—married Thomas Avery of Groton.
Daniel, b. Feb. 14th, 1689-90—m. Abigail Pierson of Killingworth.
Jane, b, —-—— 1696—muarried Joshua Appleton.
Adam, b.
i
1698—died young.
Mary, relict of Benjamin Shapley, died Jan. 15th, 1734-5. The
Shapley house-lot was on Main Street, next north of the Christo-
phers lot, and was originally laid out to Kempo Sybada, a Dutch
captain. Shapley Street was opened through it in 1746. Captain
Adam Shapley, who réceived his death wound at Fort Griswold, in
1781, was a descendant of Daniel Shapley.
1 Hempstead, (MIs.)
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 351
, Anthony Ashby.
A person of this name kept a house of entertainment at Salem in
1670.1 It was probably the same man that afterward came to New
London, and settled east of the river. He was on the jury of the
county court in 1690. Histwo daughters, Mary and Hannah, united
with the church in New London in 1694. His decease took place
before 1708. Anthony Ashby, Jr., collector for the east side in
1696, died in 1712.
George Dennis.
The period of his death is uncertain, but it was previous to 1708.
He came to New London from Long Island, and married Elizabeth,
relict of Joshua Raymond. They had but one child, Ebenezer, who
was born Oct. 23d, 1682. Ebenezer Dennis inherited from his
mother a dwelling-house, choicely situated near the water, and com-
manding a fine prospect of the harbor, where about the year 1710 he
opened a house of entertainment. His first wife was Sarah, daugh-
ter of Capt. John Hough, and his second, Deborah Ely of Lyme.
He died in 1726; his relict the next year married Lieut. Walter
Butler, and removed with him to the Indian frontier in the western
part of New York. The family mansion was sold in 1728 to Mat-
thew Stewart; it was where the Frink house now stands in Bank
Street.
Mr. Dennis by his willl left £25 to be distributed to the poor of
the town. Among his effects 189 books are enumerated, which,
though most of them were of small value, formed a considerable li-
brary for the time, probably the largest in the town.
Peter Crary, of Groton, died in 1708.
He married in December, 1677, Christobel, daughter of John Gal-
lop. His oldest child, Christobel, was born ‘‘the latter end of Feb.
1678-9.’’? Other children mentioned in his will were Peter, John,
William, Robert, Margaret and Ann.
John Daniel, died about 1709.
The date is obtained by approximation; he was living in the early
part of 1709, and in July 1710, Mary, widow of John Daniels, is
mentioned. His earliest date at New London is in April, 1663,
when his name is given without the s, John Daniel.
1 Felt.
352 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
John Daniel married Mary, daughter of George Chappell, Jan. 19th, 1664-5.
Children.
J. Jobn, born Jan. 19th, 1665-6. 6- Rachel, born Feb. 27th, 1676.
2. Mary, ‘ Oct. 12th, 1667. 7. Sarah, ~* Feb. 10th, 1679.
3. Thomas, ‘* Dec. 31st, 1669. 8. Jonathan,’* Oct. 15th, 1682.
4. Christian,“ Mar. 3d, 1671. 9. Clement, (not recorded.)
5, Hannah, ‘ Ap. 20th, 1674.
Before his decease John Daniel divided his lands among his four
sons, giving the homestead, adjoining the farms of Jobn Keeny and
Samuel Manwaring, to Thomas.
John Daniels, 2d, married Agnes Beeby, Dec. 3d, 1685. He
died Jan. 15th, 1756, ‘‘ wanting 15 days of 90 years old.’’!- Thomas
Daniels. the second son, died Oct. 12th, 1725. All the sons left
descendants.”
George Chappell, died in 1709,
Among the emigrants for New England, in ‘‘ the Christian,’’ from
London, 1635, was George Chappell, aged twenty. He was at
Wethersfield, in 1637, and can be traced there as a resident until
1649,4 which was probably about the time that he came to Pequot,
hin with him a wife, Margaret, and some three or four children.
Of his marriage, or of the births of these children, no account is pre-
served at Wethersfield. The whole list of his family, as gathered
from various scources, is as follows:
1. Mary, married John Daniels. 6. Hester, born April 15th, 1662.
2. Rachel, married Thomas Crocker. 7. Sarah, « Feb. 4th, 1665-6.
3. John, removed to Flushing, L. I. 8. Nathaniel, “ May 21st, 1668.
4. George, born March 5th, 1653-4. 9. Caleb, © Oct: 7th, 1671.
5.
Elizabeth, born Aug. 30th, 1656.
At the time of George Chappell’s decease, these nine children
were allliving, as was also his aged wife, whom he committed to the
special care of his son Caleb and grandson Comfort. Caleb Chap-
1 By comparing this estimate with the date of his birth it will be seen that allowance 1s made
for the change that had taken place in the style. His birth is given in O. 8. and his death in N.
S. According to the current date, only four days were wanting of ninety years.
2. C. F. Daniels, the present editor of the Vew London Daily and Weekly Chronicle, is a de-
scendant in the line of Thomas Daniels.
3. Savage’s Gleanings in Mass. Hist. Coll., 3d series, vol. 8, p. 252.
4. Conn. Col. Rec., vol.1, p. 194.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 353
pell had previously removed to Lebanon, from whence his son Amos
went to Sharon, and settled in that part of the township which is
now Ellsworth.! The second George Chappell married, first, Alice
Way, and second, Mary Douglas. He had two sons, George and
Comfort ; from the latter, the late Capt. Edward Chappell, of New
London, descended. Families of this name in New London and the
neighboring towns, are numerous, all tracing back to George for
their ancestér. Branches from this stock are also disseminated in
various parts of the Union.
Capt. Samuel Chester, died in 1710.
A sea-captain in the West India line, he receives his first grant of
land in New London, for a warehouse, in 1664, in company with
William Condy, of Boston, who was styled his nephew.? He subse-
quently removed to the east side of the river, where he dwelt at the
time of his death. He was much employed in land surveys, and in
1693, was one of the agents appointed by the General Court to meet
with a committee from Massachusetts, to renew and settle the boun-
daries between the two colonies. His children, baptized in New
London, but births not recorded, were, John, Susannah and Samuel,
in 1670; Mercy, 1673; Hannah, 1694, and Jonathan, 1697. His
will, dated in 1708, mentions only Abraham, John, Jonathan and
Mercy Burrows.
Mr. Chester had a large tract of land in the North Parish, bought
of Owaneco and Josiah, Mohegan sachems. It is probable that one
of his sons settled upon it, and that the Chester family, of Mont-
ville, are his descendants.
William Condy.
In connection with Capt. Chester, a brief notice is due to William
Condy. His wife was Mary, daughter of Ralph Parker. He had
four children presented together for-baptism, March 23d, 1672-3—
Richard, William, Ebenezer and Ralph. The family removed to
Boston about 1680. A letter from Mr. Condy, dated June 14th, 1688,
to Capt. Chester, is recorded at New London, requesting him to make
1 Sedgwick’s Hist. of Sharon, p. 72.
2 This term like that of brother and cousin has a considerable range of application. Hugh
Caulkins in a deed of gift to William Douglas who had married his grand-daughter, and was no
otherwise related to him, calls him his nephew.
354 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
sale of one hundred and fifty acres of land that had been given him
by the town. He says:
“Loving uncle,
“I would desire if you can sell the land that lyeth on your side of the nver to do me that kind-
ness as to sell it for me at the best advantage, and send it down to me the next spring, and give a
pill of sale for the same, and this shall be your discharge. If you sell it take it in pork if you can
for that will be the best commodity here. I am now ready to sail for Barbadoes,” &c.
The Condy family long retained a house-lot in town, which came
to them from Ralph Parker. This estate was presented in the in-
ventory of the second William Condy, in 1710, ‘‘late of Boston, but
formerly of New London, where he was born,’’ and was sold by a
third William Condy, of Boston, in 1717.
Thomas Mortimer, died March 11th, 1709-10.
This name was often written Maltimore and Mortimore. We have
little information concerning the person who bore it, and with whom,
apparently, it became extinct. He was a constable in 1680. His
wife, EKlizabeth, survived him but a few months. The only persons
mentioned as devisees or heirs, were two daughters—Mary, wife of
Robert Stoddard, and Elizabeth, wife of Abraham Willey, and
their children.
William Mynard, died in 1711.
This person was an original emigrant from Great Britain ; he had
a brother George, who died at Fording Bridge, in Hampshire, Eng-
land, to whose estate he was an heir. The name appears to have
been originally identical with Maynard, and is also often confounded
with Minor. William Mynard married Lydia Richards, Nov. 15th,
1678. They hadason, William, born Noy. 16th, 1680, but no other
recorded. Athis death, he is said to have wife, Lydia, and nine
children, three of them under age. The names are not given, but
the four brothers, William, George, David and Jonathan, (Mynard,
Maynard, Mainer,) who were all householders about 1730, were
probably sons of Willam and Lydia; but the genealogy is obscured
by the uncertainty of the name.
Zacharias Maynard, or Mayner, purchased a farm in 1697, near
Robert Allyn and Thomas Rose, (in Ledyard.) His wife was a
daughter of Robert Geer.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 355
Thomas Pember,
Drowned Sept. 27th, 1711, in Nahantic River, on whose banks
he dwelt. He had three children baptized in 1692, viz., Mercy,
Thomas and Elizabeth; also, Ann, baptized 1694, and John, 1696.
At the period of his death, only four children were living. He left
a wife, Agnes, who was for many years famous as a nurse and doc-
tress. Of this kind of character, the changing customs of the age
have scarcely left us a type. But tradition relates many vivid anec-
dotes respecting this energetic and experienced race of female prac-
titioners. No medical man of the present day, can be more ready to
answer a night-call—to start from sleep, mount a horse, and ride off
six or seven miles in darkness or tempest, sustained by the hope of
alleviating misery, than were these able nursing mothers of former
times. A seventh daughter was particularly marked and set aside
for the office, and unbounded confidence was placed in her skill to
stroke for the king’s evil, to cure cancers, alleviate asthma, and set
bones.
Richard Singleton, died Oct. 16th, 1711.
The record of his death styles him ferryman of Groton. Origin-
ally he was a mariner, and probably took the ferry when the fifty
years’ lease of Lathamexpired, in 1705, in company with John Wil-
liams, or perhaps alternating with him. Both lived on Groton Bank
and were lessees of the ferry about the same time. Mr. Singleton
left nine children, of whom only Richard, William, Wait-Still and
the wife of Samuel Latham are mentioned. His will-directs that his
ehildren in Carolina and his childrenin Groton, should share equally
in his estate, which however was small. Among the special bequests
are, to his wife a negro man valued at £40; to son Richard the
Church History of New England, £1; to William a large church
Bible, ‘‘old England print,’’ £1, 15s.; to Wait-Still two rods of land
and a buccaneer gun.
Wells.
Thomas Wells was one of the early band of planters at Pequot
Harbor; probably on the ground in 1648, and certainly in 1649.
He was a carpenter, and worked with Elderkin, on mills and meet-
ing houses. The last notice of him on the town record is in 1661,
when Wells and Elderkin were employed to repair the turret of the
meeting-house. No account can be foundof the sale of his house or
356 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
land. He may have left thesettlement, or he maybe concealed from
our view by dwelling on a farm remote from the center of business.
A Thomas Wells—whether another of the same has not been as-
certained—is found at Stonington or Westerly, about the year 1677,
engaged in constructing vessels at a ship-yard on the Pawkatuck
River. He is styled, ‘‘ of Ipswich, shipwright.’’? In 1680, having a
lawsuit with Amos Richardson, respecting a vessel of forty-eight
tuns burden, which he had contracted to build for him, two of his
sons appeared as witnesses, viz., Joseph, aged twenty-two, and
Thomas, seventeen.!. Of Thomas Wells, we have no later informa-
tion, but his fraternity to Joseph is thus established.
“ Joseph Wells, of Groton, died October 26th, 1711.”’ We sup-
pose this person to have been the noted ship-builder of Pawkatuck
River, and that he is styled of Groton, from the circumstance of his
having a farm and family residence near the head of Mystic, on the
Groton side of the river. It is certain that a farm in this position,
was occupied, at a very early period, by a Wells family. Descend-
ants of the ancient owners, whom we suppose to have been first
Thomas Wells, and then his son Joseph, are at this day (1850) liv-
ing in the same place, and in the same low-browed, unaltered
house, in the shadow of Porter’s Rocks, where Joseph Wells died.
It is near a gap in the ledge where Mason and Underhill rested with
their company a few hours, before making their terrible onslaught
upon the Pequots, in the expedition’ of May, 1637. The will of
Joseph Wells, executed five days before his decease, mentions wife
Hannah, and children Joseph, John, Thomas and Anne.
Jacob Holloway, died Nov. 9th, 1711.
He appears in the plantation a little before 1700. Left a son,
John, and daughters, Rose and Ann. His wife died four days after
the decease of her husband.
Joseph Nest, died Dec. 8th, 1711.
Mr. Nest’s wife deceased before him, and he lived apparently
alone, in a small tenement in the angle of the Lyme and Great Neck
roads. Susannah, wife of George Way, appears to have been his
daughter. No other relatives have been traced.
1 Judd, of Northampton, (MS.)
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 357
John Terrall, died Feb. 27th, 1712.
His wife, Mrs. Sarah Terrall, died March 7th, succeeding. No
children are mentioned in the will of the latter, but she was probably
a second wife.
Terrall should undoubtedly be written Tyrrel. Two persons of the
name appear in New London, in the year 1662, William, a tailor,
and John, a seaman. The former, probably, soon left the place.
John Terrall is in the rate list of 1664. Of his family, there is no
account, except a single entry upon the church record: ‘‘ Goodman
Tyrrell’s two children, William and Mary, baptized May 7th, 1671.
John Wickwire, died in March or April, 1712.
This person was an early settler in Mohegan, or the North Parish,
(now Montville.) Col. John Livingston was one of the executors
named in his will. Madam Winthrop, (relict of Governor Fitz-John, )
at her death, left legacies to ‘‘sister Wickwire’s children.’’
John Wickwire married Mary, daughter of George and Margery
Tongue, Nov. 6th, 1676.
Children.
1. George, born Oct. 4th. 1677. 5. Jonathan, born Feb. 19th, 1691.
2. Christopher, ‘* Jan. 8th, 1679-80. 6. Peter, ‘© Mar. 2d, 1694.
8. John, «© Dec. 2d, 1685. 7. Ann, “Sept. 25th, 1697.
4. Elizabeth, “Mar. 23d, 1688-9.
Thomas Short.
‘« Here lyeth the body of Thomas Short, who deceased Sept. 27th,
1712, aged thirty years.’? The small head stone in the old burial-
ground, which bears this inscription, shows where the remains of the
first printer in the colony of Connecticut are deposited. He had
been instructed in his art by Bartholomew Green, of Boston, who
recommended him to the authorities of Connecticut, for a colony
printer, in which office he established himself at New London, in
1709. In 1710, he issued ‘‘ The Saybrook Platform of Church Dis-
cipline,’’ the first book printed in the colony.!_ After this he printed
sermons and pamphlets, and performed what public work the gov-
ernor and company required, till death put an early stop to his labors.
Two children of Thomas and Elizabeth Short, are recorded at New
1 Thomas’ History of Printing, vol. 1, p. 405.
358 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
London—Catharine, born in 1709 ; Charles in 1711. His relict mar-
ried Solomon Coit, Aug. 8th, 1714.
Thomas Munsell died in 1712.
We find this person mentioned in 1681. He was on a committee
to lay out a highway in 1683. His wife was Lydia, and his children
Jacob, Elisha, Mercy and Deliverance. In 1723, Jacob was of
Windsor, and Elisha of Norwich.
Stephen Hurlbut, died October 7th, 1712.
The Hurlbut family, of Connecticut, commences with Thomas
Hurlbut, who was one of the garrison at Saybrook Fort in 1636, and
settled in Wethersfield about 1640. Stephen, who came to New
London after 1690, was probably one of his descendants, and a native
of Wethersfield. He married, about 1696, Hannah, daughter of
Robert Douglas, and between 1697 and 1711, had seven children
baptized—Stephen, Freelove, Mary, John, Sarah, Titus, Joseph.
Stephen, the oldest son, died in 1725. John is the ancestor of the
Ledyard family of Hurlbuts, and Joseph of that of New London.
Capt. Titus Hurlbut was a man of considerable distinction in his
day; he served in the French wars, and was a captain of the old fort
that stood on the eastern border of the Parade, near the present ferry
wharf. His descendants, in the male line, removed to the western
states.
William Camp, died October 9th, 1713.
He was an inhabitant of the Jordan district. His wife was Eliza-
beth, daughter of Richard Smith. His two sons William and James
removed to the North Parish, (now Montville. )
Hallam.
John and Nicholas Hallam were the sons of Mrs. Alice Liveen,
by a former marriage, and probably born in Barbadoes—John in
1661, and Nicholas in 1664. John married Prudence, daughter of
Amos Richardson, in 1682, and fixed his residence in Stonington,
where he died in 1700. His possessions were large; a thousand acres
of land were leased to him in perpetuity by John Richardson of
Newbury in 1692 ‘‘for the consideration of five shillings and an
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 359
annual rent of one pepper-corn;’’ and his inventory gives evidence of
a style of dress and housekeeping, more expensive and showy than
was common in those days. It contains silver plate, mantle and coat
of broadcloth, lined with silk, ‘‘seventeen horse kind,’’ four negro
servants, &c.
“Nicholas Hallam married Sarah, daughter of Alexander Pygan, July 8, 1686. Children:
1. Alexander born Oct. 22, 1688.
2. Edward ‘Ap. 25, 1693, (married Grace Denison.)
3. Sarwh ‘© Mar. 29, 1695, (married Joseph Merrills.)
(Mrs. Sarah Hallam died in the year 1700.)
Nicholas Hallam was married Jan. 2, 1700-1 to widow Elizabeth Meades whose maiden name
was Gulliver, in Bromley church, on the backside of Bow without Stepney church, in London,
Old England. Their daughter Elizabeth was born in the parish of St. John Wapping, near
Wapping New Stairs, in London Feb. 22, 1701-2, (Qnarried Samuel Latimer.)
5. Mary born in New London Oct. 11, 1705, (married Nathaniel Hempstead and Joseph
Truman.)
6. John born Aug. 3, 1708, (married Mary Johnson.)”
Mr. Hallam’s gravestone states that he died Sept. 18th, 1714, at
the age of forty-nine years, five months and twenty-nine days. His
wife survived him twenty-one years.
At this period, many families in town owned slaves, for domestic
service; some but one, others two or three; very few more than four.
The inventory of Nicholas Hallam comprises ‘‘a negro man named
Lonnon,”’ valued at £30; his wife disposes of her ‘‘negro woman
Flora, and girl Judith.’’ Among the family effects are articles that
were probably brought from England, when Hallam returned with
his English wife in 1708—such as a clock and secretary. Mrs.
Hallam bequeaths to one of her daughters a diamond ring, and a
chest made of Bermuda cedar ; to another, ‘‘ the hair-trunk I brought
from London, and my gold chaine necklace containing seven chaines
and a locket.’’
Alexander Hallam died abroad. The will of his father contains a
bequest to him ‘‘if he be living and return home within twenty
years.’’ In 1720 his inventory was presented for probate with the
label, supposed to be dead. Edward Hallam was town-clerk from
December, 1720, to his teath in 1736.!
1 Rev. Robert A. Hallam, rector of St. James’ Church, New London, is the only surviving
male descendant of Nicholas [!allam, in the line of the name.
360 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Major Edward Palmes, died March 21st, 1714-15.
The same day died Capt. John Prentis, 2d. They were both buried
on the 23d, under arms; Capt. Prentis in the morning and Major
Palmes in the afternoon. The latter died on his farm at Nahantick,
but was brought into town for interment. Mr. Hempstead’s diary
notices the extreme severity of the weather at the time, and says of
Major Palmes—‘‘ He was well and dead in two hours and a half.”
His gravestone states that he was in his seventy-eighth year; we may
therefore place his birth in the year 1638.
Guy and Edward Palmes were both traders in 1659 and 1660;
the latter in New Haven, and the former in one of the towns west of
it upon the Sound. In December, 1660, Edward had removed to New
London. From various sources it is ascertained that he married
Lucy Winthrop, daughter of Governor Winthrop of Connecticut,
and after her death a widow Davis, and that by his first wife he had
a daughter Lucy, who married (first) Samuel Gray, and (second)
Samuel Lynde of Saybrook; but of these successive events no explicit
documentary evidence is to be found in New London. Dates there-
fore can not be given. Two children of Major Palmes by his second
wife, are on Mr. Bradstreet’s record of baptisms:
“Baptized Nov. 17, 1678, Major Palmes his child by his second wife who was Capt. Davis his
relict, Guy.
“ Baptized Oct. 1, 1682, Major Palmes his child
Andrew.”
The Bentworth farm of Major Palmes at Nahantick was mort-
gaged to Capt. Charles Chambers of Charlestown for £853. He left,
however, five other valuable farms. The Winthrop homestead in
the town plot, and the Mountain farm, bought of Samuel Royce, he
gave to his daughter Lucy Gray, but the remainder of his estate
went to his son Andrew. These are the only children mentioned in
his will, and probably all that survived infancy.
Andrew Palmes graduated at Harvard College in 1708, and died in
1721. He had four sons, Guy, Bryan, Edward and Andrew, and a
daughter Sarah, who married Richard Durfey. The name of Palmes -:
is now extinct in New London. The Brainerd family is descended
in the female line from Capt. Edward Palmes, the third son of
Andrew.
Richard Jennings, died Dec. 12th, 1715.
Richard Jennings and Elizabeth Reynolds were married ‘‘ the be-
ginning of June, 1678.’’ They were both emigrants from Barbadoes.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 361
Their children were, first, Samuel, born March 11th, 1679; second,
Richard, 1680 ; third, Elinor, who married Richard Manwaring.
Thomas Crocker, died Jan. 18th, 1715-6.
The descendants of this person are numerous and widely scattered.
At the time of his decease he was eighty-three years of age and had
lived about fifty years in the town. His wife, Rachel, was a daugh-
ter of George Chappell. Their children were :
1. Mary, b. Mar. 4th, 1668-9. 4. Samuel, b. July 27th, 1676.
2. Thomas, b. Sept. Ist, 1670. 5. William, 1680.
3. John, 1672. 6. Andrew, ——— 1683.
The second Thomas Crocker lived to the age of his father, eighty-
three years and seven months. William Crocker, the fourth son, was
a resolute partisan officer in the frontier wars, during the earlier part
of the eighteenth century, and was styled ‘‘ captain of the scouts.”’
John Crocker of the third generation (son of John,) was also a sol-
dier of the French wars, and their victim. He came home from the
frontier sick, and died soon afterward, Nov. 30th, 1746, aged forty.
David Cauikins, died Nov. 25th, 1717.
Hugh Caulkin(s) and his son John removed to Norwich in 1660.
David the younger son remained in New London, and inherited the
homestead farm given by the town to his father at Nahantick. Hd-
ward Palmes, John Prentis, David Caulkins and William Keeny
lived on adjoining farms, and for a considerable period occupied a
district by themselves, around the present Rope Ferry and Millstone
Point.
David Caulkins married Mary, daughter of Thomas Bliss of Nor-
wich.
Children.
1. David, b. July 5th, 1674. 6. Mary.
2. Ann, b. Nov. 8th, 1676. 7. Joseph, bap. Nov. 3d, 1694.
3. Jonathan, b. Jan. 9th, 1678-9. 8. Lydia, ‘* Aug. 9th, 1696.
4, Peter, b. Oct. 9th, 1681. 9. Ann,
5. John, 4
Lieut. Jonathan Caulkins, second son of David, served in the
frontier wars against the French. A later descendant of the same
name, Capt. Jonathan Caulkins, was in the field during a considera-
ble portion of the Revolutionary War.
362 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Ensign George Way, died in Feb., 1716-7.
This was the period of the Great Snow, famous throughout New
England. Ensign Way lived at the West Farms, not far from
Lake’s Pond, and after his decease his remains were kept for eleven
or twelve days, on account of the impassable state of the roads. He
was finally interred on the 7th of March, being brought into town
by men on snow-shoes.
The family of Ensign Way removed from New London. He had
several children, but Lyme was probably the place of their nativity.
His wife was Susannah, daughter of Joseph Nest.
George and Thomas Way were brothers ; their father was George
Way, of Lyme, or Saybrook, and their mother the only child of John
and Joanna Smith. Thomas Way appears to have lived from child-
hood in New London. His wife was Ann, daughter of Andrew
Lester, and he had ten children ranging in birth from 1688 to 1714.
About the year 1720, he removed with the younger part of his
family to East Haven, where he died in 1726. His sons David and
James married in East Haven ;!} John, another son, settled in Wal-
lingford.
Thomas Way, Jr., died in New London before the removal of the
family, at the age of twenty. A small stone of rough granite was
placed at the head of his grave, on which the following rudely picked
characters may still be deciphered.
T. W. DIED ye 22 DEC. 170 11 (1711.)
Daniel Way, the oldest son of Thomas, born Dec. 23d, 1688, and
Ebenezer, born Oct. 30th, 1693, are ancestors of the Way families
of New London and Waterford, branches of which have emigrated
to Vermont, New Hampshire and other states and also to Canada.
Capt. Ebenezer Way, of the old fourth United States regiment, who
commanded a company in the army of General Harrison at the bat-.
tle of Tippecanoe, was a descendant of Ebenezer, son of Thomas.
Joshua Baker, died Dec. 27th, 1717.
He was son of Alexander Baker of Boston, and born at the latter
place in 1642. He came to New London about 1670, and married
Sept. 13, 1674, Hannah, relict of Tristram Minter. They had
Alexander, born Dec. 16th, 1677; Joshua, Jan. 5th, 1678-9; John,
1 Dodd’s East Haven Register, p. 159.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 363
Dec. 24th, 1681; Hannah and Sarah, twins, 1684; also a son Ben-
jamin and daughters Mercy and Patience.
Another Baker family belongs to New London, of earlier date
than that of Joshua. ‘‘ William Baker of Pequot,’’ is noticed in
1653. Thomas, by supposition his son, was a householder in 1686,
living north of the town plot at Foxen’s Hill. No registry of mar-
riage, birth or death relating to this family before 1700, has been
found. John Baker married Phebe Douglas, Jan. 17th, 1703-4.
Thomas Jones, died Oct. 6th, 1718.
His wife was Catharine, daughter of Thomas Gammon of New-
foundland, whom he married June 25th, 1677. He lived at first
near Alewife Cove, but removed into the North Parish, and his only
son Thomas became a proprietor of the town of Colchester.
Daniel Wetherell.
The following memorials collected from the town book, and from
the graveyard, are more comprehensive than they would be if
molded into any other form.
‘‘ Daniel Wetherell was born Nov. 29, 1630, at the Free School-house in Maidstone, Kent, Old
England.’’ /
“Daniel Wetherell of New London, son of William Wetherell, Clericus of Scituate, was
married August 4, 1659, to Grace, daughter of Mr. Jonathan Brewster.”
Children.
1. Hannah, b. Mar. 21st, 1659-60. 3. Daniel, b. Jan. 26th, 1670-1.
2. Mary, b. Oct. 7th, 1668. 4, Samuel, bap. Oct. 19th, 1679.
“Here lyeth the body of Captn Daniel Wetherell Esq., who died April ye 14th 1719 in the 89th
year of his age.”
Capt. Wetherell’s usefulness continued almost to the day of his
death. From 1680 to 1710 he was more prominent in public af-
fairs than any other inhabitant of the town. He was town-clerk,
moderator, justice, assistant, judge of probate, and judge of the
county court. Noman inthe county stood higher in the point of
talent and integrity.
The two sons of Capt. Wetherell died young. His daughter Han-
nah married Adam Picket; Mary married first, Thomas Harris,
and second, George Denison. His family, like the families of sev-
eral other founders and benefactors of the town—Picket, Christo-
phers, Palmes, Shaw, &c.—was perpetuated only in the female line.
364 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. ;
Andrew Davis, of Groton, died April 23d, 1719.
John Davis was one of the planters of Pequot in 1651, and came
probably from Ipswich. In 1662 he was master of a vessel. His
death is not registered, but there is little hazard in assuming that his
relict was the Widow Davis whom Major Palmes married for his
second wife, and that Andrew Davis of Groton was his son. It is
difficult to construct a family history out of the scanty materials af-
forded by early records. We gather fragments, but the thread is
wanting which should bind them together. The wife of Andrew
Davis was Mary, daughter of Thomas Bailey. Of his children we
can obtain no information, except that it is fair to presume that An-
drew Davis, Jr., was his son. The latter married Sarah Baker,
Dee. 9th, 1708. A Comfort Davis mentioned in 1719, and William
Davis who died in 1725, may also be sons.
Lieut. John Richards, died Nov. 2d, 1720.
He was the oldest son of the first John Richards, and his wife was
Love, daughter of Oliver Manwaring. He had a large family of ten
or twelve children, of whom only four (John, George, Samuel and
Lydia) survived their father. His inventory, which comprises gold
buttons, silver plate, and gold and silver coin, shows that an advance
had been made beyond the simple frugality of the first times. He
owned the Bartlett farm on the river, one-half of which was prized
at £315, which indicates a still greater advance in the value of lands.
No spot in New London was more noted than the corner of Lieut.
Richards (now opposite the court-house.) It was for many years
the most western dwelling in that direction, with only the school-
house and pasture lots beyond.
Capt. George Richards, ason of Lieut. John, was a man of large
stature and great physical strength. Stories are told of his wrest-
ling with various gigantic Indians, and always coming off conqueror
from the combat. Capt. Guy Richards, for many years a noted
merchant in New London, Colonel William Richards of the Revolu-
tionary army, and Capt. Peter Richards, slain in the sack of Fort
Griswold in 1781, are among the descendants of Lieut. John Rich-
ards. .
Col. John Livingston, died 1.720.
‘The inventory of Lieut. Col. John Livingston, late of New Lon-
don taken at the house of Mrs. Sarah Knight in Norwich, at the de-
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 365
sire of Mrs. Elizabeth Livingston, widow of ye deceased who is
appointed administratrix, March 10,1720-1.’’ The list of effects
under this heading is slender. The principal items are 103 ounces
of wrought plate at 10s. 6d. per ounce; a japanned cabinet, and a
field tent. Colonel Livingston died abroad. His residence in New
London has already been noticed. He speculated largely in Indian
lands. In 1705 he purchased ‘‘ Paewmechaug,’’ 300 acres, of Samuel
Rogers, and sold it subsequently to Charles Whiting. In 1710 he
was one of the four purchasers of all Mohegan, the reservation of
the Indians excepted. He had a farm on Saw-mill Brook, (now
Uneasville) of 400 acres which he cultivated as a homestead. Here
he had his mills and dwelling-house, the latter standing on the west
side of the road to Norwich. It was here that his first wife, Mrs.
Mary Livingston, the only child of Governor Fitz-John Winthrop,
died, Jan. 8th, 1712-18. She was not interred till the 16th; the
weather being very inclement and the snow deep, she could not be
brought into town till that time.
Colonel Livingston’s second wife was Elizabeth, daughter and
only child of Mrs. Sarah Knight. The marriage has not been found
registered. To Mrs. Knight, Livingston first mortgaged, and then
sold the Mohegan farm. The title therefore accrued to Mrs. Living-
ston from her mother, and not her husband. She sold it to Capt.
Stephen Harding of Warwick. Colonel Livingston had no children
by either wife. The grave of the first—the daughter of Winthrop—
is undistinguished and unknown. A table of freestone, with the
following inscription, perpetuates the memory of the second.
“Interd vnder this stone is the body of Mdm Elizabeth Livingston, relict of Col. John Living-
stone of New London who departed this life March 17th, A. D. 1735-6 in the 48th year of her
age.”
The following are items from the inventory of her effects :
A negro woman, Rose; man, Pompey.
Indian man, named John Nothing.
Silverplate, amounting to £234, 13s.
A damask table-cloth, 80s.
Four gold rings; one silver ring; one stoned ring.
A pair of stoned earrings; a stone drop for the neck.
A red stone for a locket; two pair of gold buttons.
A diamond ring with five diamonds, (prized at £30.)
366 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
John Edgecomb, died April 11th, 1721.
His will calls him aged. His estate was appraised at £681, and
consisted of a homestead in the town plot, and two considerable
farms.
“John, son of Nicholas Edgecombe, of Plymouth, ‘ Nd England, was married to Sarah,
daughter of Edward Stallion, Feb. 9th, 1673.”
Children.
. John, born November 14th, 1675; married Hannah Hempstead.
. Sarah, born July 29th, 1678; married John Bolles.
. Joanna, born March 3d, 1679-80; married Henry Delamore.
. Nicholas, born January 23d, 1681-2.
. Samuel, born 1690.
. Thomas.
Mr. John Edgecombe married for his second wife, Ehzabeth, relict of Joshua Hempstead.
a
The name of Edgecomb is connected with the early settlement of
Maine. Sir Richard Edgecomb, of Mount Edgecomb, Devonshire,
had an extensive grant of land from Sir Ferdinando Gorges, in 1637,
on Casco Bay and the Saco River. Nicholas Edgecomb, who is
supposed to have been a near relative, was actively engaged in es-
tablishing a settlement on the bay, and himself visited it in 1658.
This person was probably the father of John Edgecomb, of New
London. Robert Edgecomb, another supposed son of Nicholas, set-
tled in Saco, and left descendants there.!
Henry Delamore married Joanna Edgecomb, Feb. 14th, 1716-17.
He was a recent emigrant from the old world, and styled himself
‘late master spar-maker to his majesty the king of Great Britain, at
Port Mahon.’’? His second wife was Miriam Graves, but it does not
appear that he left children by either wife. His relict, Miriam Del-
amore, married the second John Bolles, and this carried the Dela-
more homestead into the Bolles family. It was where the Thatcher
house now stands, on Main Street, at the corner of Masonic Street.
Capt. Peter Marvaring, died July 29th, 1723.
He perished by shipwreck, on the south side of Montauk Point, as
stated in a previous chapter. This enterprising mariner is first named
a little before 1700. His relationship with Oliver Manwaring has
not been ascertained, but the probability is that he was his nephew.
1 See Folsom’s Hist. of Saco and Biddeford, p. 112.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 367
He followed the seas with great assiduity. His family consisted of
a wife and three daughters.
Thomas Manwaring was probably a younger brother of Peter.
He married in 1722, Esther Christophers, and is the ancestor of the
Lyme branch of the Manwarings.
Oliver Manwaring, died November 3d, 1728.
He was then ninety years of age, and had been an inhabitant of the
town about sixty years. His house-lot of eleven acres was bought
on the 3d of November, 1664. The nucleus of this homestead, con-
sisting of the house plot and garden, has never been alienated by the
family, but is still in the possession of a descendant in the direct
male line from Oliver.
Oliver Manwaring married Hannah, daughter of Richard Ray-
mond. His wife connected herself with Mr. Bradstreet’s church, in
1671, at which time they had four children baptized: Hannah, Eliz-
abeth, Prudence and Love. After this were baptized in order,
Richard, July 13th, 1673 ; Judith, in April, 1676 ; Oliver, February
2d, 1678-9; Bathsheba, May 9th, 1680; Anne, June 18th, 1682;
Mercy. All these children were living at the period of Mr. Man-
waring’s death: the eight daughters were married and had families.
He bequeathed to his grandson, John Richards, (theson of his daugh-
ter Love,) all bills and bonds due to him ‘‘ and particularly that
bond which I had from my nephew, Oliver Manwaring, in England.’’
Sergeant Ebenezer Griffing, died September 2d, 1728.
His age was fifty years, and he had been about twenty-five in New
London. His parentage and native place have not been ascertained.
He married Mary, relict of Ebenezer Hubbell, February 9th, 1702-3.
Their children were John, Samuel, Peter, Lydia and Mary. John
and Samuel left descendants.
Richard Dart, died September 24th, 1724.
This was sixty years and twelve days after the date of his first
purchase in New London. He was eighty-nine years of age. His
oldest son, Daniel, born May 3d, 1666, married, August 4th, 1686,
Elizabeth Douglas, and about the year 1716, removed to Bolton, in
Hartford county. Most of his children, eleven in number, either
368 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
went with him or followed in his track. The other sons of Richard
and Bethiah Dart, were Richard, born May 7th, 1667; Roger, No-
vember 22d, 1670, and Ebenezer, February 18th, 1672-3. These
all became fathers of families, and their descendants are numerous.
John Arnold, died August 16th, 1725.
His gravestone says ‘‘aged about 73.’’ His wife died November
28th, of the same year. We assume with confidence that John Ar-
nold was a son of Joseph Arnold, of Braintree, Mass., the latter hay-
ing the birth of a son John registered April 2d, 1650-1. He wasa
resident in Norwich in 1681, and later; but before 1700, removed
to New London, where he married, December 6th, 1703, Mercy,
relict of Samuel Fosdick. Theyhad two daughters: 1. Ruhamah,
who married an Fly, of Lyme, and 2. Lucretia, who became the
second wife of John Proctor, A. M.
Harwood.
George Harwood can be traced as a resident in New London only
between the years 1651 and 1657, inclusive. He hada son John,
whose birth probably stands recorded in Boston—John, the son of
George and Jane Harwood, born July 5th, 1639.1 The family prob-
ably resided on the outlands of the town, and therefore seldom pre-
sent themselves to our view. John Harwood, a young man aged
twenty-three years, and apparently the last of the family, died Feb-
ruary 23d, 1726. He made a brief will, in which he mentions no
relative, but bequeaths whatlittle estate he has to Lydia, daughter of
Israel Richards.
Thomas Bolles,® died May 26th, 1727, aged eighty-four.
Samuel Bolles, died August 10th, 1842, aged ninety-nine.
The person last mentioned was grandson to the former, and yet the
time between the birth of the one, and the decease of the other was
199 years, an immense space to be covered by three generations, and
a remarkable instance for our country, where the practice of early
“1 Hist. and Gen. Reg., vol. 2, p. 189. 5
2 At first frequently written Bowles.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 369
marriages operates to crowd the generations closely together. The
intervening link is John Bolles: Samuel was the son of his old age,
born when his father had numbered sixty-seven years.
A family tradition states that Thomas Bolles came to this country
with brothers, and that they arrived first upon the Kennebec coast,
but Winthrop, the founder of New London, having some knowledge
of the family, invited them all to his plantation. Only Thomas an-
swered the call, the others remaining where they first landed. It is
some corroboration of this account that the name of Bolles is found
among the early settlers of Wells, in Maine.
Thomas Bolles is found at New London about 1668. He married
Mary Wheeler, July 1st, 1669. He bought house and land at Foxen’s
Hill, and there lived with his wife Mary and three children: Mary,
born in 1673 ; Joseph, in 1675,! and John, in August, 1677.
On the 5th or 6th of June, 1678, while Mr. Bolles was absent
from home, a sudden and terrific blow bereaved him of most of his
family. His wife and two oldest children were found dead, welter-
ing in their blood, with the infant, wailing butunhurt, by the side of
its mother. The author of this bloody deed proved to be a vagabond
youth, who demanded shelter and lodging in the house, which the
woman refused. Some angry words ensued, and the reckless lad,
seizing an ax that lay at the wood pile, rushed in and took awful
vengeance. He soon afterward confessed his crime, was carried to
Hartford, tried by the court of assistants, October 3d, condemned
and executed at Hartford, October 9th, 1678.
The records of the town do not contain the slightest allusion to
this act of atrocity. Tradition, however, has faithfully preserved
the history, coinciding in important facts with the account contained
in. documents on file among the colonial records at Hartford. John
Bolles, the infant thus providentially preserved from slaughter, in a
pamphlet which he published in after life, concerning his peculiar
religious tenets, alludes to the tragic event of his infancy, in the
following terms :
“‘ My father lived about a mile from New London town, and my mother was at home with only
three little children. I being the youngest, about ten months old, she, with the other two were
murdered by a youth about sixteen years of age, who was afterward executed at Hartford, and I
was found at my dead mother’s breast.”
1 In some papers at Hartford this child is called Thomas; at his baptism the name registered
was Joseph. ;
370 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Tradition states that the blood of the child Mary, who was killed
as she was endeavoring to escape from the door, flowed out upon the
rock on which the house stood, and that the stains long remained.!
Thomas Bolles married, 2. Rebecca, daughter of Matthew Waller,
who died February 10th, 1711-2. His third wife was Hopestill,
relict of Nathaniel Chappell, who survived him, and died in 1753,
aged about ninety. Mr. Bolles was much employed in town affairs,
and for nearly twenty years was in the commission of the peace. It
does not appear that he had any children after the death of his first
wife.
John Bolles married Sarah, daughter of John Edgecomb, July 3d,
1699, by whom he had eight sons and two daughters. By a second
wife, Elizabeth Wood, of Groton, he had five more children: Samuel,
the youngest, was born May 10th, 1744. Mr. Bolles died in 1767,
aged ninety, and in his will enumerates thirteen children then living.
Similar instances in our early history, where the heads of a family
and six, éight or ten children all live beyond the span allotted to our
race, occur with sufficient frequency to produce the impression that
life to maturity was more certain, and cases of medium longevity
more numerous in the firstthree generations after the settlement, than
in the three that succeed them. Certainly such instances were of
more frequent occurrence than at the present day, in proportion to
the population.
Samuel Fox, died September 4th, 1727, aged seventy-seven.
Samuel and John Fox were sons of Thomas Fox, of Concord.
Samuel Fox married Mary, supposed to be daughter of Andrew Les-
ter, and born in Gloucester, in 1647, March 30th, 1675-6. They
had a son Samuel, born April 24th, 1681. After this he contracted
a second, thirdand fourth marriage, and hadsons, Isaac, Samuel and
Benjamin, which should probably be assigned to the second wife,
Joanna, who died in 1689. The third wife was Bathsheba, relict of
Richard Smith, and daughter of James Rogers, (born in Milford,
1650.) There is no record made of any marriages or births in the
family after 1681. A singular caprice led Mr. Fox and some others
in that day to give the same name to two children by a different
mother. When a name, therefore, is repeated in a list of children,
1 This house is said to have stood a little south of the stone mansion built by Capt. Daniel De-
shon, now owned by Captain Lyman Allyn. The platform of rock, near which the house stood,
as been partly blasted away.
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 371
it is not always an indication that the first named’ had died before
the birth of the other. Samuel Fox, in his will makes bequests to
his two sons, Samuel the elder and younger. The former had set-
tled'in the North Parish, at a place still known as Fox’s Mills. He
is the ancestor of the Fox families of Montville.
John Fox, son of Thomas. of Concord, married Sarah, daughter
of Greenfield Larrabee, June 2d, 1678. They had ason John, born
June Ist, 1680, who died December 12th, 1711, leaving a wife,
Elizabeth, but no children. They had other sons and daughters,
but all died without issue, except Benjamin. In a deed of 1718,
he calls Benjamin, ‘‘ my only child which it hath pleased God to con-
tinue in the land of the living.”’
John Fox married, 2. Hannah, relict of Thomas Stedman; 3.
Mary, daughter of Daniel Lester, 2d. His last wife was fifty years
younger than himself, and granddaughter to his sister.!
Mrs. Sarah Knight.
A cloud of uncertainty rests upon the history of Mrs. Knight.
She was born about 1665, but where, of what parentage, when mar-
ried, who was her husband, and when he was taken from her by
death, are points not yet ascertained. All that is known of her kin-
dred is, that she was related to the Prout and Trowbridge families,
of New Haven. The few data that have been gathered respecting
her, in this vicinity, will be rehearsed in order. In 1698, she appears
in Norwich, with goods to sell, and is styled widow and shopkeeper.
In this connection it may be mentioned that among the planters, in a
settlement then recently commenced by Major James Fitch, of Nor-
wich, at Peagscomtuck, now Canterbury, was a John Knight, who
died in 1695. It is possible that Mrs. Knight was his relict; she
appears to have had one child only, a daughter Elizabeth; and it is
probable that John Knight had no sons, as the continuation of his
name and family has not been traced. He is not the ancestor of the
Knight family afterward found at the West Farms, in Norwich,
which originated with David Knight, who married Sarah Backus, in
1692, had sons and daughters, and died in 1744.
Mrs. Knight remained but a short time in Norwich, perhaps three
or four years. At the time of her celebrated journey from Boston
1 The wife of Daniel Lester, Sen., was Hannah Fox, of Concord. This singular connection is
mentioned in the New England Weekly Journal, printed in Boston, April 20th. 1730, after notic-
ing the death of John Fox.
372 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
to New York, in 1704, she was a resident of Boston. In 1717, she
was again living at Norwich; a silver cup for the communion service
was presented by her to the church, and the town by vote, August
12th, gave her liberty to ‘‘sit in the pew where she used to sit.’? In
1718, March 26th, Mrs. Knightand six other persons were presented
in one indictment ‘‘for selling strong drink to the Indians.’’ They
were fined twenty shillings and costs. It is added to the record,
“Mrs. Knight accused her maid, Ann Clark, of the fact.’’? After this
period, Mrs. Knight appears as a land purchaserin the North Parish
of New London, generally as a partner with Joseph Bradford; she
was also a pew holder in the new church built in that parish, about
1724, and was sometimes styled, of Norwich, and sometimes of New
London. This can be easily accounted for, as she retained her
dwelling-house in Norwich, but her farms, where she spent a portion
of her time, were within the bounds of New London. On one of the
latter, the Livingston farm, upon the Norwich road, she kept entertain-
ment for travelers, and is called innkeeper. At this place she died,
and was brought to New London, for interment. A gray head-stone,
of which an exact impression is given below, marks the place.
G
A OF M™ saRAH KNIcHT S)
EY
9 T = «|
Gwe DIED SEP TH 25
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. » 373
The only child of Mrs. Knight, Elizabeth, relict of Col. John
Livingston, survived her and presented her inventory, which com-
prised two farms in Mohegan with housing and mills—£1,600, and
estate in Norwich—£210. Mrs. Knight was a woman of consider-
able distinction in her day. She certainly possessed more than a
common portion of energy, talent and education. She wrote poetry
and diaries, transacted various kinds of business, speculated in In-
dian lands, and at different times kept a tavern, managed a shop of
merchandise and cultivated a farm. Her journal kept during a _
journey from Boston to New York, performed on horseback and in
company with the post or with chance travelers, in the year 1704,
was published a few years since under the editorial supervision of
Mr. Theodore Dwight. This journal in manuscript had been carefully
preserved in the Christophers family, to whom it came after the
death of Mrs. Livingston; Sarah, wife of Christopher Christophers,
who was a Prout, of New Haven, and a relative, being appointed to
administer on her estate. From a descendant of this Mrs. Christo-
phers, viz., Mrs. Ichabod Wetmore, of Middletown, the manuscript
was obtained for publication. It had been neatly copied into a small
book. The original was not returned to Mrs. Wetmore and is now
supposed to be lost.! C
George Geer, died in 1727.
The Isbell farm bought by George Geer Oct. 31st, 1665, was bound-
ed north by the line between New London and Norwich, (now Led-
yard and Preston.) George Geer married Sarah, daughter of Robert
Allyn, Feb. 17th, 1658-9. They had six sons and as many daugh-
ters. Capt. Robert Geer was one of the leading inhabitants of North
Groton during the first half of the eighteenth century, and his mill .
was one of the three places where all warnings were to be posted.
Fargo.
The first of this name in New London was Moses, who became a
resident in 1680. He had nine children, of whom the five youngest
were sons—Moses. Ralph, Robert, Thomas and Aaron. Moses
1 These particulars were communicated by the daughter of Mrs. Wetmore, Mrs. Andrew
Mather, of New London.
374 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
Fargo, or Firgo as it was then often written, and his wife Sarah,
were both living in 1726.
Thomas Leach, died Nov. 24th, 1732.
He was eighty years of age and had dwelt in the town upward of
fifty years. By his first wife, Abigail, daughter of Richard Haugh-
ton, he had but one child; viz., Sarah, who was born in 1684 and
married in 1706 to Andrew Crocker. His second wife was Mary
daughter of Clement Miner; and his third the relict of John Crocker.
His children by the three wives amounted to thirteen. The sons
who lived to have families were, Thomas, born about 1690; Clement,
in 1693; Samuel, in 1707; Joseph, in 1709; Richard, in 1711, and
Jonathan, 1716.
John Ames, died June Ast, 1735.
He had been about forty years an inhabitant of New London, and
had sons, John, Robert and Samuel. No registry of their births
has been found.
CHAPTER XX.
From 1700 to 1750.—Death of Governor Winthrop.—The Minister of New London chosen
Governor.—Settlement of Rev. Eliphalet Adaums.—List of 1708 and 1709.—Expedition of 1711
against Canada.—Death of Governor Saltonstall.—War with Spain.—Memorials and petitions
for fortification.—Petition to the King.—Expedition to Cape Breton.
WHEN post-offices and post roads were established in America,
which was near the commencement of the eighteenth century, the
great route from Boston to New York was through New London,
which was then reckoned 110 miles from Boston and 156 from New
York. By act of Parliament in 1710, New London was made the
chief post-office in Connecticut; single letters from thence to New
York paid ninepence; to any place sixty miles distant, fourpence;
one hundred miles distant, sixpence.!
From the Boston. News Letter, which began to be issued in April,
1704, and was the “first newspaper published in North America, the
following extracts are taken.
“New London, Aug. 9th, 1704. On Thursday last marched from hence, Capt. John Livingstow
with a brave company of volunteers, English and Indians to reinforce the frontiers.”
‘Boston, June 11th, 1705. Captain John Livingston, with the other messengers sent by our
Governor to the Governor of Canada at Quebeck to concert the exchange of prisoners, returned
this day.”
‘Boston, Nov. 27th, 1707. About 4 o’clock this morning the Honorable John Winthrop, Esq.,
Governor of his Majesty’s Colony of Connecticut, departed this life in the 69th year of his age:
being born at Ipswich in New England, March 14th, anno 1638 :—Whose body is to be interred
here on Thursday next the 4th of December.”
The event announced in this last extract claims some further notice
from the historian of New London. Governor Winthrop had gone
to Boston for medical aid, in an enfeebled state of health. He died
in the tenth year of his office, and was interred in the same tomb
with his father and grandfather, in the churchyard of King’s Chapel.
1 See this act in Mass. Hist. Coll., 8d series, vol. 7, p. 71.
376 HISTORY OF NEW LONDON.
His public duties since the year 1690 had kept him much of the time
away from New London, yet this always continued to be his home.
His death was an important event to the town. As a member of the
commonwealth it had lost its head, and as a community it was
bereaved of a tried friend and influential citizen. It led the way
also to another removal—that of their minister. On the death of the
governor, a special assembly was convened to elect a temporary suc-
cessor, and a majority of the votes were given for the Rev. Gurdon
Saltonstall, of New London. He accepted the appointment and on
the 1st of January, 1708, took the oath of office. At the annual
election in May, he was chosen governor by the votes of the-freemen
and was annually reélected to the office from that time until his
death.
A transition so sudden from the sacred desk to the chair of the
magistrate is an unusual, if not a solitary event. How the appoint-
ment was received by the church and congregation under Mr. Sal-
tonstall’s charge, we do not learn, as no entry was made on either
the town or church record respecting it. But from the known popu-
larity of Mr. Saltonstall, we may suppose that in the first instance
they were filled with grief and amazement. We are told by the
historian Trumbull, that the Assembly addressed a letter to his peo-
ple, acquainting them that their minister was called to engage in
another important course of service and using arguments to induce
them to acquiesce in the result.
Mr. Saltonstall himself has been freely censured for thus resigning
a spiritual incumbency to engage in the routine of temporal affairs.
The Rev. Isaac Backus, the venerable Baptist author of the Church
History of New England, says of him with severity: ‘‘He readily
quitted the solemn charge of souls for worldly promotion.’’ But Mr.
Saltonstall doubtless acted upon his own convictions of duty and
believed that he could more effectually benefit his generation in the
charge which he now assumed than in that which he laid down. He
had been the messenger of the town for twenty years and may even
have thought that a change of ministration would not be injurious
to his flock, especially as he still remained in the church and stood
ready as before to assist them with his counsel.
The personal gifts of Mr. Saltonstall added much to his influence.
He was tall and well proportioned, and of dignified aspect and de-
meanor. Some points of his character, carried perhaps to excess,
acquired for him the reputation of being severe, imperious, and of
HISTORY OF NEW LONDON. 377
seeking self-aggrandization. But among his brethren of the clergy
he enjoyed unbounded popularity. He strove to exalt the ministe-
rial office and maintain its dignity, and was himself the exponent
of rigid orthodoxy. It was perhaps clerical influence, acting invis-
ibly, which raised him to the chief magistracy. He loved synods
and councils and was for giving them large powers. A friend to
law and order, he would have men submit to authority and live so-
berly, taking reason and religion for their guides. In his view, the
affairs of both church and state should be managed by rules, judi-
ciously established and then made firm and unalterable. The plat-
form of ecclesiastical discipline formed at Saybrook, accepted by
most of the churches, and established as the law of the state in Oc--
tober, 1708, was the embodiment of the principles which he favor-
ed. That instrument owed much to his councils and influence.
Being thus an advocate for rigorous ecclesiastical authority, he
was disposed to check all who dissented from the established rule,
with the harsh strokes of discipline. It was during his ministry
that the principles of the regular Baptists were planted in Groton.
On that side of the river, within the circle of his own church, many
were discontented with his ministry. A list of ‘‘ Complaints against
the Elder of the Church of Christ in New London,’’ was drawn up
in 1700, signed by five members of the church, viz., James Avery,
John Morgan, Samuel Bill, John Fox and James Morgan, Jr., and
carried before the General Court in May, who referred it to an ec-
clesiastical council that was to convene at Killingworth in June. Of
the nature of these complaints we are not informed. The result of
the council was communicated to the church in New London, June
19th ; and this was followed by a vote of suspension from church
privileges of the offending members. The difficulty did not end
here.
Chambers, 360.
Chamberlin, 381.
Champlin, 402, 7; 457, 537, 540,
0.
630.
Champion, 175.
Chandler, 264, 300, 1.
Chanel}, 231, 2.
Channing, 571, 7; 588-90, 668.
Chapel(}), 145, 252, 3; 260, 325,
346, 608.
Chapman, 98, 175, 197, 248, 250,
8; 260, 2; 303, 391, 9; 411, 479,
514, 582, 544, 561, 577, 581, 2.
Chappell, 60, 8; 74, 136, 248, 258,
9; 268, 352, 361, 370, 475, 582, |
608, 613, 662.
Charlet, (Chelet,) 75, 299.
Chauncey, Sarah, 132.
Cherry, 264.
Chesebrough, 44, 78, 85. 88, 99-
104, 194, 248, 304, 662.
Chester, 145, 231, 5. 8 9; 248,
353, 426, 7, 435 519, 647.
Chew, 463, 477, 506, 539, 40.
Chitwood, 132, 688.
Christophers, 117, 145, 157, 166,
170, 183, 195, 9; 235, 8; 240,
1; 251-53, 260, 1: 277, 8; 286,
303, 7, 10, 163 336, 367, 373,
382-84, 397,8; 401, 452, 455-
57, 487, 506, 622, 666, 8, 9.
Church, 391, 622.
Churchwood, Hannah, 294.
Chynnery, 87, 93, 98.
Clap, 384, 657.
Clark(e,) 65, 206, 250, 372,
381, 3.
Clay, 88, 248.
Cleaveland, 627, 662, 8; 671.
Clinton, 529, 545, 556, 564.
Codner, 77, 145, 197, 269, 289,
328.
Coflin, 640.
Coit(e,) 62, 67, 70, 1; 84,97 143,
143, 4; 194, 5; 231, 5, 7, 8; 240,
4; 250, 9, 263, 275, 283, '358,
389, 90, 94; 407. 410, 476. 502,
3; 513-15, 521, 6; 633, 9; 568,
BT1, 9; 588, 627, 642, 662, 667-
70, 686.
Cole, 77, 232, 399.
Coles, Sarah. 218.
Colfax, 264, 39, 533, 619, 627.
Collins, 70, 87, 145, 228, 271, 289,
584.
Comstock, 66, 8; 74, 96, 111, 116,
142, 3; 175, 244, 260, 305, 314,
16; 606, 660.
Condy, 145, 167, 306, 353.
~
Constant, 508, 579.
Cook, 586, 605, 6.
Cooley, 145, 209, 274.
Copp, 399, 432, 5.
Corey, 316.
Cotter, 144.
Cowdall, 93.
Crandall, 582.
Crannell, 582.
Crary, 260, 4; 292, 351.
Crawford, 649.
Crocker, 93, 253, 8, 9; 339, 352,
361, 374, 382, 612, 683.
Croghan, Col., 5
Crombe, 300.
Croswell, 420, 1; 454.
Crump, 668.
Cullick, 250.
Cullum, 652.
Culver, 86, 96, 134, 5, 7; 302, 309,
315, 328, 494.
ee 243, 385, 6, 407, 450, 2, 6,
Curtenius, Peter, 507.
Cushing, 649.
Daboll, 656.
Dalrymple, (Lord,) 552.
Daniel(s,) 145, 258, 60; 339, 351,
2; 403, 654, 658.
Danforth, 341.
Darrall, William, 235.
Darrow, 260, 4: 339, 347, 439,
514, 532, 598, 611-13.
LDart, 145, 259, 277, 326, 367.
Daun, (Marshal,) 473.
Davenport, 116, 421, 450, 454-57.
Davie, 199, 259, 264, 415-17.
Davis, 77, 264, 291, 360, 4; 605,
638, 642, 656.
Davison, 239.
Day, 514.
Dayne, (Deane?) 145, 315.
Dea, (Deane?) 145.
Dean(e,) 507, 603.
Decatur, 630-37, 689.
De Jean, 579.
Delamore, (Dillamer,) 366.
Denison, 77, 82, 5, 7, 8; 98, 103,
4, 6,9; 115, 130, 155, 185-88,
194, 248,9; 252, 3; 264, 271,
286, 297, 318, 332, 9; 847, 359,
a8, 389, 391, 8; 428, 432, 3,
Dennis, 264, 292, 343, 600, 624,
79.
Denslow, 188.
Deshon, 870, 447, 484, 503, 6;
517, 19; 522, 537, 9; 570, 582,
619, 641, 2, 668, 9.
Dewolf, Edw., 192.
Dickinson, 668.
Dixon, 431.
Do(a)ne, 160, 392.
Dodge, 264, 392, 428, 598.
Dolbeare, 657.
Dolph, 634.
Dorrance, 418.
Doty, 613.
Douglas, 93, 134-14, 183, 5;
194, 259, 273, 4; 285, 291, 5;
300, 3; 335, 353, 8; 363, 7;
378, 401, 503, 512, 524, 532,
595, 610, 627, 641, 2; 666, 7.
Dow, Ulysses, 622.
Downer, Joshua, 567.
Downing, 113.
Doxey, 68, 75, 82, 157, 232, 269.
Dudley, 193, 304, 412,18; 498.
Conkling, 540, 2.
Dunke, 251.
INDEX OF FAMILY NAMES.
Durfey, 239, 360, 386, 390, 402,
8, 10; 462.
Durkee, 533.
Durell, 478.
Dutton, 676.
Dwight, 171, 4; 373.
Dyer, 280, 478, 507, 520.
Dymond, 146;232, 6; 251, 278,
9; 288, 311, 350.
Eaton, 311.
Edgecombe, 183, 241, 259, 264,
346, 366, 370, 444, 560, 677.
Edgerton, 583.
Edwards, 96, 456, 592, 679.
Eells, 450, 1, 655.
Eidlitz, 591, 677.
Elderkin, 67, 8; 82, 5, 8; 96,
103, 8, 9; 132, 154, 6, 8, 9; 191,
231, 306, 355, 518, 19.
Eldridge, 502, 657.
Ellard, 402.
Elliot, 138, 146, 197, 332, 385,
429, 656, 669.
Ellis, 145, 264.
Elly, 475.
Elmore, Edw., 188.
24, 26.
Endicot, 29, 34, 113.
Epes, 193.
Erving, 512, 628: :
age. (Col.,) 546, 550, 7,8; 560,
Ae 5
Fairbanks, 326, 431.
Fanning, 96, 142, 5; 306.
Fargo, 264, 373, 514.
Farnsworth, 623.
Fenwick, 27, 8; 438, 6; 172-4,
250.
Field, 679.
¥ish, 96, 259, 310, 14,15; 415,
452.
Fisk, 422.
Fitch, 137, 152, 185, 211, 12;
249, 371, 8; 385, 392, 426-29;
433, 551, 583, 641, 647.
Fitzpatrick, 600. .
Fones, 40.
Foote, 264, 308, 346.
Forbes, 60, 159.
Ford, 310.
Forster, (Foster,) 146, 235, 306,
312, 586
Forth, 39.
Fosdick, 264, 286, 343, 368, 379,
389, 397, 5382, 4, 7; 574-5; 625,
Fossiker, (Fossecar,) 60, 1;
75. a
Fountain, 264, 339.
Fowler, 409.
Fox, 198, 202, 212, 259, 262, 4;
272; 308, 322, 370, 7; 436, 502.
Francis, 657.
Franklin, 416, 551.
Freebetter, 656.
Freeman, 448, 560.
French, 272.
Frivk, 192, 329, 351, 549, 620,
647, 663.
Fry, 269. 70.
Fryer, 113.
Gager, 59, 66, 74, 93, 7; 154, 8,
9; 268, 292.
Gale, 595.
INDEX OF FAMILY NAMES.
Gallop, 29, 37, 68, 74, 9; 87, 98,
144, 154, 184, 591, 329, 351,
502, 526, 632, 559.
Gammon, 363.
Gard, 146.
Gardiner, 26, 34, 173, 241, 301,>
383, 4;°398, 403, 8; 416, aT,
486, 610, 640, 670, 1.
Garland, 637.
Garlick, 1.
Gay ord, 159.
Geer, 97, 157, 259, 354, 373, 415,
420, 502, 599.
George, (Bishop,) 596.
Gerrard, 231, 298.
Gesbie, 7°
Gibbons, 152.
Gibbs, 233.
Gabgon, 251, 2; 262, 4; 457, 476,
Gifford, 292.
Gilbert, 264, 428, 436.
Goddard, 244, 440, 1, 43 627, 8,
Gordon, 637.
Gorges, 366.
Gorton, 436-39.
Gove, 243.
Graham, (Lord aaa 654.
Grant, 145, 298,
Gray es 330, a6. 445-47; 486,
Gray, 189, 360.
Green, 260, 4; 330, 341, 367, 379,
391, 2; 47, 2, 8; 486, 8,9; 610,
628, 647, 655, 6 ‘669.
Greenslade, 331.
Greenwood, 599.
Griffin 84, 338, 367, 597, 664.
Gridley, 440.
Grignon, 506.
Griswold, a a 9; 251, 283,
335, 486, 8; 631,
Griswold, ane, 126, 161-
177; 203, 9; 248, 251.
Grose, 244.
Gulliver, 359.
Gurdon, Mariel, 383.
Gurley, 623, 662, 9, 671
Hackburn, (Hagborn,) 134, 152.
Hackley, 264, 404.
Hadley, 252.
Hale,
Haley, 6
Hall, 138 253, 8; 265, 431.
Hallam, 182, 193, 329- 28, 236,
38: 244, 263, 262, 285, 335, 341,
358, 399, 406, 441, 476, 449,
514, 582, 3; 552, 594, 662.3, 7,
8; 670, 8.
Hallett, William, 60, 4.
Hallsall, (Hansell,) 144, 231.
Halsey, 200, 265, 559, 576.
Hamlin, Giles, 235, 240.
Hammond, 605, 611.
Hancock, 510.
Handy, 508.
Hanshut, 74, 5.
Harding, 365, 538-40.
Hardy, 630-33.
Harman, 543.
Harris, 84-88, 148, 240, 258, 9;
269, 275, 292, 320, 335, 8; re
396, 495, 8; 452, 3; 474, 5
512, 598, 620, 647, 677, 686.
Harrison, (Gen.. ) 362.
Hartley, 87,137, 148, 152, 280.
3
jathan, 515, 634, 622. ~}
Hovg H 2302
Hartstene, 685.
Harvey, 265, 348.
Harwood, 76, 5; 95, 274, 368.
Hatch, 262,
Haughton, iS, 102, 127, 149, 150,
28h 83 ; 262, 299, 388, 342, 374,
Haven, 620, 647.
Havens, 531, Ze 1; 640, 686.
Hawke, 265,
Hayden, 298, 38.
Haynes, (Haines,) 88, 90, 102,
145, 251, 262, 5, 308, 9; 314,
384, 437, 688
Hazard, 582.
983, 7; 301, 310, 15; 321, 359,
366, 400, a 9: 486, 518, 632, 4,
563, 5,6
Houkes, eos.
Hertell, 448, 503.
Hemet | ae
Hicks, 40!
Hide, (Hyde) 413, 614, 665, 657.
Higby, 60.
Higginson, 43.
Hill, 125, 143, 5, 8; 167, 186, 183,
3 190, 5; 236, > 260, 286,
307, 317, 396, 427, 8; 348, 428,
432) 453, 621, 7; 666, 676,
Hillhouse, 418, 432-34, 602, 3,
6; 606, 667, 8.
Hinman, 509, 611, 537, 9; 641,
2; 574, 626, 651.
Hiscox,, 204.
Hobart, 649.
Holloway, 265, 356.
Holmes, 198, 265.
Holmsted, 172.
Holt, 265, 314, 339, 583, 5; 655,
657.
Hooker, 431.
Hooper, 412.
Hope, 242.
Hopkins, 509-11, 518, 20; 537,
671.
Hosmer, 330, 630.
Hotham), (Admiral, ) 637.
How, 2'
Hove, ‘457, 611, 12; 636, 640.
Howell, ‘640.
Howland, 658.
Hubbard, 204, 7; 265, 70; 312, 13;
lr 349, 406, 427, 448, 476, 502, 640,
668, 70.
Hubbell, 265, 338, 367.
Hughes, 281 281, 654.
Hungerford 68, 9; 75, 86, 152,
733
aeeee 219.
Hunting, 640.
Huntington, 159, 172, 325, 513,
15, 18; 577, 589, 90; 621) 3, 5,
, 649, 659, 662, 8, 670, 6.
punt eva 296, 305.
Hurd,
Hurlbut, 565, 358, 502, 532, 3;
579, 682, 599, 603, 622, 8; 668,
Hutchinson, 265, 514.
Hutton, 240, 1.
Ingason, 77.
Inglis, 642.
Ingraham, 5865.
Ireland, 301.
Isbell, 67, 71, 97, 272, 289, 342.
Hearn, 544,
Hempatesd, 44, 657, 66-
72, 76, 81, 7; 95, abt ‘oeo! 272,
693
Isham, 620, 633, 662, 671.
Jacklin, 382.
Jackson, 218, 19; 409.
Jarvis, 448.
Jayne, 637.
Jeffers, 198.
Jeffrey, 241, 2, 4.
Jennings, 266, 360.
Jewett, 434, 5; ; 451, 3; 468, 605.
Ji gles, 344, 319.
Johnson, 265, 343, 359, 421, 486.
Johnston, 608.
Jones, 70, 197, 218, 265, 288,
ais 811, 329, 363, 428, 537,
Jordan, 202.
comers hele 321.
Judd, 5:
Kay, 440,
Kearney, 661.
Keith, 410.
Keeny, 67, 71, 5; 94, 143, 4; 231,
259, 291,” 306, 339, 346, 352, 361,
509, 587
Kellett, +84.
Ketchell, 155.
Kidd, 293.
Kimball, 619. ,
Kimberly, 262.
King, 391, 3.
fener go 601.
Kirby,
Kirtund, “io, 621.
Knight, 364, 6; 371, 623.
Laboissiere, 580.
La poy 510.
Lake, 44, 5, 7; 3 68, 77, 87, 98, 164,
933, 291.
Lamb, 327, 485, 538.
Landfear, ’606.
Lane. 133, 164, 7; 161, 231, 3; 269,
Larrabee, 273, 282.
+ Latham, 44, 58, 9; 64, 70, 4; 89,
97, 8; 103, 133,” 5, 6; 63-67,
259, 306, 312, 13; 3, 335, 344,
9; 365, 4o1, 326,
Lathrop, See eee
Latimer, (Lattemore,) 144, 171,
193, 227, 8; 231, 2; 251, 9; 286,
8; 302, 325, 9;°359, 882, 403,
471, 504, ae eet 518, 526, 532,
661, 582, 8
Law, 218, go at, 502-506, 544,
575, 619-25, 649, 652, 667, 8,
9; 670, 676.
Lawrence, 270, 816, 647, 663,
Lay, 152, 175, 7; 292, 334.
Leach, 265, 299, 374.
Leake, (Lake,). 110, 233. \
Learned, 628, 662, 7, 8, 9; 670, 1.
Lechmere, 412, 441) 477.
Ledyard, 244, 384, 407, 502, 519,
20; 521, 6; 530, as. 8; 568, 93
561, 2, 5 7; 575, 603.
Lee, 170, 6, 6; 252, 391, 45°, 470,
9: 684, 595, 6; 616, 17, 641,
678.
Leeds, i plo, 7; 244, 265, 312, 335.
537, 8 2.
Leet, 470.
Lefevre, (Fevor,) 428.
Leffingwell, 185, 470, 577.
Leighton, (Lawton,) 78.
Lemoine, (Capt.) 566.
4
694
Lenard, 93.
Lennison, 274.
Leslie, (Capt.,) 478.
Lester, 67, 71, 82, 95, 7 ; 116, 152;
193, 260, 273, 286, 310, 321,
340, 2, 6; 362, 370,1; 411, 612,
9.
Lewis, 60, 6; 74, 6 ; 144, 201, 250,
9; 295, 326, 448, 663, 8.
Lippitt, 620.
Ercan ene) 222-228, 236,
7; 253
Livenden: “267, 357, 364, 373,
5; 381, 404, 412, 428, 9; 43: 3,
Lockwoud, 87, 306, 312.
Longdon, 58, 60, 1; i 111, 284.
Loomer, 265, 327, 3
Loomis, 686.
Lord, 91, 133, 162-54, 235, 317,
384, 456.
Lothrop, (Lathrop,) 57, 60, 4, 6;
95, 123, 7; 132, 164, 9; 191,
240, 294, 803, 391, 2; 581.
Loudon, (Earl of) 469.
Lovelace, Gov., 387.
Loveland, Rob., 93, 133, 151,
233, 4.
Ludlow, 38.
“Lynde, ‘139, 213, 360, 488.
Prados, Lord.) 654.
Lyon, 68
Mack, 617.
Mackensie, 197, 235.
McCarty, 265, 540, 582.
McCurdy, Sally, 589.
McDonald, 592, 657.
McEwen, 574, 590, 629, 667, 8;
672, 9.
McKay, 640.
McLellan, 513.
McSparran, 440-42, 446.
Madison, 477.
Malboue, 300.
Mallison, 562.
Maniere, 579.
Manning, 378, 657.
Manwaring, 129, 145, 170, 240,
1; 262, 8, 9; 268, 292, 317, 18;
347, 362, 361, 4, 6; 403, 444,
502, 582, 624, 668.
Maples, 431.
Maritt, (Marret,) 141, 230, 250,
269, 314.
Marsey, 428.
Marshall, 70, 1, 5; 145, 248, 314,
47,
347,
Martin, 67, 145, 549.
Marvin, 175, 252.
Mason, 35, 6, 8; ay 61, 5; 64, 78,
9; 81, 98, 104-6, 120, 6, 7; 164,
5; 172, 2,4, 7; 180, 2, 4: 221,
249, 308, 381,'410, 12°; 426, 8:
430, 35 :
Masters, 60, 74, 5
Mather, 195, Ts
498, 620, 649,
Mattle, 300.
Oe aa 236, 240, 265, 290, 316,
saa, “16, 489,
651, 669.
Maynard, 265, 354, 610.
Meach, 607.
Meacham, 456.
Meades, 70, 1, 96, 144, 266, 359,
415
Measure, 145, 249, 281, 334.
Melally, 583, 624.
Mercer, 662, 671.
Merrick, Stephen, 250.
Merrill(s,) 359, 582.
Merritt, 400, 432, 3; 440, 1,
Messenger, 17, 89.
Michel, 527
Middleton, ‘669, 686.
Migges,
Mighill Giicnell?) 265, 330.
Milburne, 222.
Miller, 244, 327, 340, 46; 384-86,
391, 8, 9; 477, 482, 502,.547, 553,
584, 622, 670.
Mills, 622, 649.
Millett, 549, 50.
Milwood, 113.
Minor, (Miner,) 44, 56-61, 64, 5;
72, T4-76, 80-85, 98, 101-4, 129,
136, 143, 4; 162, 3, 6, 8; 188,
195, 6; 237, 280, 5; 302, 326,
374, 459, 647, 656.
Minter, 265, 283, 362.
Mitchell, 265, 333, 623.
Moffatt, 478, 497, ue
Montgomery, 558, 5
Moore 93, 193, 8; 360° ai, 310,
5 321.
Morgan, 70, 71, 96, 98, 115, 132,
3; 135-39, 142-44, 152, 161, 2,
6; 198, 9; 251, 259-61, 265, 282,
294, 311, 12, 19; 346, 350, 377,
415, 418- 20, 604.
Morris, (Morrice,) 297, 409, 509.
Morse, 606, 612.
Mortimer, 265, 854.
Morton, Wm., 45, 53,7; 60, 6;
75, Ue, 133, 149, 150; 2; 387.
Mott, 520, 1.
Mould, "a3, 4; 281, 235-87 ; 250,
Race: ie 74, 82, 269, 289, 322.
Mulford, 317.
Mulholland, 683.
Mumford, 244, 409, 441, 4, 6;
470, 502, 5, 6; 517, 532, 7; 543,
565, 577, 582, 622, 667, 8.
Munsell, (Munson?) 265, 358.
Murphy, 542.
Murray, 586.
Mussey, 649.
eee in CMaynardt) 258, 265,
Nash, 251.
Nest, 265, 324, 356.
Nettleton, 313.
Newbury, 613.
Newman, 96, 152. ==
Newton, 391, 2
Nicholls, 60, 5, 65 74, Le ae
141, 4; “ios, 370; 23
Gov., 40, {57.
Nicholson; James, 543.
Niles, 538, 629.
Nixon, 514.
Norcott, 582.
Norris, 442.
North, 231, 671.
Northrop, 299.
Norton, 27, 30, 118, 441.
Nott, 571.
Noyes, James, 106, 130, 285,
297, 379. Moses, 285.
oe ue 195.
esby,
Often 28, 9.
Oliver, 333, at, 540, 632,
Olmsted, 6
Otis, 432, 3 B
Owen, 418- "20; OL 619-22, 667.
_| Packer. 70, 5; 96, 188, 312, 16;
324, 7; 347, 9; 417, 440,1, 4.
INDEX OF FAMILY NAMES
Packwood, 578, 582.
Paget, 402.
Paine, 427.
304, 326, 334, 526, 577, 606.
Palmes, 90, 1, 4, 5; 148, 152,
164-68, 170, 180, 83-89, 195,
223-27, 289, 249-53, 341, 360,
1. 4; 396, ‘402, 266, 9.
Parke, 56, 66, 7, 9, 70, 73 ~76, 95-
98, 102-4, 8, 15; 138, 152, 158,
192, 268, 282, 311, 15; 472, 571.
Parker, 67, 69- ~70, 73-76, "135,
144, 161, 6; 183, 231, 3; 291,
306, 312. 329, 353, 4; 448, 472,
524, 539, 541, 655.
Parkin, 624, 668.
Parry, 239.
Parsons, as ei 479, 503, a:
513, 14;
Patrick, ie
Patten, 586.
Peale, (Pike,) 142, 55 314, 18,
ried 250.
Peck, 599.
Pell, 138.
Pember, 265, 355.
Pemberton, 265, 345.
Pendall, 265.
Penniman, 676.
Pendleton, 516. «
Perkins, 286, 514, 615, a
647, 662, 3, 7, 8; 671.
Persey, 265.
Peters, 28, 40, 43-47, 52, x ;
Te
Peterson, 252, 686. v
Phillips, 85. 146, 434. a
Phipps, 256. si
Picket, 76, 86, 97, 125, 152, 171,-
ee,
c,
Be
re
285, 308, 318, 344, 350, 363, 3
470, 668.
Pickworth, i7.
Pierce, 325, 436.
Pierpont, 452.
Pierson, 156, 350.
Pigot, 549, 630.
Pinevert, 580.
Piriou, (Pereau,) 579, 622.
Plaisted, 240
Plimpton, 265.
Plumbe, 91, 238, 250, 2, 8, 9; 265,
302, 336, 378, 398, 401, 428, 488,
570.
Polly, Bs
Pomeroy.
Poole)’ toe 30, 278, 290, 307,
544, 579.
Porter, 663.
Post, 60, 2,9; 76, 83, 141, 156,
303.
Potter, 475, 595, 628.
Powers, 159, 582.
Pratt, 208, 9; 249, 298, 416, 499.
Prentis, (Prentice,) 83, 87, 94,
135, 6, 9; 141, 4; 152, 167, 170,
195, 208, 218, 235, 8; 240, 1;
252, 8, 9; 285, 295, 318, 326, 8;
360, 1; 382, 5,6; 391-94; 398,
403, 4; 427, 8; 487, 8; 502, 647,
Prout, 235, 371, 3.
Prowse, 308.
Prudden, 201.
Palmer, 102, 4; 278, 285, 297,
One
Medea!
198, 236, 8; 240, 1; 260, 276, 7;
on
vi INDEX OF FAMILY NAMES.
Prychard, 111.
Punderson, 420.
Pygan, 142), 199, 223, 5; 234, 7;
250, 1; 262, 8: 279, 341, 359,
486, 669.
Pynchon, 96, 183, 4; 202.
Quarry, 239.
Randall, 288.
Ransforth, 216-18,
Rathbone, 437,
Rawlins, 270.
Rawson, 584.
Ray, 240, 642.
Raymond, 83, 93, 117, 184, 145,
165, 181, 3, 4; 258, 262, 292,
301, 317, 18; 323, oly 367, 396.
400, 425, 6; 432, 3. » 5; 514, 532,
3 “06, 627.
' , (Reed,) 40,77, 145, 475.
ay
I wigea, (Redfyn,) 250, 279, 290,
ee 67"
Reve)
¢
avell,) 147, 8; 152,
Reynolds, 172, 188, 360.
Rice, 108. 265, 7346, 582, 625, 644.
a te 152) 228, 253, 335, 354,
5, 8; 416, 502, 3; 582,
162, 582, 619, 622.
3, 358, De 263, 318, 364,
5: 398, 487, 662, 8, 9.
son, 76, 86, 91, 9; 123,
50, 302, Hees 441, 622.
a
iy 1%, 8; 268, 279.
erts, er, i, 87, 142, 154, 6;
eee)
obinson, or 60, 1; 138, 146,
290, 456, 471, 549.
_ekwell, 188.
xtodgers, ‘661.
a ers, 74, 84, 90-92, 95, 6, 8;
108~-110,. 116, 183- 38, 143, 4, 7:
152, 164, 6; 183, 199, 200-2217
(Ch. xiv.,) 227, 237, 240, 4;
251, 9; 286, 297, 322, aes 7,9
345, 365, fyi 400, 13 4, 9:
495, , ATL, 491, 538,
542, 569, beat 610, 613, 14; 647,
Rose, 158, 261, 354.
Rosewell, Eliz., 383.
Rose-Morgan. See Morgan.
Rosseter, 456.
Rowland, 201.
Rowe, 436, 7.
Royce, 98, 5; 139, 140-44; 152,
Ruddock, 654, 658.
Russell, 265.
Sadler, 111, 113.
Sage, 540.
Saltonstall, 196-98, 213, 15, 16;
124, 244, 262, 3; 295, 313, 376,
9; 382-91, 409, 413, 427, 8;
430, 462- 65, 471, 486, 502- 4,
509, 513, 517-21, 526, 531, 7;
543-45, 552, 577, 581, 619, 662,
667-70.
Sanford, 235.
Sands, 293.
Satterly, (Bbaseely) 265, 283.
Savage, 133, 152.
Savell, 470.
Saxton, Hannah, 334.
Sayre, 318, 641.
Scarborough, 658.
Scarritt, (Skarritt, 265, 428.
Scofield,
Scott, 6.
Seabury, 265, 320, 419, 420, 443-
45, 592, 95, 600, 603, 625, 670.
Seaman, "655.
Searle, 285. -—~
Seymour, 563, 4; 661.
Shackmaple, 239, 410, 441, 4,
477, 579,
Shapley, 146, 236, 9; 259, 285,
317, 343, 456, Bal, 6; 546, 9;
558, 661, 7; 579.
Sharswood, 146, 308, 347.
Shaw, 93, 242, 8; 286, 338, 344,
442, 3,7; 474,53; 482-85, 498,
502-12, 519-21, 539, 543, 8
570, 588, 619, 622, 637.
Sherman, 629, 671.
Shipman, 518.
Shirley, 468, 9.
Shepherd, (Shepard,) 333, 595.
Shore, 75.
Short, 357, 471.
Shrimpton, 139.
Shubrick, 637.
Singleton, 265, 355.
Sistare, 483, 4; 665, 9.
Sizer, 598.
Skidmore, 60, 1; 232
Skillinger, (Stillinger,) 138, 6;
152, 248.
Skinner, 583.
Skolinks, 240.
Sloan, 463, 474.
Smedley, 538.
Smith, 60, 61, 83-86; 92, 3, 6;
109, 135, 6, 8; 142, 4; 150, 1;
168, 171, 2, 5; 198, 9; 202, 6,
9; 252, 3; 259, 61,294, 9; 321,
2; 358, 362, 370, 404, 415, 437,
ado, 1; 516, 544, 617, 631, 643,
4; 647, 669,
Southmead, , (Southmayd,) 148,
33
Sparrow, 582.
Spencer, 157, 281.
Spicer, 146, 335, 513.
Spooner, 655.
Sprague, 438.
Springer, 265, 656.
Squire, 639.
Stafford, 145.
Stallion, (Sterling?) 68,75, 84,
2, 232, 7; 251, 308, 326,
q; 346, 366.
Stanton, 28, 55, 66-68, 75, 88,
101, 106, 129, 181, 202, 237,
2A9, 285, 296, 326, 334, 428,
558, 9.
Stapleton, 556.
Starke, 96, 142, 313, 436, 7.
Starr, 145, 241, 250, 4 9; 277, 9;
312, 18; 415,544, BID, 592, 615,
669.
Stebbins, 44, 57, 9; 60, 5; 73, 4;
81, 95, 143, 259, 268, 314, 321.
Stedman, 68,9; 232, 272, 287,
9; 342
Steer, 213, 266, 330.
Sterling, 242, 440, 1.
Stevens, aes 151, 231, 9; 250,
270, 5; 2, 341.
Stewart, ay 408, 444, 474, 476-
78, 511, 12; 584, 615, 622, 658.
Stillman, 57d.
Stinwick, 232.
Stiles, 588.
695
Stockman, 595, 6
Stoddard, 84, 169, 354, 419, 420,
647, 669.
Stone, 27-30, 665.
Stoughton, 36-38, 42, 98, 105, 6.
Strickland, 259, 266.
Sulivan, 411.
Sullaven, 145, 479.
Sutton, 344.
Swaddel, 266, 346.
Swain, 640, 2.
Swan, 598, 9; 679.
Sweezy, 283, 456.
Sybada, 68, 350.
Sylvester, ‘as.
Taber, 70, 4; 243, 436, 8.
Tappin, 84.
Talcott, 104, 174, 8; 185, 6; 385.
Talman, 290.
Tallmage, 532.
Taylor, 66, 7; 74, 223, 4; 416,
477.
Tennent, 44
Terrall, Cryerel, ) 145, 259, 310,
357.
Thatcher, 452, 625, 662.
Thomas, 112.
Thomson, (Thompson,) 103,
116, 128, 9; 132, 3, 6; 149, 150,
2; 285, 313, 332, 412, 476, 595,
662.
, 662.
Thorne, ae 291, 346.
Throop, 526.
Tibbot, (Tybbot,) 111, 113.
Tilley, 440, 628.
Tillinghast, 240.
Tinker, 92, 3,5; 116, 182, 3, 5;
147, 9; 150, 248, 9; 280, 334.
Tompkins, 155.
Tongue, (Tonge,) 68, 88, 9; a
7; 134,152, 233, 250, 274,
289, 357, 427, 8.
Townsend, 236.
Towson, 146.
Tozor, oe
Tracy, 16
Treat, 183° gs 923, 262.
Treby, 146, 663,
Trott, 621, 657, 676.
Trowbridge, 371
Truman, 42, 146, 260, 337, 350,
9.
Trumbull, 466, 517, 542, 8.
Tubbs, 145, 310.
Tudor, 240.
Tupper, 534.
Turner, 236, 248, 266, 277, 8;
291, 317, 320, 346, 662.
Tuthill, 279, 456
Tuttle, 422, 602.
Tyler, 448, 530, 566.
Updike, 344.
Uphim, 549-52...
Upjohn, 594.
Underhill, 29-36.
Vandervoort, 507.
Vernon, 887.
Vibert, *(Vibber,) 432,
Vincent, Tis
Vine, Mary, 311, 661.
Wadsworth, 280, 409, 431.
Wait, 503, 622, 7.
Waldo, 679.
Wales, 520.
Walker, 266, 410, 679.
Wallace, PBs 16.
696
Waller, nite 75,111, 132, eu
3, 7, 8; 175, ” 950, 260, 213, 4
321, 370, 404.
Wallis, Te.
Walton, 661,
Walworth, 244, 266, 345, 409.
Wanton, 409.
Ward, 391.
Waring, 325.
Warner, 233.
Warren, 393, 599, 626.
Washburn, 596.
Washington, 468,9; 482, 509,
0,18
10, 18.
Wass, Eliz., 486.
Wr? terhouse, 44, 59, 60, 1; 74-
" 95, 177, 248, 295.
\, sters, 519, 20.
Watson, 60, 324,8; 428, 431,
545, 570.
Way, 211, 252, 260, 266, 323,
3538, 6; 362, 619, 667.
Weaver, 480, 516, 582, 647.
Webb, 515.
Wedge, Mary, 252.
Weeks, 266, 270.
we 60, 7A, 287, 812, 355, 6;
dieiniin: ae 71, 5; 145, 281, 327.
Welsh, 533, 37.
Wart, 436, 614.
West, 325, 598, 613, 662.
Wetherell, 93, 135-37, 140, 160,
- 180, 1, 4, 5, 9; 194, 5;
198, 0; 206, o11, 13, 16; 230,
949; 250, 3; 258-62, 271, 7, 9;
286, 294, 7; 322, 334, 342, 363,
396, 428, 666, 7.
Wetmore, 373.
Wharton, 475, 507, 8.
Wheat, 624, 658.
Wheeler, 146, 238, 252, 8; 260,
290, 330, 475.
White, 86, 574,
wy bitetele a 458-60.
Whitford, 4
Waiting, ‘sen, 378- 82, 391, 429,
638.
Whitlock, 560.
Whittingham, 383.
Wickham, 283.
Wickwire, 260, 6; 290, 357.
Wightman, 422, 436, 9.
Wilcox, 679.
Wilkins, 150.
Willard, 195.
Willett, 266, 598.
Willey, 44, 56, 7; 60, 4; 72, 4,
6; 94, 9; 143, 157, 250, 287,
310, 321, Ts 348, 304.
Williams, 24, 44, 65, 99, 107,
123, 145, 159, 248, 260,6; 277,
308, 313, 346, 8, 9; 355, 420,
453, 456, 502, 558, 567-69, 591,
INDEX OF FAMILY NAMES. .
9; 610, 629, 634, 641-44, 647,
662, 4, 7, 9; 685.
Williston, 622.
Willoughby, 252,
Wilson, 36-38, 112, a 240, 620,
8; 662.
Winchester, 323.
Winslow, 112.
Winthrop. See, generally, the
first five chapters, also, 116,
123, 6; 147, 152, 4, 9; 164-66,
169, 180-83, 188, "90, 194-98,
200, 1; 216, 223, 225, 27, 239,
250, 1; 256-62, 270, 284, 5, 7,
290, 4; 300, 337, 345, 357, 360,
5, 9; 375, 384, 402-4, 408-15,
427, 8; 575, 668, 670.
Withey y, 679.
Wolcott, 174, ae 2; 409, 464,
521, 548, 586, 61
Wood, 60, 93, 308, 304, 5; 370,
Woodbridge, 197, 379, 416, 18;
498-500, 512, 586, 670, 1.
Woodmancy, 146, "313, 560, 563.
Woodward, 585, 602, 628
Wooster, 391,
Worthington, 605.
Wright, 663, 670.
Yorke, 338.
Young, 266, 278.
NAMES OF INDIANS.
Ben-Unceas, 410, 429, 478.
Canonchet, 187
Canonicus, 32.
Cashawasset, 52, 129, 130.
(Same as Harmon Garrett
and Wequashkook.)
Cassasinamon, 52, 79, 123, 129,
180, 184, 5,7. (Same as Rob-
in.)
Cesar, 410, 429-431.
Foxen, 54, 57, 128, 250.
Garrett, Harmon. See Cas-
hawasset.
Garrett, Kate, 410, 530.
Josiah, 353. 425.
Jumpe, 250.
Kutshamokin, 31, 32.
Magnus, 186.
Mahomet, 410.
Mamaraka-gurgana, (the Gi-
ant,) 170, 252.
Mejuarnes, 170.
Menowniet, 188.
Miantonomoh, 38, 43.
Momoho, (Mamaho,) 24, 180,
184, 5, 7.
Nanasquee, 184.
Niles, Harry, 629, 30.
Ninigret, (Ninnicraft,) 99, 184.
Nowequa. (See Waweequaw.)
Obed, 171.
Occuish, (Okkuish,) 576, 588,
Owaneco, 165, 185, 7; 261, 353,
410, 425, 30.
Paguran, 170.
Pekoath, 21,(same as Wope-
quoit.)
Pessacus, 43.
Philip, 181, 6.
Pomham, Ruth, 625.
Puttaquonck-quame, 37.
Robin. (See Cassasinamon.)
Sassacus, 20, 21, 24, 27, 31, 4,7;
55, 120, 423.
Sassyous, (Sashious,) 27.
Tatobam, 21.
Tatto-bitton, 170.
Toby, 604.
Tomquash, 184.
Towtukhag, 250.
Uneas, 20, 21, 35, 8; 48, 6; 51-55;
64,6; 79 101, 120, 126-29, 162-
65, 181, 6. , 250, 2; 261, 299, 425-
11.
Waweequaw, 53, 54. (Same as
Waweekus and Nowequa.)
Wequashkook, 52. (See Casha-
wasset.)
Wopequoit, (Wopequand,) (See
Pekoath.)
Yotash, 37.
erty Pareto
feet?
Se ee
idee ato ts
sotaateetyen
ies
i
mi
hat
ma Utne TT
ri
eine
NH in
Preece i 1
carn 7 r Ee
Gh ui
tnt
EP hae
eC 4
7 bate
pa Lt Hi
We H) ii hal