by Edward Elias Atwater
FOUNDATIONS LAID IN CHURCH AND STATE
Spring of 1639 found the plantation at Quinnipiac no farther advanced in its ecclesiastical or its civil organization than on the morrow after its "first day of extraordinary humiliation." Its public property was still managed by the members, or in ordinary cases, by the officers, of the joint-stock association. Civil government was administered, if at all, by a democracy acknowledging no authority but that of God, and no constitution but God's word as contained in the Scriptures. Public worship was regularly offered, but no church had been instituted and no sacraments had been celebrated. Several reasons may be suggested for the slowness with which the planters came to the work of organization. They had much to occupy their minds and hands during the first summer, in providing for the approaching winter. During the winter the Yorkshire people were exercised in mind with the question, whether they should remain, or go back to Massachusetts, and, till this question was decided, were not ready to unite with any church. The leading men in the plantation would naturally prefer to wait for their decision, rather than to proceed immediately with an
organization which did not include so desirable an addition. The Hereford men began in the autumn, and perhaps late in the summer, to think of removing, and by midwinter had purchased land at Milford, and thus were fully committed. So long as they were hesitating, their brethren would wait for their decision as they had done for that of the Yorkshire people, though with a different feeling toward their proposal to remove. There is no reason to believe that the people of Quinnipiac were unwilling that a new plantation should be established a few miles west of their own; for, if their population should be thereby somewhat diminished, those who removed would still be near them, and would draw to the neighborhood a considerable accession of planters. So far as appears, Prudden and Davenport were as much at one in their plans after the former had decided to establish a new plantation, as before. We may find another reason for the slowness with which the planters came to the work of laying foundations of Church and State, in the difference of opinion which prevailed among them in regard to such foundations. Some had been non- conforming members of the Church of England; others had separated themselves from the national church while still residing in the mother- country. In other words, there were in the colony both Puritans and Separatists. But, so far as concerns church organization, these two classes were practically agreed. As the Puritans of Massachusetts felt themselves obliged to follow the example of the Separatists at Plymouth in organizing their churches, so at Quinnipiac those who had never yet belonged to
a Congregational church saw that such a church was the only ecclesiastical organization possible to them in their circumstances. There was a difference of opinion, however, in the colony, on the question whether civil authority should be confined to men who were in communion with the church; and this difference was to a great extent coincident with the division into the two classes of Puritans and Separatists. The Puritan planters of Massachusetts relinquished episcopacy because they did not see their way clear to retain it; but they would not relinquish the old English idea that the State should be governed by Christians only, and that the Christian character thus required should be certified by the Church. Following the Separatists at Plymouth in organizing their churches, they would not follow them in admitting to the elective franchise planters who were not church-members. The English idea long prevailed in Massachusetts; but the Plymouth or Separatist belief that church-membership is not an essential qualification of free burgesses gradually gained adherents. When the river-towns in Connecticut were planted by emigrants from Massachusetts, so much progress had been made from the Puritan toward the Separatist theory, that church-membership was never required in the colony of Connecticut as a qualification for the elective franchise. There being in the colony at Quinnipiac some who belonged to Congregational churches, and some who had never separated from the Church of England, there was a tendency in these two classes to divide on the question whether civil authority should be confined to members of the church. The Separatists desired to lay
the foundations of both Church and State in accordance with the Plymouth model. Their leader, Samuel Eaton, stood up for the principle that all free planters, that is, proprietors in the plantation, however they might delegate authority, should have power to resume it into their own hands. But Davenport, who had never been a Separatist, and would have been content to remain in the Establishment if only his party had been in the ascendant, stoutly defended with Scriptural arguments the position that the power of choosing magistrates, of making and repealing laws, of dividing inheritances, and of deciding differences, should be vested in church-members. In the course of the debate between them Davenport wrote a treatise, afterward printed and still extant, entitled, "A Discourse about Civil Government in a New Plantation whose Design is Religion." Ultimately the views of Davenport prevailed over all opposition, but not till a long time had been consumed in the discussion. On the fourth day of June, 1639, a meeting of all the proprietors, or free planters as they were called, was held in the barn of Mr. Robert Newman, "to consult about settling civil government according to God, and about the nomination of persons that might be found by consent of all, fittest in all respects for the foundation work of a church." In reporting this meeting we shall chiefly use the language of the contemporary record:- "For the better enabling them to discern the mind of God and to agree accordingly concerning the establishment of civil order, Mr. John Davenport propounded divers queries to them, publicly praying them to consider seriously in the presence and fear of God
the weight of the business they met about, and not to be rash or slight in giving their votes to things they understood not, but to digest fully and thoroughly what should be propounded to them, and without respect to men, as they should be satisfied and persuaded in their own. minds, to give their answers in such sort as they would be willing they should stand upon record for posterity." At the earnest request of Mr. Davenport, "Mr. Robert Newman was entreated to write in characters and to read distinctly and audibly in the hearing of all the people what was propounded and accorded on, that it might appear that all consented to matters propounded, according to words written by him." Mr. Davenport then proposed his queries as follows:-
"QUERY 1. - Whether the Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men as well in the government of families and commonwealths as in matters of the church. "This was assented unto by all, no man dissenting, as was expressed by holding up of hands. Afterward it was read over to them that they might see in what words their vote was expressed. They again expressed their consent thereto by holding up their hands, no man dissenting.
"QUERY 2. - Whereas there was a covenant solemnly made by the whole assembly of free planters of this plantation the first day of extraordinary humiliation which we had after we came together, that as in matters that concern the gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public offices which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing of laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we would all of us be ordered by those rules which the Scripture holds forth to us (this covenant was called a plantation covenant to distinguish it from a church covenant which could not at that time be made, a church not being then gathered, but was deferred till a church might be gathered according to God); it was demanded
whether all the free planters do hold themselves bound by that covenant in all business of that nature which are expressed in the covenant to submit themselves to be ordered by the rules held forth in the Scripture. "This also was assented to by all, and no man gainsaid it, and they did testify the same by holding up their hands, both when it was first propounded, and confirmed the same by holding up their hands when it was read unto them in public. John Clarke, being absent when the covenant was made, doth now manifest his consent to it: also Richard Beach, Andrew Low, Goodman Banister, Arthur Halbidge, John Potter, Robert Hill, John Brockett, and John Johnson, being not admitted planters when the covenant was made, do now express their consent to it.
"QUERY 3. - Those who have been received as free planters and are settled in the plantation with a purpose, resolution and desire that they may be admitted into church fellowship according to Christ as soon as God shall fit them thereunto, were desired to express it by holding up of hands: accordingly all did express this to be their desire and purpose by holding up their hands twice, viz., both at the proposal of it, and after when these written words were read unto them." The response to this question is instructive, as it shows that all the proprietors were earnestly religious men, were desirous of being admitted to the communion of the church, and, if they had not already become conscious of spiritual enlightenment wrought in them by the Spirit of God, were hoping for such an experience to qualify them for such admission. The "purpose, resolution, and desire" to be admitted into church-fellowship thus unanimously declared, prepare us to learn with less astonishment that in response to the fifth query, to which those that preceded logically conducted, they voted to confine the elective franchise to church-members.
"QUERY 4. - All the free planters were called upon to express whether they held themselves bound to establish such civil order as might best conduce to the securing of the purity and peace of the ordinances to themselves and their posterity according to God. In answer hereunto they expressed by holding up their hands twice as before, that they held themselves bound to establish such as might best conduce to the ends aforesaid." After some remarks by Mr. Davenport, the fifth query was propounded as follows:-
"QUERY 5. - Whether free burgesses shall be chosen out of church members, they that are in the foundation work of the church being actually free burgesses and to choose to themselves out of the like estate of church fellowship: and the power of choosing magistrates and officers from among themselves, and the power of making and repealing laws according to the word, and the dividing of inheritances, and deciding of differences that may arise, and all the businesses of like nature are to be transacted by those free burgesses. "This was put to vote and agreed unto by the lifting up of hands twice as in the former it was done. Then one man stood up after the vote was past, expressing his dissent from the rest in part, yet granting ist, That magistrates should be men fearing God; 2d, That the church is the company whence ordinarily such men may be expected; 3d, That they that choose them ought to be men fearing God: only at this he stuck that free planters ought not to give this power out of their hands. Another stood up and answered that in this case nothing was done but with their consent. The former answered that all the free planters ought to resume this power into their own hands again if things were not orderly carried. Mr. Theophilus Eaton answered that in all places they choose committees; in like manner the companies of London choose the liveries by whom the public magistrates are chosen. In this the rest are not wronged, because, they expect in time to be of the livery themselves and to have the same power. Some others entreated the former to give his arguments and reasons whereupon he dissented. He refused to do it, and said they might
not rationally demand it, seeing he let the vote pass on freely and did not speak till after it was past, because he would not hinder what they agreed upon. Then Mr. Davenport, after a short relation of some former passages between them two about this question, prayed the company that nothing might be concluded by them in this mighty question but what themselves were persuaded to be agreeing with the mind of God, and [as] they had heard what had been said since the voting, entreated them again to consider of it and put it again to vote as before." The assembly having again unanimously assented, and some who had previously leaned to the opposite side, or halted between the two opinions, having given vocal expression to their confidence that the action taken was "according to the mind of God revealed in the Scriptures:-" "Mr. Robert Newman was desired to write it as an order, whereunto every one that hereafter should be admitted here as planters should submit and testify the same by subscribing their names to the order, namely, that church-members only shall be free burgesses, and that they only shall choose magistrates and officers among themselves." The elective franchise being thus limited to church-members, the assembly proceeded to consider and determine what method they should pursue in organizing their church:- "Mr. Davenport advised that the names of such as were to be admitted might be publicly propounded, to the end that they who
(Although the name of the "one man" who dissented is not given in the record, there can be no doubt that it was Samuel Eaton. Mather records the tradition that it was he; and the treatise of Davenport bears internal evidence that it was addressed to one of his clerical friends in the plantation, that is to Eaton or Piudden. But Prudden could not have been the dissentient speaker to the assembly in Mr. Newman's barn; for he and his company, having resolved to remove, took no part in laying the foundations of civil order in Quinnipiac.)
were most approved might be chosen; for the town being cast into several private meetings, wherein they that dwelt nearest together gave their accounts one to another of God's gracious work upon them, and prayed together and conferred to their mutual edification, sundry of them had knowledge one of another, and in every meeting some one was more approved of all than any other. For this reason and to avoid scandals, the whole company was entreated to consider whom they found fittest to nominate for this work." The sixth query was then read in these words, viz.:- "Whether are, you all willing and do agree in this, that twelve men be chosen that their fitness for the foundation work may be tried; however there may be more named, yet it may be in their power who are chosen to reduce them to twelve, and it be in the power of those twelve to choose out of themselves seven that shall be most approved of the major part to begin the church." This was agreed upon by consent of all, as was expressed by holding up of hands, and that so many as should be thought fit for the foundation work of the church shall be propounded by the plantation and. written down and pass without exception unless they had given public scandal or offence; yet so as in case of public scandal or offence, every one should have liberty to propound their exceptions at that time publicly against any man that should be nominated when all their names should be written down; but if the offence were private, that men's names might be tendered, so many as were offended were entreated to deal with the offender privately, and if he gave not satisfaction, to bring the matter to the twelve that they might consider of it impartially and in the fear of God. The names of the persons nominated and agreed upon were Mr. Theophilus Eaton, Mr. John Davenport, Mr. Robert Newman, Mr. Matthew Gilbert, Mr. Richard Malbon, Mr. Nathanael Turner, Ezekiel Gheever, Thomas Fugill, John Punderson, William Andrews and Jeremiah Dixon.(*) No exception was brought against any of those in public, except one about taking an excessive rate for meal
(* The registrar omitted one of the twelve names. Was the name of the penitent extortioner designedly dropped, or was the omission accidental?)
which he sold to one of Pequonock in his need, which he confessed with grief, and declared that having been smitten in heart and troubled in his conscience, he restored such a part of the price back again with confession of his sin to the party as he thought himself bound to do. And it being feared that the report of the sin was heard farther than the report of his satisfaction, a course was concluded on to make the satisfaction known to as many as heard of the sin. It was also agreed upon at the said meeting that if the persons above named did find themselves straitened in the number of fit men for the seven, that it should be free for them to take into trial of fitness tsuch other as they should think meet, provided that it should be signified to the town, upon the Lord's day, whom they so take in, that every man may be satisfied of them according to the course formerly taken." In due time the twelve thus appointed chose out of their own number the following seven, as "most approved of the major part, to begin the church," namely, Theophilus Eaton, John Davenport, Robert Newman, Matthew Gilbert, Thomas Fugill, John Punderson, and Jeremiah Dixon. "By these seven persons, covenanting together, and then receiving others into their fellowship, the first church of Christ in New Haven was gathered and constituted on the 22d of August, 1639." On the 25th of October these seven proceeded to, organize themselves as a civil court, proceeding as follows, "after solemn prayer unto God:" - "First: All former power or trust for managing any public affairs in this plantation, into whose hands soever formerly committed, was now abrogated and from henceforward utterly to cease.
(Bacon's Hist. Dis., p. 24. Dr. Bacon ascertains the date from the records of the First Church in Milford, which was gathered in New Haven, where its members still resided, and, as the local tradition says, on the same day with the New Haven church. Mather (Mag., Book III., ch. 6) records the tradition somewhat differently, giving to each church one of two consecutive days employed in the formalities of institution.)
"Secondly: All those that have been received into the fellowship of this church since the gathering of it, or who, being members of other approved churches, offered themselves, were admitted as members of this court: namely, Mr. Nathanael Turner, William Andrews and Mr. Cheever, members of this church; Mr. Samuel Eaton, John Clark, Lieutenant Seeley, John Chapman, Thomas Jeffrey, and Richard Hull, members of other approved churches." The court then proceeded to choose Theophilus Eaton "magistrate for the term of one whole year;" and Robert Newman, Matthew Gilbert, Nathanael Turner, and Thomas Fugill, "deputies to assist the magistrate in all courts called by him for the occasions of the plantation for the same term of one whole year." Thomas Fugill was chosen clerk, and Robert Seeley marshal. "It was further agreed that there should be a renewing of the choice of all officers every year at a general court to be held for this plantation the last week in October yearly; and that the word of God shall be the only rule to be attended unto in ordering the affairs of government in this plantation." The formal institution of civil authority may have been hastened by foresight of an event which immediately followed; for, the next day after the magistrate had been clothed with power, an Indian named Nepaupuck was brought before him upon his warrant, charged with the murder of an Englishman at Wethersfield. A few days afterward a general court was assembled, and the prisoner was brought before it for trial. Being found guilty upon evidence so clear that he confessed his guilt, he was condemned to death. "Accordingly his head was cut off the next day, and pitched upon a pole in the market-place."
DIVISION OF LAND
WE have already seen that immediately after the town-plot was laid out, a house-lot was assigned to every free planter; by which appellation a person who had invested in the common property of the plantation was distinguished from other inhabitants. These house-lots were so large as to require, in most cases, all the labor their owners could give to husbandry during the first two summers. The few who needed more land for cultivation were allowed to plant in "the neck" between Mill River and Quinnipiac River. So desirable did the proprietors regard the increase of population, that they not only made the quantity of land thus assigned to a free planter to depend partly on the number of persons in his family, but also freely assigned a small lot on the outside of the town-plot to every householder in the plantation who desired to become a permanent resident, but was unable to purchase a share in the common property. The number of householders thus gratuitously supplied with house-lots was in the beginning thirty-two. Others were afterward added.
In January, 1640, arrangements were made for the division of the neck, the salt meadows, and a tract which, extending in every direction about a mile from
the town, was called the two-miles-square. The division was so arranged that every free planter should have some land in the neck, some in the meadows, and some in the upland of the two-miles-square.
Out of the last-mentioned tract certain reservations were made; and the remainder was divided into nine parts, one for each of the nine quarters into which the town was divided, each quarter in the town having its out- lands as nearly as possible contiguous to itself. In consequence of this arrangement, these sections of out-lands were also called quarters; and, there being more occasion for using the term in connection with the out- lands than the home-lots, it came by degrees to be applied almost exclusively to them in later records.
Commencing with the east-centre, or Mr. Davenport's quarter, let us connect the nine quarters with out-lands assigned to them respectively in the first division. The out-lands of Mr. Davenport's quarter were bounded by Chapel Street, Grand Street, a line about three hundred feet east of State Street, and Mill River. Mr. Baton's quarter was bounded by Grand Street, State Street (or, as it was called, Neck Lane), a line in continuation of that just mentioned, described as three hundred feet east of State Street, and the meadows bordering on Mill River. Mr. Newman's quarter was bounded by Neck Lane, Mill Lane (as Orange Street was called), Grove Street, and the meadows bordering on Mill River. Mr. Tench's quarter, lying between Mill Lane and Prospect Street, extended outward from Grove Street so far as was necessary to furnish every planter in the quarter with his proportionate allotment.
It will be seen, that, while Mr. Davenport's quarter
had their out-lands near their home-lots, Mr. Tench's cut-land quarter only touched his town quarter, and that, if the out-lands of the next quarter had been assigned so as to be contiguous to those of Mr. Tench's quarter, they would have been far distant from the home-lots to which they belonged. This difficulty was solved by the sequestration of land lying west of Prospect Street, for common use. This tract included the cow- pasture, the ox-pasture, the Beaver-pond meadows, and a field farther west than these, which remained unfenced, and was called the Common.
By means of this sequestration, the out-lands of the Yorkshire quarter were so assigned that they were immediately contiguous to the house-lots to which they belonged, lying between the common land on the north and Chapel Street on the south, and extending from York Street westward to or beyond West River. The Herefordshire quarter, lying between Chapel Street and Oak Street, extended from York Street to or beyond the river. Mr. Gregson's out-land quarter lay south of the Herefordshire quarter, and, was bounded on the east by the road to Milford, which passed through Broad Street and Davenport Avenue, as they are now named. Next was the suburbs quarter, between Milford Road and Washington Street. Last in our enumeration, Mr. Lamberton's quarter covered all the land between Washington Street and the harbor.
There still remained within the two-miles-square four reservations besides those which have been mentioned: viz., one called the market-place; another containing so much of the land bordering on the West Creek as had not been allotted to persons who were not proprietors;
a third containing the land bordering on the East Creek; a fourth called Oyster-shell Field, east of the East Creek reservation, and comprehended between Chapel Street and a line about three hundred feet north of East Water Street. The last-named tract was leased from year to year to persons who desired to cultivate more land than they owned. The reserved land on both sides of the two creeks was either allotted in small parcels to persons who were not proprietors, or was reserved to be so disposed of when there should be occasion.
In the first division of out-lands, no provision was made for those who had been gratuitously supplied with house-lots; but in the second division the rule was adopted to allot "six acres for a single person, eight acres for a man and his wife, with an acre added for every child they have at present." If they accepted these out-lands, they were to pay taxes on them as other planters did, at the rate of twopence per acre; and "if any of them, satisfied with their trades, or not liking the place of their allotment, shall refuse or neglect to take up the land, yet every one admitted to be a planter shall pay twelvepence a year to the treasurer toward public charges."
The out-lands thus assigned to each of the nine quarters were subdivided according to the same rule of division which had obtained in the division of the town quarters; every planter having "a proportion of land according to the proportion of estate which he hath given in, and number of heads in his family." Five acres were allowed for every hundred pounds of estate, and an equal quantity for every two heads. These sub-
divisions, however, were not separated one from another by division fences; but ea£h quarter was enclosed by a common fence, for his proportion of which every proprietor was responsible. As might be expected, much legislation and frequent fines were necessary to keep these fences sufficient for the protection of the enclosures from the forays of hungry cattle.
The meadows were sufficient to afford five acres for every hundred pounds of estate and half an acre for every head, and an addition in quantity to some allotments where the quality' was inferior. The neck was divided so as to give one acre for every hundred pounds, and half an acre for every head.
Some months after this division was ordered, and, as it would seem, before it was consummated, a second allotment was made, disposing of those portions of the common property which lay outside of the two-miles-square. At a general court held the 23d of October, 1640, it was "ordered that in the second division every planter in the town shall have for every hundred pounds of estate given in, twenty acres of upland, and for every head,two acres and a half."
The sequestered lands were held as common property for many years, but were ultimately divided, one portion after another, till, with some unimportant exceptions, only the market-place was held in common. After the second division of lands, and probably in fulfilment of an order passed at the general court mentioned above, that "all the upland in the first division, with all the meadows in the plantation, shall pay fourpence an acre yearly; and all the land in the second division shall pay twopence an acre yearly, at two several days of payment,
viz., the one in April, and the other in October, to raise a common stock or public treasury," the following schedule was prepared, exhibiting the name of every proprietor, the number of persons in his family, the amount of his estate, and the number of acres belonging to him in each of four classes of land; viz., the first division of upland, the neck, the meadows, and the second division of upland. The eighth and last column shows the amount of his annual tax. The schedule, though prepared before April, 1641, is found in the record-book amid the records of 1643. It is not easy to determine whether it was copied into the record-book in 1643, after some changes had been made corresponding with changes of title; or was recorded when first prepared, the secretary reserving for his report of the court's proceedings the thirty pages which precede it.(*)
This schedule furnishes important aid in determining who were proprietors of the town in the first years of its history, the social importance of each so far as the measure of his wealth determined it, and, when studied in connection with the land-records of the town, the location of his house- lot. The schedule disposes the proprietors into eleven groups; eight of which occupied the eight squares surrounding the market-place; another group, consisting of only four, had their dwellings on East Water Street, fronting the harbor; the remaining two inhabited the two blocks of land of irregular shape, called suburbs.
(* "Mr. Crane resigned Mr. Hickock's lot into the town's hand," Sept. 30, 1641; yet the lot stands in Mr. Hickock's name. There is so much probability that the schedule was recorded before the collection of the rate due in April, 1641, that it will be designated as the schedule of 1641.)
Page 109 [map]
Commencing with this distribution of the proprietors into groups, and studying the land-records of the town, one may assign to almost every proprietor his house-lot in respect of location and, approximately, of measure. The map opposite the title-page was drawn with these
aids.(*) It locates the house-lots of all the proprietors except eleven. Of the thirty-two non-proprietors, seven had "small lots" given them on East Water Street, east of the lots of the four proprietors who lived on that street, and twenty-five were accommodated between George Street and the West Creek.
While the division of lands was in progress, the name of the plantation was changed, by order of a general court held on the first day of September, 1640, from Quinnipiac to New Haven. There is no reason for believing that any of the planters came from the port of that name on the southern shore of England, and the record gives no clew to the reasons which influenced the court in
(* The author of this history is alone responsible for the map; but he thankfully acknowledges his obligation to Henry White, Esq., for the use of manuscript volumes which trace the land-titles from the original to the present proprietors, and for assistance in the solution of difficult problems. He feels some degree of confidence in regard to all the eleven groups, except that occupying the suburb on the west side of West Creek. Several transfers of title occurred in this group before the recording of alienations was imperative, and the shape of the quarter has been so changed that its original boundaries have not been ascertained. Only three, therefore, of the proprietors, in this quarter have been located on the map; namely, William Ives, George Smith, and Widow Sherman.
(The dotted lines on the map represent fences of uncertain location. A street, cut from the corner of George and York Streets through to Oak Street, would be in line with Oak Street, and I am credibly informed that there was such a street; but how Mr. Gregson's quarter was bounded, on the side toward the town, I cannot determine. The dotted lines on one side of the suburb lying west of West Creek are nearly coincident with the lines of Lafayette Street; but I am told that Lafayette is a modern street. There must have been an ancient lane nearly coincident with it, since one of the lots is described in 1679 as bounded east by the street (Hill Street), and "west by the way that goeth down to Jonathan Lamson's lot on the bankside.")
naming their plantation. In dropping the aboriginal designation, and adopting one familiar to Englishmen, they followed the custom of their time. They did it perhaps partly for their own pleasure, but more for the gratification of friends; for in the course of two years, use must have greatly diminished the uncouthness, to English ears, of the Indian name. A letter of Davenport to his early friend and pktron, Lady Vere, is extant, in which he speaks of the arrival, in the summer of 1639, of the first ship from England; and in it he says, "The sight of the harbor did so please the captain of the ship, and all the passengers, that he called it the Fair Haven." Perhaps this attempt of the English captain to give an English name occasioned the formal action of the court a twelvemonth afterward, which is thus recorded, "This town now called New Haven." Perhaps, also, this ship which first cast anchor in the harbor of New Haven, bringing passengers from Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, had weighed anchor in the port of that name on the coast of Sussex.
THE PERSONNEL OF THE PLANTATION
With the map in hand, let us survey the town, and review the list of proprietors. As we pass around the several quarters, perhaps no time will be more suitable for such information in regard to the colonists as is obtainable and of sufficient importance to be recorded.
Commencing with the north-east quarter, we find a large part of it owned by Gov. Eaton and his relations. The governor's homestead was on Elm Street, about equidistant from the corners of the square. Here he lived with his wife, his mother, his four children, and the two sons of his wife by her first husband. In later years Mrs. Hopkins, wife of Edward Hopkins, the governor of Hartford, having become incurably insane, spent much time in the family under the care of her mother.(*) Several young persons of both sexes, wards
(* Winthrop writes in his diary April 13, 1645: " Mr. Hopkins, the governor of Hartford upon Connecticut, came to Boston and brought his wife with him (a godly young woman and of special parts), who was fallen into a sad infirmity, the loss of her understanding and reason, which had been growing upon her divers years, by occasion of her giving herself wholly to reading and writing, and had written many books. Her husband, being very loving and tender of her, was loath to grieve her; but he saw his error when it was too late. For if she had attended her household affairs and such things as belong to women, and not gone out of her way and calling to meddle in such things as are proper for men, whose minds are stronger, &c., she had kept her wits, and might have improved them usefully and honorably in the place God had set her.")
of Eaton, also found a home under his roof. In addition, there was, as appears from the records, a numerous retinue of servants for the work of the house and of the field. Mather says that the family sometimes consisted of not less than thirty persons. The New Haven Colony Historical Society has in its possession a portrait said to have belonged to the Eaton family. It was painted in 1635, and in the twenty-fifth year of the age of the lady whom it pictures. In one corner is a coat of arms, which, in connection with the dates, may determine whether it represents Mrs. Hopkins, the daughter of Mrs. Eaton by her first husband, or Mary, the daughter of Gov. Eaton by his
first wife, or some other lady. At present the question is in suspense. The principal apartment of the dwelling-house, denominated, as in the mother-country, the hall, was the first to be entered. It was sufficiently spacious to accommodate the whole family when assembled at meals and at prayers. It contained, according to the inventory taken after the governor's decease, "a drawing-table," "a round table," "green cushions," "a great chair with needlework," "high chairs," "high stools," "low chairs" "low stools," "Turkey carpets," "high wine stools," and "great brass andirons." "The parlor," probably adjoining the hall and having windows opening upon the street, served as a withdrawing-room, to which the elder members of the family and their guests retired from the crowd and bustle of the hall. But, according to the fashion of the time, the parlor contained the furniture of a bedroom, and was occasionally used as the sleeping-apartment of a guest. Mather, speaking of Eaton's manner of life, says that "it was his custom when he first rose in the morning to repair unto his study;" and again, that, "being a great reader, all the time he could spare from company and business, he commonly spent in his beloved study." There is no mention in the inventory of "the study," but perhaps the apartment referred to by Mather was described by the appraisers as "the counting-house," the two names denoting that it was used both as a library and as an office. If these three rooms filled the front of the mansion, the reader may locate behind them at his own discretion the winter-kitchen, the summer-kitchen, the buttery, the
pantry, - offices necessarily implied, even if not mentioned as connected with an extensive homestead of the seventeenth century, - and then add the brew-house and the warehouse, both mentioned in the inventory. Of the sleeping-apartments in the second story, the green chamber, so called from the color of its drapery, was chief in the expensiveness and elegance of its furniture, and presumably in its size, situation, and wainscoting. The walls of the blue chamber were hung with tapestry, but the green drapery was of better quality than the blue. The blue chamber had a Turkey carpet, but the appraisers set a higher value on the carpet in the green chamber. All the other sleeping-rooms were furnished each with a feather-bed of greater or less value, but the green chamber had a bed of down. In this chamber, probably, was displayed the silver basin and ewer, double gilt, and curiously wrought with gold, which the Fellowship of Eastland Merchants had presented to Mrs. Eaton, in acknowledgment of her husband's services as their agent in the countries about the Baltic. The appraisers valued it at forty pounds sterling, but did not put it in the inventory because Mrs. Eaton claimed it as "her proper estate." There was in the house, in addition to the bowl and ewer, plate to the value of one hundred and seven pounds, eleven shillings, sterling. Taking into consideration all that we know of the house and furniture, we must conclude with Hubbard, that the governor "maintained a port in some measure answerable to his place." Samuel Eaton, who owned and occupied the land between his brother's premises and State Street, ob-
taining in 1640 from the court a grant of Totoket, "for such friends as he shall bring over from old England, and upon such terms as shall be agreed betwixt himself and the committee chosen to that purpose," sailed for the mother-country, to return with a band of colonists and settle a new plantation at Branford. But he found his friends well pleased with the new condition of affairs in England, and unwilling to emigrate. He himself, preferring to remain in his native land, sent a power-of-attorney to his brother; by whom the corner-lot, which had been Samuel Baton's, was sold in 1649 to Francis Newman. It afterward became the property of James Bishop, and remained in his family more than two centuries. Edward Hopkins, though he settled in Hartford, was one of the first proprietors of Quinnipiac. At a court held the third day of November, 1639, the town ordered, "that Mr. Hopkins shall have two hogsheads of lime for his present use, and as much more as will finish his house as he now intends it, he thinking that two hogsheads more will serve." One can scarcely doubt that Mr. Hopkins's house was in the same quarter with that of his beloved father-in-law; but the tax-schedule of 1641 does not contain his name, and there is no existing record of the alienation of the house and land. The order concerning the lime seems to imply that he had made some change in his intentions, and we may infer that his determination to settle in Hartford was formed after the house was begun and before it was finished. Having spent some time in Connecticut, while his fellow- passengers in the Hector were sojourning in Massachusetts, he did not rejoin them when they re-
moved to Quinnipiac, though he retained his interest as a joint-proprietor in their plantation. Becoming gradually adherent to Connecticut, where he sat as a deputy in the General Court as early as March, 1638, and was chosen to assist in the magistracy in April, 1639, he probably sold his estate in New Haven before the tax-schedule of 1641 was written; but which of the proprietors in the governor's quarter succeeded him, cannot be determined. Though removed from daily intercourse with Eaton, he cherished such love for him to the end of life, that, as he lay on his death-bed in England, he said, "How often have I pleased myself with thoughts of a joyful meeting with my father Eaton! I remember with what pleasure he would come down the street, that he might meet me when I came from Hartford to New Haven; but with how much greater pleasure shall we shortly meet one another in heaven!" In his will, after providing for his "poor distressed wife," and giving to friends tokens of his affection, he bequeathed his estate to trustees for the promotion of liberal education in New England. The Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven owes its existence to this bequest. Although we cannot determine with certainty where Mr. Hopkins's house was situated, it is a plausible conjecture that he alienated his land and buildings to William Tuttle, who, in 1641, owned the lot on the corner of Grove and State Streets. Mr. Tuttle, who came over in the Planter in 1635, was, in April, 1639, still a resident of Boston, as appears from the baptism of one of his children there on the seventh day of that month; but some time in the same year he removed to
Quinnipiac, for he signed the fundamental agreement before it was copied into the record-book. Although not a member of the court, he was active and influential in public affairs. His daughter Elizabeth became the wife of Richard Edwards of Hartford, and the mother of Rev. Timothy Edwards of East Windsor, who numbered among his children the greatest of American metaphysicians and ten daughters, "every one of which has been said to be six feet tall, making sixty feet of daughters, all of them strong in mind."(*) The lot on Grove Street, adjoining Mr. Tuttle's, belonged to the mother of Theophilus and Samuel Eaton; but, as she was an inmate of the governor's family, probably no buildings were erected while it was in her possession. She sold it, in 1646, to Richard Perry. West of Mrs. Eaton's land was that of David Yale, who, when the schedule of 1641 was written, was still unmarried. In 1645 he purchased a house in Boston, where his second child was born the same year. While residing in Boston he distinguished himself as a friend of the Church of England, joining with a few others in a petition for liberty to use its liturgy. A few years later he returned to the mother-country, where he remained to the end of life. To his care his still insane sister was committed by Gov. Hopkins, when he died in 1657. He was the father of Elihu Yale, for whom Yale College was named. Ezekiel Cheever, who lived at the corner of Grove and Church Streets, came in the Hector from London, where he was born, Jan. 25, 1615. He opened a school in his own house a few months after he arrived
(* Semi-centennial sermon of Rev. Joab Brace, D.D.)
at Quinnipiac with the main company of planters, and was thenceforth the schoolmaster of the plantation, receiving for some time a yearly stipend of twenty pounds, which, in 1644, was increased to thirty pounds. He was one of the twelve chosen for the foundation work of the Church and State, and, though never ordained to the ministry, occasionally preached. Both in the field of education and in the field of theology he was an author, having written "A Short Introduction to the Latin Tongue," which he called an "Accidence," and a book on the millennium, under the title "Scripture Prophecies Explained." He was chosen a member of the Court for the plantation at its first session, when it was instituted by the seven appointed for that purpose, and, in 1646, was one of the deputies to the General Court of the Jurisdiction. Dissenting from the judgment of the church and its elders, in respect to some cases'of discipline, he commented on their action with such severity that he was himself censured in 1649.(*) Soon after this, and perhaps on account of it, he removed from New Haven, and, according to Mather, "died in Boston, August 21, 1708, in the ninety-fourth year of his age, after he had been a skilful, painful, faithful schoolmaster for seventy years." President Stiles mentions two aged clergymen of his acquaintance who had been pupils of Cheever, one of whom said, "that he wore a long white beard, terminating in a point; that, when he stroked his beard to the point, it was a sign to the boys to stand clear."
Nathanael Turner, whose home-lot was on Church
(* In Conn. Hist. Soc., Coll. I., may be seen the "Trial of Ezekiel Cheever, before the Church at New Haven.")
Street, next south of Mr. Cheever's, came from England with Winthrop in 1630, and was one of the most considerable citizens of Lynn, representing the town in the first General Court of Massachusetts. In January, 1637, his house was destroyed by fire, "with all that was in it save the persons;" and this event happening the same year that tidings came of "that famous place called Quinnipiac," with "a fair river, fit for harboring of ships," and "rich and goodly meadows," may have occasioned his removal from Lynn. Having had military experience as an officer in the Pequot war, he was from the beginning intrusted with "the command and ordering of all martial affairs" in the new plantation. To facilitate the performance of this trust it was ordered by the Court "that Capt. Turner shall have his lot of meadow and upland where he shall choose it for his own convenience, that he may attend the service of the town which his place requires." He accordingly located a farm about three miles from the market-place, between East Rock and Quinnipiac River. After his death, if not before, his family resided at the farm. He was lost at sea in "the great ship" which sailed from New Haven in January, 1646.
Richard Perry, the only proprietor in Mr. Baton's quarter who has not been mentioned, lived at the corner of Church and Elm Streets. Having married Mary, the daughter of Richard Malbon, in the old country, he accompanied his father-in-law from London to New Haven. He took an active part in the public affairs of the plantation, and in 1646, when Fugill, the secretary of the court, had fallen into disgrace, was chosen to succeed him in that office. He sold his house to
Thomas Kimberly in 1649, and after that date his name does not occur in the records. Passing from the north-east square to the east-centre square, we find Mr. Davenport's lot on the corner of Elm and State Streets, and his house on Elm Street, nearly opposite Mr. Baton's. Here the pastor and his wife received their only child after a separation from him of more than two years; the child having been left in England, and brought over by a maid-servant in a ship, which, in the summer of 1639, sailed from England direct for the harbor of Quinnipiac.
Richard Malbon lived on State Street, his lot being next south of Mr. Davenport's. He was one of the London merchants who came with Eaton and Davenport, was one of the twelve chosen for the foundation of Church and State, and one of the five whom the
twelve sifted out of that number by their own action before the foundation was laid. For some reason, probably for want of church-membership, he was not admitted a member of the court till February, 1642; but only two months after he was made a freeman, he was chosen one of four deputies for the half-year ensuing to assist the magistrates "by way of advice, but not to have any power by way of sentence," and was the first-named of the four. Such a limitation was expressly put upon the deputies in the October election of that year, and was. probably implied in the election six months before. In this office he was continued for a long time by re- election, and, after the organization of the Colonial Government, was often a deputy to represent the plantation in the General Court of the Jurisdiction. In 1646 he was appointed by that body, one of its magistrates in New Haven. The town manifested its confidence in him as a military officer by appointing him "to order the watches and all the martial affairs of this plantation," during Capt. Turner's absence at the Delaware Bay in 1642; and again, when Turner was about to embark in the ill-fated ship of 1646, by choosing Malbon "captain, with liberty to resign his place to Capt. Turner at his return." Mr. Malbon was an enterprising merchant, trading coastwise and in the West Indies. He was also one of "the company of merchants of New Haven," who chartered for a voyage to England the ship in which the town lost so much property and so many valuable lives.
Next south of the Malbon house was that of Thomas Nash, formerly a member of the church in Leyden, Holland, and one of the five who wrote from that city in
1625, to their brethren in Plymouth, informing them of the death of John Robinson, pastor of the church which included in its membership the planters of Plymouth, as well as the brethren still sojourning in Leyden. Mr. Nash came from England to New Haven with Mr. Whitfield and his company, and was one of the signers of the agreement which that company made on shipboard to remain together. But being not only a smith, but a gunsmith, it was for the common welfare as well as his own, that he should have his shop in the largest and most central plantation. His change of purpose was probably after the fundamental agreement was made, as he had not signed his name to it when it was copied into the record-book. He must have been advanced beyond the zenith of life, for his eldest son became a proprietor and a freeman not long after his father.
John Benham probably came from England in 1630, and had been a freeman in Dorchester, Mass. Removing to New Haven, he wrought as a brickmaker. As late as 1651 he petitioned for compensation for time spent at the first settlement in searching for clay suitable for making brick, and his claim was allowed. He was also, by appointment, town-crier. Although himself a freeman, he was at one time implicated in what the General Court of the Jurisdiction regarded as "a factious, if not seditious," opposition to the "fundamental law" which limited the right of suffrage.
John Chapman had also been a freeman of Massachusetts before he came to New Haven. He removed to Fairfield in 1647, and thence to Stamford, where he made his will, 1665. Thomas Kimberly removed from Dorchester, Mass.,
to New Haven, where he was admitted a freeman in November, 1639. It is said that his son Eleazar, baptized the same month, was the first child born of English parents in Quinnipiac. Mr. Kimberly was one of two pound- keepers appointed by the town in January, 1643; and the pound of which he had charge was situated on the east side of State Street, opposite the house of Thomas Nash. Mr. Kimberly had only a small estate when he came to New Haven, but his five children entitled him under the rule of allotment to a much larger acreage than he could draw for his estate. After the removal of Seeley, the first marshal, Kimberly was appointed to that office.
Matthew Gilbert, who lived at the corner of Chapel and Church Streets, in a house fronting toward the market-place, doubtless came with Eaton and Davenport from England, for there is no record of him in Massachusetts; but whether he had been a citizen of London, or had come from some other part of the kingdom, is not known. His election to be one of the seven founders of the theocracy shows that he was, even in the beginning of the settlement, held in high estimation; and the appointment of him as a deacon shows that he retained the, confidence of the church in subsequent years. He was honored with political as well as ecclesiastical office, being first an assistant magistrate of the jurisdiction, and afterward deputy-governor. A rough stone still standing on the green, marked "M. G. 80," marks the place of his burial. President Stiles conjectured that the M was a W, inverted for the purpose of concealing from his enemies the last resting-place of William Goffe, the regicide; but acknowledged that he
had not found the least tradition or surmise that Goffe was buried in New Haven till he himself conjectured it. The initials are those of Matthew Gilbert; and, if the Arabic numerals were designed (as Stiles supposed) to express that the person buried beneath died in 1680, they give correctly the date of Gilbert's death. More probably they were meant to indicate the number of years he had lived.
Owen Rowe, a citizen of London, took stock in the plantation company, but could not leave home when the Hector sailed. He, however, sent his son Nathanael, a boy in his teens, under the care of Davenport and the Eatons. The youth was left behind in Massachusetts in the spring of 1638, that he might pursue his studies under the care of Nathanael Eaton, the brother of Theophilus and Samuel Eaton, who about that time commenced his extraordinary and disgraceful career as master of the school afterward called Harvard College.(*) There is extant a pathetic letter from yeung Rowe to Gov. Winthrop, complaining that Eaton had never given him any instruction, and soliciting the governor to advise him how he may return to his father.(**) Owen Rowe, delaying to come till the civil war broke out, became a colonel in the Parliamentary army, and, when King Charles was tried for treason, was one of the judges who condemned him to death. It appears from the records, that, like other wealthy friends of New
(* The coincidence in time between the arrival of the Hector, and the appearance of Nathanael Eaton as an educator, suggests that he may have come in the same ship with his brothers. Winthrop in his Journal, and Savage in his Notes thereupon, have jointly given a graphic picture of him and of his wife, the housekeeper of the college.)
(** This letter may be found in Appendix II)
England who did not emigrate, he sent over, as an adventure, some cattle. These were regarded, as security for the expense of fencing, and for the rates to be paid "in consideration of his lot and estate here given in." His town-lot was on Church Street, next north of Mr. Gilbert's. As it touched Mr. Davenport's; lot in the rear, it was ordered by the town (doubtless at the pastor's suggestion), "that when Mr. Rowe's lot shall' be fenced in, our pastor shall have a way or passage eight feet broad betwixt it and Mr. Crane's lot, that he may go out of his own garden to the meeting-house." Mr. Rowe not making his appearance, the lot was, after some years, divided and granted on certain conditions to Mr. Davenport, Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. Crane, the adjoining proprietors. The lot on the corner of Church and Elm Streets was at first reserved by the proprietors as a parsonage, if at Mr. Davenport's death or removal it should be needed, but afterward was granted to Nicholas Augur, a practitioner of medicine. This grant had not been made when the schedule of 1641 was written, and the earliest mention of Mr. Augur is in 1644. Some relation of Mr. Augur's troubles as a practitioner of medicine, and of the wretchedness of his death, will be given in subsequent chapters.
Jasper Crane, the only remaining occupant of the east-centre square, was presumably from London, as he was much connected with the London men in various ways. He first put in his estate at one hundred and eighty pounds, and land was assigned him according in amount with that appraisal; but before the meadows and the out-lands of the third division were allotted, he
was permitted to increase his appraisal to four hundred and eighty pounds, and receive thereafter corresponding allotments of land. He afterward removed to Branford; represented that town in the General Court of the Jurisdiction in 1653, and was afterward chosen to, be a magistrate.
Four lots on East Water Street, fronting the harbor, were, for the allotment of out-lands, attached to Mr. Davenport's quarter. Their proprietors were James Russell, George Ward, Lawrence Ward, and Moses Wheeler.
Commencing the survey of the south-east square at the corner of Chapel and State Streets, we find the house of William Preston, a Yorkshireman, who died in 1647, leaving a large family, and a small estate here, which was supplemented by his right in a house, land, and other goods "in Yorkshire, in a town called Giglesweke, in Craven."(*) He and his wife had the care of the meeting-house, which she was to "sweep and dress" every week, having one shilling a week for her pains. He was at one time under the censure of the church, but in his will describes himself as "a member of the church of New Haven."
Next to the premises of Mr. Preston were those of Richard Mansfield, who came to Quinnipiac with the other planters as a steward for Mr. Marshall who was perhaps of London when he engaged in the enterprise,
(* Mr. Malbon, Mr. Lamberton, and Mr. Evance contracted with the town in 1644, to "dig a channel which shall bring boats, at least, to the end of the street beside William Preston's house, at any time of the tide, except they meet with some invincible difficulty, which may hinder their digging the channel so deep.")
but afterward of Exeter. There was presumably no house on Mr. Mansfield's lot; for he was at first in the service of Mr. Marshall, and afterward, when Mr. Marshall had abandoned the idea of coming, bought of him his lot at the corner of Elm and Church Streets. This became the Mansfield homestead, and a part of the land remained in possession of the family for several generations. It seems, however, from Mr. Mansfield's will, which was nuncupative, and declared by two of his neighbors, that at the time of his decease he was residing at his farm between East Rock and Quinnipiac River. Being asked if, according to English custom, he would give more to his elder than to his younger son, he replied in the negative, alleging that the former "was a wild boy, and the younger was of a better spirit."
Thomas Jeffrey, who lived next south of Mr. Mansfield's lot, was by trade a tanner, and doubtless had reference to his trade in choosing his home- lot; for a stream of water flowed through his land at that time, though it has long since disappeared. At an early day he relinquished his trade, to become a mariner. In 1647, "Capt. Malbon propounded that the town hath been ill provided of sergeants, in regard that Sergeant Jeffrey is abroad much by reason of his occasions at sea, therefore whether the town will not see cause to appoint another sergeant in his room, and the rather seeing Sergeant Jeffrey hath earnestly desired it, as Lieut. Seeley and Sergeant Munson did testify in court. The captain also affirmed the same, and that he was unwilling to move for a change till that now he under- standeth Sergeant Jeffrey purposeth to employ himself more fully in sea affairs."
George Lamberton, who lived next south of Sergeant Jeffrey was one of the nine proprietors, who, in the schedule of 1641, are rated at one thousand pounds. Of these nine, however, five were non-resident, and soon ceased to pay rates. So that Lamberton was one of four planters who were excelled only by Theophilus Eaton in the amount of their estates. He was from his first appearance in the plantation a mariner, and lost his life in the ship which, under his command, left the harbor of New Haven in January, 1646, and was never afterward heard from. He is mentioned by Ezekiel Rogers in a letter to Gov. Winthrop, in a manner which suggests that he had been one of Rogers's flock. His influence as a man of mind and of substance may have principally occasioned the large secession of Yorkshire- men who refused to return to the Bay when sent for by Rogers.(*) William Wilkes, who lived at the corner of State and George Streets, removed to Quinnipiac from Boston, where he had resided since 1633. He went to England in 1644, intending to return; but, instead of returning, he sent for his wife to join him in England. She, embarking in Lamberton's ship, was lost at sea. News of Mr. Wilkes's decease was probably received soon after; for a will made by his wife was admitted to probate, which disposed of their whole estate. The house and orchard were sold for forty pounds; the house being appraised at thirty pounds, and the land at ten pounds. Benjamin Fen proprietor of the lot on George Street, adjoining the premises of Willfam Wilkes, removed to Milford with the other first planters of that
(* See page 83)
town. At this time he had but a small estate, and was in no way prominent; but afterward he became one of the leading men in the colony.
Robert Seeley, the next grantee, sold, in 1646, "his house and house-lot" to John Basset, with two acres of upland out of his first division, and afterward resided on the west side of West Creek, as appears from a deed of gift which he made of "his dwelling-house, with his orchard" to his son Nathaniel. He had removed from Watertown, now called Cambridge, Mass., with the first planters of Connecticut, and had been Capt. Mason's lieutenant in the attack on the Pequot fort at Mystic. Removing again, he came to Quinnipiac before its planters had established their fundamental agreement, and was admitted a freeman on the day the court was organized. He was by trade a shoemaker; but being marshal of the court, lieutenant of the train-band, and captain of the artillery company, much of his time was employed in public affairs. In the autumn of 1646, about the time he sold his house in Mr. Lamberton's quarter, he had "liberty of the court to go for England, although a public officer." It appears, however, that he did not immediately use his liberty, for he was here in the following February. In 1649 he was minded to remove from the town, and offered his resignation; but the court refused to receive it as long as he remained, and "the four sergeants were desired to take some pains to see what men would underwrite" for the encouragement of Lieut. Seeley to remain. At a subsequent meeting, the sergeants having accomplished but little, sixteen or seventeen pounds were pledged by those present, and "the sergeants were desired to speak with those that are
not present, to see what they will do." In 1659 appears the alienation of another house, after which his name disappears for a time from the records, as if he were absent. In 1662 he had "returned from England;" and "a motion was made in his behalf for some encouragement for his settling among us," which, however, was ineffectual.
Roger Ailing came to New Haven with Capt. Lamberton, acting as steward during the last half tif the voyage, the former steward having died. Judging from the wages allowed, viz., five pounds ten shillings for the whole voyage, one would conclude that the vessel came from a greater distance than the Bay. He was at this time unmarried, and of small estate. At an early date he became a member of the church and of the court. In 1661 he was chosen treasurer of the jurisdiction, and afterward a deacon of the church.
John Brockett was also, in 1643, unmarried, and of even smaller estate than his neighbor, Roger Ailing. Like him he early became a member of the church and of the court. He was much employed by the court, as well as by individuals, in his profession as a surveyor. Mr. Hickock's lot probably lay next to that of Brockett. Mr. Crane, his agent, surrendered it to the town in 1641, the proprietor having relinquished his intention of coming here to reside. John Budd, the next proprietor, signed the fundamental agreement before it was copied into the book, and remained here till he removed, about 1646, to Southold, L.I., where he acted a more prominent part than at New Haven. Soon after his removal he was appointed a lieutenant, and afterwards represented his
town in the General Court of the Jurisdiction. During his absence in England another person was allowed and desired to exercise the company; the General Court "understanding that he is a member of the church of Salem, and, had he letters of recommendation, might be admitted a freeman as others are." But he must take the oath of fidelity to the jurisdiction: otherwise the command must vest in the corporal of the company. Mr. Budd sold his house and lot, in New Haven, for a hogshead of sugar.
William Jeanes, who lived at the corner of Church and Chapel Streets, had been one of the first planters, but was not admitted a freeman till 1648. He sold this corner-lot the same year to John Meggs.(*) Some years afterward he was at Northampton, whence he removed to Northfield with its first planters, and, though not an ordained minister, conducted the first public Christian worship in that town, preaching under an oak-tree.
Nicholas Elsey, who received his allotment on Chapel Street, adjoining that of Mr. Jeanes, was a cooper by trade. He was present at the ratification of the fundamental agreement in Mr. Newman's barn, and a few years afterward was admitted a freeman.
Richard Hull, who lived on Chapel Street, between Nicholas Elsey and William Preston, signed the fundamental agreement at the time when it was established, and at the first meeting of the court was admitted a
(* See History of the Cutler Corner, by Henry White, in N. H. Col. Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 1. Mr. White illustrates the relative inferiority in early times of that part of Chapel Street which lies between Church Street and State Street, by a quotation from the records in which it is called "the lane that leadeth to Zuriel Kimberley's house.")
freeman, as a member of some other church than that of New Haven. Commencing the survey of the south-centre square, we find at its north- east corner, where the glebe building now is, the house of Thomas Gregson. President Stiles records the tradition that Gregson's house was one of four which excelled in stateliness all other houses erected in New Haven by the first generation of its inhabitants; the three which he groups with Gregson's belonging respectively to Mr. Theophilus Eaton, Mr. John £)avenport, and Mr. Isaac Allerton.(*) Gregson was one of the most honored men in the community, intrusted with office continuously from 1640 till he embarked in 1646, with a commission from the Colony of New Haven to obtain, if possible, a charter from Parliament. Having been a merchant in London, he engaged in commerce after his arrival at Quinnipiac; and the voyage in which he lost his life was primarily undertaken for commercial ends. Next west of Mr. Gregson lived Stephen Goodyear, another of the London merchants originally associated together for the commencement of a plantation in New England. Here he was engaged in foreign commerce, sometimes in company with Eaton, Malbon, and Gregson, and sometimes adventuring largely on his individ-
(* As Isaac Allerton was not here at the time of which we are discoursing, it may be appropriate to say that he was one of the voyagers in the Mayflower, and, that having fallen under censure at Plymouth, on account of some commercial transactions in which he was the agent of the colony, he removed first to Marblehead, then a part of Salem, and afterward to New Haven. A lot was granted him on the east side of Union Street; near Fair Street, where he built a "grand house with four porches.")
Dual responsibility. Having lost his first wife in Lamberton's ship, he married the widow of Lamberton, thus uniting two families in one home with advantage to the children of each. Second only to Eaton in the colonial government, his absence in England when Eaton died was a sufficient reason why he was not then advanced to the chief magistracy; and his death in London not long afterward brought his useful and honorable career to an end. The lot next west of that occupied by Mr. Goodyear extended to College Street, and had been assigned to Mr. Hawkins, one of the non- resident proprietors. He seems to have been a friend of Mr. Goodyear, into whose possession the land afterward passed when its first proprietor had relinquished his intention of residing in New Haven.
Fronting on College Street was a lot assigned to Samuel Bailey, who did not long remain in New Haven. His allotment was purchased by William Davis.
Fronting on George Street were six lots belonging to Thomas Buckingham, Thomas Welch, Jeremiah Whitnell, Richard Miles, Nathanael Axtell, and Henry Stonhill, respectively. Axtell, "intending to go home, died in a few weeks before embarking, at Boston." Of the remaining five, four, namely, Buckingham, Welch, Miles, and Stonhill, removed to Milford with the first planters of that town, leaving only Whitnell on that side of the square. Deacon Richard Miles, however, returned to New Haven in 1641.
According to the schedule of 1641, the proprietors of the south-west square were, at that time, William
Fowler, Peter Prudden, James Prudden, Edmond Tapp, Widow Baldwin, An Elder, Richard Platt, Zachariah Whitman, and Thomas Osborne. The town records show that the lot reserved for an elder had been originally assigned to Timothy Baldwin, who, removing to Milford, sold his allotment to the town. As no land within this square has been traced to Thomas Osborne, it may be inferred that he sold to Mr. Fowler at an early date, and before a record of alienation was required. Mr. Osborne owned and occupied a house and tanyjrd on the south side of George Street, between Broad and Factory Streets, doubtless preferring this location to his original allotment because of the facilities it afforded for his vocation as a tanner. He afterward became one of the first planters of Easthampton on Long Island; but this property, being given to one of his sons, remained in the name of Osborne far into the nineteenth century. With the exception of Osborne, the original grantees of this square removed to Milford. As they had all emigrated from Herefordshire, or its vicinity, the square was for some years designated as the Herefordshire quarter.
The square next north of that occupied exclusively by Prudden and his friends from Hereford, had been assigned for the most part, if not wholly, to the York-shiremen who came with Ezekiel Rogers.
At the corner of Chapel and York Streets, a lot surrendered by Francis Parrot, one of the Yorkshiremen who returned to Massachusetts and settled at Rowley, was assigned by vote of the town, Nov. 3, 1639, to Thomas James, who, having been pastor of the church
in Charlestown, Mass., had resigned his charge and come hither to reside. In 1642, in response to a call from Virginia for ministers from New England, Mr. James went with two of his clerical brethren to Virginia. The mission was unsuccessful, not however for want of "loving and liberal entertainment," but because the colonial government would not allow them to remain unless they would conform to the Church of England. Mr. James afterward returned to the mother-country, and was a beneficed clergyman in Needham, County of Suffolk, till ejected in 1662 by the Act of Uniformity.
Widow Greene, who owned the lot on York Street, next north of the corner- lot of Mr. James, probably did not long remain at New Haven, as the name does not continue to appear on the records.
Thomas Yale, step-son of Gov. Eaton, owned the next lot, but probably never lived on it. Marrying a daughter of Capt. Turner, he engaged in husbandry, and appears to have made his home at a farm some miles north of the town-plot.(*) Thomas Fugill, a Yorkshireman, and, as we learn from the autobiography of Rev. Thomas Shepard, a member, before his emigration, of the family of Sir Richard Darley at Buttercrambe, was one of the seven men selected by the planters of New Haven for their "foundation work." He was also "notary public," or secretary of the plantation, and when a colonial government was instituted by the union of New Haven, Mil-
(* Thomas Yale has usually been reputeS to be the father of Elihu Yale, the benefactor of Yale College; but Professor Dexter has conclusively proved that Elihu Yale was son of David Yale, a brother of Thomas.)
ford, and Guilford, was appointed secretary of the jurisdiction. He wrote a neat, legible hand, and so far forth performed the work of his office well; but the town, becoming suspicious of the records, appointed a committee "to view all those orders which are of a lasting nature, and where they are defective, to mend them and then let them be read in the court that the court may confirm or alter them as they see cause." The summary thus prepared is on record in the book kept by Fugill. Meanwhile another committee was investigating the result of a false entry by means of which Fugill had possessed himself of fifty-two acres and thirteen rods in the second division of lands, "instead of twenty-four acres, his full proportion." When this committee reported, "some of the court and town propounded whether it were not requisite and necessary to choose another secretary, who might more faithfully enter and keep the town's records. The secretary confessed his unfitness for the place by reason of a low voice, a dull ear, and slow apprehensions. He was answered, the court had long taken notice of sundry miscarriages through weakness or neglect, yet in tender respect to himself and his family, they had continued him in the place (though with trouble to others); a review of orders, before these offences brake out, being upon that consideration thought necessary and ordered. But upon this discovery of unfaithfulness and falsifying of orders and records, they were called to lay aside those private respects for the public safety. By the court, therefore he was presently put out of his office of secretary for this plantation." Unable to sustain himself under the weight of this punishment and of the censure of the
church which followed it, he sold his estate, left the town, and probably returned to England.
John Punderson, another of the Yorkshire company, and also one of the seven chosen for "foundation work," was Fugill's nearest neighbor on the north. Few men of that generation were so faithful in all public duties as entirely to avoid pecuniary mulct; but there is no record of a fine imposed on John Punderson. A son and a grandson, both bearing the name of John, were deacons in the church which he helped to institute. Another grandson, Rev. Ebenezer Punderson, was one of the fathers of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut. On the corner of York and Elm Streets lived John Johnson, also of the Yorkshire company, who after a few years removed to Rowley, selling his house to his brother Robert, from whom was descended Rev. Samuel Johnson, two years younger than Ebenezer Punderson, but earlier than he in the ministry of the Episcopal Church.
Corporal Abraham Bell lived on Elm Street, next east from Mr. Johnson's corner. In 1647 he sold his estate in New Haven to Job Hall, and removed to Charlestown, Mass. John Evance, who had been a London merchant and a parishioner of Mr. Davenport at St. Stephen's, had a large lot on the corner of Elm and College Streets, part of it being held by him for his brother-in-law, Mr. Mayer, who had not yet emigrated, and, as it proved, never came. Mr. Evance, though less active and conspicuous in civil affairs than some others, was inferior to few or none in commercial enterprise, drawing bills of exchange on Mr. Eldred for beaver and hides shipped
to London, and sending shingles and clapboards to Barbadoes in vessels to be freighted with sugar in return.
The lot on College Street, next south of that occupied by Mr. Evance, was owned by a widow bearing the Yorkshire name of Constable. The question has been raised, whether the husband of this woman were the Sir William Constable, who, according to Mather, proposed to follow Ezekiel Rogers to New England. This woman was plainly a widow, but not the widow of Sir William. Her husband was styled Mr.; her estate was small; she emigrated apparently as early as Rogers, and probably in his company; while Sir William did not sail with Rogers, and could not have come afterward without impressing on the page of history some notice of his arrival. Both the name and the location of this family suggest that they belonged to Rogers's company, and they may have been related to the knight who bore their family name. Mrs. Constable afterward became the wife of Deacon Richard Miles. On the corner of College and Chapel Streets lived Joshua Atwater. He was born at Lenham, County of Kent, where he was baptized June 2, 1612. Having been a merchant in Ashford, in the same county, he emigrated in the company of Davenport and Eaton, and engaged in mercantile pursuits, first at New Haven, then at Milford, and afterward at Boston, where he died in 1676. He was treasurer of the jurisdiction till he removed out of its bounds. The lot on Chapel Street, next west of Mr. Atwater's, was assigned to John Cockerill, probably a Yorkshireman, who built a house thereon, but shortly after removed, leaving his house and lands in charge of Thomas
Fugill. The estate stands in the name of Fugill in the schedule; but when after Fugill's departure the fences decayed, and the rates remained unpaid, it was ascertained that Cockerill had never alienated and still claimed it. Alien Ball, a brother-in-law of Fugill, and perhaps also related to Cockerill, was requested by the town to "take the house and land and improve them for defraying charges of rates and fencings;" but he declined, saying that " the house was uncomfortable to live in." A curious record in regard to this property was made more than sixty years after Cockerill left it in the hands of Fugill; viz., -
"June 20, 1710. Capt. Nathan Andrews and Mr. John Todd, both of New Haven, testify and say that upon their certain knowledge, they formerly knew one Mr. John Fugill to be at New Haven above forty years since, who was reputed to be the son of Mr. Thomas Fugill formerly of New Haven, and that he did not, as they know of, lay any claim to the land in New Haven that was his father's."
Edward Wigglesworth, whose tombstone, marked E. W. 1653, was for a time supposed to distinguish the grave of Edward Whalley, one of the regicide judges, lived on the lot next west of Mr. Cockerill's. An autobiographical paper by his son, Rev. Michael Wigglesworth, printed in the appendix to this volume, gives a more distinct view of Quinnipiac and of one of its families than any other single document. Thomas Powell lived to old age of the only remaining lot in the Yorkshire quarter. Commencing the survey of the north-west square at
its north-west corner, we find the corner occupied by Edward Tench, whose name was at first given to the quarter. He died in February, 1630. His wife, of whom he speaks in his will as "lying in the house with me, dangerously sick and near to death by a consumption, so that in the judgment of man she draweth near her change," probably survived him for some time, as his will was presented to the court nearly seven years afterward.
The lot on Grove Street, next east from Mr. Tench's corner, still "remained, when the schedule was written, in the name of Mrs. Higginson, though that lady had died a few weeks before her neighbor Mr. Tench. She was the widow of Rev. Francis Higginson, the first minister of Salem, and probably a kinswoman of the Eatons, as the names Theophilus and Samuel had been given to two of her children, and one of the children was taken by the governor into his family after the death of Mrs. Higginson. In the settlement of the estate, no mention is made of any house on the home-lot; but in 1647 Theophilus Higginson sold to "Christopher Todd his house and home-lot in New Haven lying betwixt the lot now William Judson's and Mr. Tench's." The inference is, that when Mrs. Higginson died, the family were still occupying a temporary habitation.
Henry Browning lived on the corner of Grove and College Streets. He does not appear to have been a freeman. In 1647 he "sold to Goodman William Judson all his real estate and commonage, together with a bedstead and trundle-bed, a pair of valance and a piece of blue darnix, a malt mill, a well bucket and chain, two
loads of clay brought home, and the fence about the lot repaired." His name does not occur afterward on the records.
Francis Newman, the owner of the next lot, was admitted a freeman in 1640, chosen ensign of the trainband in 1642, lieutenant of the artillery- company upon its formation in 1645, secretary of the plantation in 1647, and was finally advanced to the highest office in the jurisdiction, being chosen governor after Eaton's death.
John Caffinch, whose lot lay next south of Francis Newman's, probably sailed direct from England to Quinnipiac, arriving in 1639 with the first planters of Guilford, though not in the same ship with Whitfield. He was one of the six principal men chosen to receive from the aboriginal proprietors of Guilford a deed in trust for the whole company of planters. For some reason he concluded to live at New Haven rather than at Guilford. He does not appear to have been a freeman.
David Atwater, a younger brother of Joshua Atwater, had a lot adjoining that of Mr. Caffinch, but never lived on it. He seems to have become a proprietor at a late date, and to have received his whole allotment, with the exception of this town-lot, in the third division. It is conjectured, that, before he became a proprietor at New Haven, he may have had some thought of joining the Kentish colony at Guilford. His residence in New Haven was at his farm between East Rock and Quinnipiac River, where his neighbors were Capt. Turner, Richard Mansfield, and William Potter. His town-lot had been previously, assigned to John
Pocock, who became one of the first planters of Milford. Mr. Atwater died in 1692, having outlived most of the first planters.
Two lots, extending from Mr. Atwater's to the corner of College and Elm Streets, were reserved for nonresidents named respectively Dearmer and Lucas.
On Elm Street, between Mr. Lucas's corner and the corner of Elm and York Streets, lived Andrew Low, widow Williams, Robert Hill, and William Thorpe.
On York Street, between Mr. Thorpe's corner and Mr. Tench's corner, was a lot belonging to Jeremiah Dixon, one of the seven men chosen for foundation work. He early removed from the plantation; and, as he was unmarried, there was probably no house upon his lot.
The only remaining square of the eight which surrounded the market-place was occupied on Elm Street by the lots of two non-residents, Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Eldred, and by the lot of Francis Brewster. Mr. Marshall has already been mentioned in connection with Richard Mansfield, who was his representative and agent. Mrs. Eldred was apparently a widow in London, and perhaps the mother of a Mr. Eldred with whom some of the colonists had commercial correspondence. As the name occurs on the parish-register of St. Stephen's, it may be that the family had been parishioners of Mr. Davenport in Coleman Street. Francis Brewster was from London, and one of the company which came with Davenport. He does not appear to have been a freeman. Mr. Brewster having been lost in Lamberton's ship, and his widow having
married Mr. Pell and removed to New Jersey, the house and home-lot were sold to Mr. Goodenhouse, a Dutchman, who had married the widow of Capt. Turner. Mark Pearce, whose lot was on College Street north of Brewster's corner, had lived at Cambridge, Mass., and removed to New Haven as late as 1642. At a general court held Feb. 24, 1641, "Mr. Pearce desired the plantation to take notice, that if any will send their children to him he will instruct them in writing or arithmetic." This was several years before Mr. Cheever removed, so that Mr. Pearce's school, if his offer was accepted, must have been additional to that of Cheever.
Jarvis Boykin, a carpenter by trade, was the next proprietor on College Street. He came from the town of Charing in Kent, and had resided two or three years in Charlestown, Mass., before he joined the company which settled at Quinnipiac.
Benjamin Ling occupied the corner of College and Grove Streets. He had removed from Charlestown, Mass., and was present at the formation of the fundamental agreement in 1639. He died in 1673, commending his wife to the care of James Davids, who for some years had been an inmate of his house. Mr. Davids married the widow, who, dying not long after the marriage, left the homestead to him. It was known to some of the inhabitants of New Haven that James Davids was an alias for John Dixwell, and that this man was one of the regicide judges. Marrying a second wife, he became the father of a family, and resided here many years, not only unbetrayed, but
much revered and beloved. Here he died in old age; and his grave on the green is marked, not only by the rude stone bearing his initials which his contemporaries placed there, but by a marble monument erected in later times.
On Grove Street, next east from Mr. Ling's corner, was the lot of Robert Newman. In his barn was held the meeting of planters at which the fundamental agreement was adopted, Mr. Newman himself being the secretary of the meeting. He was elected ruling elder of the church, and continued in that office till his return to England. The latest mention of him as a resident of New Haven is on the eighth day of October, 1649.
On the east side of Elder Newman's lot was the lot of William Andrews, a member of the church and of the court from the first. He was a carpenter by trade, but found time to keep "an ordinary" or house of entertainment for strangers.
John Cooper lived at the corner of Grove and Church Streets. He was present at the adoption of the fundamental agreement, and became a freeman in October, 1645, his name being the last but one on the list made by Secretary Fugill. "John Cooper took oath to be faithful to, the trust committed to him in viewing fences and pounding cattle, according to the court's order, without partiality or respect of persons." In the execution of this trust, he was to inspect all the fences within the two miles "once every week if no extraordinary providence hinder."
Sergeant Richard Beckley, whose lot lay between that of Mr. Cooper and that of Mr. Marshall, was pres-
ent when the fundamental agreement was adopted, and, as his military title implies, was a member of the court.
Having now surveyed the eight squares which lay around the market-place, let us proceed to the two suburbs, and first to that which lay between the two creeks. Sergeant Samuel Whitehead lived at the corner of George and Meadow Streets. Previous to his residence in New Haven, he had spent some years in Massachusetts and at Hartford. By the marriage of his grand- daughter his homestead passed into the family of Hubbard, and so continued for nearly two centuries.
John Clark, who lived on Meadow Street next south of Mr. Whitehead, was interpreter when the Montowese Indians sold their land to the English. He had lived about four years in Massachusetts before he came to Quinnipiac with its first planters. Of Luke Atkinson, the next proprietor on Meadow Street, little is known but that he dared to quarrel with Mr. Davenport, and, being charged with slander, was fined forty pounds. He removed from New Haven in 1656.
Edward Banister died in 1649, and his lot passed into other hands. Another lot which lay between State Street and the "East Greek was granted to his widow by the town, on which she "built a house. John Moss, though by no means a wealthy man, gave his son Joseph a liberal education, and had the pleasure of seeing him settled in the ministry at Derby. In his old age John Moss removed to Wallingford, where he died in 1707, aged one hundred and three years.
John Charles, a brother-in-law of John Moss, had lived some years in Massachusetts. He was a seafaring man, and removed first to Branford and afterward to Saybrook. Richard Beach removed to New London. Arthur Halbidge came from England to Boston in 1635. He died in 1648. William Peck crossed the Atlantic with Davenport and Eaton. He is said to have been a merchant in London; but the tradition is not easily reconciled with his estimate of his estate, which he put into the list at twelve pounds. Though not wealthy, he was much respected in the plantation, as appears from his election as a deacon of the church. Timothy Ford, whose lot was at the corner of Meadow and Water Streets, had lived in Massachusetts.
Peter Brown, at a court holden Feb. 5, 1638, was "licensed to bake to sell, so long as he gives no offence in it justly." He afterward removed to Stamford.
Daniel Paul, whose lot was at the corner of Water and State Streets, soon disappeared from the plantation; and his lot came into the possession of William Westerhouse, a Dutch merchant, July 3, 1655, John Thompson "bought, at an outcry, the house and lot, and lands which belong to it, which was Mr. Westerhouse's, for £40.05, which was thus sold by order of the court." About a month afterward the purchaser sold to John Hodson "the house he bought of the court, which was Mr. Westerhouse's, and the land which belongs to it, and Mr. Hodson is to pay the court for it, £40.05."
John Livermore, who lived on State Street, next north of Goodman Paul's corner, came to Massachu-
setts from Ipswich, England, in 1634. He signed the fundamental agreement after it had been copied into the record-book.
Henry Rutherford died in 1668: his widow married William Leete, Governor of the Colony of New Haven and afterwards Governor of the Colony of Connecticut.
Thomas Trowbridge was from Taunton or its vicinity, in the county of Somerset. He was a merchant, trading to Barbadoes.
The lots of widow Potter and John Potter passed at an early date into the possession of Alien Ball, though there is no record of the transfer.
Passing now to the suburb on the west side of West Creek, we find, on the corner made by the streets now named Hill Street and C6ngress Avenue, the lot of William Ives. He died in 1648, leaving a wife and four children. William Basset married the widow; and the family continued to reside in the house till it was sold, in 1652, to the widow of Anthony Thompson.
The next lot fronting on Hill Street was assigned to George Smith, who in 1655 sold his house and home-lot to Timothy Ford. He describes the premises as lying between the house that was Matthew Canfield's and that which was William Ives's. The lot thus described as having belonged to Matthew Canfield must have been, if the order of the schedule is to be followed, the property of widow Sherman before Matthew Canfield acquired it. "An inventory and will of old father Sherman was delivered into the court" in May, 1641, and soon afterward the name of (Campfield) Canfield first appears.
These three are all of the lots in the suburb on the west side of the West Creek that can be located. The other proprietors in this suburb were Matthew Moulthrop, Anthony Thompsont John Reeder, Robert Cogswell, Matthias Hitchcock, Francis Hall, Richard Osborne, William Potter, James Clark, Edward Patteson, and Andrew Hull.
As the schedule assigns nothing to Matthew Moulthrop, it is doubtful whether he ever acquired a complete title to a lot in this quarter.
Anthony Thompson died about ten years after the first settlement of the town. His widow married Nicholas Camp of Milford. As one of his two brothers was childless, and the other had only daughters, he is probably the ancestor of all, or nearly all, in New Haven who, bear the name of Thompson.(*)
The name of John Reeder is not found in any record later than the schedule of 1641. The name of Robert Cogswell disappears about the same time. At that early day alienations were not always recorded; and, unless it has escaped a very close scrutiny, there is no record of the sale of their lots by these two proprietors.
The names of Matthias Hitchcock, Francis Hall, and Richard Osborne follow next in the schedule. They all remained long in the town, and probably died here. "Matthias Hitchcock passeth over to John Wakefield his house and home-lot on the other side of the West
(* There was another Thompson at Fairfield, contemporary with Anthony of New Haven. Possibly, from that source or some other, Thompsons may have removed to New Haven, and become undistinguishably mixed with the descendants of Anthony.)
Creek," Feb. 6, 1655. Richard Osborne was a tanner by trade, and the coincidence of name and occupation suggests that he was a brother of Thomas Osborne. William Potter removed from his town-lot, if he ever built a house on it, "to his farm on the west side of Quinnipiac River. After having been for many years a church-member, he was accused of bestiality, and upon his own confession was condemned to death and executed. James Clark removed to the liorth part of the town, and afterward to Stratford. The name of Edward Patteson does not occur after 1646. Andrew Hull died in 1643, and his widow became the wife of Richard Beach. Besides the home- lots assigned to proprietors, thirty-two "small lots" had been freely given to as many householders, before the second division of out-lands was made. The records furnish a list of these householders having no right of commonage, in the order in which they were drawn by lot for the choice of the out-lands allowed them in "the second division. Seven of them dwelt on "the bank-side," that is, on East Water Street and east of the four proprietors whose land extended from Union Street to Chestnut Street; the other twenty-five had their homes between George Street and the West Creek. The seven on the bank-side were William Russell, Francis Brown, Thomas Morris, Nathaniel Merriman, Robert Pigg, Thomas Beamont, and William Gibbons.
The whole catalogue reads thus, viz., -
1. Stephen Metcalf
In estimating the population of New Haven at this period, one must take into account not only proprietors and householders, but indentured and hired servants. The records show1 that both these classes were numerous. The families of the proprietors contained four hundred and twenty souls, counting only their wives and children with themselves.
Deducting those who never left England, and those who removed to Milford, and adding the families to which lots had been freely given, we have by equal ratio a population of about four hundred and sixty. But the houses of the Milford people were not all empty. Some of them were hired and occupied by persons who did not care to become proprietors. The number of dependents of one kind and another attached to all these families must have nearly
equalled, and perhaps it exceeded, the census returned by the proprietors. Gov. Eaton returns only six; but his family is said to have contained thirty persons. In no other family was there so large a proportion of servants; but there was scarcely a householder whose family was limited to himself, his wife, and his children. Artisans and farmers had young men and boys in their employ, and maid-servants were to be found in almost every household.
If on the basis of these facts we estimate the whole number of souls in the plantation tc eight hundred, confirmation of such an estimate is found in the military census, which after the elders, deacons, magistrates, deputies, physicians, military officers of a higher grade than sergeants, the schoolmaster, the miller, and masters of vessels carrying more than fifteen tons were exempted, provided thirty-one watches, each consisting of seven men, out of the male population between sixteen and sixty years of age. If there were two hundred and seventeen men liable to this duty, and thirty more who were exempt, the entire population could not have been much less than eight hundred.(*)
(* The Dutch authorities at New Amsterdam reported to their superiors in Holland that Rodenbergh, or New Haven, contained, eleven years after it was founded, about 1,340 families. But, though affirmed of New Haven town, it must have been, I think, their informant's estimate of the population of the colony.)
USGenWeb City of Derby CT Home Page & Search