YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ^t^/cA^Ze^fM^Sfa^.. History of Hadley INCLUDING THE Early History of Hatfield, South Hadley Amherst and Granby Massachusetts By Sylvester 1 u d d WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY George Sheldon also Family Genealogies By Lucius M. Boltwood \ Published by H. R. Huntting fcf Company Springfield, Mass. 1905 Copyright, 1905 by H. R. HUNTTING & CO. SPRINGFIELD MASSACHUSETTS TOWN HISTORY GENEALOGY AMERICANA PREFACE TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION The town of Hadley is one of the oldest in the Connecticut valley. Differences of opinion in relation to discipline, baptism, and the qualifi cations for church membership, had so rent the churches of Hartford and Wethersfield, that Gov. John Webster, Elder William Goodwin, and Rev . John Russell, with their friends, at length decided to seek a new home at a higher point on the river. To brave the journey of fifty miles through the wilderness and to lay again the foundations of a new town, was of course no small undertaking, yet the peace of the Colony requiring it, such was their resolve. Accord ingly, on the 18th of April, 1659, tne company to the number of sixty, met at the house of Nathaniel Ward in Hartford, and signed an agreement for their regulation and government, pledging themselves to remove to the "plantation purchased on the east side of the river of Connecticut, beside Northampton," as early as the 29th of September of the following year. For various reasons, twenty of the original signers failed to fulfil their en gagements, yet their places were supplied by others, the town was settled, and has ever since continued to prosper. To trace the history of this enterprise, from its inception to the present time — to relate the toils, privations and dangers which beset the path of our ancestors— Ho describe their mode of life — to tell what they did for the cause of learning and religion — and to give some account of their families, is the object of the present work. In carrying out this purpose, no avail able source of information has been overlooked. Induced by no expectation of pecuniary reward, but stimulated by an ardent love for historical research and a desire to preserve from destruc tion the crumbling materials of a long and interesting history, at the press ing solicitation of Major Sylvester Smith, Sylvester Judd, Esq_., com menced the publication of this work. To it he devoted every moment in IV PREFACE which health would allow, and continued his labors until removed by death. With not a little reluctance, at the earnest desire of his family, shortly after Mr. Judd's decease, did I consent to complete the work commenced by one, who has well been styled, "the distinguished antiquary of North ampton." To this task, amid a pressure of other duties, have I devoted my leisure moments; and having brought together the scattered fragments of family history left by Mr. Judd, and added to the same from my own collections, I am able at length to lay before the public, the result of my labors, having pursued the work with interest heightened by being able to trace my own descent from no less than five of those noble men, who more than two hundred years ago, in prayer and faith, laid such goodly foundations in this garden of New England. I L. M. BOLTWOOD. Amherst, March, 1863. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW EDITION Containing a Careful Study of the Lives of the Regicides and an Inquiry into the Historical Basis of the "Angel of Hadley" Legend. By GEORGE SHELDON. There are events in the history of Hadley of which her citizens are, and of right ought to be, very proud. They may tell of heroes living and dying there, whose dust sanctifies their soil — heroes of war, and heroes of peace. The actions of the former are usually on a stage where they can be seen and known of all men. For the most part these live and act conscious of a watching world, and assured that lasting memorials will perpetuate their names and deeds. We point to Hadley's farmer-soldier General Hooker on Beacon Hill. To the heroes of peace all this incentive to action is notably wanting. Their noblest deeds are often done in emergencies, on a sudden impulse, with no applauding crowd; more often without a witness, and with no thought of present reward or future fame. The greatest hero of Hadley, however, was of a still nobler and finer mold. Actuated by pure motives of humanity, sympathy and duty, and the loftiest pitch of patriotism, he patiently wrought in darkness and in silence. Through the anxious days and lingering nights of more than ten years, he bravely stood within a hand's breadth of the gates of ignominious death. He never faltered for a single hour, nor ever sought to shift upon another the burden and responsibility. Month after month, summer and winter, year after year, zealously watching and guarding his trust, John Russell was virtually a prisoner within his own hamlet. Under his very rooftree he was secreting Edward Whalley and William GofFe, two of the patriot judges who con- VI INTRODUCTION demned to the scaffold that misguided and perfidious represen tative of the "divine right of kings," Charles I., of England. These two men were now proscribed; a price was set upon their heads, and a swift retribution awaited any who might relieve or conceal them. Any neglect of precaution, any unforeseen mishap to the premises, any single case of misplaced confidence, and both he and his guests were surely doomed to nameless torture and death. Of necessity there must have been those about him in the secret, but none failed him, although each knew that a single whispered word would bring a rich reward. All honor to these faithful souls. Whalley and GofFe were known to be in Boston in 1660, and also in New Haven in 1661; and zealous minions of Charles II. were for twenty years ransacking every corner of the Colonies with the ardor and persistence of bloodhounds; their very house of refuge was searched. Over these two men, themselves of heroic proportion, lovers of liberty, patriots of the highest type, Mr. Russell was in truth the real "Guardian Angel of Hadley." In 1672 Mr. Russell was appointed to a place of trust and honor, which would have taken him to Boston free of expense twice each year. This very desirable service he declined by letter, saying guardedly, that he must do so on account of "the special worke where with I stand charged." Seldom or never in all the years in which he was guarding that trust, could the steadfast pastor get a release from the stated Sunday and Fast Day service by an ex change of pulpits; not once the refreshment and inspiration which the country minister was wont to get in the "Annual Conven tion" at Boston. In 1674 GofFe writes to his wife that her father, General Whal ley, was fast nearing his end; but no one knows when the day of rest came. All knowledge of the time or place of GofFe's departure has also passed with him behind the veil. In 1685, however, we find the faithful watchman breathing the free air of Boston. Probably his "special worke" came to an end finally with a second burial in his cellar. Mr. Russell died in 1692. Hadley has indeed reason to be proud of such sublime heroism as his, and it is passing strange that her citizens have so long delayed placing an indestructible memorial to mark the spot where, even in the shadow of the grave, loom up the truly grand proportions of John Russell. Here shone forth his intense love of liberty. Here he stood ready to sacrifice his life, in showing honor for the daring deeds of these two apostles of civil freedom, whom he was shield ing from a horrible death. Here he emphasized his belief, that INTRODUCTION VII "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Evidence is not wanting, that the time is now ripe for Hadley to honor itself by doing honor to her most noble nobleman, brave John Russell; and we may hope and expect with confidence, that this long- delayed duty will soon be an actual achievement. His descendants may be scattered far and wide; but let Hadley see to it that his fame with her shall ever abide. The story of the town has been told with rare interest in Judd's History of Hadley. This book has been long out of print. More than thirty years ago, I bought the only copy I could find on sale in Boston. As it is indispensible to any well-equipped library of Americana, public or private, and has become so scarce that its price has reached a prohibitory figure to most students, there can be no question about the necessity of a new edition. Judd's History has been known as a standard work ever since it was issued. It not only covers Hadley, but the territory for a score of miles up and down the valley of the Connecticut. In it the searcher after knowledge of the manners and customs of the early days will find a full field from which to garner colonial, ecclesias tical, scholastic, civic, industrial, mercantile, legal and legendary lore. The very opening chapter contains a clue to the obscure, but interminable church quarrels so common and persistent among our Puritan and Pilgrim fathers and mothers. The causes, when we can unlock their confusing mysteries, seem to us trivial, but examination shows that by these earnest, honest men and women, they were considered vital and controlling, as being matters of eternal consequence. It was one of these disturb ing events in Connecticut that determined when and by whom Hadley should be settled. Judd was an enthusiastic student; generally seeking the material for his history at first hand — in old parchment-covered record books, files of musty time-stained papers, tattered letters, and long-forgotten diaries. Those who have seen the mass of his accumulated papers are surprised at the extent and diversity of his research. Although fate decreed that Mr. Judd should not have the final arrangement of his great store of genealogical data, this work was successfully accomplished by Hon. Lucius M. Boltwood, and is, and always will be, a rich mine for the delver after family history in the valley of the Connecticut. As before said, Mr. Judd must always be looked up to as a sound historical authority of the highest rank. If once in a great while he be found tripping, we can but say, that it is the common lot of all who depend upon original manuscript. New material VIII INTRODUCTION of this kind may and often does come to light, for the use and edification of the later writer. There was one topic upon which the painstaking Judd was led astray; that was in giving undue credit to President Ezra Stiles, in his History of the Three Judges. Through his faith in the standing of the man, Judd accepted as history, without his usual investigation, the Leverett Tradition, that on Sept. I, 1675, Hadley was attacked by Indians while the inhabitants were assembled in the meetinghouse holding a Fast Day service, and that the town was only saved from destruc tion by the sudden appearance of General GofFe, at a critical moment. If this story is otherwise read by me, and my version be accepted as true, I am here embarrassed by an apparent claim to be the better student. I am not, and far be it from me to make such a claim. It may not be improper to say, that in common with all the later historians of New England, I had accepted the ac count of President Stiles as an established fact, and no more thought of calling in question the authenticity of the GofFe story, than of any accepted fact of history. I had seen, however, so many traditions discredited in my general reading, that I had made it my rule to take nothing second hand' which could be personally investigated, and so when possible, I went to the same original sources of information as my author. This I soon found necessary to the spirit of independent thought and expression, for not seldom, I found myself differing from the author in hand, in my interpretation of the same facts. It was in accordance with the above rule, that I began mining for the foundation of the "Angel of Hadley" story. To my sur prise, I soon discovered that the corner stone, instead of being laid on bed rock or solid masonry, rested on nothing better than elusive quicksand. Had Mr. Judd entertained the faintest sus picion about the main fact of the story, I make no doubt he would have investigated the matter, and would have reached the same conclusion which was fairly forced upon me. With all his general faith in Stiles, Judd was compelled to question some of his posi tions on this subject, occasionally disputing him point blank; and he shows that some of the traditions upon which Stiles built, were "certainly false." Many other items are treated with small respect, "Some of which must be rejected," he says. Mr. Judd would doubtless be the last man to regret that the romantic, but baseless episode of the Angel of Rescue, so cherished by the sentimental, should be eliminated from the annals of the town, when its most potent factor is proved to be but the child of an indiscriminating credulity. INTRODUCTION IX It is expected by the publishers of the new edition of Judd's History that the Introduction shall contain a concise review of the evidence upon which rests the story of the Angel of Hadley, as given by Stiles and accepted in the main feature by Judd. Necessarily the field to be explored is obscure, the facts to be dealt with, fragmentary, widely scattered and individually of small account; but all these facts focused upon the objective point, will, it is hoped, give a final quietus to the angel fabrication being accepted as history. As material for romantic fiction, the myth will live for ages. General Edward Whalley and General William GofFe were members of the "High Court of Justice," which was the forlorn hope of civil and religious liberty for the English race, and which with one desperate blow so shattered the battlements of Preroga tive, that its walls never have been and never can be fully built up again. With the restoration of Charles II., these two men fled to New England. When they left London, the King had not been proclaimed, but the news reached them while yet in the English Channel. The good ship of Captain Pierce, which brought them over, "came to anchor between Boston and Charlestown," July 27, 1660. Whalley had assumed the name of Richardson, and GofFe the name of Shepardson. They at once took up their residence at Cambridge. The quotations which follow are from the diary of General GofFe. "July 29th, Lord's Day, heard Mr. Mitchell preach." They were well received here by men who knew their real character. Mitchell was the minister of Cambridge. "Aug. 9th, Went to Boston Lecture, heard Norton, Scotch ship brought threatned recognition by one who came in it. At night Maj. [Daniel] Gookin showed us a printed paper y' was brought by the Scotch Ship wherin the Lds doe order 66 members of the High Court of Justice to be secured with yr Estate." , While at Cambridge they also attended an Indian Lecture, probably by the apostle Eliot, and GofFe makes note of the dis cussion which followed and the searching questions put by the natives. After Aug. 9th, the Judges made no pretence of conceal ment. "Aug. 16th, Sup'dwith Mr. Chauncey [President of Harvard College] he was persuaded yc Ld had brought us to this country for good both to them and ourselves." "Aug. 23d, visited Elder Frost," and on the 26th they were visited by Mr. Mitchell. By the above may be seen their status in Boston. So the Judges waited coming events. Would Charles INTRODUCTION be sustained r They had not long to wait. November 30th, a ship brought news that the King was firmly established on the throne, and furthermore, that complaints were abroad about the way the Judges had been received in the Colony. ' Action here became necessary, and on December 19th an "Address to the King" was sent over by the General Court. A gracious reply was returned by Charles. Before this had been received, however, orders had arrived for the apprehension of Whalley and GofFe. February 22d the Court of Assistants met to consider the matter. The members did not agree upon any action, and nothing followed; but all saw that a crisis was near, and means were found to send the Judges away from the Bay. They were guided by an Indian as far as Springfield, and thence by Simon Lobdel through Hartford, reaching New Haven March 7, 1661. A few days after they left Cambridge, a "Hue-and-Cry" was received from England, and March 8th, a warrant for their arrest was sent to Springfield, on their trail. But the birds had flown, as was doubtless expected. The pretended efforts of Governor Endicott did not blind observers in England. One Mr. Lang writes Rev. John Daven port at New Haven, Oct. 28, 1661, "The Bay stirring soe much for the Apprehending of W: & G: signifie at present heere but little, because they were so long with them & then did nothing." Governor Endicott did not succeed altogether in saving his credit, but the Judges had fled beyond his jurisdiction and he was saved further embarrassment. They were well received as befitting their rank, by the leading men of Hartford and New Haven. They were probably sheltered under the roof of Rev. Mr. Daven port at New Haven, but not for long. Forced by royal mandate, on the 7th of May, 1661, Governor Endicott sent Thomas Kellond, captain of an English ship, and Thomas Kirk, a young Boston merchant, two zealous royalists, to search for the Judges, as far south as New York. On their return May 29th, they made a detailed Report to Governor Endicott. From this Report we learn that they reached Guilford, Conn., May nth, 1661, and had a conference with William Lette, acting governor. On the 12th or 13th, they arrived at New Haven. There some time was spent in ineffectual efforts to induce the magistrates to give them authority to search for the Judges. The agents were put off chiefly by pretended difficulties in matters of authority. They say, "And soe findeing them obstinate and pertenaceous in their contempt of his Majestie, we came away the next day in prosecution after them, according INTRODUCTION XI to instructions, to the Governour of Manadas," by whom they received civil treatment and fair promises; after which "Wee made our returne by sea to give your honor an accompt." To this relation they made oath. News of the coming of Kel- lond and Kirk was received at New Haven by Mr. Davenport in advance of their arrival, and the Judges were spirited away to a safe retreat. Later a search of New Haven was made by the authorities, which ended as intended. The Judges remained in hiding in and about New Haven and Guilford until 1664, when, learning that Commissioners from England had arrived in Boston with special orders to search for Whalley and GofFe, it was thought they were no longer safe in Connecticut; and on the 13th day of October, 1664, they began their long night journey through the woods to the house of Rev. John Russell, in Hadley. That little plantation was only five years old, but its sturdy stock, the pick of three towns, had already taken firm root in the virgin soil. The minister, who had led his flock out of a theological snarl in Connecticut, was leader still. Peter Tilton, the magis trate, stood next in position. All were men of strong parts and sterling principles; men to be relied upon should the worst befall. In this little town, deep in the wilderness, the worn and hunted men found a sure refuge. One of them for a certainty here finished his checkered career, and here I believe his ashes still rest in an undiscovered grave. As to the younger, General Goffe, doubts may properly be raised. From Hadley the exiles corresponded by letter with their friends in England and in New England, under assumed names. The question of the Indian attack on Hadley Sept. 1, 1675, and the appearance of the "Good Angel" GofFe to the rescue, will be considered in a general review of the evidence in the case. The wide dissemination of this story is chiefly due to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale College, in his History of the Three Judges published in 1794. For this work, Doctor Stiles attempted to make an exhaustive search in all directions for material, and he shows a commendable zeal and industry in hunting for recorded facts and traditions. Unfortunately, however, there appears to be in him a lack of the judicial quality. He delights to eat and drink of traditions, but he fails in their digestion. He plainly exhibits a certain twist in his make-up, which inclines him to give more weight to a faint family tradition, than to verified contem poraneous facts. In justification of this criticism, I will cite a single example. I have spoken of the mission of Kellond and Kirk to New Haven, and their sworn return to Governor Endicott. XII INTRODUCTION This Report is printed in full by Doctor Stiles. The salient facts are, that the emissaries spent three days in fruitless efforts to obtain a warrant to enable them to search for the Judges. Failing in this, on the fourth day, they left Connecticut for New York, without making any search; and from New York they say "Wee made our returne by sea, to give your honor an accompt." After giving this Report, Stiles comments upon it thus: "They arrived at New Haven the 13th day; and it should seem that they left the town the next day, and this without any search at all; and particularly, no mention is made of their interview with Mr. Davenport. But the constant tradition in New Haven is, that they diligently searched the town, and particularly the house of Mr. Davenport, whom they treated with asperity, and repre hension. ... It would seem that they [the Judges] were not in town while the pursuivants were here." Now, in the face of this Report and his own comments, Stiles in the same chapter gives page after page of obscure and con flicting traditions, which he tries to soften and reconcile, to prove that Kellond and Kirk did search several houses, and that the Judges had several narrow escapes in the process. Further, that the pursuers returned home from New York not by sea, but through New Haven, where they continued the search; for so say some family traditions. Such treatment of evidence warrants a very careful scrutiny of other conclusions arrived at by Doctor Stiles. The knowledge that Whalley and Goffe were concealed at Hadley was " first made known to the world " in 1 764, by Governor Thomas Hutchinson in his "History of Massachu setts." In collecting material for this history, Hutchinson visited Hadley, and sought to find and garner every scrap of tradition concerning the Judges that might have floated down on the years of a century which he knew had passed since their lot had been cast in that town. His errand appears to have been nearly barren of results. Apparently no one there had any knowledge or tradition connecting Hadley with the Judges. The result of his research so far as it appears, is this: "The tradition at Hadley is that two persons unknown were buried in the minister's cellar." That and no more. In 1793, President Stiles, while hunting material for his history of the Judges also spent some time in Hadley. He aroused the interest and secured the help of Rev. Samuel Hopkins, who had been the minister there since 1754. They made diligent search among the older people for any and every possible scrap of tradi tion or legend — "Even fabulous ones," says Doctor Stiles — in INTRODUCTION XIII any way concerning the astounding revelation of Hutchinson in 1764. Nothing direct or substantial was discovered. They found a few faint and shadowy traditions, varying and contra dicting one another, although all pointed toward the fact of strangers, in the long past, being concealed in the houses of Mr. Russell and Mr. Tilton; and that "one of them died in the town, those who remember which, say Whalley." The results from this search are embodied in a letter from Mr. Hopkins to President Stiles. There is good reason to believe that the names of Russell, Tilton, and Whalley were later additions to the traditions. In this volume Judd printed all that was obtained by Stiles and Hopkins. Here will be found faint echoes of the real state of affairs at Hadley which leaked out in hints dropped by some of those in the deadly secret, long after all danger had passed: One of these traditions which appears the most trivial, is in reality the only one bearing internal evidence of being authentic. It shows conclusively that as late as 1725-30, while there were vague rumors in the air easily referable to the Judges, nothing was publicly known about the facts in the case. There were only unrelated stories. This one tradition follows. Doctor Stiles states, that in May, 1792, he visited at Wethersfield, Conn., Mrs. Porter, "a daughter of Mr. Ebenezer Marsh, and born at Hadley, 1715, next door to Mr. Tilton's." In reply to his questionings, she told him that before she left Hadley, "there were many flying stories, but so uncertain that nothing could be depended on." She said that "When she was a girl, it was the constant belief among the neighbors that an old man, for some reason or other, had been buried in the fence between Deacon Eastman's and her father's" so that each could " be able to say that he was not buried in his lot; but why he should be buried in the lot at all, and not in the public burying place, she had never heard any reason or tradition. She said the women and girls . . . used to meet at the dividing fence, and while chatting and talking together for amuse ment, one and another at times would say, with a sort of skittish fear and laughing, 'Who knows but what we are now standing on the old man's grave.' " The significance of this extract from Stiles, of which Hopkins could learn nothing, will appear when we come to consider his declaration that the story of Goffe, the angel, was known to everybody about 1690. I will now take up the main object of this presentation, and give consideration to the letter from Hopkins to which I have alluded. It was written to Doctor Stiles March 26, 1793. I shall comment XIV INTRODUCTION only upon this significant passage which covers the gist of the Angel Story. "Most of whom I have enquired for tradition say, that while they [the Judges] were here, the Indians made an assault upon the town; that on this occasion a person unknown appeared, animating and leading on the inhabitants against the enemy and exciting them by his activity and ardours; that when the Indians were repulsed, the stranger disappeared — was gone — none ever knew where, or who he was. The above is the general tradition among us. I shall now notice some things which were in the tradition, as given by some differing from the above, or adding somewhat to it." Then follow the stories which have been characterized as misty, and inconclusive. In none of these, it must be noted, is there the slightest reference to the attack on Hadley September 1st, which Hopkins says in his letter, "is the general tradition among us." Whence comes this "general tra dition"? Not from the stories which he gathered from the old families, and quotes. The source is not far to seek. Hutchinson, as we have seen, could not find at Hadley the slightest tradition or trace of Whalley or Goffe by name. The total result of his search was the story that "Two persons unknown, were buried in the minister's cellar." That, in 1763, was the sum and sub stance of Hadley tradition. Col. Israel Williams, an intimate personal and political friend of Hutchinson, was born and lived all his days within cannon shot of the house of Mr. Russell, and had known hundreds of people whose fathers or grandfathers were contemporary with the events at Hadley in 1675, but he could add nothing to this meager information. If no trace of the Angel Story was to be found in 1763, how comes it to be so "gene ral" in 1793 ? In 1764 Hutchinson published his history. For the first time, the generation then on the stage knew that the two Judges had ever been given shelter in Hadley. Here then is the base of this general tradition of 1793. After this strange revelation by the historian, it became the common topic of conversation. The matter was, of course, talked over and over by old and young, until at length it was incorporated in the town talk, and the people gradually assumed that the facts had always been known in the community. In truth they had always existed, to those born after 1763. In view of what is now known, this seems a simple and justifiable solution of the "general tradition" of which Hopkins writes in 1793. We shall study Hutchinson's History only so far as it relates to Whalley and GofFe. When he wrote he had in his possession INTRODUCTION XV that part of the diary of General Goffe from May 4, 1660, the time he left England, until 1667. Up to that date Hutchinson's knowledge is absolute and cannot be questioned. After that date his narrative is more general although he held other original papers. The latter are now accessible and have been freely used in preparing this introduction. In his book, Hutchinson gives a general account of the arrival and reception of Whalley and Goffe at Boston and Cambridge, and of their sojourn at New Haven and Hadley. He says, "The story of these persons has never yet been published to the world. It has never been known in New-England. Their papers, after their death, were collected and have remained near an hundred years in a library in Boston." In a footnote of several pages Hutchinson enlarges; tells more particulars of their hiding and adventures at New Haven, until October 13th, 1664, when "they removed to Hadley near an hundred miles distant, travelling only by night, where Mr. Russell the minister of the place had pre viously agreed to receive them. Here they remained concealed fifteen or sixteen years, very few persons in this Colony being privy to it." This footnote closes thus; and here is the nut to be cracked: "I am loth to omit an anecdote handed down through Governor Leveret's family. I find Goffe takes notice in his journal of Leveret being at Hadley. The town of Hadley was alarmed by the Indians in 1675, in the time of public service, and the people were in the utmost confusion. Suddenly, a grave, elderly person appeared in the midst of them. In his mein and dress he differed from the rest of the people. He not only encour aged them to defend themselves, but put himself at their head, rallied, instructed and led them on to encounter the enemy, who by this means were repulsed. As suddenly the deliverer of Hadley disappeared. The people were left in consternation utterly unable to account for the strange phenomenon. It is not probable that they were ever able to explain it." We note this is not given as history by Hutchinson, but only as an "anecdote" and merely in a footnote. The mysterious stranger is not mentioned at all in the body of the book where he gives the history of Philip's War. Not only this, but he gives good reasons why the story could not be true. His notice of the affair described in the "anecdote" is this — "September the 1st, Hadley was attacked upon a fast day, while the people were at church, which broke up the service, and obliged them to spend the day in a very different exercise." This much of the "anecdote" was accepted by the historian, as there is no other authority for it. Upon this XVI INTRODUCTION Stiles enlarges, thus: "Though told with some variation in dif ferent parts of New-England, the true story of the Angel is this : During their abode in Hadley, the famous . . . Philip's War took place . . . and Hadley . . . was then an exposed frontier. That pious congregation were observing a Fast at Hadley on the occasion of this war: and being at public worship in the meeting house there on a Fast day, September i, 1675, were suddenly surrounded and surprised by a body of Indians. . . The people immediately took to their arms, but were thrown into great con sternation and confusion. Had Hadley been taken the discovery of the Judges had been inevitable. Suddenly, and in the midst of the people there appeared a man of a very venerable aspect, and different from the inhabitants in his apparel, who took the com mand, arranged and ordered them in the best military manner, and under his direction they repelled and routed the Indians, and the town was saved. He immediately vanished, and the inhabit ants could not account for the phenomenon, but by considering that person as an Angel sent of God on that special occasion for their deliverance; and for some time after said and believed that they had been delivered and saved by an Angel — nor did they know or conceive otherwise till fifteen or twenty years after, when it at length became known at Hadley that the two Judges had been secreted there; which probably they did not know until after Mr. Russell's death in 1692. This story, however, of the Angel at Hadley, was before this universally diffused thro' New- England by means of the memorable Indian War of 1675^ The mystery was unriddled after the revolution, when it became not so very dangerous to have it known that the Judges had received an asylum here and that Goffe was actually in Hadley at that time. The Angel was certainly General Goffe, for Whalley was superannuated in 1675." Here we have the story of the attack September 1st, and the full-fledged Angel enlarged from the "anecdote." Stiles has now woven it into history. This has been accepted by all historians, great and small, and spread broadcast over the civilized world. It is confessedly founded upon the anecdote — no other source of information is even hinted at. Doctor Stiles gives credit to Hutchinson for a new fact in Philip's War, which had been overlooked by all the contemporaneous historians. Hutchinson did indeed swallow so much of the myth as covered the attack; but he states distinctly, that GofFe could not have appeared in the fray, without its leading to his discovery and destruction. This was a self-evident conclusion. Stiles cannot be justified in INTRODUCTION XVII discarding this statement and foisting the Angel story wrongfully upon Hutchinson. Now a word about the origin of the "Anecdote." It was either one stroke of some imaginative genius, or as is more probable, the gradual growth of generations in the fireside lore of the Leverett family. Its roots were no doubt planted in Mather's story of the "Alarm" at Hadley September 1st, publishedini676. Itsbranches may easily have been scions grafted on the knowledge of the facts in the case, handed down in the Leverett family, that the Judges were in Hadley on that same day. This is Mather's account of what really did happen at Hadley Sept. i, 1675, as given in his history of Philip's War. "One of the Churches in Boston was seeking the face of God by fasting and prayer before him. Also that very day, the Church in Hadley was before the Lord in the same way, but were driven from the holy service they were attending by a most sudden and violent alarm, which routed them the whole day after." There can be no doubt that Mather's story of the "alarm" at Hadley was true. The same could have been said of Hatfield and Northampton, when the astounding news reached them of the attack that day upon Deerfield. No doubt they too "were in the utmost confusion," while making preparation for their defence. The usual method of Indians in warfare is, to watch chances for a surprise; then a swift stroke, and speedy retreat. But at Deer field the first shock was unsuccessful; the Indians lingered, and in a measure besieged the garrisons, expecting to lay the whole town in ashes; part being busy in plundering and burning, out of musket range from the stockades. In the meantime this condi tion had been discovered and reported by scouts from below. It was the first attack upon any town in the valley, and what would be their fate after Deerfield had been destroyed, was the main thought. Of course, the people of Hadley were "in consternation by a most sudden and violent alarm, which routed them the whole day after," and doubtless a sleepless night followed. We must always note that Mather does not give the story of the alarm as part of the history of the war. He was dwelling strictly upon the dealings of God with the people, and the effect of prayer in turn ing aside His wrath. The matter-of-fact Stoddard makes no note of this alarm. When sending Mather material for his "History of the War," he wrote only of the "Remarkable Passages." This alarm was such a trifle among the terrible tragedies of the two weeks covered by his letter, as not to be worthy of any note, and it is heard of XVIII INTRODUCTION only in the theological disquisition by Mather — save when it serves as a sub-base for the narrative of Stiles. Hutchinson says squarely that the knowledge of the Judges' concealment at Hadley "had never been known to the world" before 1764, just one hundred years after the event. Stiles calmly ignores this declaration, and says unreservedly that the story of the mysterious stranger of September 1st was known throughout the country in 1675-6, and that the stranger was believed to be an Angel until after 1688. Hutchinson was a Tory, his house had been sacked by a mob, and he had been driven from his native land. He died in comparative obscurity in 1780. Stiles was an earnest Whig, an ardent lover of civil freedom, a stout opposer of the Prerogative. Could he have supposed that the history of Hutchinson would also fall into disrepute, and be replaced by his own ? He knew full well how marvelous stories were adapted to the popular taste. We will now take up that part of the "anecdote" accepted by Hutchinson, and baldly say that the "Angel Story" could not be true for the reason that there was absolutely no attack on Hadley by Indians Sept. 1, 1675. The evidence to support this declaration is chiefly negative, but it seems to me that it is positive in effect. In a history of Philip's War published in December, 1676, Rev. Increase Mather, after giving an account of the fight at Sugar Loaf Aug. 25, 1675, continues: "Sept. 1, The Indians set upon Deerfield (alias Pacumtuck) and killed one man and laid most of the houses in that new hope ful Plantation in ruinous heaps. That which added solemnity and awfulness to that desolation, is that it happened on the very day when one of the churches in Boston [Mather's own] was seeking the face of God by Fasting and Prayer. Also that very day the church in Hadley was before the Lord in the same way, but were driven from the Holy service they were attending by a most sudden and violent alarm, which routed them the whole day after,sothatwemayhumbly complain, as sometime the Church did, ' How long hast thou smoaked against the Prayers of thy People.' Not long after this Capt. Beers with a considerable part of his men fell before the enemy. Concerning the state of these parts at this time until Sept. 15, I received information from a good hand whilst things were fresh in memory, which I shall here insert as containing a brief History of the transactions which happened within the time mentioned [Sept. 1-15], these parts being the seat of the war. The letter I intend is that which fol- loweth." INTRODUCTION XIX The letter referred to is in this volume. It is from Rev. Solo mon Stoddard, then minister at Northampton, dated Sept. 15, 1675. It is a long letter, reciting minutely the movements of the contending forces in the valley. Stoddard tells of the disarming of the near-by Indians, August 24th, the affair at Sugar Loaf, August 25th, and says, "We heard no more of the Indians till the first of September, when they shot down a garrison soldier at Pocumtuck, that was looking after his horse, and ran violently up into the town, many people having scarcely time enough to get into the garrison: that day they burnt most of their houses and barns, the garrisons not being strong enough to sally out upon them, but killed two of their men from their forts." He gives a full account of the tragic events which accompanied the dis- truction of Northfield, September 2-6; the second attack on Deerfield September 12th; the relief expedition, September 13th, and the arrival of Captain Moseley at Hadley, September 14th. Hadley is not named at all September ist,and who knew the events of that day better than Parson Stoddard ? Samuel Mather, nephew of Increase Mather, then minister at Deerfield, wrote his uncle the fullest account of the assault which has been found. With all this information before him, Mather gives not the slightest hint of any trouble at Hadley but the "Alarm," which was obviously on hearing the news from Deerfield. That was enough; for Deerfield, as I have said, was the first town in the valley which was attacked by Indians. Mather writes the next year a History of New England. Hubbard published his notable History of Philip's War in 1677. Several contemporary pamphlets and letters are extant, but not one of these affords a scintilla of light on the alleged attack on Hadley. We also look in vain in the History of the War by Cotton Mather, a few years later. In fact, not a single word can be found on the matter before 1764. If the attack September 1st were a verity, why this silence ? Judd attempts an explanation: it was because the Judges were concealed there. He says, "It was necessary at the time and long after, to throw a veil over the transactions of that day, which has been, and can be, only partially removed." Let us examine this explanation — does it explain! How could this silence be enforced! The facts must have been known to every person in Hadley, inhabitants and soldiers; to all in Hatfield and North ampton. The story must have been repeated to the hundreds of soldiers who came to Hadley that week, for there was the headquarters of the army and the gathering place of the forces XX INTRODUCTION from the East and from Connecticut. Silence might perhaps have been imposed upon the magistrates and ministers, but what of the miscellaneous multitude ? All must see the utter impossibility of keeping their mouths shut, when, in the very nature of the case, no reason could be given, without betraying the fatal secret. On the contrary, if the people of Hadley believed they had been saved from destruction by an angel sent of God, why should not this amazing thing be proclaimed from every pulpit with joy and thanksgiving, be discussed at every fireside in the land, and preached in every camp that they were the chosen people of the Lord ! This was by far and far the most important event in the history of New England; and how soon would the news have spread to the uttermost parts of the earth; and how would the literature of the times have teemed with the marvelous story. How the superstitious savage would have quailed in terror at this act of the white man's God! The bloody events of the current week show no such effect. If true, why do we not find traditions or recorded facts in the families of Barnard, Baldwin, Boltwood, Coleman, Dickinson, Hawks, Moody, Porter, Russell, Smith, Warner, or Wells, who were on the spot; or in those of Allis, Arms, Belden, Cowles, Field, Frary, Gillet, Graves, Hub bard, Hinsdale, Kellogg, Lyman, Munn, Montague, Marsh, Morton, Parsons, Pomeroy, Sheldon, Stebbins and scores of others in the surrounding towns, descendants of all of which families are now living among us ? Look at the contrast ! The knowledge of this wonderful deliverance of beset Hadley, by the act of the heroic Goffe, or the direct act of God, lay dormant and unknown for ninety years, to creep out at length through a tra ditionary anecdote handed down in a single family in far-off Boston, and then only preserved in a marginal footnote to a printed page. But Hutchinson, even, who published the tradition, did not believe the mysterious appearance part of the story, and the part which he did accept quietly slumbered for thirty years longer, until it was revived and printed by President Stiles, and so scattered broadcast as veritable history. It is certainly strange that subsequent writers should have fol lowed Stiles in the main feature of the story. Most of them added to or varied it, as their fancy dictated, or their judgment impelled. Hoyt can find no warrant for September 1st, and changes the date to June 9, 1676. Judd and Huntington find the attack was not on the meetinghouse. Holland adds many new features, following Hoyt in the date, and brings Major Talcott over from Northamp ton to be at the finish. Palfrey and Robbins add eloquent and INTRODUCTION XXI picturesque descriptions. Farmer makes quite a different thing of it and quotes conversation with Goffe. Drake accepted the story with great effort, and can only fix the date " Some time during the war." There is one trifling but amusing feature which runs through all the accounts. We are expected to be impressed by the dra matic exhibit, the venerable aspect of the stranger, his silver locks, his ancient garb, his flashing sword. Assuming that his wardrobe had not been replenished during his eleven years' stay, would it appear noticeably "ancient" in a land where garments were habitually handed down from father to son ? The man who wears my clothes is not pointed out on the street, although there has been no change in the fashion of his " garb " for well-nigh forty years. I do not believe the men of Hadley in 1675 were a bit more observant. The flowing locks of the old Round Head, and the ancient garb have been greatly overworked. I bid them a long adieu. Tbe supposed grave of Whalley. No one has ever been able to fix the exact date of Whalley's death, or the place of his burial. He was alive Aug. 5, 1674, but in a fast failing condition. It is generally agreed that he died within a few months. Of course, he was buried at Hadley. As to the exact place of burial, the tra ditions or stories gathered by Hopkins and Stiles in 1793 at Hadley are worthless. There was not one direct tradition to be found. "It seems to have been a matter of conjecture among the inhabit ants," half a dozen sites are guessed at. Taking an average, Stiles guesses that one of the Judges was buried at Mr. Russell's and one at Mr. Tilton's; that both were eventually removed to New Haven and laid near the grave of Dixwell, the third of the "Three Judges in America." No one is found supporting Stiles in this last supposition. Judd says, "It seems to be fabulous. . . It is certainly false in regard to Whalley, and is believed to be equally unfounded as to GofFe. The necessity of secrecy would have prevented the removal as it must be done by oxen and cart." Judd thinks Whalley's grave has been found at Mr. Russell's. His views are stated in this volume. I will give a brief abstract, and my reason for a non-agreement. Mr. Russell's house stood on the east side of Main Street, fronting south. It was built in 1660 with no cellar. Its flank was on Main Street, and in 1662 a kitchen with a cellar was added to the rear. In this cellar, if anywhere at Mr. Russell's, Whalley was buried. In 1749 the house had passed to Samuel Gaylord. His son Chester Gaylord, born in 1782, informed Mr. Judd in XXII INTRODUCTION 1859, that before he was born his father took down and rebuilt the kitchen end, and "the old cellar remained." The main build ing was not changed in any way. Chester said, that when a boy, he had often taken up a loose board and gone down to the hiding place of the Judges behind the chimney. In 1795, he said the front part of the house was replaced by a larger, the extension being to the south. The kitchen was left standing. Some of the changes involved I do not understand, but I quote from Judd all that is essential. "In taking down the middle part of the front wall next the Main Street, the workmen discovered about four feet below the top of the ground, a place where the earth was loose, and a little search disclosed flat stones, a man's bones, and bits of wood. Almost all the bones were in pieces, but one thigh bone was whole, and there were two sound teeth. A doctor examined the thigh bone and said it was the thigh bone of a man of large size. This and other bones were laid on a shelf and in a short time they all crumbled into small pieces." From the condition of these bones, I am convinced that they were not the remains of one of the Judges. They were too far gone in decay. It is more likely that this was the grave of an Indian buried long before Whalley came to Hadley. The grave may have been disturbed when the cellar wall of Mr. Russell's kitchen was built in 1662; most of the bones may have been scattered at that time. Reasons for my doubt are found in my own observation, reinforced by established facts. I have dug up many skeletons in my own home lot, owned in the family since 1701, and owned by other white men from 1667. Some of the graves contained bones in the last stages of decay. In those of more recent burial, the entire skeletons were in perfect condition. One of these skulls is now on exhibition at Amherst College, another at Worcester, several at Washington, all solid and in lasting condition. One was used by Hon. James S. Grinnell for an inkstand. Generally full sets of teeth remained, some much worn. In one case I found several decayed teeth. There could have been no burial here for over 200 years. Whalley had been dead only 120 years. John Dixwell, another of the Judges, died at New Haven March 18, 1689. His remains were exposed Nov. 22, 1849, one hundred and sixty years after death. The Dixwell family of Bos ton were placing a monument over the grave in honor of their ancestor. The bones of Dixwell were in perfect condition, the skull so entirely sound that exact measurements were made for INTRODUCTION XXIII the purpose of scientific comparison. He had been buried forty years longer than Whalley. I was informed by Miss Fanny Chesebrough, who had exact knowledge, that when the grave of Lady Alice Fenwick at Saybrook, Conn., was invaded at the behest of the heartless railroad, the skeleton was intact. On reburial it was found that nothing but a single finger bone was lacking. Lady Fenwick had been buried 250 years, more than twice as long as General Whalley. Within a few years quite a number of complete Indian skeletons were discovered at Hadley. It may not be out of place to notice here the growth of a story, which has just come under my eye. Speaking of this very grave, the writer says, "The remains of Whalley were found in a stone vault, outside the wall of Mr. Rus sell's cellar; it was covered by a single slab of hewn stone." Such is apt to be modern history as told in current literature. Another reason for discrediting this location of Whalley's grave is that the burial must have been made by digging on the main street, at the imminent risk of discovery, or by taking down part of the cellar wall from the inside, and making an excavation some three feet from the surface. In doing this, there would be great danger of caving in by wall and earth and consequent dis covery. Then the wall must be relaid, and no old cellar wall can be so treated without leaving marks of the process. Again, a body laid so near a rough stone wall must in decomposition soon betray the secret. If the burial was in the cellar, as it doubtless was, the simple and natural thing to do was to dig the grave in the bottom of the cellar with no risk of discovery, and where the marks of disturbance could easily be concealed. As to the necessity of concealing the grave of the Judges, Doctor Stiles says, "Such was the vigilance, activity and malice of Randolph . . . that both their persons and ashes would not escape his ma licious vengeance if discovered." It was known that the graves of their dead compeers in England had been violated in the most horrible manner. Stiles says further that so late as 1760 "some British officers passing through New Haven, and hearing of Dix well's grave visited it, and declared with rancorous and malicious vengeance, that if the British Ministers knew it, they would even then cause his body to be dug up and vilified Crown officers so late as 1775" treated Dixwell's grave "with marks of indignity too indecent to be mentioned." The Removal of Gojfe to Hartford. As I have said, the time of Goffe's death and place of burial are unknown. The general XXIV INTRODUCTION tenor of tradition at Hadley before treated upon, points to Hadley as the place. Whatever value these traditions may have, Judd believed the close of his career was in that town. Some of the stories there indicate his removal to New Haven, to Virginia, to the Narraganset Country, to the West Indies, to Hartford. This last tradition I think will be found true. Philip's War broke out in the summer of 1675. Hadley was made headquarters for the forces sent to the Connecticut Valley, and the troops must have been billeted largely upon the inhabit ants. It has always seemed a marvel that Goffe could lie con cealed in that little village during this confused and congested condition; and it is easy to believe that he might have been spirited away to Hartford. Scattered evidence that this was done will be briefly considered. While the Judges were in hiding at Hadley, they were in con stant correspondence with friends and relatives in England and elsewhere, under assumed names. Rev. Increase Mather acted as clearing house in Boston. Many letters are extant which were sent through his hands. Goffe passed as Walter Goldsmith, Mrs. Goffe as his mother, " Frances Goldsmith." She was the daughter of Whalley, who was "Mr. Richardson." Rev. William Hooke was "D. G.," his wife, "Aunt Jane," was a sister to Whalley. It was in the Hooke family in London where the wife and children of Goffe found shelter. Circumstances brought about a change of residence. In the difficulty about Goffe's making a connection with the new address, evidence appears that Goffe was not in Hadley. As we all know the war brought desolation to the towns in the Connecticut Valley in the fall of 1675. In the spring of 1676 Mr. John Russell writes to the Bay a letter foreboding ill from the Indians, "We must look to feel their utmost rage. My desire is we may be willing to do or suffer, to live or die, remain in or be driven out as the Lord our God would have us." All signs pointed to trouble in the Valley, and for its protection Major Savage was sent with forces from Boston, with Samuel Nowell as chaplain; and Major Treat from Hartford, with John Whiting as chaplain. It is assumed that the hands of both chaplains will soon appear in the removal of GofFe, and notices of them will have a bearing on the evidence to be presented. Mr. Whiting was a leading man in Connecticut, and a minister of Hartford. His wife was Sybil, daughter of Edward Collins, an agent and correspondent of Goffe. His second wife was Phebe, daughter of Thomas Gregson, prominent at New Haven, a close friend of INTRODUCTION XXV Governor Eaton, and of John Davenport, while they were giving shelter to the Judges about New Haven. Mr. Whiting's daughter Abigail married Jonathan Russell, son of John of Hadley, and after the death of Mr. Whiting, the widow Phebe became the wife of John Russell. With no such close family relations, Chaplain Nowell was of old Puritan stock, and was in full sympathy with Goffe and Rus sell. He never settled in the ministry, but held high office in the civil life of the colony, was intimate with clergymen including Increase Mather; was agent for the colony in England and often there. He was a man of action, was chaplain at the Great Swamp Fight Dec. 19, 1675, "where his bravery was much applauded," using, it is intimated, "other than spiritual weapons." When on the march from Boston to Hadley under Savage, March, 1676, he criticises the officers for being outwitted by Indian strategy and not making an effective onslaught on the enemy about Wenimesset. Again, on the return march to Boston, Major Savage had conditional orders about striking the enemy in the swamps near the route. Arriving at Brookfield, a council of war was held to consider that question. The captains were opposed, while the intrepid Chap lain Nowell voted for the attack. With the opening of spring, 1676, the Indians made attacks on many of the outlying towns at the Bay. The authorities at Boston became much alarmed. The alarm soon grew to almost a panic. As Hubbard says, "It was now full Sea with Philip his Affairs." Orders were sent Major Savage to forthwith leave the valley to its fate, and march to the protection of the Bay. Only a forlorn hope was left with Captain William Turner. Hadley was no longer a safe retreat for Goffe. Who so likely as the impetuous Chaplain Nowell to take the risk of a night removal to Hartford, where Chaplain Whiting had prepared a place for his retreat. From letters at hand, extracts will be given which bear upon the question of Goffe's removal from Hadley. Inference may also be drawn as to the bodily and mental condition of GofFe. Sept. 8, 1676, Goffe writes to Increase Mather: "Rever'd and Dear Sr I have received the letters from England that you enclosed to Mr Whiting and give you hearty thanks for your continued care in that matter. It is a great comfort to me to hear so fre quently [from my] so far distant and dear relations, and I esteem it a great mercy, that (through your care) all our letters have hitherto passed without any one miscarrying. My dear Mor [wife] writes that the last she received came safe tho' it wanted the outer covering they vsed to have. But she desired me to do so XXVI INTRODUCTION no more. ... I suppose their desire is that mine may be covered by yourselfe, as judging it most safe." This certainly indicates some change in location and mode of transmitting letters. In a second part of the same letter, Goffe writes, "I was greatly be- houlding to Mr Noell for his assistance in my remove to this Town. I pray if he be yet in Boston, remember my affectionate respects to him." This could not refer to the removal to Hadley twelve years before. It must refer to Hartford as we shall see. Sept. 25, 1676, Samuel Nowell, our Chaplain, writes: "For his worthy friend Mr Jonathan Bull of Hartford." The letter was evidently written for the eye of Goffe. Its spirit agrees with our estimate of the writer. "Hond Sr, — The day before the arrivall of this bearer, Mr Bull, I had written a letter to my worthy friend Mr Whyting & it was for your sake, in regard I did not know how to direct a few lines to you, & we have but little of news materiall stirring amongst us; there being no ship arrived lately from Engld. As for ourselves in New Engld, we are fearing a Generall Governour. How God will deale with us in our pres ent buisinesse is uncertaine. I suppose you will judge it conven ient to remove, if any such thing should happen, as that a Gov ernour should be sent; although if this man live who is Governour at Boston [Governor Leverett], I believe the country will oppose, but if his head be once laid I do question whether he that shall come next will have spirit enough, or interest enough, to with stand the Authority of Old Engld. I shall endeavour to give you as timely notice as I can from thence of whatsoever shall happen. I resolve to see your relations & so at present leave you under that Shaddow where you have been safe hithertoo. So desiring your prayers I rest, Yr very humble serv1, Samuel Nowell." It seems Nowell was going to England to watch the turn of affairs, and he would risk a visit to the family of Goffe. June 12, 1677, Goffe writes Mather, "I have rec'd yours of 17th May, with those from England, as also the 12th left with you by M N." — doubtless Mr. Nowell. There is no signature to this letter. While at Hadley, Goffe's address was "Walter Goldsmith." Aug. 30, 1678, he signs another letter to Mr. Mather "T. D." He writes: "I have received the letter you sent me very lately from my dear Mo : for which with all your long continued kind- nesse, I heartily thank you; and am really ashamed to think how I am forced to be still so troublesome vnto you." In his letter from his wife he learns that Mr. Hooke, with whom she was INTRODUCTION XXVII living, had died, and that she had removed to another place; but she forgot to name the new address, although she gave it to Mather. Oct. 23, 1678, Goffe writes Mather as "T. D." "I lately gave you the trouble of a letter with one enclosed to my dear Mother, which should have been sent to a Friend that was to have returned to this Town, by whom I hoped to have rec'd a few words from yow. But he falling ill, went not. So I was forced to give an honord friend, the trouble thereof, who saide he would deliver it with his own hand. ... I was forced to send that to my Mo : with a naked superscription and this also because I am ignorant of both the place & person appynted (since Mr. Hooke, his death) to direct them to. ... I should take it as a great kindnesse to receive a word or two from you, if you please to enclose it to Mr Whiteing, only with this short direction (Thes for Mr T. D.). . . . It would be a great satisfaction to heare that you have recd my letters, and that you know the best way of sending them to Eng land : & to be instructed by you, how to direct them for the future. Dear Sir, I desire to bear upon my Heart continually the many great concerns of this poor Countrey; especially of your Jurisdic tion in reference to the many awfull providences wherewith the Lord hath been awakening you." This refers to the political turmoil at Boston, and also to the prevailing small-pox. April 2, 1679, Goffe writes Mather again concerning "The various dispensations of Providence"; hopes he and his wife will receive "all the sanctified fruite of all hisdealingswithyou. . . . And for your whole Jurisdiction. Oh that the Lord would help all his people there, to humble themselves vnder the mighty hand of God. . . . Then would he hear from heaven & forgive their sins & heale the land." No one in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, would have written the above letters. Goffe was then in the juris diction of Connecticut. The next direct evidence that the lone exile was in Hartford is found in a long letter to him from Peter Tilton, his old time Hadley friend. Extracts are given below. It is directed, probably under cover, to Mr. Whiting, "These for Mr T. D. present." "July:30:i679: Worthye and much honord Sr, — Yours which I cannot but mention, dated Mch. 18: '78: I receaved, crying howe wellcome and refreshing to my poore unworthye selfe, (which as an honey combe, to use your owne similitude full of pretious sweetenes). I would you did but knowe, being a semblance or representation of what sometime though unworthye, I had a Fuller Fruition of;" referring to their former intercourse at XXVIII INTRODUCTION Hadley. Tilton speaks of sending several books and papers, one of which he wants sent back — "it being borrowed, only, of a neighbour, I being desirous you might have a sight thereof. I have here sent you by S. P. [Samuel Porter of Hadley ?] tenn pounds haveing not before a safe hand to convey it, it being a token of the love and remembrance of severall friends who have you uppon their hearts." He speaks of the great news from England, "which I presume Mr Russell hath given you a full account of, as understanding he hath written to Hartford, that I neede not tautologize in that matter." If Goffe were in Hadley, he might himself have borrowed the book, and Mr. Russell could have told him "the news from England " face to face. Tilton, however, goes on — "I know what is writt from England by good hands, which I have by me, viz. that the most sober and wisest there feare that Black Cloude hanging over the nation will breake uppon the Protestant Interest." After a page of saddening and gloomy items Tilton tries to give GofFe a gleam of encouragement in spite of the desponding information. "Deare Sir, I hope God is makeing way for your enlargement. In the meanetime my poore prayers for you are, the Lord would make your heart glad with the light of His Countenance, and that the Lord of Peace would give you peace allwayes and by all meanes; Remember before the Lord, your vnworthye Friend, willing to serve you. Vale, Vale. P. T." This tender benediction and farewell of good Mr. Tilton is literally the last word known to have been written to the misera ble prisoner of fate. The act, with which the evidence of Goffe's residence at Hart ford will close, has not to my knowledge been seriously con sidered by any historian. It has, rather, been spoken of as a farce — a bit of foolery by a worthless scalawag. On the contrary, I am sure the event is real history, although hardly sober history, for certainly the farcical element largely prevails, and the fashion of the drama is seen where a terrible tragedy is followed by a comedy. The action of the story exactly fits the character of the prominent actors. None of these are amateurs. All have been before in the public eye. Governor Andros, the feared and hated; Governor Leete, the daring suc cessful diplomat; Major Talcott, guest of John Russell; Secretary Allyn, the all-seeing; Captain Bull, the fearless and defiant; John London, the notorious and condemned liar. The stage is Hart ford, the denouement June 10, 1680. The prophecy of Chaplain Nowell had come true — a "Generall Governour" of New Eng- INTRODUCTION XXIX land had been appointed, and the time had now arrived when Goffe did "find it convenient to remove." April 20, 1680, John London of Hartford or Windsor, made an affidavit at New York "that Capt. Joseph Bull, Sen: had for several years past kept privately at his own house in Hartford, Col. Goffe, who went by the name of Mr. Cooke; that the depo nent and one Dr. Robert Howard of Windsor, saw said Goffe at Capt. Bull's house in May 1679; tnat t^ie deponent took measures to seize him and carry him to New York, but that one Thomas Powell, his neighbour disclosed his plans to Major Talcott and Capt. Allyn, — who caused the deponent to be arrested, charged him with conspiring against the Colony and forbade him to leave the county without license." He says that "James Richards who was the oldest member of the Council and the richest man in the Colony, was Agent of Goffe and that if he, London, dis covered the matter it would tend to his own ruin." At the date of this affidavit, Richards was probably on his deathbed, — he died June 10th. If so, London may now have considered himself safe in denouncing Goffe and claiming the reward. His movement the year before had terminated in a manner quite unexpected, and he considered Richards as the active agent. London was a worth less fellow, who had been imprisoned for deserting, malicious lying against the Colony, etc., and it was easy to squelch him in his attempt to secure Goffe. The validity of his story now rests on the attending circumstances. Doctor Howard and Thomas Powell named in the affidavit were alive; they could dispute his story, and as well, Major Talcott, Captain Allyn and others. Furthermore, the actions of Governor Leete,Talcott, and Allyn con firm the truth of the tale. On the strength of London's affidavit, Governor Andros wrote to Governor Leete and the Assistants: "HonbIe S"; Being informed by Deposicons here taken upon oath, that Coll. Goth hath been and is still kept and consealed by Capt. Joseph Bull and his sons in the Towne of Hartford undr the name of Mr. Cooke the sd Goth and Coll. Whaley (who is since dead in yor parts) haveing been persued as Traitors, that I may not be wanting in my duty, doe hereby give you the above intimacon, noe ways doubting of yor loyalty in every respect, and remaine Honble Sra, Your affectionate neighbour and Humble Servant, E. Andross. New Yorke, May 18, 1680. XXX INTRODUCTION How fared this dispatch ? Hartford was one hundred miles away. A post riding express should have delivered it not later than noon on the 20th. The Colony records show that it was delivered to Leete June ioth, twenty-one days later. In whose pocket had it reposed for three weeks ? We can only be sure that the owner of it was high in office and a good friend of Goffe. An affair of this kind was no new experience to Governor Leete. When acting governor of New Haven Colony, in 1661, he had dealt successfully, as we have seen, with the loyal messengers, Kellond and Kirk. Time was evidently taken to make provision for Goffe. When the coast was clear, it so happened that on June ioth, Governor Leete, Secretary Allyn, and Major Talcott, were together, when the letter from Andros was received, no doubt to their great surprise. However, they seem to have been so well prepared for it, that "before we parted" they were able to send forth a long patriotic and carefully constructed warrant, without one earmark of haste upon it, based as they say, upon "letter to us just now received" from Governor Andros. The constable and marshal were ordered in high-sounding verbiage to visit the Bull's and "search in the houses, barns, outhouses & all places therein, for the sayd Col. Goffe," or any other place where there is "the least susspition. Hereof you may not fayle, as you will answer the contrary at your perill." The next day a long letter was sent to Andros from Hartford thanking him for his notice, and telling him of their prompt action, " being togetherwhen we received your letter." Heis informed that after the diligent search, the officers "being upon oath, returned," that they "could find no such person as was mentioned, nor any stranger that in the least could be suspected to be any such person." They then say, "After the search or people were amased that any such thing could be suspected at Hartford, but the father of lyes is or enemie & doth instigate his instruments to maligne this poore Colony, but we hope the Father of lights will vindicate vs in his due time." Andros is cautioned against believing all the flying stories against Connecticut, and told that if their men be lieved all the stories against New York, it would breed bad blood between the Colonies. In every paper upon the subject the Gov ernor and Assistants are careful to say that their action was instant upon receiving the letter, but we find no note of inquiry as to the tardy pace of the messenger; as though four and one-half miles a day was nothing uncommon for an express. There seems no need of further evidence, that for several years General Goffe was at Hartford. INTRODUCTION XXXI The influences affecting Goffe's condition during the period are revealed in what follows. In the earlier years of exile, the Judges were sustained by the expectation of being speedily made free by the downfall of Charles II. They had constant news of the politi cal movements in Europe, and as the years dragged on with Charles in the ascendency, hope gradually died out, as may be seen by their letters. One by one the members of the " High Court of Justice" were taken and executed with the barbarity of Cannibal Islanders, some of them after a surrender on fair but false prom ises. Others were betrayed by fickle friends to curry favor with the Crown. Some were murdered in foreign lands. One cheering report came to their ears, that they themselves had been killed in Switzerland. Mrs. Goffe, with her children, had been safe with her Aunt Jane Hooke, at London. She had kept the absent husband in touch with all household events; the death of one child in her years of promise, the marriage of another, the birth and death of a grandchild; had shared with him her joys and sorrows. But a change was to come. Mr. Hooke fell sick and Aug. 5, 1674, GofFe wrote him a farewell letter. It was long and tender as befitting the occasion; but as "that Heavy word is not yet spoken," he still has "Hope the Lord may lengthen out your life & mine & so order things in His Providence, that I may yet see your face once again, even in this world, which hath indeed, nothing in it more Desirable than such faces." He deplores the necessity of his wife's removal, but hopes "the Lord who tells all her wanderings and puts her tears into his bottle . . . will provide some place where she may comfortably abide . . . and bless her & her poor afflicted family." It was soon after this that trouble began about their correspondence. Goffe was never able to find out the place of her abode. Goffe writes to Mather June 12, 1677, "I have recd yours of the 17th of May, with those from England, as also the 12th left with you by M. N., for all which & for all former kindnesses, I return you my hearty thanks, which is all I am able to do. . . . Dear Sr, You know my tryalls are considera ble, & did you know my weakness, you would surely pitty & pray earnestly for me." He hopes the Lord's purpose is to teach him a "Lesson by bringing & keeping me into this Desolate state." He finds in the Scriptures, " Good & comfortable words from the Lord, or any of his people are very refreshing. But alas, I am worthy of neither." Alas, indeed, that these longed-for words are so few. He misses Whalley, and at Hartford his horizon is more and more obscure. In another letter to Mather he writes, " Dear Sir, I Beg the continuance of your Love & fervent prayers, that XXXII INTRODUCTION for the good will of him that Dwelt in the Bush, the Blessing may yet come upon the head, the top of the head of the poor worm that hath been so long seperated from his brethern and allmost from all Humain Society." After Mrs. Goffe's removal from the Hooke house, a new chan nel for correspondence became necessary. Goffe as "T. D. ' writes in a letter to Mather, Aug. 30, 1678, that as regards Mr. Hooke, "that Heavy word has been spoken." He says "My Mo : writes that he being dead shee hath written to her Friend (by whom I suppose she means yourself) to send her letters to another place; but did so far forget herself, as not to inform me either of name or place." He encloses a letter to his wife, "which I hum bly entreat you to cover and send away, . . and also that you would be pleased to give yourself the trouble of writeing a few words to let me know what place & person it is, that my Dear Mo : directs to, that I may know for the future how to superscribe my letter to her." To this reasonable appeal no reply was ever received, and no better heed was given later ones. "T. D." writes again Oct. 23, 1678, "I lately gave you the trouble of a letter, with one enclosed to my Dear Mother . . . and hoped to have recd a few words from yw. ... I was forced to send that to my Mo: with a naked superscription and this also; because I am ignorant both of the place & person appoynted (since Mr. H. his death) to direct them to. I beseech you sir, to vse your prudenc in the safe con- vayance of them, for tho' my letters be of little worth, yet my Dear Mo: is pleased to esteem them a comfort to her in this day of her great and long continued affliction. ... I should take it as a great kindnesse to receive a word or two from you, if you please to inclose it to Mr Whiteing. . . It would be a great satisfaction to heare that you have recd my letters, and that you know the way of sending them to England, & to be instructed by you, how to direct them for the future I Beg your fervent prayers, as having more need of them than ever. I have been long in the furnace." April 2, 1679, the anxious and tortured T. D. makes another and last appeal to Mather — "I am also greatly longing to heare from my poor, Desolat Relations; and whether my last summer's letters got safe to them. It was a trouble to me that I was forced to send them to yourself so badly directed, and hoped to have received a few lines from you concerning it, and how you would have me direct them for the future. I Beseech you Sr to pardon my giving you this great & long trouble, and let me receive a word or INTRODUCTION XXXIII two by this Bearer. If I have missed it in anything, vpon the least intimation, I shall indeavour to rectify it, or reform for the future. Dear Sir, I earnestly Beg the continuance of your fervant prayers to the Lord for me & mine, as such as stand in great need thereof. I may truly say, I make mention of yourself in particular, at least twise or thise in a day before the Lord to whose Grace I recomend you & all yours, and remain, Dear Sir, your much oblidged and very thankfull friend, T. D. I sent you three letters last summer & hope you received them." How could the sorrowing husband and father account for the seemingly coldhearted refusal of Mather to heed his earnest supplications ? How can we explain it ? The keen hunt for Goffe was still on. It may be that Mather had heard or suspected that the Bull family at Hartford were more defiant than circum spect in regard to " Mr. Cooke," and he feared to trust his signa ture or the secret with them. The last words known to have been written by the sad exile are those which close the above letter, hoping that his letters to Mather had been received. With no assurance that this hope was well founded, without knowing that his desolate wife had received a single word from him after her removal; repulsed in all attempts to learn even the place of her abode; with his narrowing circle of faithful friends in England and New England; unable to account for the cutting coldness and neglect of the one who was the sole connecting link with his native land; helpless to offer comfort to his far-off wife in her loneliness; feeling that he should never more see the faces of wife and children, although he felt and had said, "This world hath indeed nothing in it more Desirable than such faces"; with a growing realization or fear of being a heavy, and perhaps un welcome burden; the proud spirit of the old soldier humbled and humiliated in a vain attempt to win even the pity of Mather; with a price set upon his head and an ever-haunting fear of dis covery, bringing ruin to his protectors. Was it not indeed time to die! and we seem to see the once lion heart of the hunted exile slowly breaking. General Goffe had played his high part before the eyes of watching nations. He had been a star of the first magnitude in the Lord Protector Cromwell's Councils, and acquitted himself bravely and well, as one having the courage of his convictions. Words fail to tell of the sadness and pathos of such a close to such a life. Did Goffe return to die in Hadley ? Shall we attempt to follow the fugitive from Hartford in 1680? No blazed path is found, XXXIV INTRODUCTION but we do find a faint trail leading back to Hadley. What little evidence there is points that way. Nothing is found opposing,. but the case is not proven. So far as we know there had been; no leak in the secret of Mr. Russell. Goffe had been driven away in the stress of war. It would still be a safe retreat and to all appearances a natural one. The diary of GofFe and his papers, including the letters written to him at Hartford by Tilton and Nowell given above, are found among the effects left by Mr. John Russell. How did they get there ? Would they not have been destroyed as a matter of precaution, had Goffe died else where ? Again, we have the untainted tradition found by Hutch inson at Hadley in 1763, "Two persons unknown were buried in the minister's cellar." It was the sum of all knowledge of the Judges, which Hutchinson could obtain in Hadley, or the vicinity; let that stand for what it is worth. Then there is the general probability, that after getting the consent of Mr. Russell he was transported back to Hadley; there was time enough for this between the opening act and the closing of the Hartford drama. It is pleasant, and is it not best, to follow these leadings and our wishes so far as to think that the worn wanderer came back to breathe out his life on the bosom of faithful John Russell;. and that he rested at last beside his companion in exile, under the sheltering elms of Old Hadley. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES As the author of this History passed away before completing the work, and as it is now presented as a posthumous publication, it may not seem amiss, in connection with some account of its production, to insert a brief notice of his life. Sylvester Judd was born in Westhampton, Mass., April 23, 1789. He was a descendant of Dea. Thomas Judd, who came to this country from England, in 1633 or '34, and who re sided the last part of his life in Northampton. His grandfather, Rev. Jonathan Judd, was the first minister of Southampton, and, after a ministry of sixty years over the same church, died in 1803. His father, Sylvester Judd, settled in Westhampton, in 1774, where he was prominent in the affairs of the town, and was a member of the Convention for framing a Con stitution for Massachusetts, in 1779. The mother of Mr. Judd was Hannah Burt, daughter of Samuel Burt of Southampton. At the age of thirteen, with only such education as the common school in those times afforded, he was placed as a clerk in the store owned by his father and Doct. Hooker of Westhampton. After remaining there about two years, he went to Boston, where he passed not far from six months, a part of the time serving as merchant's clerk. Here he fell in with persons of intelligence, whose influence was to stimulate him to an appreciation of knowledge, and to a determination to cultivate his own mind, so that his return to his former occupation in Westhampton, after leaving Boston, marks an epoch in his mental history. Whatever money he could now get was invested in books, and all the leisure moments intervening be tween the calls of customers, were given to their perusal. Yet this ill sufficed to gratify the thirst for knowledge that had arisen in his mind, and for many succeeding years, he was in the habit of sitting up until twelve, one, and two o'clock, engaged with his books. And here, in this little country town, with no stimulus from libraries, reading rooms, or literary com panionship, and with no assistance in his studies, save a little aid he received from the Rev. Mr. Hale for about six weeks only, and under all the hindrances from business he had to encounter, Mr. Judd mastered the Latin language so far as to read Virgil; learned enough of Greek to understand the New Testament in the original; acquired a very thorough knowl edge of French as a written language, and gained some acquaintance of Spanish. He went through a full course of the higher mathematics, penetrated deeply into History and Polit ical Economy, and made himself quite extensively acquainted with general literature. Dur ing this time, he exercised himself also in Composition, and contributed some articles to the Hampshire Gazette. Soon after attaining the age of twenty-one, he formed a partnership in mercantile business with Wm. Hooker, Jr. and H. T. Hooker, whose places of business were Norwich, North ampton, and Westhampton, Mr. Judd remaining at the latter place. In January, 181 1, he married Apphia Hall, eldest daughter of Aaron Hall of Norwich. In 1813, the above part nership was dissolved, and Mr. Judd carried on the business of the store in which he had been employed, by himself, and also engaged, to some extent, in farming operations. But XXXV XXXVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES his mind being always more bent upon the acquisition of knowledge than the accumulation of Property, the matter of dealing with dollars and cents was irksome to him, and from a variety of causes, his pecuniary gains were small, and all his business operations proved very dis couraging. The year 1816, he devoted mostly to the gratuitous superintendence of building a new meeting-house in Westhampton. In 1817, he was chosen representative to the Gen eral Court, which he attended, contrary to his inclination, as he had a great distaste for pub lic office. In March, 1822, Mr. Judd purchased the Hampshire Gazette, one-fourth of which had been owned by his deceased brother, Hophni Judd, Esq., and was then in the hands of his father. He took up his residence in Northampton, in April of this year. All his energies were now concentrated upon making the Gazette, not only an interesting, but an instructive, paper. It was far from his idea of a newspaper, that it should be filled with stories, anec dotes, and other matter, fitted only to amuse for the passing moment. He regarded it as an educator of the people, and occupied its columns with matter calculated to enlarge the boundaries of knowledge, and promote aspirations for further information concerning men and things. To enable him to do this, he expended money largely, in proportion to his means, in the purchase of books, from which he could furnish abstracts and extracts. The whole of the ponderous Edinborough Encyclopaedia, together with numerous books of Travel, History, Agricultural works, etc., were thus added to his library. His attention now began to turn to the early history of the Connecticut Valley, and he occasionally published leading articles upon Northampton, Hadley, and the neighboring towns. He early enlisted the paper in behalf of Temperance, and, it is believed, was the first who excluded liquor adver tisements. The Gazette was highly esteemed by exchange papers, and doubled its number of subscribers, in his hands. Although, in the main, he had embraced Whig principles, yet, he had nothing of the partisan in his nature, and his mind was ever open to the influx of what he believed to be the truth, coming from what quarter it might. In the party strife attending the administration of Gen. Jackson as President, he found himself, as editor of what had been a Whig paper, in a position so embarrassing as to result in his selling the Gazette in 1834. In reference to the subject, he wrote at the time: "The truth is, I have become too skeptical in politics to be the conductor of a public press. I have but little con fidence in politics, parties, and politicians. I dislike high whiggism and high Jacksonism, and cannot go with either." On laying aside his engagements as editor and proprietor of the Hampshire Gazette, Mr. Judd felt no inclination for entering into any new active business that offered, although his pecuniary resources were very limited. He therefore made up his mind to live on, in a humble way, upon such means as he had, thus leaving himself free for such mental occupa tions as he might be drawn to. At the age of seventeen, he had commenced filling manu script volumes with copious abstracts of Chronology, Biography, History, etc., with occa sional entries by way of Private Journal, which had been kept up, with more or less conti nuity, until this time. He now gave himself largely to Miscellaneous Collections, to a minute Diary, and to Genealogical, Historical, and Antiquarian Researches, particularly with reference to the towns of Hampshire County, but extending also to the whole state of Mass achusetts, and that of Connecticut. As the fruit of these labors, he has left about twenty manuscript volumes, entitled "Miscellanies," filled with an immense variety of little known, but curious matters, drawn from divers times and divers peoples, and gleaned from a wide range of miscellaneous reading. Here are found copious notices of our Indian tribes, vo cabularies of their languages, and facts touching their domestic life; the varied experiences BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES XXXVII of the early settlers of this country; English and Scotch social life and manners, dress, furni ture, etc.; prices of labor and merchandise, at different periods; religious dogmas, conten tions, modes of worship, showing, among other things, the great strife that arose in New England, at one time, respecting the use of books of psalms and hymns, instead of getting the words for singing by a process known as "deaconing;" the history of woman in regard to social position, education, etc.; opinions concerning marriage, divorce, and the relations of man to woman generally; snatches of old song and quaint poetry, as well as the higher inspirations of the poet. The above citations furnish but a mere hint, as to the multifarious and rare matter contained in these volumes. In his Diary of eight or ten volumes, which was continued with regularity from 1833 to within a week of his death, besides much that serves as auto-biography, and an exponent of his feelings, principles, and opinions, he recorded, with scrupulous regard to exactness, the tri-daily state of the thermometer; the changes of wind and weather; the different stages of vegetation; the appearance and dis appearance of birds, frogs, and different kinds of insects, their habits, and so forth. There are volumes of Collections labeled "Massachusetts" and "Connecticut." As a genealogist, it is stated by one well qualified to judge, that he "knew of no one who was his equal in New England." His labors in manuscript collections, amount to not far from seventy-five, closely filled, volumes. In the years 1842 and 1843, Mr. Judd was employed, for some months, by the State of Connecticut, in putting in a state of preservation, arranging, and indexing, old and valuable State documents. He was made an Honorary Member of the Connecticut and Massachu setts Historical Societies, and of the American Antiquarian Society. In 1856, he published a pamphlet, entitled, "Thomas Judd and his Descendants." From the early part of his residence in Northampton, Mr. Judd had entertained the idea of writing a History of Northampton and the neighboring towns. But, from various causes, this was deferred, from year to year, until 1857, when, at the earnest solicitations of persons interested in the subject, particularly Maj. Sylvester Smith of Hadley, he commenced the present History, with a list of five hundred subscribers. But, his physical strength had now become impaired, so that he was subject to many interruptions from ill health, and this, added to his extreme caution in endeavoring to verify all his statements, caused the work to progress very slowly. Yet he labored on, with an assiduity ill proportioned to his strength, and thus cut short his days before his proposed task was done. Paralysis seized upon a system, enfeebled by general debility, and accomplished its fatal work in a few days. The 18th of April, i860, witnessed his departure. He had lived within a few days of seventy- one years, and his mind had retained its vigor while his bodily powers were enfeebled. He 1 eft a wife and five children. Three had already gone before, among whom was the Rev. Sylvester Judd, the author of "Margaret" and some other works. He had printed about 430 pages of the 600 promised, and, it is believed, had little more to add to the work, except the Genealogical Tables, for which he had extensive materials in manuscript. His last conscious efforts of a business kind were expended in trying to send some directions to his printers. Immediately after his death, application was made to Hon. Lucius M. Boltwood of Amherst, for whose qualifications as a genealogist, it was known Mr. Judd had a high respect, to take in charge the finishing of the work, so suddenly bereft of the hand that should have carried it to its completion, and, much to the gratification of the family of the author, this request was complied with. It is regretted that so long time has elapsed in getting the book ready for presentation, but the delays seem to have been una voidable. With all due confidence in him who so kindly consented to take the incomplete XXXVIII BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES work in hand, Mr. Judd's own family cannot but experience some pain in giving the work to the public, without its final supervision by the author's own, careful hand. Did space allow, it would be pleasant to delineate, in full, the personal character of Mr. Judd; but a brief summary of salient traits is all that can be attempted. And first, it is obvious to remark, that he was eminently a self-made man, having relied very little upon others for his knowledge or opinions. He was also a progressive man, never wedded to the old, because it had been established by authority in some former period, but ever ready to believe that the whole of truth might not yet have been found out, and not frightened lest new discoveries should conflict with received opinions. In this spirit, the efforts at reform in education and morals met with cordial sympathy from him. While religion, consisting of duties to God and man, was always a cardinal element of his being, he was no dogmatist, and willingly accorded to all the right of private judgment. A strong sense of justice and truth pervaded his whole nature, and led him often to err on the side of right, rather than run any hazard on the side of wrong. In business transactions, he was so lenient to creditors" as to lose much that was justly his due, and in bargains of buying and selling, he was quite as careful of the interests of others as of his own. He could hardly be said to have a proper estimate of money, even for its uses, and not until compelled by necessity did he reckon closely his expenditures. For the present History, in collecting materials for which so large a portion of his life was expended, he did not expect to receive, and his family will not realize, any return, save the money actually expended in paper, printing and binding. In answer to hundreds of letters, asking for information, which he spent years in acquiring, compensa tion was seldom demanded, and not often offered. His memory was exact and strong, and his mental powers of application seemed hardly to know a limit. His original physical constitution must have been strong, to bear such a life-long draft upon it as was made by his habits of study. His eyesight continued unimpaired, long beyond the usual period. He was cheerful in temperament, and remarkably genial in social intercourse, being a cherished companion for the young, as well as for the more advanced. Although little demonstrative in the inner feelings of the heart, his affections were deep and tender as those of woman, and the ties existing between him and his family were too strong for death to sever. A. H. CONTENTS Chapter I Early settlements on Connecticut River — Controversies in the church at Hart ford — Decision of the council of 1659 — Difficulties at Wethersfield 1 Chapter II Application to Massachusetts for land — Engagement at Hartford to remove to Massachusetts — Committee to lay out a town at Norwottuck; their re turn, not accepted — Proceedings of the first settlers in 1659 and 1660— Settlers on the west side of the river — Courts of Justice — The new town named Hadley — Contest with Mr. Bradstreet ... . 10 Chapter III Division of lands in New England — Hadley Homelots and Street — Manner of distributing Hadley Intervals — East side and west side Intervals— Hatfield Homelots — Measuring Land — Common Fields and Fences — Gates ............ 22 Chapter IV Highways — Bridges — Ferries — Grist-mills — Bolting-mills — S aw-mills and sawing boards by hand ......... 34 Chapter V First Meeting-house — Bells — Mr. Russell, the first Minister — Salaries of Ministers — Hadley Church 42 Chapter VI The Grammar School or Hopkins School — Schools of New England — Gram mar Schools — Free Schools — Instruction of Females — Schools and Schol ars in Hadley — School Houses — School-masters — School Books . . 48 Chapter Vn Ordinary-keepers or Inn-keepers — Retailers of wine and liquors — Selling liquors to Indians — Trial of Dr. Westcarr — Drinks in the 17th century — Distilling — Aquavitae— Intemperance in New England ... 62 Chapter VIII Town Meetings — Townsmen's Accounts — Freemen — Town Officers— Pound — Town By-laws — Occupations of the people — Petitions of Hadley, in 1665, 1669 and 1670 ......... 68 Chapter IX Separation of Hatfield from Hadley — Proceedings of Hatfield ... 78 XXXIX XL CONTENTS Chapter X County of Hampshire — Towns and Churches before 1700 — Courts in Hamp shire — Town marks — Hadley cases in Courts — Presentments for wearing silks — Expenses of Courts — Transportation — Sleds — Prices of grain — Contributions for Harvard College 85 Chapter XL. Lands in New England before it was settled by the English — Indian Burn ings — Bushes — Burnings by the English — Wood and Timber — Fire-wood — Building Timber — Rift Timber — Clapboards — Saw-logs — Pasturing domestic animals in the woods ....... 96 Chapter XII Good land of little value to Indians — Purchases by Penn and Pynchon — Purchases of the Indians in Norwottuck Valley — Remarks on the Indian Deeds — How Hatfield was purchased — How much Hadley paid for land — The name Norwottuck . 104 Chapter XIII Indians near Connecticut River — The Norwottucks and their Forts — The Mohawks and their cruelty and cannibalism — The Mohawks in Hamp shire County — Talks at Albany — Presents to the Mohawks — Entertain ment of Indians — Wampum, or the money of the Indians . . . 114. Chapter XIV The Indian War of 1675 and 1676 — Erroneous notions about Philip — Im portance of the Nipmucks— Destruction of Brookfield — Mr. Stoddard's account of the attempt to disarm the Norwottucks, and of their escape — Fight above Hatfield — Deerfield burnt — Men slain at Northfield — Capt. I Beers and his party cut off at Northfield — Northfield deserted — Attack upon Hadley repelled by the aid of Gen. Goffe — Capt. Lathrop and his company slain at Bloody Brook — Deerfield abandoned — Burning pf Springfield — Attack on Hatfield ....... 127 Chapter XV Indian War of 1675 and 1676 — chiefly 1676 — Fortifications — Indians in the winter — War with the Narragansets — Destruction of Lancaster — Mrs. Rowlandson taken — Troops march to Miller's River and thence to Hadley — Northampton assaulted — Ambuscade near Longmeadow — Three men slain at Hockanum — Scheme to bring the five Hampshire towns into two — The Falls fight above Deerfield — Attack on Hatfield — Major Talcott arrives from Norwich and Quabaug — Hadley assaulted — Expedition of Major Talcott and Capt. Henchman up the river — Indians flee to the Housatonnuc and are defeated by Major Talcott — War supposed to be at an end — Persons killed and captured at Hatfield and Deerfield in 1677 — Recovery of the captives jci Fears on account of the attack upon Hatfield — Hadley fortifications — Num ber of persons slain in Hampshire\—Buildings burnt — Benevolence — Cost of the war — Headquarters at Mr.TRussell's — War taxes in Hampshire — Colony expenses in Hampshire — Soldier's wages — Flint locks and match locks — Praying Indians — Noises in the air — Garrison at Quabaug — — Posts — Hadley Mill, the parley, etc. — Surgeon — Ferrymen and others — Scenes in Hadley ......... 170 | Chapter XVI CONTENTS XLI Chapter XVII Bounds of Hadley and additions— rGrant of 1673 — Grant of 1683 — Land at the Falls — Grant of 1727 — Survey of 1739 — Controversy with Hatfield, 1707-1733 — New Houselots — Addition to old Houselots — New Street and lots — Grants of land — Skirts of Forty Acres and Hockanum — Fort River Pastures — Hadley Swamps , 185 Chapter XVIII Coined Money — Taxation in 17th century — Hampshire County rates — War rates and charges in Hampshire — Money rates — How rates were paid- Grain for taxes — Hadley rates, 1682 and 1687 — Changes in Hadley . 195 Chapter VTX ^ Generals Whalley and Goffe — Hutchinson's Account — President Stiles' His- / tory — The Russell house and the Judges' chamber . . . • J. ^f" Chapter XX The Militia and their postures and arms — Hadley militia — Hampshire Troop — Change in fire-arms — New Militia Law — New Military book — Bayo nets — Colors — Calling the roll — Watches — Alarms .... 215 Chapter XXI Witchcraft in Europe — In New England — In Hampshire County — Mary and Hugh Parsons of Springfield— Mary Parsons of Northampton — Death of John Stebbins of Northampton — Case of Mary Webster of Hadley — The witch mania of 1692 — Various notices relating to Witchcraft . . 224 Chapter XXII The Poor of Hadley — Story of Rebekah Crow — Marriages and Weddings — Funerals and Mourning — Hadley Graveyard — Titles — Names — Old Style and New Style 233 Chapter XXIII The second Indian War, 1688 to 1698 — Six persons killed at Northfield — Presents to the Maquas — Destruction of Schenectady — Troubles with Albany Indians — Persons killed at Deerfield and Brookfield — Murder of Richard Church of Hadley, and trial and execution of two Indians — Attack in Hatfield meadows — Expenses of the war — Pay of soldiers — The war in Hampshire — Hampshire soldiers — Taxes — Palisades — Contri butions 248 Chapter XXIV Execution of Sarah Smith and Negro Jack — Sickness of 1689 — Change of Government — New Charter, 1692 — Connecticut and Hampshire County — Third Indian War began in 1703 — Destruction of Deerfield andPascom- muck, and other events in 1704— Snowshoes — The war from 1705 to 1713 — Expenses — Taxes — Pay and food of soldiers — Captives — Scalps — Dogs — Dutch at Albany — Mohawks 261 Chapter XXV. Common lands — Division of Hadley lands now in Amherst — Division of Hadley lands now in South Hadley and Granby — The Crank — Highways and paths — Division of the Inner Commons in Hadley — Summary of Grants and Distributions — Hockanum — Peter Domo . . . 273 / I 331 XLII CONTENTS # Chapter XXVI face Equivalent Land — New Towns — Land Speculation— -Tar and Turpentine — Candlewood — Scarcity of Timber — Floating timber down the Connecti cut — Logs on the meadows — Rafts of boards — Carting by the Falls — Hadley Landings — Island between Northampton and Hadley . . 281 Chapter XXVII Paper Money, or Colony bills and Province bills — End of Province bills, 1750 — Old Tenor — The shad and salmon fishery at Hadley and South Hadley — Lampreys — Gatherings at the Falls .... 301 Chapter XXVIII, / Second Meeting-house in Hadley — Sounding-board — Square glass — Seats and pews — Seating — Spire — Clock — Weather-cock — Bells — Horse-blocks — Stoves — Plan of the lower floor . ..... 310 Chapter XXIX The second, third and fourth Ministers of Hadley — Ordinations — Inscrip tions on the Gravestones of four Ministers — Texts and Sermons — The Lord's Supper — Baptisms — Lectures — Whitfield — Minister's wood , 318 CHAPTER XXX Fourth Indian War, 1722-1726 — Expedition to the West Indies — Fifth War, 1744-1749 — Sixth War, 1754-1763 — Smallpox — Road to Albany — French Neutrals — Pirates ........ CHAPTER XXXI Noxious Beasts and Birds — Wolves— Wildcats — Bears — Catamounts, Crows and Blackbirds — -Woodchucks — Furred Animals and the Fur Trade — Beavers — Raccoons — Muskrats — Deer and Deer Hunting — Venison — Deerskin Garments — Wild Turkeys — -Pigeons — Rattlesnakes . . 344 Chapter XXXII Husbandry — Wheat, Peas, Rye, Meslin, Barley, Oats, Beans, Buckwheat, Indian Corn, Potatoes, Turnips, Pumpkins, Flax, Hemp, Broom Corn, and Brooms — Hay Grasses, native and foreign — -Cider and Apples — Apple Molasses — Beer — Gardens ....... 353 Chapter XXXIII Domestic Animals, etc. — Horses, Oxen — Fat Cattle — Butchers — Cows — Swine — Pork and Bacon — Puddings and Sausages — Sheep and Wool and trade to Newport — Domestic Fowls — Geese — Bees and Honey — Tobacco — Butter and Cheese — Flaxseed and Oil — Berries — Nuts — Maple Sugar — Soap — Lights — Timepieces — Blue Dyeing — Cotton — Rags — Sleighs — Carriages — Wagon to and from Boston — Time of Planting, Harvesting, etc. — Statistics of four Towns, 1 77 1 . . . . . 067 Chapter XXXIV South Hadley — First Settlement — First Meeting-house and Minister — Mr. Rawson forcibly ejected from the pulpit — Mr. Woodbridge settled — Con test about the second Meeting-house; one end cut down — The Parish divided — The First Parish — The Common — Schools — The Poor — Inn keepers and Retailers — The Revolutionary War — The Canal and Visitors — The Second Parish and Granby — Various matters . . . ^gy CONTENTS XLIII Chapter XXXV The Third Precinct, or East Hadley — First Meeting-house and Minister — Church Members — Minister's Wood — Deacons — Second Minister — East Parish — District of Amherst — Representatives and Justices — Plan to divide Amherst — The Revolution — Tories — Taxes — Mmute-men — Del egates and Representatives — Schools — The Poor — Innkeepers, etc. — Highways — Flat Hills — Physicians — Planters and householders— Insur rection — School dames . . ..... 404 Chapter XXXVI Hadley Broad Street — Wearing of the. banks by the river — New North Lane I — Injury to Hadley by the_ riyer^— FJoods^— Middle Street — Sidewalks — Shade Trees— Inhabitants in 1770 — North Hadley — Trees of Hadley— Mount Holyoke — Logs and Boards — Fences — Clearing Land . . 419 GENEALOGIES Genealogies of Hadley Families, embracing the Early Settlers of the towns of Hatfield, South Hadley, Amherst and Granby LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Sylvester Judd ..... Perils of our Forefathers The Churchyard, Hadley, England Table Stones in the Meadow Cemetery The Downlook on the Town from Mt. Holyoke The Birthplace of Bishop Huntington . The Birthplace of General Joseph Hooker The Russell Church and Hotel The Old Academy Building The Old First Church, Middle Street . The Famous Old Town Street . Frontispiece Page i . Page 106 Page 1 06 e . Page 150 Page 184 Page 184 Page 206 Page 206 Page 310 Page 418 HISTORY of HADLEY 'The Perils of Our Forefathers'' Sometimes called "The Angel of Hadley" Frifm an Old Engraving HISTORY OF HADLEY CHAPTER I .Early settlements on Connecticut River — Controversies in the church at Hartford — Decis ion of the council of 1659 — Difficulties at Wethersfield. The first English settlement in New England was made at ;Plymbuth in 1620. This was the beginning of the Plymouth Colony, which was united to Massachusetts in 1692. The old est town in the colony of Massachusetts is Salem, which was •planted in 1628. Charlestown was begun in 1629, arid the foun dations of Boston, Dorchester, Roxbury and Watertown were lain in 1630, and a beginning was made at Cambridge in 163 1. In a few years, many towns were planted in Massachusetts. - Previous to the settlement at Plymouth, some Dutch traders visited Hudson's River and Long Island Sound, and in 1614, they built a small fort on the island of Manhattan, now New York, and in the next year, began a settlement near Albany. These Dutch adventurers discovered Connecticut River, which they named Fresh River, and in 1614, Adrian Block sailed up the river as far "as Windsor. A commercial intercourse began between the Dutch and the Plymouth colonists in 1627. The Dutch gave the Ply mouth people intimations respecting the fertile lands upon Con necticut River. The Indians on Connecticut River were harassed and terrified -by the more powerful Pequots; and some of their sachems and others who had been driven out, made a journey to Plymouth and Boston in 1631, and urgently solicited the English to form a settle ment on the river, but the English governors declined the invita tion. The Plymouth colonists, whose vessels had visited the river, determined in 163310 build a trading house there. They were anticipated by the Dutch, who, in 1633, built a light fort near the mouth of Little River in Hartford, having1 purchased some 1 2 HISTORY OF HADLEY land of the conquering Pequots in June of that year. They in tended to exclude the English from the Connecticut. But in October, 1633, William Holmes of Plymouth, ascended the river, with the materials for a house on board his vessel, and disregard ing the menaces of the Dutch, he passed by their fort, and erected a trading house a little below the mouth of Windsor River, on a meadow that still bears the name of Plymouth Meadow. Holmes carriea to the Connecticut some of the sachems, whom the Pequots had driven out. In September, 1633, John Oldham and three others went over land to Connecticut River, to trade. These were doubtless the first Europeans, that passed by land from the seacoast of Massa chusetts, to Connecticut River. In November, 1633, Samuel Hall and two others travelled through the woods to the river, and returned in January. In 1634, men were sent from "the towns in the Bay," to examine the country on the river. Those who took a view of the borders of the Connecticut, found fine lands and good situations for plantations, and their accounts of the fer tility of the soil were spread among the people; and many of the planters in the towns around Boston, and some new-comers, resolved to take possession of these desirable places. In 1635, some of the Watertown people began a plantation at Wethersfield; those from Cambridge (then called Newtown) settled at Hart ford, and those from Dorchester at Windsor. In October, about 60 men, women and children from Dorchester, with their horses, cattle and swine, were 14 days in removing through the wilder ness to Windsor. The ensuing winter was unusually severe, and the privations and sufferings of the inhabitants were extreme. The country about Springfield was examined in 1635, but William Pynchon and his small company from Roxbury did not establish themselves there until May, 1636. In June, 1636, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Stone and about 100 men, women and children, with 160 cattle, traversed the forests from Cambridge to Hartford. They left Cambridge on the last day of May. The war with the Pequots occurred in 1637, and resulted in the destruction of many of that tribe, and in the subjection of the rest. The inhabitants of the new towns soon recovered from the dis tresses attending their first settlement, and from the effects of the Indian war, and many years of prosperity and happiness suc ceeded. They were industrious and frugal and their lands were productive. As early as December, 1644, the General Court were endeavoring to find a market for their surplus produce. They say, " Massachusetts and Plymouth complain of our over- HISTORY OF HADLEY 6 filling their markets." They built good houses and barns, made additions to their furniture and implements, and multiplied their conveniences and enjoyments. The first emigrants to Connecticut River, knowing that their productions must be sent to market by the river, and their supplies be received from abroad through the same channel, selected places where the river was navigable. Even Mr. Pynchon and his associates did not plant themselves above boat navigation. But the great Falls above Springfield, now at South Hadley, were an obstacle sufficient to prevent any settlement north of them for many years. At length, in May, 1653, seventeen years after Springfield was begun, a number of men residing at Windsor, Hartford and other places, petitioned the General Court to grant them a plantation at Nonotuck, above Springfield; and their petition was aided by three of the principal men in Springfield, who were very desirous of having neighbors in the colony to which they belonged. The General Court in the same month appointed three men of Springfield, John Pynchon, Elizur Hol yoke and Samuel Chapin, to divide the land into two plantations, and the petitioners were to have one of them. In 1654, the Com mittee reported to the General Court, that they had laid out the bounds of one plantation, on the west side of the river, extending "from the little meadow called Capawonk or Mattaomet, down to the head of the falls;" reserving the lands on the east side of the river for another plantation. The Indian title was purchased by John Pynchon for the planters, Sept. 24, 1653. The settle ment of Northampton began in 1654. The planters purchased Capawonk meadow (now in Hatfield) of the Indian owner in 1657, this tract not being included in the purchase made in 1653. Hadley, the second plantation in the valley of Nonotuck, or Nor- wotuck, was commenced in 1659, five years later than North ampton.* Differences in the churches at Hartford and Wethersfield were the principal cause of the settlement of Hadley in 1659; but if these disputes had not occurred, such desirable tracts of interval would not long have remained without cultivators. The church at Hartford was one of the largest and most eminent in New Eng- ?Hubbard says the differences in the churches in the years 1656, 1657 and 1658, "ended in the removal of one part of the churches and towns of Hartford, Wethersfield and Windsor to another plantation or two up higher, upon Connecticut River, the one of which was called Hadley, and the other Northampton." These partial errors of Hubbard are copied by Holmes, who fixes the settlement of both towns in 1658, which is not correct in regard to either. Religious differences had no concern in the first planting of Northampton. 4 HISTORY OF HADLEY land, and the two ministers, Mr. Thomas Hooker and Mr. Samuel Stone, though unlike in some respects, were both great and good men, whose praise was in all the churches. Mr. Hooker was firm and decided, yet prudent and conciliatory, and there was no serious trouble or discord in the church while he lived. In a few years after his death, which happened July 7, 1647, a contention arose, having Mr. Stone and a majority of the church on one side, and a strong minority on the other. Several on each side, were men of distinction in the town and colony. The origin of the difficulty has not been clearly stated by any writer. Hubbard alludes to different opinions concerning the extension of the priv ileges of those not church-members; and says, "the first appear ance of disturbance which on that account happened among them, was occasioned on a call of a person to supply the place of Mr. Hooker." He does not tell when this occurred, nor who was the person to whom a call was given. In another place, he says, the differences at first were "about the enlarging of baptism and such like accounts." Mather says, the misunderstanding began between Mr. Stone and the ruling elder, (William Goodwin,) but its origin was obscure. Trumbull supposes, "that some member had been admitted, or baptism administered, which Elder Goodwin conceived to be inconsistent with the rights of the brotherhood and the strict principles of the Congregational churches." The minority were attached to the Congregational way of church order as professed and practiced under Mr. Hooker; they seemed to adhere to the Cambridge Platform, and were opposed to all important changes. They were sometimes called "strict Con- gregationalists." On the other hand, Mr. Stone was endeavoring to introduce some new practices into the church; to effect some innovations that were displeasing to the minority; and he seems to have been sustained by a majority of the church. Trumbull is of opinion that his changes related to three subjects, and that the whole controversy respected them, viz., the qualifications for baptism, church membership, and the rights of the brotherhood. These three points require some explanation. 1. Baptism. Hitherto, only the members of churches in full communion, had their children baptized. Now, many ministers and others desired to enlarge the subjects of baptism, and a coun cil or synod from Massachusetts and Connecticut met at Boston in June, 1657, and decided that baptism might be extended to the children of such baptized parents as were not scandalous, and would own the covenant, though not members of the church in HISTORY OF HADLEY 0 full communion. Mr. Stone was one of this council, and is sup posed to have advocated the introduction of this new measure, this " half-way covenant," as it was subsequently called. Another synod met in Boston in 1662 and recommended the same practice. This alteration met with much opposition in both colonies, and was but slowly introduced.* 2. Church membership. From the first settlement of New England, only those who gave some evidence of their faith and repentance, were admitted to communion by the churches. There were individuals, perhaps many, who desired to have all admit ted to the Lord's Supper who had competent knowledge, and whose conduct was not immoral, though not professing to be re generate. No evidence has been adduced to show that Mr. Stone, or any other minister, or the majority of any church, at the time of the Hartford contentions, were in favor of such a lat itude in admitting members to communion. The council at Bos ton in 1657, which approved of "owning the covenant," was de cisive against receiving any to full communion, except those who manifested faith and repentance. It may be doubted whether Mr. Stone differed much from Elder Goodwin and the minority on the question of full church membership. 3. The rights of the brotherhood. Trumbull says, "Mr. Stone's ideas of Congregationalism appear to have bordered more on Presbyterianism, and less on independence, than those of the first ministers in the country in general." These ideas of Mr. Stone, with actions in some degree corresponding, will account for much of the controversy at Hartford. He was probably considered by the minority as claiming too much power, and encroaching upon the rights of the brethren.f The papers containing the chief points upon which the parties differed, their grievances and complaints, and the decisions of the councils that were called to compose their differences, have not been preserved, except the account of the proceedings of the ?Trumbull is mistaken in supposing that "owning the covenant" was not practiced in Connecticut until 1696. There is an old record in Windsor, relating to church matters, which states that Mr. Warham first began this practice, January 31, 1657-8, and continued it until March 19, 1664-5, when ne forbore, owing to scruples of conscience. Mr. Chaun- cey "set it on again," June 21, 1668, the church assenting to it. fin 1670, the second church in Hartford was formed by "strict Congregationalists" who had been members of the first church. Their sentiments were apparently similar to those of the planters of Hadley. They complained of opposition by preaching and practice to the Congregational way. This is now the South Church in Hartford. The first church is that under the pastoral care of Rev. Dr. Hawes. O HISTORY OF HADLEY last council in 1659. Indeed, the progress of the controversy is nearly as obscure as its origin. Councils from the neighboring churches convened ajjout 1654 and 1655, to reconcile the parties, but without effect. In June, 1656, a council from the churches about Boston met at Hartford and gave their advice. The aggrieved minority seemed willing to comply, but the church did not submit to the advice given. The same council from Massachusetts was again invited to Hart ford, and they went the latter part of April, 1657, and succeeded in effecting an agreement which was called a "Pacification," on the 3d of May. For reasons which do not appear, there soon followed what was called a relapse — a breach of the pacification, and each party accused the other of violating it. The parties be came more embittered and alienated than before. Mr. Stone and the church undertook to deal with some of the principal men in the minority, viz., Governor Webster Andrew Bacon and William Lewis. After this, the minority formally withdrew from the church, and were about forming a union with the church at Wethersfield under Mr. John Russell. This withdrawal appears to have taken place in the latter part of 1657 or in the early part of 1658. Mr. Stone and the church were proceeding with the withdrawers in a course of discipline, when the General Court interfered, in March, 1658, and prohibited the church from pro ceeding, and forbid the withdrawers to prosecute their object. It was apparently in the early part of 1658, that the minority of the church began to think seriously of removing to the colony of Massachusetts. They sent men up the river to view the lands east and north of Northampton. Others applied to the General Court of Massachusetts for a grant of land; they were favorably received, and obtained what they desired. In the spring of 1659, an agreement was formed, and it was determined to begin the plantation that season. In their grant from Massachusetts was a condition, that they should submit to an orderly hearing of the differences between themselves and their brethren. The former council from Massachusetts, with an addition from two more churches, were invited to meet at Hartford on the 19th of August, 1659. The church at Dorchester declined send ing their minister, Mr. Richard Mather, "in regard to his age and the difficulties of the journey," but intimated that they would afford their help if the meeting were somewhere in the Bay. It was finally agreed that the council should meet in Boston, on the 26th of September. They heard the grievances, blamed both parties, and proposed terms of reconciliation, which were accepted. HISTORY OF HADLEY / After this, the churches of Hartford and Hadley held communion with each other. Their grievances presented to this council had all happened since the pacification of May, 1657; there was no allusion to the earlier subjects of controversy.* The General Court of Connecticut, in appointing the annual Thanksgiving in November, 1659, mention as one reason for thanks, "the success of the endeavors of the reverend elders of the last council, for composing the sad differences at Hartford." This reconciliation caused much joy in many churches. On the 23d of October, 1654, Mr. Mather recited to the church in Dorchester, the determination of the council, "and the loving acceptance thereof by both parties, with their readiness to make confession of the failings of each to the other, for which we ought to give God the praise, "f The Council of 1659. The result of this council is among the papers of the Massachusetts Historical Society. It is a long doc ument, and not easily read. What follows is only an abstract, containing the substance of the decision. "A Council held at Boston, Sept. 26, 1659, concerning the long, sad, and afflicting contro versy between the Rev. Teacher, Mr. Samuel Stone, and the brethren of the church at Hart ford, on one part, and the brethren, the withdrawers from said church, on the other part, since the relapse, after the pacification of May, 3 1657." Six Grievances presented by the withdrawing brethren and answers of the council. 1. Mr. Stone's non-administration of the sacrament. Council. They think Mr. Stoned conduct irregular. 2. His sending for a dismission. Council. His desire of dismission, so soon after consenting to the pacification, was un seasonable. 3. His propositions. Council. His proposals of engagements to the church at such a time, were unseasonable and inexpedient. 4. Rigid handling of divers brethren. Council. The dealing with honored Mr. Webster was unnecessary and should have been spared. The dealing with brother Bacon for his first speech was of the hardest. His sec ond speech was more censurable, but might have been passed with a rebuke. We dare not censure the proceedings in brother Lewis's case, as rigid. 5. Mr. Stone's nullifying the instrument of pacification. Council. Mr. Stone's expressions, candidly interpreted, did not nullify the pacification. *Trumbull supposes that three councils from Massachusetts met at Hartford, viz., one in 1656, one June 3, 1659, and one Aug. 19, 1659; he omits the council that made the pacifica tion in May, 1657, or perhaps he transfers its transactions to the supposed council of June 3, 1659. There was no council at Hartford, Aug. 19, 1659, ^ut there was one at Boston, Sept. 26, 1659, whose proceedings in which are mentioned the other councils, Trumbull had not seen. These proceedings make no allusion to a council in June, 1659. ¦{¦Dorchester church records. 8 HISTORY OF HADLEY 6. "Concerning the church's separating carriages, not taking congnizance of our com plaints, and owning Mr. Stone in his offensive practices;" Council. Affairs seem not to have been managed with such impartiality, and encourage ment of the dissenters, as the state of things required. When Mr. Stone was blameworthy, the brethren who upheld him, were blameworthy. Breach of pacification is the principal point. Mr. Stone was guilty of actions which tended to unsettle the pacification, but not guilty of a breach of it. Six Grievances presented by Mr. Stone and the brethren of the church, and answers of the council. i. The withdrawers offered violence to the pacification. Council. They did break it by their actual withdrawing. 2 and 3. The withdrawers transgressed in separating in a schismatical way, and their sin is scandalous. Council. The separation of the withdrawers was irregular, as there was no just cause for separation; and if there had been, council might have been had, and the dismission been orderly. Though their act was irregular, yet we look not on them as schismatics, because they were led thereto by a mistake concerning the act of the council of 1656. They have all along desired a council. 4. The withdrawers are still members of the church at Hartford. Council. We admit that they are still members. 5. The withdrawers transgressed in publishing their papers. Council. The offensive or accusatory part, we judge to be irregular, in respect to exact verity, and in respect to order. 6. Their joining another church. Council. They cannot be members of two churches at once. We bear witness against such of the withdrawers as have joined another church, as being irregular. We desire that in case of mutual satisfaction given and taken, between all parties, that then there might be a returning of the dissenters into communion with the Hartford church. But if any of them, after satisfaction, shall choose to dispose of themselves elsewhere, and to remove their habitations, then our advice is that the church give them dismission on their request, and that such as have joined another church, do renew their covenant. We expect they will hold communion with the church at Hartford, and the church with them. The council closed with strong exhortations to the parties; and mentioned the great labor of the council at Hartford in 1656; the services of the messengers from Massachusetts, and the pacification of May 3d, 1657, and the relapse; and the labors of the present assembly. Signed at Boston, Oct. 7, 1659, by 14 ministers, viz., John Wilson, Charles Chauncey, Richard Mather, John Allin, Zech. Symmes, John Norton, John Eliot, Edm. Browne, Thos. Cobbet, John Sherman, William Hubbard, Samuel Danforth, Jonathan Mitchell, Thos. Shepard; and 3 delegates, viz., Richard Russel, Edward Tyng, Isaac Heath. Wethersfield experienced various vicissitudes, and most of the early settlers removed to other towns, and their places were sup plied by new comers. After a few years, the inhabitants became more stable and prosperous, and the village contained many in telligent and thriving men. Mr. Henry Smith, their minister, died in 1648, after preaching there eight or ten years. Mr. John Russell succeeded him in 1649. He and a number of the church entertained opinions in unison with those of the minority at Hart ford, while others seemed to sympathize with the majority. There was some difficulty at Wethersfield in 1658, and a complaint was presented to the General Court against Mr. Russell in August. HISTORY OF HADLEY 9 A few months after this, Lieut. John Hollister* was excommuni cated by the church. In March, 1659, he complained that the charges against him had not been presented to him. The Gen eral Court required Mr. Russell and the church to deliver to him a copy of the charges; and they desired the church to consider the matter and conclude upon some way to issue their sad differences. The town voted, December, 1658, that they had no settled min ister among them; and on the 24th of March, 1659, they chose a committee "to procure a solid and approved minister." The committee were to consult Governor Wells, who resided in Weth ersfield, and Mr. Stone of Hartford. On the 2d of May, 1659, the town chose another committee to engage a minister, prefacing the vote with these words : — " seeing it is commonly reported that Mr. Russell hath sent for his church to Norwottuck, to do some church act, whereby the town is wholly destitute." In June, 1659, the General Court judged it to be the duty of the inhabitants of Wethersfield to provide a minister. It appears from these proceedings that Mr. Russell preached in Wethersfield until some time in April, 1659, though the town voted that they had no settled minister, some months previous. A majority of the town were opposed to him, but a majority of the church seem to have adhered to him. In October, 1659, the Gen eral Court, referring to the long and tedious differences and troubles betwixt Mr. Russell and several members of Wethers field church, particularly betwixt Mr. Russell and the lieutenant, desired the churches of Hartford and Windsor to send messengers to Wethersfield to give advice and counsel. "And the whole church belonging to Mr. Russell's charge, lately of Wethersfield, is to be acquainted herewith." The meeting was to be on the first Tuesday in November. The result of this council is not known. In March, 1661, the General Court remarked that di vers members of the church at Wethersfield had removed from thence without notice to, or allowance from the court, magistrates or churches of that colony; those still remaining there were de clared by the court to be the true and acknowledged church at Wethersfield. It may be concluded from expressions in the records and other circumstances, that a majority of the Wethersfield church-mem bers settled at Norwottuck with Mr. Russell. The church was ?John Hollister, usually called "the lieutenant," was an influential man in Wethersfield. His daughter Sarah married Rev. Hope Atherton, the first mimster of Hatfield; and after his death, she married Timothy Baker of Northampton. 10 HISTORY OF HADLEY not large. Goodwin, in his Foote Genealogy, states that early in the spring of 1659, a'" tne members of the church, except six, voted for a removal. The General Court of Massachusetts, so careful to have the Hartford men separate from the church in an orderly manner, never suggested that there was any irregularity in the conduct of the Wethersfield members who settled in Hadley. Farmer's Genealogical Register says Mr. Russell was installed in Hadley. The correctness of this remark may be doubted. It is believed that the "church act" at Hadley, whatever it may have been, was not an act in which the aid or concurrence of any other church was sought. When a minister and a majority of his church changed their residence, no installing act was deemed necessary. Disputes in the church at Hartford and elsewhere continued long after Hadley was settled, but became less vehement. Mr. Bradstreet of New London, in his Journal in 1667, mentions that a synod was called at Hartford, to discuss some points concerning baptism and church discipline, and he expressly names the two parties, Congregational and Presbyterian. The Saybrook Plat form of 1708 seems to have been the result of a compromise be tween similar parties. CHAPTER II Application to Massachusetts for land — Engagement at Hartford to remove to Massachu setts — Committee to lay out a town at Norwottuck; their return, not accepted — Proceed ings of the first settlers in 1659 ant* 1^° — Settlers on the west side of the river — Courts of Justice — The new town named Hadley — Contest With Mr. Bradstreet. Capt. John Cullick and Elder William Goodwin, two promi nent men among the withdrawers, (as they were then denomi nated,) went to Boston and presented the following petition to the General Court, May 2,0, 1658: "Whereas your most humble servants, the subscribers, with several others of the colony of Connecticut, do conceive that it may be most for the comfort of them and theirs to remove themselves and families from thence, and to come under your pious and godly government, if the Lord shall please so to order it, and yourselves to accept it. We do presume to pre sent this our humble motion to your wisdom's consideration, whether we may, without offence, view any tract of land unpossessed within your colony, in order to such an end, and in case we can present any thing that may be to the encouraging of a considerable company to take up a plantation, either at Nonotuck or elsewhere, we may have your gracious allow ance to dispose ourselves there; or in case that be not, then within any of your settled plan tations, as the wise God shall direct us and show unto us; we being first of you, presume to tender ourselves first to you, which if you shall please to grant, we hope through the grace of HISTORY OF HADLEY 11 Christ, our conversations among you shall be without offence; so committing you and all your weighty affairs to the guidance and blessing of the Lord, we rest, yours in all due observance, Boston, ioth, 3d, 165S. JOHN CULLICK, |May 20, 1658.] WILL. GOODWIN." Their request was granted in the following terms: — "In answer to the petition of Capt. Cullick and Mr. Wm. Goodwin, in behalf of them selves and others, the Court judgeth meet to grant their request, in reference to lands not already granted, and further gives them liberty to inhabit in any part of our jurisdiction already planted, provided they submit themselves to a due and orderly hearing of the differ ences between themselves and their brethren." Consented to by both Magistrates and Deputies, May 25, 1658. In the same year, 1658, some of the withdrawers desired prop ositions from Northampton in regard to Capawonk meadow, which belonged to that town. In October, 1658, the town of Northampton voted to "give away" Capawonk, on four condi tions: — 1st. The Hartford men are to settle two plantations; one on each side of the river. 2d. They are to maintain a sufficient fence against hogs and cattle. 3d. They are to pay 10 pounds, in wheat and peas. 4th. They are to inhabit here by next May. The Agreement or Engagement of those who intended to re move from Connecticut to Massachusetts, is dated at Hartford, April 18, 1659, and is recorded on the first book of Hadley records. The following is a copy of that Agreement and of some proceed ings of a later date recorded with the other: "At a meeting at Goodman Ward's house, in Hartford, April 18th, 1659, tne company there met engaged themselves under their own hands, or by their deputies, whom they had chosen, to remove themselves and their families out of the jurisdiction of Connecticut into the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts, as may appear in a paper dated the day and year abovesaid. The names of the engagers are these: — John Webster William Goodwin John Crow Nathaniel Ward John White John Barnard Andrew Bacon William Lewis William WestwoooV^ Richard Goodman John Arnold* William Partrigg Gregory Wilterton* Thomas Standley Samuel Porter Richard Church Ozias Goodwin* Francis Barnard James Ensign* George Steele* John Marsh Robert Webster* William Lewis Jr.* Nathaniel Standley Samuel Church William Markum Samuel Moody Zechariah Field Widow Westly* Widow Watson* Andrew Warner Mr. John Russell Junior Nathaniel Dickinson — Samuel Smith Thomas Coleman John Russell, senior"'' John Dickinson1 — Philip Smith John Coleman Thomas Wells James Northam Samuel Gardner Thomas Edwards* John Hubbard Thomas Dickinson Robert Boltwood Samuel Smith Jr* William Gull Luke Hitchcock* Richard Montague John Latimer* Peter Tilton John Hawkes Richard Billings Benj. Harbert* Edward Benton* John Catling* Mr. Samuel Hooker* Capt. John Cullick* not fully engaged Daniel Warner 12^/ HISTORY OF HADLEY, 1st. We whose names are above written do engage ourselves mutually one to another, that we will, if God permit, transplant ourselves and families to the plantation purchased, on the east side of the river of Connecticut, beside Northampton, therein to inhabit and dwell by the 29th of September come twelve months, which will be in the year 1660. [Mean ing Sept. 29th, 1660.] 2d. That each of us shall pay the charges of the land purchased according to his pro portion, as also for the purchase of Hockanum. 3d. That we will raise all common charges, of what sort soever, for the present, upon the land that men take up: mow, plow land and house lot, according to the proportion of land that each man takes of all sorts; and all charges shall be paid as they shall arise and be due. from the date hereof. 4th. That if any persons so engaging be not inhabiting there by the time aforesaid, then, notwithstanding their payment of charges, their lands and what is laid out in rates shall return to the town: and yet this article doth not free men from their promise of going and inhabiting. 5th. That no man shall have liberty to sell any of his land till he shall inhabit and dwell in the town three years; and also to sell it to no person, but such as the town shall approve on. Agreed that all those persons that will go up within three weeks shall give in their names by this day fortnight, and then those that are so agreed shall take up a quarter together, and so those that follow shall take up another quarter, so they do it together, or so far as their numbers run. Agreed also that no persons shall fell any trees upon any lot of ground lotted out, or to be lotted out, but upon his own ground or lot, or against his own lot within ten rods of the same in the highway. The land to be lotted is either what is for the homelots, or between the homelots and the meadow. It is agreed also by the said company, upon the 25th of April, 1659, taat tneX w'" purchase the lands on the west side of the great river, above Napanset, if it can be bought, and that each of the said engagers will pay their several proportions to the said purchase, according to what they have put in to take up lands by, at the time of their said engagement: witness their hands, dated April the 18th 1659. At the said meeting William Westwood, Richard Goodman, William Lewis, John White and Nathaniel Dickinson were chosen by the whole company, to go up to the foresaid plan tation, on the east side of Northampton, and to lay out the number 59 homelots, and to allow eight acres for every homelot, and to leave a street 20 rods broad betwixt the two wester- most rows of homelots; and to divide the said rows of homelots into quarters by highways. Those men, being willing to answer the desire of the said company, did undertake the work. They desiring to make some beginning there for themselves, the company granted them lib erty, according to a former agreement, that they might choose in any of the quarters to lay out their own homelots, provided they took them together at one side of any of the said quarters. The plantation being begun by them and some other of the engagers, the rest of the en gagers that remained at Hartford and Wethersfield, with those that were come up to inhabit at the said plantation, did upon the ninth of November (1659) at Hartford, and about the ¦ said time at Wethersfield, and at the said plantation, choose by vote, William Westwood, Nathaniel Dickinson, Samuel Smith, Thomas Standley, John White, Richard Goodman, and Nathaniel Ward, to order all public occasions, that concern the good of that plantation for the year ensuing. The said Townsmen made a rate upon the 22d of November, 1659, for the paying of the purchase of the said plantation, and for the minister's maintenance, levying it at 50 shillings the 100 pounds, which in the whole sum came to 180 pounds; for the speedy gathering of this rate, we sent the rate down to the two towns Hartford and Wethersfield, that the charges might be truly paid and satisfied, by every man according to his engagement, as is visible in the engagement itself, that is dated the 18th of April 1659." There are 59 names to the Agreement, and one not fully engaged . Of these, 31 first named, from John Webster to Andrew Warner, inclusive, belonged to Hartford, except Samuel Porter, who was HISTORY OF HADLEY 13 from Windsor, but may have resided in Hartford in 1659. The next 20, from Mr. John Russell, Jr. to John Latimer, inclusive, belonged to Wethersfield; the next two, Peter Tilton and John Hawks, were of Windsor, and 5 or 6 of the 7 below Hawks, were of Hartford. Those with this mark, * 18 in number, did not remove to Hadley, or remained there but a short time. The General Court, on the 28th of May, 1659, appointed a committee of five, viz., three from Springfield and two from Northampton, to lay out the bounds of a town, according to the grant made May 25, 1658. The order follows, copied from the printed records of the Colony, and retaining the orignial orthog raphy, except a few contractions. "Whereas it hath appeared to this Court, that according to a former graunt to Capt. John Cullicke & Mr Willjam Goodwyn, in behalfe of themselves and ffreinds that desired to remoove into our colony, they haue begunne to remoove to Norwoottucke with seuerall familjes, and made some begining on the east side the riuer in order to a plantacion, and that there are many desirable persons hauing a pastor with his church engaged to goe along with them, with another who may in tjme be joyned to that church for theire further helpe in the worke of the ministry, whereby they are enabled not only to carry on a toune, but church worke also, — this Court, being willing to remoove all obstacles out of theire way, and finding the people so many and considerable that haue engaged, with seuerall others that would engage if there might be encouragement found there for them, doe order, that these persons ffollowing, viz., Capt. Pinchon, Left. Holyhoke, Deacon Chapin, Willjam Holton, and Richard Lyman, shall be a committee fully impowered by this Court to lay out the bounds of the toune at Norwottocke, on either or both sides the riuer as they shall see cause, so as shall be most suitable1 for the chohabitation and full supply of those people, that this wildernes may be populated and the majne ends of our coming into these parts may be pro moted. Voted by the whole Court mett together. 28, 3, 1659." The preamble of the order shows clearly that the Court deemed these emigrants from Connecticut to be estimable men, and a valuable acquisition to the colony. It also shows that the church at Wethersfield, (that is, a majority of its members) were about to remove with their pastor. The other minister alluded to, was Mr. Samuel Hooker, son of Mr. Thomas Hooker, of Hartford. He was then preaching at Springfield. In the agitation at Hart ford, he appears to have harmonized in opinion with the minority of the church. The Committee appointed to lay out a new plantation at Nor wottuck, made the following report, Sept. 30, 1659: — "In obedience to an order of the much Honored General Court in May last, appointing us whose names are subscribed, to lay out the bounds of the new plantation at Norwottuck on the river Connecticutt for the supply of those people that are to settle there; considering what people are to remove thither and the quality of the lands thereabouts, we have thought good to lay out their bounds on both sides of said River, viz. on the East side of said river their southerly bounds to be from the head of the Falls above Springfield and so to run east and by north the length of nine miles from the said river: And their Northerly bounds to be a little brook called by the Indians Nepasoaneage up to a mountain called Quunkwattchu, and so running eastward from the river the same length of nine miles: from their southerly bounds to the northerly bounds on the east side of the river is about n or 12 miles, And on 14 HISTORY OF HADLEY the west side of the river their bounds on the south are to join or meet with Northampton bounds, (which said bounds of Northampton come to a little riverett running betwixt two pieces of land called Capawonk and Wequittayyagg) And on the north their bounds to be a great mountain, called Wequomps; and the North and South bounds are to run west two miles from the great river; And from North to South on that side the river is about 6 or 7 miles. JOHN PYNCHON ELIZUR HOLYOKE SAMUEL CHAPIN WILLIAM HOLTON Sept 30 1659. RICHARD LYMAN A postscript. Whereas it's said above that their north and south bounds are to run two miles west from the great river; it is intended that the south bounds are the riverett above mentioned upon what point soever it run, and the two miles west respects the straight line. The deputies approve of the return of this committee desiring the consent of the honored magistrates. WILLIAM TORREY, Clerk. Respited till next court, [by the magistrates.] EDWARD RAWSON, Secretary. The report, it will be seen, was not accepted by the magistrates. Some of them had received grants of land, within the bounds laid out by the committee; and if they gave up these, they intended to take up other lands in the same valley. Hadley was never able to extend her bounds as far eastward as this committee proposed. Nepasoaneag brook, at its mouth, continued to be the northern limit. On the west side of the Capawonk meadow, then owned by Northampton, came up to the riverett, now Hatfield Mill river. Wequomps mountain was Sugar Loaf, now in Deerfield. All the transactions of 1659 that are recorded, may be found on pages 11 and 12. It may be presumed that the broad street and homelots were laid out in 1659; that a number of the engagers "came up to inhabit at the said plantation," in 1659, and built rude dwellings, where they lived during the next winter. Who, or how many, passed the winter there, cannot be known. The seven men, chosen Nov. 9, 1659, "to order all public occasions," and called Townsmen, were at the new plantation and made a rate, Nov. 22, 1659, and they, or a majority of them, probably wintered there with others. One of these Townsmen, Thomas Stanley, made his will, Jan. 29, 1659-60, in which he disposed of his house and land, "that are here at the new plantation," prov ing conclusively that he then lived in the new town. No record whatever remains of their doings in 1660, previous to the 8th of October, and it may be concluded that no public business was performed that required a register. On the 8th of October, 1660, a Town-meeting, so called, was held at the house of Andrew Warner, and it was voted: — That no person should be owned for an inhabitant, or have liberty to vote HISTORY OF HADLEY 15 or act in town affairs, until he should be legally received as an inhabitant — That all who sit down on the west side of the river, shall be one with those on the east side, in both ecclesiastical and civil matters, that are common to the whole; they paying all charges from their engagement, and all purchase-charges from the beginning. Those admitted for inhabitants on the west side of the river, are to be "inhabiting there in houses of their own by Michaelmas next," (Sept. 29, 1661,) and to sign an engagement by themselves, or some others for them. The votes or agreement at this meeting were signed by 28 persons, viz., John Webster, William Goodwin, John Crow, Nathaniel Ward, John White, Andrew Bacon, William Lewis, William^ Westwood,, Richard Goodman, Thomas Standley, Samuel Porter, Ozias Goodwin, John Marsh, William Markum, Samuel Moody, Zechariah Field, Andrew Warner, Mr_j2fan Russell, Jiinr , Nathaniel' Dickinson, Samuel Smith, Thomas Coleman, John Dickinson, Philip Smith, Thomas Wells, Thomas Dickinson. Richard Montague, Peter Tilton, Richard Billing. These 28 persons were perhaps all the engagers then in the new town, and included some who had not removed their families from Connecticut. Most of those who wished to settle on the west side of the river, signed an engagement for themselves, or their friends for them, to be dwellers there before Sept. 29, 1661. Some signed at the meeting, Oct. 8th, others Nov. 1st, and some in January, Febru ary or March, 1661. Twenty-five persons manifested an inten tion before March 25, 1661, to establish themselves on that side of the river, in the new town, viz., Aaron Cook. Thomas Meekins, William Allis, Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr., John Coleman, Isaac Graves (with his father, Thomas Graves,) John Graves, Samuel Belding, Stephen Taylor, John White, Jr., Daniel Warner, Rich ard Fellows, Richard Billing, Edward Benton, Mr. Ritchell (with his son,) Ozias Goodwin, Zechariah Field, Lieut. Thomas Bull, Gregory Wilterton, Nathaniel Porter, Daniel White, William Pit kin, John Cole, Samuel Church, Samuel Dickinson. Of these 25 persons, Aaron Cook and Samuel Church did not remove to the west side of the river; Ozias Goodwin, Lt. Bull, Gregory Wil terton and William Pitkin continued to reside at Hartford, Nathaniel Porter at Windsor, and Mr. Ritchell or Richall and Edward Benton lived at Wethersfield. Sixteen were permanent residents on the west side. Two of these signers, Thomas Meekins and William Allis, be longed to the Massachusetts Colony, and lived at Braintree. 16 HISTORY OF HADLEY s During the years 1659 and 1660, no permanent distribution of lands was made in the intervals or meadows. Men tilled parcels of the common lands, temporarily assigned to them. It was un certain how many of the engagers would become actual settlers. The grants to Mr. Bradstreet and others, may have discouraged some; various things operated to dissuade others from the under taking, and in the course of two years, many had changed their minds. New applicants appeared to supply their places, and there was no lack of settlers. Courts similar to County courts were ordered, by the General Court, in May, 1658, to be kept yearly, the last Tuesday of March and the last Tuesday of September, one at Springfield and one at Northampton. They were held by the Springfield Commissioners. In Oct. 1659, it was ordered as follows, concerning freemen and the new town: — "Those made freemen here, and who removed to Connecticut, and have now returned to this colony, are still freemen here, without any further oath. Those in the plantations on Connecticut River, who are not freemen, but capable by law to become so, are to be sworn by the Springfield Commissioners. The new town is to be under the power of the Spring field Commissioners in regard to County Courts, till further order." "May 31, 1660. Mr. John Webster of the new town at Norwottuck, is by this Court commissionated with magistratical power for the year ensuing, to act in all civil and crimi nal cases as one magistrate may do. He is to join the Commissioners in keeping the courts." Mr. John Webster, and the three Springfield Commissioners, viz., Capt. John Pynchon, Mr. Samuel Chapin and Elizur Holyoke, held a court at Springfield, Sept. 25, 1660 and another at North ampton, March 26, 1661. On the same 26th of March, the Springfield Commissioners were at "Newtown or Norwotuck," (so they call the place) and the following persons took the free man's oath before them, viz., Mr. John Webster, Mr. John Russell, Nathaniel Ward, William Markham, Thomas Dickinson, Andrew Bacon, Thomas Wells, John Hubbard, Nathaniel Dick inson, Philip Smith, Thomas Coleman, Robert Boltwood, Samuel Gardner, Peter Tilton. There were others who had been made freemen in Massachusetts before they removed to Connecticut. Jurors from the New Town attended the Court for the first time, March, 1661, viz., Andrew Warner, William Lewis, John White, Samuel Smith. Mr. Webster, an eminent man, died on the 5th of April, a few days after this court. At a meeting, May 11, 1661, it was voted that all the freemen should meet at the house of Goodman Lewis "upon the next 2d day," (meaning the second day, or Monday, of the next week) HISTORY OF HADLEY. 17 with a committee, to consider of some things to present to the General Court, this month. Some things agreed upon at that meeting, may be inferred from the following order of the General Court, May 22, 1661, copied from the printed records: — "On the motion of the inhabitants of the new plantation nere Northampton, relating to sundry particulars, it is ordered by this Court, that the sd toune shall be called Hadley, and that for the better gouernment of the people, & suppressing of sinns there, some meete persons, annually presented by the freemen vnto this, shall be commissioned and empowred to act in seuerall services as followeth: first, the sajd commissioners, together with the com missioners of Springfeild and Northampton, or the greater part of them, shall haue liberty & be impowred to keepe ye Courts appointed at Springfeild & Northampton; secondly, that the said commissioners for Hadley shall and are hereby empowred, without a jury, to heare & determine all ciuil actions not exceeding fiue pounds; 3dly, that the sajd commis sioners for Hadley shall & are hereby empowred to deale in all criminall cases according to laue, where the penalty shall not exceed tenn stripes for one offence; provided, that it shall be lawfull for any person sentenced by the sajd commissioners, either in ciuil or criminall cases, to appeale to the Court at Springfeild or Northampton; fourthly, that the persons for the yeare ensuing, & till others be nominated & chosen, for the toune of Hadley, appointed & authorized as aforesajd, are, Andrew Bacon, Mr. Samuell Smith, & Mr Wm Westwood; 5thly,that the commissioners hereby appointed shall take theire oathes before Capt. Pinchon for the faithfull discharge of theire duty therein, who is hereby authorized to administer the same vnto them. It is also ordered by this Court, that the jurymen freemen for trialls at Springfeild & Northampton Courts shall take information & make presentments to ye Court of misdemeanors, as grand jurymen vsually doe, or ought to doe, and that the clarke of the Court for Springfeild & Northampton send forth warrants to the three tounes for jurymen, with respect to the ease of travill to each Court, & yt Mr John Russell, Sen, be clarke of ye writts for Hadley, and yt Mr Westwood, or, in his absence, one of the other commissioners, are hereby authorized to joyne persons in marriage at Hadley." This place, previously denominated the new town, the new plantation, or Norwottuck, was by the preceding act named Had ley, and the incorporation of the town is commonly dated from the same act. The old towns in Massachusetts were not made legal bodies by any regular act of incorporation. A few words, declaring a place to be a town, and giving it a name, conferred all the powers and privileges of a town; and in some instances, the mere naming of a place seems to have been equivalent to an act of incorporation. In regard to Springfield and Northampton, no transaction of the General Court is recorded, which can be called an incorporation. Hadley, when it was named in 1661, had no established bound aries, on either side of the river. The first purchases of the Indians had been made, viz., one on the east side, Dec. 25, 1658, and two on the west side in 1660. The three purchases cost the inhabit ants 150 pounds. Hadley was named from Hadleigh or Hadley, a town in Eng land, in the county of Suffolk, situated on the small river Berton, a branch of the Stour, a few miles west of Ipswich and east of 18 HISTORY OF HADLEY Sudbury. It is not far from the northern boundary of Essex, a county from which came many of the early settlers of Hartford. The Saxon name of Hadleigh was Headlege, according to Cam den. When he wrote, about 1600, it was famous for making woolen cloths. In 181 1, the population was 2592, and it had a handsome church. It may be conjectured that some of the first planters of Hadley came from the town of the same name in England. No record remains to show who they were. The name in the town and county records is sometimes written Hadleigh. Hadley chose five townsmen in December, 1660, and these men held the office 13 months, though what is deemed an act of incor poration took place about 5 months after they were chosen. Others continued in office without a new choice. The judicial power conferred upon the Hadley commissioners under the 2d and 3d heads, in the order of May, 1661, was unusual and it was abrogated and made null in 1663. The commissioners of the three towns were empowered, in 1661, to hold courts at Springfield and Northampton, but the Northampton and Hadley commissioners do not appear as judges of these courts until March 31, 1663. The General Court in 1653, when they appointed a committee to divide the land at Nonotuck into two plantations, evidently contemplated a plantation on the eastern, as well as one on the western side of the river. Yet through forgetfulness, inattention or ignorance of this part of the colony, the General Court in May, 1657, permitted Mr. Simon Bradstreet, to whom they had pre viously granted 700 acres, to take up his grant on the eastern side of Connecticut River, in the vicinity of Northampton. They also granted to Maj. Daniel Denison, 500 acres, and to Mr. Sam uel Symonds, 300 acres, near Mr. Bradstreet's. Gen. Humphrey Atherton also had a grant of 500 acres "at Nonotucke beyond Springfield," May 26, 1658. There were no deputies present from Springfield and North ampton in 1657 and 1658, and those from the eastern towns knew very little about this remote region of "Nonotucke beyond Spring field." But those individuals who obtained grants of land upon the river, were not ignorant of their value, and not unmindful of their own interests. On the 27th of May, 1659, after it was ascertained that the Connecticut people were about to remove to Norwottuck, the Deputies passed the following vote, and the Magistrates con sented : — HISTORY OF HADLEY 19 The Court have granted to Mr. Bradstreet, Mr. Symonds, Maj. Gen. Denison and Maj. Atherton, each of them, a farm, which they intended to take upon Connecticut River, above Springfield; but as the taking it there will be very prejudicial to the new plantation, now going on there, which this Court is very willing to encourage, the Deputies desire the four Magistrates to find out some other place to take their farms in, and if it shall not be equal in respect to quality, it may be made up in quantity. In November, 1659, the Court added 200 acres to Maj. Ather- ton's grant, and he took the 700 acres at Waranoke; on the 31st of May, 1660, the Court added to Mr. Bradstreet's grant, 300 acres, to Mr. Symond's, 100 acres, and to Maj. Gen. Denison's, 300 acres, in consideration of their having resigned their former grants, for the accommodation of the new town. And they had liberty to take up their lands in any place on the west side of the river, "provided it be full six miles from the place now intended for Northampton meeting house, upon a straight line;" or they might take their grants elsewhere in unappropriated lands. Mr. Bradstreet was to have the first choice. Mr. Symonds took his land elsewhere; but Mr. Bradstreet determined to take 500 of his 1000 acres on the west side of the river; and Maj. Gen. Denison, 500 of his 800 acres, near Mr. Bradstreet's. Hadley did not complain of the decision of the General Court, and Mr. Bradstreet did not apparently manifest any dissatis faction for about two years, but after he was sent to England as an agent of the colony, his son Samuel Bradstreet sent a petition to the General Court at the May session, 1662, stating that his father had chosen 500 acres on the west side of Connecticut River, betwixt 5 and 6 miles in a straight line from Northampton meet ing house, "being for the most part compassed about with a great brook, a long pond or ponds and Connecticut River." He re quested a confirmation of this land for his father, and used some flimsy arguments to show that his father ought to have it, though he had not gone 6 miles from Northampton meeting house. It is hardly to be supposed that the Magistrates were much in fluenced by his arguments; yet they wished to do Mr. Bradstreet a favor, and were willing that he should have the land petitioned for. The Deputies did not consent, but said the grant must begin full 6 miles from Northampton meeting house, as before ordered. The subject was again presented to the Court at the October session, 1662, and the Deputies again gave Mr. Bradstreet his 500 acres north of the 6 miles. The Magistrates did not consent to this, but gave Mr. Bradstreet the land where he desired it, south of the 6 miles line, and the Deputies finally agreed with them. The Deputies did not manifest as much perseverance as in some 20 HISTORY OF HADLEY other cases, when contending with the Magistrates or Upper House; and thus was consummated an act which Hadley people judged to be one of great injustice towards them; it was directly contrary to the order of May 31, 1660. This decision produced much excitement in Hadley. The land now granted to Mr. Bradstreet was an important interval or meadow, from which the settlers on the west side of the river had received, or were to receive, a large portion of their interval land. It was called the Higher Meadow, the North Meadow, and the Great Meadow. Its boundaries still are brooks, ponds and the river, and the southern part is within about a mile of Hatfield meeting house. It included near a fourth part of all the interval on both sides of the river. At the next General Court, May, 1663, earnest petitions were sent from the church and town of Hadley, and one from North ampton in behalf of Hadley. They all believed that the act giving the Great Meadow to Mr. Bradstreet was not equitable. "The church of Christ in Hadley," in their petition, say, "we ask only what we have a right unto, derived from yourselves." They refer to the encouragement at first given by the court for them to settle at Hadley, and to the subsequent order requiring the gentlemen who had grants not to come within six miles of Northampton Meeting House. They request that this order may stand sure and steadfast. They estimate the interval given to Mr. Bradstreet, at "about one-fourth part of their serviceable land." They conclude with these words: — "the thing is likely to leave the house of God unfurnished amongst us as well as our civil society." The petition is signed by John Russell, Pastor; Will. Goodwin, Ruling Elder; Nathaniel Dickinson and Peter Tilton, Deacons, in the name of the church. Henry Clarke, Andrew Bacon and William Westwood signed the petition in the name of the town of Hadley, May 25, 1663. This petition is much longer than that of the church and would fill two or three pages of this book. Some extracts and abstracts follow. ,They request the General Court — "to lend a listening ear to our cry, occasioned by our present necessity and distress. Having viewed this place, although we found it bare and mean enough, in itself to answer our ends, and accompanied with many inconveniences besides the great one of its remoteness, yet considering the court's encouraging answer to our motion, we doubted not of enjoying what the place would afford." They then refer to the committee, appointed in May, 1659, to lay out the bounds of the plantation, who allotted to them the land they were pleading for, as appears by their return. "All the land here would not be sufficient for such a competency as was thought not too much for our neighbors in the next plantation; [Northampton] yet they think their neighbors will find their place hard and the work heavy enough. They complain because so much land was given to Mr. Bradstreet and Maj. Gen. Denison "which discouraged some of our company, and several fell off, and among others, our dear and precious help in the ministry, Mr. Hooker." "As to our engrossing too much land, ten of the greatest men amongst us have not so much inter val land as this farm Mr. Bradstreet pleads for, and that within three-fourths of a mile of our houses, and the furtherest part of it within one mile and three-fourths of our houses." — "The place (Hadley) has proved far worse for wintering cattle than was expected; and the transportation of other things is tedious. We have purchased of the Indians at such rates as we believe never any plantation in New England was purchased." HISTORY OF HADLEY 21 Northampton was interested in the prosperity of these new settlements, being very desirous of neighbors on both sides of the river. A petition was therefore signed by 35 of the inhabitants of Northampton, in favor of the people of Hadley, May 19, 1663. Some extracts follow: — Our brethren profess themselves to have set down there confiding in the honored court's grant. The accommodations they have there, if they have all they expected, are but mean and very inconvenient for such a company, the uplands here being of inconsiderable value to what they are in other places. What is raised here is at small price, foreign commodities are dear, and the charge and trouble in transporting by land near 50 miles, will be more felt by those that do it than others can readily conceive of. Should they fail of a supply of food and clothing for their families, and many remove elsewhere, and the plantation be scattered, how much should we be disappointed who have hoped for the comfort and refresh ing of Christian neighborhood. May it please the honored court, to take such order in the case as that the worthy gentlemen concerned may be no losers, and yet our societies not broken, nor our beginnings routed, nor the work of the Lord hindered. On the nth of June, 1663, Mr. Bradstreet sent to the General Court, a protest against the claims of Hadley, and referred to the decision in his favor in October, 1662. The Court adhered to that decision, and the petitions in favor of Hadley were unavailing. At the October session, 1663, the south line of Maj. Denison's farm was fixed at an oak tree, at the side of a great plain, near a swamp, about six miles from Northampton meeting house; the line to run east and west from the oak tree; and to extend to the north one mile on the river, and then west from the river far enough to make 500 acres. The south line of this farm seems to have been then considered the north line of Hadley on the west side of the river, Mr. Bradstreet's farm being included in the township. The lands had been so allotted on both sides of the river, that it became necessary to purchase Mr. Bradstreet's farm, even at a high price, in order to give the planters on the west side, their pro portion of meadow land. In April, 1664, Lieut. Samuel Smith was empowered by the town to purchase this farm, but he was not to exceed 200 pounds. Mr. Bradstreet would not sell for this sum. At length it was agreed that he should have 200 pounds, and 1000 acres of land lying north of Denison's farm, if it could be obtained. Lieut. Smith was under the necessity of petitioning the General Court, at the May session, 1664, for a gift of 1000 acres to Hadley, to enable the town to pay Mr. Brad street. The Court granted the petition and Hadley paid the 200 pounds in 1664 and 1665. Mr. Bradstreet, for his original grant of 700 acres, received 200 pounds, in money, a large sum in those days, 1000 acres of land upon Connecticut River, some of it valu- 22 HISTORY OF HADLEY able, and 500 acres elsewhere in the colony. The 1000 acres are now in Whately. The Denison Farm and this second Bradstreet Farm are well known to the people of Hatfield and Whately. A tract of land called Bashan, lying south of the Denison Farm, was not included in Bradstreet's Interval. CHAPTER III Division of lands in New England — Hadley Homelots and Street — Manner of distributing Hadley Intervals — East side and west side Intervals — Hatfield Homelots — Measuring Land — Common Fields and Fences — Gates. The fathers of New England evidently intended that every in dustrious man should have the means of obtaining a competent share of the comforts of life; and for this end, land was distributed to all, and the cultivators were also proprietors of the soil. A distribution of land was a distribution of power. This was a wide departure from the system of Europe, where the land was , owned by a few, and working men were poor, dependent and despised. The General Court granted lands in townships, but seldom pre scribed the manner in which they were to be apportioned among the inhabitants. In making allotments, no uniform rule was observed; lands were variously distributed in different towns, and even in the same town. In making divisions, persons and prop erty were considered. The head of the family and the sons, and sometimes the wife and all the children, were taken into account. Ministers, and some besides them, received land from other con siderations. In many towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut, some tracts were distributed equally to all the proprietors. Homelots were sometimes nearly equal. In a few towns, the least share was half as much as the greatest, or the poorest man received half as much land as the richest. In others, the smallest share was only one-third, one-fourth, one-sixth or one-tenth as much as the largest. In some, the inequality was much greater, a few individuals re ceiving very large allotments on account of large estates and dis bursements. A much greater proportion of the people of the old towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut were freeholders and independent proprietors soon after their settlement than at any subsequent HISTORY OF HADLEY 23 period. Church-members and freemen had no advantage over others in the distribution of lands. — The later divisions of large tracts of woodland in Northampton, Hadley and Hatfield were far more unequal than the early apportionments of intervals. Hadley Homelots on the east side of the river. — By the agree ment at Hartford in 1659, every planter was to have a homelot of 8 acres. This equal division did not extend to other lands. The deficiency in a few of the homelots, which were less than 8 acres, was made up in the meadows. The spacious street, 20 rods wide, and the homelots on each side, 80 rods in length, must have been partially laid out in 1659. The town plot was laid out into four quarters, two on each side of the street, divided by a highway. It was voted Jan. 21, 1661, that the homelots should be well fenced by the middle of April next, each man doing his proportion. The ends of the street, and the west end of the middle lane into the woods, were to be fenced by the town, with posts and rails and gates. The home- lots required about 16 miles of fence. The street extended across the neck* or peninsula, near its junction with the main land, and had the river at each end. The length of the street on the west side was not far from a mile or 320 rods; the distance on the east side was considerably more. At the north end, the street turned easterly. The idea of a street so wide, may have been suggested by the Broad-street at Wethers field. In forming it, they appear to have regarded both utility and beauty. Besides other uses, this enclosure of about 40 acres was very convenient for grazing ground, when they had but few fenced pastures. In 1663, there were 47 houselots. Samuel Church lived with his' father and had no houselot. Aaron Cooke lived with his father-in-law, William Westwood, and had no houselot. The plan of the village on the next page, exhibits the street and highways, the 47 houselots, and the names of the proprietors in 1663. The figures denote the number of acres in each lot. A full lot of 8 acres was 16 rods wide. There was a broad space between the small lots at the north end and the river, and some years later, several small houselots were granted next to the river, and men built houses on these lots and lived there many years. M. in the street is the place where the first meeting-house stood. It was built after 1663. ?Neck was the appellation which our fathers often gave to a peninsula and isthmus, as well as to other projections or points of land. The whole of Boston was sometimes called a neck of land. 24 HISTORY OF HADLEY ( H VILLAGE OF HADLEY IN 1663. RIVER Samuel Gardner, 4 North highway to the meadow. Chileab Smith, Joseph Baldwin, Robert Boltwood, Francis Barnard, John Hawks, Richard Church, Edward Church, w Middle highway to the meadow. 3 Henry Clark, 8 >a % Stephen Terry, 8 Andrew Warner, 8 TJf1 John Marsh, 54 > Timothy Nash, 5* John Webster, 5* -William Goodwin, 8 John Crow, 8 Samuel Moody, 71 Nathaniel Wood, 84 William Markham, 8 South highway to the meadow. Joseph Kellogg. AQUA VITAE MEADOW. RIVER. | North highway to the woods. '< .a John Ingram 2 John Taylor 2. Wm. Pixley William Partrigg, 8 Thomas Coleman, 8 Samuel Smith, 8 Philip Smith, 8 Richard Montague, 8 John Dickinson, 8 Samuel Porter, 8 Thomas Wells, 8 John Hubbard, 8 Town Lot, 8 Mr. John Russell, Jr. 8 John Barnard, 8 Andrew Bacon, 7 Nathaniel Stanley, 5 Thomas Stanley, 5 John White, 8 Peter Tilton, 8 William Lewis, 8 Richard Goodman, 8 William Westwood, 8 Thomas Dickinson, 8 Nathaniel Dickinson, 8 South highway to the woods. QoO O Middle highway to the woods. >— i 3 PL. WI— I PL. John Russell, sr. 8 HISTORY OF HADLEY 25 Manner of distributing Intervals or Meadows in Hadley. — Those who intended to remove to Hadley, had put in a sum "to take up lands by," in April, 1659. When the lands were divided, each proprietor received allotments according to a sum annexed to his name, called estate. These sums varied from 50 to 200 pounds, and must have been the result of friendly consultation and agreement. How persons and property were considered, can not be known. Some of the engagers were worth three times the sum set against their names, and some were worth less than the sum so affixed. — Hartford had divided lands according to sums set against the names of proprietors. In June, 1662, three young, single men applied for land, viz., John Taylor, John Ingram and William Pixley, and in December, a small houselot was granted to each at the north end of the east houselots, and 40^ allotments in the meadows. One of them had been a servant, and it is believed that all had. Yet these unmarried men, without property, received one-fifth as much land as the most wealthy head of a family. Among the original proprietors of Hadley, the largest share of land was only four times greater than the smallest, and after the addition of the three in 1662, five times larger. The distributions of land seem to have been satisfactory to all, and their equity was never called in question. It is supposed that when a tract of land was to be divided, there were as many tickets, numbered 1,2, 3, 4, &c. as there were per sons to whom it was to be distributed; and that a ticket was drawn for each man, the number determining where his lot was to be in the tract.. There were 48 proprietors (not including Aaron Cooke) on the east side of Connecticut River, who had the whole of the interval land on that side, below Mill River, and about 360 acres on the west side. The town reserved a lot in each division, and is one of the 48. These 48 proprietors all received their lands according to the sums affixed to their names in the following list. They are arranged by house-row, (as they sometimes are in the records) beginning at the lower or south houselot, on the east side of the street, and proceeding to the north end, and then coming down on the west side. The numbers in the second column of figures, exhibit the order of the 48 lots in Hockanum meadow, as they were drawn in March, 1663, and the other figures show the quantity of land in each lot. Aaron Cooke's estate and lands were not separate from Mr. Westwood's. 26 HISTORY OF HADLEY Pounds. No. Acres. qrs. rods. Mr. John Russell, senr, 150 18 6 2 29 Nathaniel Dickinson, 200 3' 8 3 *7 Thomas Dickinson, 80 '9 3 2 9 Mr. Wm. Westwood, 200 11 8 3 26 Richard Goodman, 140 48 6 2 *3 William Lewis, 150 10 6 2 29 Peter Tilton, ICO 3 4 1 33 John White, 150 5 6 1. 29 Thomas Stanley, 125 16 5 2 11 Nathaniel Stanley, 125 1 5 2 11 Andrew Bacon, 125 42 5 z 11 John Barnard, 150 36 6 2 29 Mr. John Russell, Jr. 150 6 6 X 29 The Town, 150 4 6 2 29 John Hubbard, 150 39 6 2 29 Thomas Wells, 150 45 6 2 29 Samuel Porter, 100 >7 4 1 33 John Dickinson, 150 43 6 2 29 Richard Montague, 80 *3 3 2 9 Philip Smith, 150 9 6 2 29 Samuel Smith, 200 44 8 3 27 Thomas Coleman, 200 20 8 3 26 William Partrigg, IOO '5 4 1 33 Adam Nicholls, 50 29 2 0 36 John Taylor, 40 12 2 1 31 John Ingram, 40 30 I 1 V- William Pixley, 40 2 I 1 32 Samuel Gardner, 70 46 3 0 9 Chileab Smith, 100 32 4 1 33 Joseph Baldwin, 150 34 6 2 29 Robert Boltwood, 100 7 4 1 33 Francis Barnard, IOO 35 4 1 33 John Hawks, 150 •4 6 2 29 Richard Church, IOO 17 4 1 33 Samuel Church, 50 26 2 0 3« Edward Church, 80 28 3 2 9 Mr. Henry Clarke, 200 *5 8 3 26 Stephen Terry, 200 8 8 3 26 Andrew Warner, 200 21 8 3 26 John Marsh, IOO 41 4 1 33 Timothy Nash, IOO 33 4 1 33 Wm. & Thos. Webster, sons of John, 150 38 6 2 29 Mr. Wm. Goodwin, 200 37 8 3 26 John Crow, 200 40 8 3 26 Samuel Moody, IOO '3 6 2 29 Nathaniel Ward, 200 47 8 3 20 William Markham, 5° M 2 0 36 Joseph Kellogg, IOO 22 ds. 4 1 33 6145 poum There are some errors in the acres of the 40 £ proprietors ; and Samuel Moody has too manyacres. Change of Proprietors. — In February, 1661, there were 46 east side proprietors, when the Meadow Plain was divided. Nine of these ceased to be proprietors in 1661 and 1662, viz., John Web ster died in 1661, Robert Webster lived at Hartford, Elizabeth, widow of Luke Hitchcock, married in Springfield, James Northam HISTORY OF HADLEY 27 died in 1661, Capt. Cullick removed to Boston, Mr. Samuel Hooker was ordained at Farmington, 1661, Richard Weller re moved to Northampton, John Arnold lived at Hartford. John Kellogg was perhaps a mistake for Joseph Kellogg. (John Hawks died 1662; left a family.) Eleven new proprietors were added before March, 1663, mak ing 48, viz., the Town, which took Mr. Hooker's lots, Wm. and Thos. Webster as one, Henry Clarke from Windsor, Joseph Bald win from Milford, who married the widow of James Northam, Timothy Nash from Hartford, Chileab Smith, Samuel Church, Joseph Kellogg from Farmington and last from Boston, John In gram, John' Taylor,* William Pixley. Meadows on the East side of the River. — The alluvial meadows adjoining the Connecticut, induced men to settle at Hadley; for some years, grants of upland were not asked for. There were four meadows besides the School meadows, upon the east side of the river, that contained about 1200 acres; and these were allotted to the proprietors in 1661, 1662 and 1663, viz. I. Forty Acre Meadow, or Forty Acres, was north of the village towards Mill River. Hartford had a parcel of meadow so named. When distributed, it was estimated at about 67 acres, but con tained considerably more. Those who lived in the north half of the village had the Forty Acres, and the Forlorn and some east of it, in the Great Meadow, as an equivalent for Fort Meadow, which the southern half of the village possessed. II. The Great Meadow included all the land upon the peninsula or neck, west and south of the homelots. It was divided into 177 pieces or lots, containing according to the town measurers, about 710 acres, and averaging 4 acres each. Highways running westerly divided the meadow into oblong parcels denominated furlongs in the records. It is not far from two miles from the street to the extreme north-western point of the meadow; and more than a mile from the street to the river where Northampton bridge is. The north-west part of the meadow was called the Forlorn,f and sometimes Honeypot, from the name of a place in the river. The Great Meadow was formed into three divisions for dis tribution, besides the Forlorn. One division adjoining the home- lots, was called the Meadow Plain. Excepting the homelots, this Plain was the first land divided among the settlers. The lots were drawn the last of February, 1661. ?John Taylor's lot on 24th page should be next to that of A. Nicholls. ¦(¦A tract in Northampton, where deficiencies in other lands were made up, was called Forlorn. 28 HISTORY OF HADLEY Below the south highway, now the old road to Northampton, a tract of mowing was called Maple Swamp and Aquavitae.* The latter name was at first Aquavitae Bottle, from a fancied resemblance in the shape to a case-bottle. III. Fort Meadow, south of the village, and most of it north and west of Fort River, was estimated to contain 147 acres, besides some south of the river and some low swamps. Those who lived in the southern part of the village had this meadow at the rate of 5 acres to the 100 pounds. Those in the northern part of the vil lage had as an offset 5 acres and 143 rods to the 100 pounds in Forty Acres, and in and near Forlorn. IV. Hockanum Meadow, below Fort Meadow, was a long point or neck of land, containing about 293 acres, but reduced to 276 in the records, by the process of equalizing. A tract called swamp in the south-eastern part, was not included. The meadow ex tended from the eastern lot south-westerly about 467 rods, or almost one mile and a half. The width of the neck, or length of the lots, was generally from 80 to 140 rods; a few were shorter near the south-west end. That part of the meadow which had become quite narrow, 25 or 30 rods wide, by the long-continued wearing of the river, and through which the river formed a new channel, on the 25th of February, 1840, was not less than 100 rods wide in 1663. The Hockanum lots were drawn in March, 1663, and 100 pounds drew 4 acres, 73 rods. The number and quantity of each man's lot may be found on page 26. Lot No. 1 was at the south west end, and lot No. 48, at the north-east end. Equalizing Land. — This was done in some of the Hadley meadows. A committee valued the various parts of a tract, and decided that some should be received at more and some at less than 160 rods to an acre, though most at 160 rods. Two acres were given for one in some places; and in one instance, 120 rods were accounted an acre. School Meadows, north of Mill River, will be noticed in another place. Four Meadows on the West side of the river. — It is difficult to ascertain the quantity of land in two or three of these, as the lands of several proprietors are not recorded. The four meadows may have contained as many acres as the four on the east side, or above 1200. Considerable allowance was made for ponds, swamps and light lands. ?This valuable grass meadow is still named Aquavitae, but the word is commonly written Aquavita, which is not good Latin. HISTORY OF HADLEY 29 Swamps that produced hay which cattle would eat, however coarse, were deemed valuable, but some were too spongy and wet, and yielded only worthless aquatic herbs and shrubs. I. The Great, North, or Upper Meadow, which was purchased of Mr. Bradstreet, including a swamp adjoining, was separated into six divisions, and each west side proprietor had a lot in each division, and some was reserved. II. Little Meadow was at the north end of the street, and part of it east of the North Meadow. It was in two divisions. III. The South Meadow, or "the Meadow adjoining to the street," at the south end, was called Wequettayag by the Indians, and commonly Great Pansett in the records of Peter Tilton. It contained about 430 acres, with little or no waste land. The east side proprietors had the west part, called 205 acres, and the west side had the east part, about 225 acres, including Indian Bottom. Indian Bottom was the name of a tract of land adjoining the Connecticut in the South meadow, north of Hadley village. When Umpanchala sold this meadow and other lands, June 10, 1660, he reserved the Indian planting ground. He sold a part of this soon after, and the whole in a few years. From this reservation of Indian planting ground, the whole bottom has been called Indian Bottom or Indian Hollow. Most of it is productive and valuable mowing ground. The accession to Indian Bottom by the action of the river, has been extensive, but the original bottom is not yet doubled by the increase of 185 years. Hadley has lost more than Hatfield has gained. By the aid of the old records, the curved line of the river bank in 1662 can be nearly ascertained. The old bottom varied from 19 to 40 rods in width, exclusive of the western point. The new bottom nowhere exceeds 40 rods in breadth, and in some places is much narrower than the old. [This was written in 1847.] Opposite to this grass meadow, the inroads of the river upon Hadley have been destructive. The homesteads where some of the early settlers lived and died, the lands which they cultivated, and the highways which they traveled, have been carried away, and more serious consequences have been threatened.* IV. The south-west Meadow, which Northampton sold to Hadley, was then called Capawonk, and subsequently, Ampon- chus, Little Pansett, Little Pontius, &c. It is separated from Great Pansett by Mill River. The west side inhabitants had the upper part, denominated the Plain, at two acres for one. The *Tbe action of the river upon Hadley lands will be noticed elsewhere. 30 HISTORY OF HADLEY east side had all Capawonk, except the Plain; after being equal ized and ponds and worthless swamps rejected, the number of acres was about 157.* Recapitulation of the Distributions of Lands to East side Proprietors: — East side land. Forty Acre Meadow, Great Meadow, Fort Meadow, Below Fort River, Hockanum Meadow, West side land. Little Pansett, Great Pansett, Total, 67 acres. 710 a ¦47 16 tt a 276 tt 1216 it 157 205 1578 it teres. rods. 5 7* 4 73 2 55 3 00 4 00 2 120 3 4° *5 40 ioO;£ drew as follows in each of the seven divisions :- 1. In Fort Meadow, Forty Acres and Forlorn, half had 5 acres and half 5 acres and 143 rods, — average, *.. In Hockanum Meadow, . ... 3. In the Plain, in Great Meadow, ... 4. In Ploughland in do. 5. In Last Division in do. . . 6. In Little Pansett, West side, 7. In Great Pansett, " . ... Each 100 pounds drew 25! acres of meadow land; 200^ drew tp\ acres; 150^ drew 37J acres; 50^ drew I2§ acres; 40^ drew 10 acres, 16 rods. £6145 drew at this rate, 1552 acres; and 26 acres allowed for deficiencies in homelots, make 1578 acres. About one-half of the proprietors had seven lots each, and the other half, who drew in Forty Acres, 8 lots. There were some deviations, a few receiving in one division, their shares in two. Recapitulation of the Distributions of Land to West side Proprietors: — The number of proprietors who drew lots in the South Meadow and Little Meadow, was 22, and the amount of estates, 2500 pounds; 23 drew in the North Meadow, and some land was reserved for others. IOO;£ drew as follows: — Acres. In 3 divisions in South Meadow, . . 8 In the Meadow Plain, ... ... 2 In 2 divisions in Little Meadow, . . 2 In 6 divisions in North Meadow, . ... 13 rods. 144 55 22 '59 27 60 Each 100 pounds drew 27 acres, 60 rods, or 2 acres and 20 rods more than the east side proprietors had. This difference is not explained. The 23 proprietors drew about 700 acres. After the township was divided, it was estimated that Hadley had two-thirds of the im provable or interval land, and Hatfield one-third. Hadley had not far from 1600 acres, and Hatfield about 800 acres. "So they made an end of dividing the country," as in the days of Joshua. This impor tant business was performed harmoniously. No man claimed or received a great estate — no one had above 501 acres of interval. The vast extent of upland was open to all equally for wood, timber and pasturage. *Pres. Dwight (Travels in N. E., Vol. I, p. 343,) estimates Capawonk at "eight or nine hundred acres of rich interval." He supposed, perhaps, that Capawonk included Great Pansett. The real Capawonk did not exceed 275 acres. HISTORY OF HADLEY 31 VILLAGE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RIVER LN 1668, With the houselots granted by Hatfield, 1670 to 1672. Wm. King, later Samuel Field, Benjamin Wait, John Graves, Jr. Samuel Foote, Robert Danks, Deerfield Lane. Isaac Graves, Jr. Samuel Northam, Richard Morton, Town lot, Rods wide. 1616 1616 16 1616 20 16 Acres. 4 John Hawks, Mill Lane. Samuel Kellogg, 4 Obadiah Dickinson, 4 Estate. John Allis, 8 £100 Daniel White, 8 200 William Allis,. 8 200/ iThomas Meekins, 8 \2Th0mas Meekins, Jr. 50 Eleazar Frary, 4 100 John Graves, 8 150 Isaac Graves, 8 50/ iStephen Taylor, 8 \2Bamabas Hinsdale, 100/ lOzias Goodwin, 8 \ 2Mr. Hope Atherton, 125/ iZechariah Field, 8 \2J0hn Field, Highway to Northampton. 150/ 1 John Cowles, 8 \ 2john Cowles, Jr. 100/ iRichard Fellows, 8 \ 2Widow Fellows, Highway to the river. Thomas Bracy, Hezekiah Dickinson, William Scott, Daniel Belden, Samuel Allis, Samuel Marsh, Nathaniel Foote, Rods wide. 20 161616 16 Acres. 44 4l wide) ww hVi Philip Russell, Estate. Samuel Gillet, £100 John Wells, 100 John Coleman, (16 rods 100 Samuel Belden, 8 100 William Gull, 8 100 Samuel Dickinson, 8 100 f lEdward Benton, 6 \2Nathaniel Dickinson, sr. 100 f 1 John White, Jr. 8 \2Nich0las Worthington, 150 Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr. 8 100/ Richard Billing, 8 \ Samuel Billing, 100 Daniel Warner, • 8 125/ iThomas Bull, 8 1 2Town to Mr. Atherton, SOUTH MEADOW. A committee was appointed, Jan. 21, 1661, to lay out houselots on the west side of the river. Richard Fellows is supposed to have been the first settler on that side. A few families planted themselves there in 1661, and more in succeeding years, and the whole number in 1668 may have been from 25 to 28. The Hill, so called, west of Mill River, was not settled till after Philip's war. 32 HISTORY OF HADLEY The houselots of John Hawks and Philip Russell, and all below them, on the plan of the village, were granted by Hadley. Those above or north of them were granted by Hatfield, of which some were forfeited and given to others. Hatfield re-granted the lots of Goodwin, Benton and Bull. Mr. Atherton, the first minister, lived on the Goodwin lot, as did his successor, Mr. Chauncey. Barnabas Hinsdale married the widow of Stephen Taylor, and lived in her house. Nicholas Worthington married the widow of John White, Jr. and lived in her house. Thomas Meekins, sr. removed from the street and lived near his mill. John Coleman, about 1678, changed his residence, and lived on the Benton lot, and Samuel Belden resided on Coleman's first lot. No one lived on the Bull lot for many years. The greater part of the lots were of 8 acres; some were only 4. Those on the east side were short in the upper part, the 4 acre lots being 16 rods wide. The length of the street on the west side, from the highway to Northampton to the north end, was about 340 rods. The street formerly ex tended farther south than now, against the houselots of Cowles and Fellows. Almost all the lands in the towns upon Connecticut River, were laid out without the aid of a surveyor's compass. The Town measurers commonly had a measuring chain, and perhaps a square to form right angles. Their calculations were in general sufficiently accurate, though not exact. The north star was some times regarded in establishing important lines. Town measurers were first chosen in Hadley, Dec. 31, 1660, and were Samuel Smith and Peter Tilton. They were to lay out all the lands and keep a record of the length and breadth of every man's lot, and put stakes in the front and rear of every lot, with the initials of the man on his stake, "in some distinguishing let ters." They were to receive three pence per acre for their trouble. Peter Tilton was the first recorder of lands in Hadley, chosen Feb. 9, 1663. With a few exceptions, he recorded all the home- lots and allotments in the intervals, with their bounds, width and number of acres, in a peculiar but legible hand. The lands of John Barnard, Frances Barnard, the town lots, and the lands of some proprietors on the west side, are not recorded. The first regular surveyor with a compass, that resided in any town upon the Connecticut, was Caleb Stanley, Jr. of Hartford. He bought a surveyor's compass a few years before 1700. Tim othy Dwight, born in 1694, the grandfather of President Dwight, was the first surveyor and owner of surveying instruments that HISTORY OF HADLEY 33 lived in Northampton. Nathaniel Kellogg, Jr., born in 1693, was the first surveyor that resided in Hadley. The surveyor's compass was used at Pocomtuck, (Deerfield) in 1665, by Joshua Fisher, of Dedham. The early settlers of New England were acquainted with com mon fields in England, occupied by the tenantry of a parish or village; and they established common fields here, owned by free holders. They could not have done otherwise in the intervals of the Connecticut. Where every man has his share of land in each division, the lots must be small; and if they were larger, par tition fences could not be maintained against the river floods. A common field was necessarily surrounded by a common fence, except in places where a river, mountain, or fence about other land, served for a barrier against domestic animals. Each proprietor of a common field was to fence according to the number of acres he held in the field, and the place of his fence, like that of his land, was fixed by lot. A quantity of upland was sometimes included within the meadow fence. The Great Meadow was secured by the homelot fences. Hock anum Meadow was protected by Mount Holyoke for a long dis tance; a fence was necessary in some places near the south-west end of.the mountain, and at the north, a fence was made in 1663, from Fort Meadow fence "to the mountain where it is impass able," above 200 rods. At a later period, the fences of both meadows were united, making in all 700 rods, of which, near 500 rods were on Lawrence's Plain and the lower part of Mount Holyoke. Great and Little Pansett, on the west side, were fenced in 1662, from the Connecticut at the lower end, round to the Connecticut east of the village. The east side proprietors made about 500 rods of the southern part of the fence, and the west side propri etors made the rest. Hadley ordered, in 1669, that Little Pansett fence should be made "with ditch, posts and two or three rails on the same," or as expressed in another vote, "with ditch and two poles or three rails on the same." The broad ditch and high bank of earth thrown out of the ditch, were an important part of the old com mon fence; they may still be seen on both sides of the river. The ditch was on the outside of the bank and rails, for the main object of the fence was to secure the meadows from domestic animals that roved in the woods on the outside. — Some of the meadow fences and perhaps most of the homelot fences were made of posts and rails without a ditch. Fences 5 rails high, and 4 feet 34 HISTORY OF HADLEY 4 inches high, are mentioned on the west side. All fences were to be sufficient against horses, cattle, hogs and sheep. Gates in common fences that crossed public highways, were necessary appendages of the common field system, and were rather troublesome to travelers. Hadley had at first two such gates in the county road to Springfield, one called the mountain gate, near the end of the mountain, and the other, near the north west corner of Fort Meadow. There were gates or bars in all highways into common fields, in the village and elsewhere. Bars were not common. If a person left open the gate or bars of a meadow, he was to pay 2s. 6d. Some meadow gates in county roads, continued down to the present century. In 1663, every man was ordered to bound his land with meer- stones; and those whose land adjoined, were to be called, to see the meer-stones set down betwixt them. CHAPTER IV Highways — Bridges — Ferries — Grist-mills — Bolting-mills — Saw-mills and sawing boards by hand. The early settlers of Hadley first designated the street and highways, and then laid out the lots of land contiguous to them. The supposition that the ways in this and other old towns were laid over the land of individuals is without the least foundation. In 1665, Peter Tilton recorded the street and eleven other highways in Hadley, all in the village and meadows. He seems to have considered the north highway into the woods, as a con tinuation of the broad street. In 1667, the town ordered a pass able cart-way to be made along the Forty Acres to Mill Brook, — the first road ordered by the town on the uplands. Before Hadley was begun, the Northampton people had a way to Windsor and Hartford through Waranoke, (afterwards West- field;) and they also had a way to Springfield on the east side. Mount Tom was an obstruction on the west side. They crossed the river to Hockanum meadow, and perhaps higher also. The people of Hadley made use of both of these roads; and they con tinued the Springfield road up to their plantation. They selected a route along the side of Mount Holyoke, below the steep part of the acclivity, some distance above the present road, and this was HISTORY OF HADLEY 35 traveled more than 80 years. Some of the ground at the foot of the mountain was considered too wet and queachy for a highway. There were complaints of bad and dangerous places in the highways, and the County Court appointed a committee, in March 1664, to lay out highways on both sides of the river between Had ley and Windsor, and to determine by whom they should be re paired. The men were George Colton and Benjamin Cooley of Springfield, Henry Woodward and Capt. Aaron Cooke of North ampton, and Andrew Warner and William Allis of Hadley. Five made their return, a copy of which follows, from the records of.the county court: — Northampton, May ye 21st 1664. Wee doe agree and determine that ye highway from Hadley towne 's end, on ye east side of ye great river, to ye Fort meddow gate, running as it now lyes, bee in breadth six rodds, and from thence to ye lower end of ye sd meddow in breadth two rods, and from thence (ye way lying still as it doth,) toye-end of Mount Holyoke* in breadth ten rodds, and from thence to Scanunganunk as ye cartway now runs in breadth twenty rodds, and from thence to Springfeild to the upper end of the causey going down into ye towne, six rodds, and from ye lower end of Springfeild to Longmeddow gate, running where it now doth, in breadth foure rods, and from ye Longmeddow gate to the bridge at ye lower end by the river's bank shall be in breadth two rods, and from ye lower end of the said meddow unto Freshwater river soe called, as the way now runs foure rodds, and from thence to Namerick where John Bissell had a barne standinge, as now the way runs, twenty rods, and from thence to Namerick brook where will best suite for a bridge, two rods, and from thence to the dividing lyne betweene the Collonyes, where ye horseway now lyes two rods. And from the said dividing lyne on the west side of ye river towards Waranoak, in the way that is now improved, comonly called ye new way, that is to say, to two miles brooke fourty rods, and from thence to Waranoak hill where the trading house stood, twenty rods, and from thence to ye passage of ye river where ye way now lies six rods, and from thence through ye other meddow to ye great hill as the way now lyes six rodds, and from thence to Munhan river forty rods, and from Munhan river to ye lotts now laid out neere ye Mill river fourty rods, and from thence to the town of Northampton ffoure rods, and from North ampton along by the comon fence side unto ye great river six rods in breadth, & from ye river side just opposite on ye east side, to run cross to the middle way that leades to ye centre of Hadley towne two rods, and soe to Hadley towne two rodds, allowing for the con- veniency of landing places, an acre of land on each side of the river, to be in length twenty rods and in breadth eight rods, viz on Northampton side upp ye river from ye fence and on ye other side up & down the river, each towne to make its own landing place. The fferry to be appoynted by the next county Courte, and in ye meanetyme yt the way through North ampton may be improved as formerly. And further we judge and determine that the towne of Hadley shall make and maintayne all ye highwayes and bridges from their towne to Scanunganunk, and Springfeild shall make & maintayne ye bridges & wayes from Scan unganunk to the foote of the [falls,] and in case it appeares to be our collonyes right, over Namerick brooke, that the way be made and mayntayned by this county. And the wayes and bridges from the landing place at the great river [in Northampton] unto the top of War anoak hill to be made and mayntayned by North Hampton, and from thence unto Windsor to be made and mayntayned by Hadley & Northampton mutually. And further wee deter mine yt if Hadley & Northampton eyther or both of them shall at any tyme hereafter see cause to desert the highway they now use and shall make the way through Springfield their comon roade to Windsor for carting, then eyther or both shall contribute to ye mending the bridge at Long meddow. And for these several wayes & bridges to be made and repaired sufficient for travell with carts, wee determine that they be done by the severall townes ?The mountain undoubtedly bore this name some years before 1664. 36 HISTORY OF HADLEY respectively at or before ye sixth day of June next, as also yt such stones as are moveable in Scanunganunk river be turned aside out of the cartway and ye charge thereof to be paid by the County Treasurer. AARON COOKE ANDREW WARNER HENRY WOODWARD GEORGE COLTON BENJAMIN COOLEY These were the first county roads in Hampshire. They fol lowed the ways previously used by the early settlers. These three towns maintained for some years two roads near 40 miles each, from Hadley and Northampton to Connecticut line, which was then supposed to be south of the present north line of Windsor. Northampton and Hadley sent men and perhaps teams, to repair roads where Suffield now is. They were complained of in Sep tember, 1668, for defective way between Waranoke and Windsor. They amended the defects, and were discharged in March, 1669, on paying the recorder's fees. The large streams, Chickopee, Manhan, Waranoke and others had no bridges. It was hard carting on such roads.* Scanunganunk, where the road crossed the Chickopee, was not far from the present Chickopee Factories. Hadley made some efforts in 1665 and after, for a road near the Connecticut, through the low land. Such a road was laid in 1673, crossing Chickopee river at the Islands near Japhet Chapin's. Hadley thus gained access to the Connecticut near the head of boat navi gation, below the Willimanset Rapids, and carted produce down to the boats. The passing between Hadley and Northampton was by the ferry at the lower end of Hadley street, and Northampton meadow. The road across Hadley meadow, proposed by the committee of 1664, was opposed by the town, and never made. The two towns agreed in 1665, to have the road continue in Northampton mead ow. — The travel between Springfield and Northampton, for a number of years, was chiefly through Hadley village. The Bay Road, or road towards Boston, has been in different places in Hadley. In early days, there was a "Nashaway Path" north of Fort River, which still bears the old name. In 1674 and many years after, the Bay Road crossed Fort River, near the south end of Spruce Hill. The road was laid out where it now is after 1688, but- no record of the change is found. The Bay Road, which was used by Hadley and Northampton, met the Springfield Bay Road at Quabaug (Brookfield,) where a few English families settled about 1664, and where travelers ?The complaint about transportation, on the 21st page, was well founded. HISTORY OF HADLEY 37 often lodged. The Hadley road at a later period, and probably in early days, crossed Ware River and Coy's Hill north of the present Ware Village. East of Quabaug, there were at least three ways leading from the Bay towards the Connecticut — through Nashua (Lancaster,) Quinsigamond (Worcester,) and Hassanamesit (Grafton.) In December, 1661, Hadley voted 45 shillings, "towards laying out a commodious way to the Bay by Nashaway." In Septem ber, 1 68 1, some men came from Lancaster to Hadley, to treat about laying out a way "from thence hither." A committee was chosen to confer with them, and with the committees of North ampton and Hatfield. The fires of the Indians had destroyed most of the underbrush, the woods were open, and forests were crossed without much difficulty. Streams, hills and swamps impeded the traveler. The Indians had paths between their villages and tribes, which were sometimes followed by the English. They were only a foot wide, according to Johnson, and "seldom broader than a cart's rut," according to Wood, referring to the beaten path made by their feet. They traveled in "Indian file." The old ways to Quabaug and Nashua were only paths for men and horses. In 1692, Hatfield chose a man to join with some of Northampton and Hadley, "to lay out a way to the Bay for horses and carts, if feasible." It was not feasible, and wheels and runners did not pass from Hadley to Boston for many years after 1692. The first bridge built in Hadley for horses, oxen and carts, was over Fort River, on the Springfield road. A committee was chosen to build it, Sept. 4, 1661. The second bridge over this stream, on the road to Hockanum meadow as well as to Spring field, was ordered Aug. 28, 1667, and was to be lower down than the old one. The third bridge over the same stream, on the same road, was voted Sept. 16, 1681, and was to be below the old one, "in the highest and most advantageous place." It cost £44.15.3. The County Court in March, 1674, blamed Hadley for not joining Northampton in laying out a way to Quabaug, and re quired Hadley to build "at least a foot bridge," over Fort River, on the way to Quabaug. On the 12th of February, 1675, the town voted to build a cart-bridge, and this was the first bridge on the Bay road. It was near the south end of Spruce Hill, and was much used by the troops in Philip's war. In January, 1688, a committee was chosen to consider whether it was best to build a new bridge or repair the old one. Between 1688 and 1699, a new 38 HISTORY OF HADLEY Bay road was laid, where it has since remained, and a new bridge was built near where the bridge and Smith's mills now are, about half a mile below Spruce Hill. There is no record of the laying out of this road, nor of the building of the bridge. Most of the records are missing from April 10, 1688 to January, 1690. This bridge was called Lawrence's bridge. On the 14th of January, 1684, the town voted to build a bridge over Mill River at the mill, " by tressels or otherwise as the select men and Samuel Porter, senior, shall judge best." It cost only £11.17.9. These bridges were built by calling out the people to labor, every man according to his estate. Other public works were done in the same manner. The price of labor was from 2s. to 2Sj 6d. per day. Those who did not labor, paid in grain, &c. In 1672, John Smith of Hadley, was directed by the Court, "to fell a tree across Swift River, for a foot bridge, if any such be near at hand." Such foot bridges were not uncommon. In October, 1686, one of the Fort River bridges was partly burnt in a time of drouth, apparently by fire from the woods. The Selectmen prohibited the firing of woods and fields. A small homelot in Hadley, below the south highway into the meadow, was reserved as a ferry lot, and in 1661, the town made an agreement with Joseph Kellogg to keep the ferry between Hadley and Northampton, and he built on the ferry lot. The attempt in 1664 to have a ferry on the Northampton side, in con nection with a road in Hadley meadow, did not succeed. In January, 1675, a committee appointed by the Court made an agreement with Joseph Kellogg. He was to have a boat for horses and a canoe for persons, and to receive for man and horse, 8 pence in wheat or other pay, or 6 pence in money; for single persons, 3 pence, and when more than one, two pence each. On Lecture* days, people passing to and from Lecture were to pay only one penny each, if 6 or more went over together. Troopers passing to and from trooping exercises, were to pay only 3 pence for man and horse. Kellogg might entertain travelers. In 1687, another agreement was made with Joseph Kellogg. The fare for horses, men and troops was the same as in 1675. Lectures not mentioned. After day-light till 9 o'clock, he might take double price. At later hours, and in storms and floods, those who would cross, must agree with the ferryman. Kellogg was still allowed to entertain strangers. Others might not carry ?Circular weekly Lectures were probably commenced in these towns some years before. HISTORY OF HADLEY 39 over persons within 50 rods of the ferry place, except men to their day-labor. — Joseph Kellogg, and his son John Kellogg, and his grandson James Kellogg kept this ferry until 1758, almost a cen tury; and Stephen Goodman, who married a daughter of James Kellogg, kept it still later, and from him it received its last name, "Goodman's Ferry." The river was formerly near the lower end of the street, and the landing was not far from Kellogg's house. Aquavitae meadow has received a great addition from Northampton meadow, and the enlargement continues against and below the end of the street, and the river is now 45 or 50 rods south of the old landing place. There is no record of a regular ferry at the north end of the street, between Hadley and Hatfield, until 1692. Many on the east side owned and cultivated land on the west side, and canoes and boats were frequently passing. There were more lively scenes on the Connecticut in those days than now. John Ingram appears as ferryman at the north end in 1692, and the ferriage in 1696 was 4 pence for a man and horse, 3 pence for a horse or horned beast, and one penny for a man, if paid down in money. If not so paid, Ingram might demand double, or do as they could agree. John Preston succeeded Ingram. A Grist-mill, (more often called by the English and our fathers, a Corn-mill,) was built in Hadley, in 1661, west of the Connecticut, upon Mill River. The stream in Hatfield, Hadley and many other towns, upon which the first mill was built, was named Mill River or Mill Brook. Hadley chose a committee to treat with Goodman Meekins about building a mill, on the first of April, 1 66 1, and in December, the town voted that they would have all their grain ground at his mill, "provided he make good meal," and they gave him 20 acres of land near the mill for building it. Thomas Meekins was a mill-wright and assisted to build mills in other towns. — On the 8th of November, 1662, the east side inhab itants agreed with Thomas Wells and John Hubbard to carry their grain over the river to the mill, on certain days of the week, and bring back the meal, at three pence per bushel, to be paid in wheat at 3s. 6d., and Indian corn at 2s. 3d. per bushel. In 1665 and 1667, the people of Hadley, on the east side, thought of building a corn-mill upon their own Mill River, about three miles north of the village. About 1670, William Goodwin, one of the trustees of the Hopkins donation, conceiving that a corn-mill would yield a good income to the Hadley Grammar School, invested a portion of the donation in building a mill at 40 HISTORY OF HADLEY Mill River. In October, 1671, the town gave a piece of land near the mill as a houselot for the miller. In Philip's war, the mill was garrisoned at times, and was preserved until September, 1677, when it was burnt by the Indians, who had made an attack upon Hatfield. The people of Hadley again resorted to Hatfield mill. The committee or trustees of the Grammar School, declining to rebuild the mill, it was rebuilt by Robert Boltwood, encouraged by the town, about 1678 or 1679. The committee of the Grammar School obtained it in 1683; Samuel Boltwood had it in 1685; and it was again delivered up to the trustees of the Hopkins School in 1687, in whose possession it remained. The mill and dam were rebuilt in 1692, after the great February flood of that year; a new mill became necessary in 1706, and another in 1721. Some of the mill-stones used in this valley in early days were of the red sandstone, called pudding stone, judging from fragments that remain. Other kinds of stone may have been used. When the School Mill was rebuilt in 1692, several days were spent in "looking for mill-stones," and one stone was purchased of John Webb of Northampton, for 8 pounds. It was probably sandstone from Mount Tom. In 1666, John Pynchon gave John Webb of Northampton, 20 pounds for a pair of mill-stones delivered at Springfield. The School trustees employed John Clary as miller in 1683. In November, 1687, Joseph Smith, the cooper, began to attend the mill, and had the care of it until old age, alone or with his sons. He had one-half the toll, and the use of a house and some land, and pay for his labor on the mill, excepting small repairs. The whole toll for 6 or 7 years, averaged only 26 pounds a year, chiefly wheat and Indian corn. Joseph Smith was the first per manent resident at Mill River. Bolting-mills moved by water were hardly known in England, when our fathers emigrated about 1630. They were moved by hand. Families sifted or bolted their own meal, or used it un bolted. In New England, for 100 years after 1630, there were no bolters carried by water. The separation of bran from flour was the work of the family, and of the baker, and of those who sent flour to market. In Hadley, much flour was packed in barrels and sent down the river, and the meal was all brought from the mill to the village and bolted. Several persons had what was called a bolting-mill, as John Smith, William Partrigg, Philip Smith, Richard Montague, Mr. John Russell, Jr. and HISTORY OF HADLEY 41 Timothy Nash. It required a frame and 10 or 12 yards of nar row bolting cloth for one of these domestic bolting-mills. Rich ard Montague is said to have been a baker, and his bolting-mill was valued at 60 shillings in 1680. His widow sometimes bolted flour for others, by the barrel. Most housewives were satisfied with hair sieves; some had bolting-cloth sieves. Lawn sieves are mentioned after 1700. — Flour was sold in large barrels by the 112 lbs. Boards had always been sawed by hand in England and not by saw-mills. There was no saw-mill in Virginia, when that colony had been settled 40 years. There were no saw-mills in the old towns in the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Haven, for some years after their settlement. Boards, plank and slit-work were sawed by hand. The wages of sawyers were reg ulated by the colonies, for a few years, and also by Hartford, Springfield and other towns. In New Haven, the "top-man" who was on the top of the log and guided the work, had a little higher wages than the " pit-man " who was in the saw-pit below. Two men were expected to saw about 100 feet of boards in a day, when the logs were squared and brought to the pit. The first saw-mill in Springfield was built by John Pynchon, in 1667, after the town had been settled 31 years. He had previously paid to hand-sawyers two shillings per day for sawing many thousands of boards. The early settlers of Hadley built houses and some commodious ones before they had the aid of any saw-mill. As Northampton had sawyers and saw-pits, it may be concluded that Hadley had them also, though they are not noticed in the records. The clap boards of those days, which were split out like staves, helped to supply the deficiency of sawn boards. Hadley gave to Thomas Meekins and Robert Boltwood, lib erty to set a saw-mill on Mill River, on the east side, Jan. 27, 1662, and they might fall pine and oak timber, except rift timber, in the Great Swamp beyond this river, and within 80 rods of the mill, on this side. The mill seems to have been built about 1664 or 1665, and the town probably had to depend on pit-saws only 5 or 6 years. Thomas Meekins had a saw-mill on the west side, about 1669. Boltwood's saw-mill did not continue many years, and he sold his right to the place to three men in 1674. If they built a mill, it did not long remain. On the 12th of February, 1684, when they were destitute of a saw-mill, the town granted liberty for 42 HISTORY OF HADLEY three, in one day, viz., one on Mill River, one south of Mount Holyoke, and one on Fort River, above where Dickinson's tannery now is. The first saw-mill erected in New England, was on a branch of the Piscataqua, about 1633. The workmen were Danes. CHAPTER V First Meeting-house — Bells — Mr. Russell, the first Minister — Salaries of ministers — Hadley Church. A house where the people might meet for public worship and religious instruction, was an early object of attention in Hadley, as in most other places in New England. On the 12th of Decem ber, 1 66 1, the town ordered as follows: — "The town have ordered that they will build and erect a meeting-house, to be a place of public worship, whose figure is, (in length and breadth,) 45 feet in length and 24 feet in breadth, with Leantors [Leantos] on both sides, which shall enlarge the whole to 36 in breadth. The town have ordered that the meeting-house abovesaid, when prepared, shall be situ ated and set up in the common street, betwixt Mr. Terry's house and Richard Montague's, in the most convenient place, as the committee chosen by the town shall determine. The town have ordered Mr. Russell, Mr. Goodwin, Goodman Lewis, Goodman Warner, Goodman Dickinson, Goodman Meekins and Goodman Allis, a committee for the afore said occasions." Leanto is a significant English word, indicating a part of a building that seems to lean to, or upon a higher part. It was often used in reference to private buildings. — The house was to be erected in the northern part of the street, to accommodate the west side inhabitants. It was not built for several years. The work may have been delayed by the difficulties with Mr. Brad street and the payment of 200 pounds to him. On the 27th of August, 1663, the town voted to set about building the meeting house, and chose a new committee, viz., Mr. Clarke, Lieut. Smith, Mr. Westwood, John Barnard, Nathaniel Dickinson, Thomas Meekins and Isaac Graves. They were to manage the work, order the form, call out men, and set the wages of men and teams. Meanwhile, the people did not neglect to meet on the first day of the week. A house was hired, and Dec. 10, 1663, Mr. Goodwin and John Barnard were chosen to seat persons in it "in a more comely order," and it was voted to hire the house another year. About two years later, Nov. 7, 1665, the meeting- HISTORY OF HADLEY 43 house was said to be framed, but not raised. After it was raised and covered, the inside work was delayed, probably in conse quence of the west side inhabitants desiring to be a separate parish, and seats were not voted till Feb. 21, 1668. The build ing seems not to have been completed till Jan. 12, 1670, when the town chose the two deacons, the two elders and Mr. Henry Clarke, to order the seating of persons in the meeting-house. Every person seated was to pay a part of the expense for making his seat. 128 seats for 128 persons, male and female, were paid for, at 3s. 3d. each. These 128 persons were heads of families or at least adults. The form and dimensions of this house cannot be known from records nor tradition. The second committee had power to model it as they pleased, and they deviated considerably from the vote of Dec. 12, 1661. They appear to have rejected the leantos and to have made the upper part as wide as the lower. There was doubtless a turret, or place for a bell, rising from the center of the roof, as in most early New England meeting-houses. Galleries on the north and south sides of the house were voted Jan. 9, 1699, and a gallery, which must have been on one end, is referred to as partly built. This vote shows that the ends of the house were east and west and that the pulpit was at one end, apparently at the west end. There is no reason to suppose that the length of the house much exceeded the breadth. Some seats had to be altered, to make "a more commodious passage up into the galleries." The seats were probably long seats, like others of that age, holding 5 or 6 persons each. They were to be built "with boards and rails." In those days a few pews, square or oblong, were built against the walls of some meeting-houses, but pews in general were of later introduction. For a long time, men and women occupied different seats* in Hadley, as elsewhere in New England. In nearly all meeting-houses, when the minister faced the congregation, the males were on his right, and the females on his left, on the lower floor, and in the galleries. The singers were mingled with the others, and all singing was congre gational. The town voted, Jan. 11, 1672, "that there shall be some sticks set up in the meeting-house in several places, with some fit per sons placed by them, and to use them as occasion shall require, to keep the youth from disorder." The youth were often trouble some in the old meeting-houses. ?This old custom of separating the sexes, I have noticed in Methodist churches within 15 or 20 years. 44 HISTORY OF HADLEY A few months after the meeting-house was finished, Sept. 3, 1670, the town voted to buy the bell brought up by Lieut. Smith and others, and to pay for it by a rate, in winter wheat, at 3 shil lings per bushel. "If Lieut. Smith gets 4s. 3d. for the wheat in Boston, he is paid; if less, the town is to make it up; if more, he is to repay." The freight of wheat to Boston was estimated at is. 3d. per bushel. The debt for the bell was £7.10, or about 25 dollars, indicating that the bell was small. Henry Clarke, who died in 1675, gave by his will "40 shillings besides 40 shillings formerly given, for a bigger bell that may be heard generally by the inhabitants." If a new bell was obtained, it was paid for by individuals and not by the town. The town voted, Dec. 21, 1676, "that the bell in the meeting-house shall be rung at 9 o'clock at night, throughout the year, winter and summer." Jan. 13, 1690, Mr. Partrigg was chosen to secure such a bell as is at Northamp ton; the selectmen to make the best they can of the old one. Hartford began to ring the bell at 9 o'clock, in 1665, "to pre vent disorderly meetings," &c. This is the first notice of a nine o'clock bell upon the Connecticut River. — In Springfield, in 1653, Richard Sikes was to have one shilling for ringing the bell for marriages and funerals. The records of.the other old towns upon the river, do not notice the ringing of a bell at marriages or funerals. In the old towns in Hampshire county and elsewhere, the turret for the bell was in the center of the four sided roof, and the bell rope hung down in the broad isle, where the ringer stood. It must have been so at Hadley. The minister always had the bell rope before him.* Mr. John Russell, Jr., the first minister of Hadley, was born in England. He graduated at Harvard College in 1645. There had been only thirteen graduates, previous to his class. He began to preach at Wethersfield, about 1649, ana- removed to Hadley in 1659 or 1660, where he died Dec. 10, 1692, in his 66th year. The engagers at first, and the people of Hadley afterwards, paid Mr. Russell 80 pounds per annum, but the records of Weth ersfield and Hadley contain no agreement with him in regard to his salary. It was apparently 80 pounds, and he received allot ments of land in Hadley, according to a 150^ estate, or a home- lot of 8 acres, and about 38 acres of interval land. After some ?Rev. Jonathan Edwards of Northampton, is said to have used few gestures in the pulpit, and to have looked much before him. After the rope was broken in the old meeting-house, one of his people observed, "Mr. Edwards has looked of the bell rope." A bell rope form erly came down in an aisle of some country churches in England. HISTORY OF HADLEY 45 years, the town gave him, in addition, the use of the town allot ment, so called, which was estimated at 10 pounds, and he thus received annually 90 pounds. He and the people lived in peace and harmony, with mutual kindness and confidence until the latter part of his life, when a difference between him and a major ity of the town, in regard to the Hopkins School, produced un pleasant feelings, and alienated some of his friends. After the final decision against the town, and in favor of the school trus tees, in 1687, the town voted only 70 pounds per annum during the rest of his life, but he may have retained the use of the town's land and if so, he received annually 80 pounds. After the reduc tion, no complaint from Mr. Russell, and no bickerings and con tentions between him and the town, appear in the records. After his decease, his widow and sons claimed 40 pounds "for what was abated in the rate bills, several years, without Mr. Russell's consent," and the town voted 35 pounds, and the matter was adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties. There is no intimation in the records, that the town aided Mr. Russell in building his dwelling-house; nor does it appear that the people ever furnished him with fire-wood. The town assisted him to build an addition to his house in 1662. Mr. Russell at Wethersfield was ardent and resolute, and some times indiscreet, and he had warm friends and powerful opposers. At Hadley, he appears to have been an active and faithful pastor. As a preacher, there is little known respecting him. He preached the Election Sermon at Boston, in May, 1665, from Psalms cxxii : 6. Most of his letters in this History were written in the time of the Indian war, and some in great haste. His firm ness and decision of character are seen in his persevering efforts in favor of the Hopkins School. His fearlessness and constancy were manifested in his protection and concealment for many years, of two of the judges of King Charles I., Whalley and Goffe, whom he truly viewed as sufferers in the cause of civil liberty. New England people generally were friendly to the judges, and believed that Charles I. was justly sentenced to death, but not many would have been willing to hazard life and prop erty by placing themselves in the dangerous situation of Mr. Russell. An inventory of the estate of Rev. John Russell was taken at Hadley, Jan. 10, 1693. His son, Rev. Jonathan Russell, of Barnstable, was admitted as administrator, in Suffolk county, Jan. 17, and a summary of the inventory, and a settlement of the estate, were recorded in the Boston Probate Office. After 46 HISTORY OF HADLEY paying the debts, funeral charges, expense of tomb-stones for Mr. Russell and a former wife, and delivering to his widow, Phebe Russell, io6£, most of which she brought with her, there remained for the two sons, Jonathan and Samuel, £830, of which, 305^ in real estate was subject to the widow's dower. The appraisement was considerably above money prices. Mr. Russell's kindness to the judges did not diminish his estate. In the inventory, are three negroes, — a man, woman and child, valued at 6o£.* Salary of Mr. Russell and others. — The salary of Mr. Russell was paid in winter wheat at 3s. 3d., peas at 2s. 6d., Indian corn at 2s., and other things proportionally. The cash price of wheat did not exceed 2s. 6d., peas 2s., and corn is. 6d. per bushel at Hadley. Yet the sum of 90^, or even So£, as Mr. Russell re ceived it, was an adequate and honorable salary, and so esteemed. He educated two sons and left a good estate. The salaries of ministers in the agricultural towns of New England, in the 17th century, were paid in produce, or "provision pay," at prices much above money prices, and nearly all debts were paid in the same manner. Gold and silver were uncommon in country towns, money contracts were seldom made, and cash prices were not often mentioned. The salaries of ministers did not average 60 pounds or 200 dollars, if estimated in money at 6 shillings to a dollar; and in small towns, they did not exceed 150 dollars. But ministers commonly had from their people a farm or other lands, a house and fire-wood, and with the frugal, economical habits of those days, they had usually a good support. Mr. Chauncey, the successor of Mr. Russell, had a salary of 8o£ in "provision pay," which he exchanged in 17 13 for 6o£, or 200 dollars in money, and the money was province bills. The salary of the first two ministers of Hatfield was 6o£ in produce, equal to about 150 dollars in money.f Several of the early churches of New England had two minis ters, one ordained as pastor, and the other as teacher. North ampton procured Mr. Joseph .Eliot as teacher, but the people soon grew weary of the expense of supporting two ministers, and he removed to Guilford. The first settlers of Hadley intended to have as a second minister, Mr. Samuel Hooker, and he signed ?Mr. Russell and some other good men were interested in the detestable system of slavery, in an age when its injustice and wickedness had not been properly considered. ¦[¦Northampton gave to Rev. Eleazar Mather a salary of 80j£ in 1658, and Pres. Dwight, who had not examined the old currency of New England, represents this as 80 pounds ster ling. (Travels in N. E., Vol. I., p. 344.) This is a mistake. It was paid in grain and the value was not more than 6o£ in Massachusetts pine tree money. There never was a sterling currency in these towns. HISTORY OF HADLEY 47 the engagement to remove. He changed his mind, and was ordained at Farmington, Nov. 6, 1661. He acted wisely for himself and for the people of Hadley. On the 26th of April, 1662, Hadley voted to give a teaching elder 80 pounds a year. This is the last notice about a second minister. The church of Hadley is the oldest in the old county of Hamp shire, except that of Springfield. It is not known when the church of Hadley began, but it is a year or more older than that of North ampton. The church of Northampton was formed and Mr. Mather ordained, June 4, 1661; and there were present, as mess engers from the church of "Hadleigh," Mr. John Russell, the pastor, Mr. Goodwin and Goodman White. Those who had withdrawn from the Hartford church, could not orderly unite with the Wethersfield members, till some time after the council in Boston in October, 1659. Perhaps there was no regular church at Hadley till 1660. The Hartford members were the most numerous. The first Ruling Elder of the church of Hadley was William Goodwin, who had previously held the same office at Hartford. He was an able and efficient man. He died at Farmington, March 11, 1673. No successor is noticed in the Hadley records. Nathaniel Dickinson and Peter Tilton were the first deacons of Hadley church. They were intelligent and influential men. A large portion of the heads of families on the east side of the river were members of the church, and there is reason to believe that they were generally pious and excellent men and women. Many of the men were qualified for public business. The recorders of Hadley and of some other towns were sparing of religious titles in the 17th century. Mr. Russell has not the title of Rev. during his life in the Hadley records. Mr. always precedes his name. The elders and deacons are seldom distinguished as such. When a man had a military and religious title, the former was commonly used. The dwelling-house of the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, the fourth minister of Hadley, was burnt in the night of March 20-21, 1766, and all the church records were destroyed. They must have contained a great deal of information in regard to ecclesiastical affairs. 48 HISTORY OF HADLEY CHAPTER VI The Grammar School or Hopkins School1* — Schools of New England — Grammar Schools — Free Schools — Instruction of Females — Schools and Scholars in Hadley — School Houses — School-masters — School Books. Edward Hopkins, Esq., after residing some years at Hartford, returned to England, and died in March, 1657. By his will, made March 17th, he gave a portion of his estate in New England to Theophilus Eaton, Esq., and Mr. John Davenport of New Haven, and Mr. John Cullick and Mr. William Goodwin of Hartford, to be disposed of by them "to give some encouragement in those foreign plantations for the breeding up of hopeful youths, in a way of learning, both at the Grammar School and College, for the public service of the country in future times." He also ordered that 500^ more should be made over into the hands of the trustees, in six months after the death of his wife. Rev. John Davenport of New Haven and Mr. William Good win of Hadley, the only surviving trustees, made a distribution of Mr. Hopkins's donation in April, 1664. They gave 400 pounds to the town of Hartford, for a Grammar School; and all the rest was to be equally divided between the towns of New Haven and Hadley, to be improved in maintaining a Grammar School in each, but they provided that 100 pounds of that half which Had ley had, should be given to Harvard College. When the money was received, New Haven had 412, Hartford, 400, Hadley, 308, and Harvard College, 100 pounds— in all, 1220 pounds. Mrs. Hopkins lived until 1699, and the gift of 500 pounds was obtained, not by the schools of New Haven and Hadley, to which it belonged, but by Harvard College and Cambridge Grammar School, in 1710. On the 14th of January, 1667, the town made the following grant of land and, on the 14th of March, appointed a committee to let it. "The town have granted to and for the use of a Grammar School in this town of Hadley and to be and remain perpetually to and for the use of the said school, the two little mead ows, next beyond the brook commonly called the Mill brook, and as much upland to be laid to the same as the committee chosen by the town, shall in their discretion see meet and need ful; provided withal, that it be left to the judgment of said committee, that so much of the second meadow shall be excepted from the said grant, as that there may be a feasible and convenient passage for cattle to their feed." Committee chosen: Mr. Clarke, Lt. Smith, ?The History of the Hadley Grammar School was written in 1847, but is now, 1857, reduced more than half. I found many of the original papers of the school in a lawyer's office in Northampton. HISTORY OF HADLEY 49 Wm. Allis, Nathaniel Dickinson, sr. and Andrew Warner. — Note on the margin by Peter Tilton: — "These two meadows, are one the round neck of land; and [the other] the little long meadow that was reserved by the Indians in the first sale and afterwards purchased by itself." These two School Meadows adjoin the Connecticut and are separated by high upland which becomes narrow in the northern part. On this elevated ridge, the Indians had a fort and burying- place. One meadow is east of the ridge; the other is west of it in a bend of the river, and is greatly enlarged by the encroachment of the river upon Hatfield. Both were estimated at 60 acres in 1682. They now (1847) contain with the upland, more than 140 acres. On the 20th of March, 1669, Mr. Goodwin proposed to the town, that he would choose three persons, and the town should choose "two more able and pious men;" and that these five with himself as long as he lived, should have the full dispose and management of the estate given by the trustees of Mr. Hopkins, and of all other estate given by any donor, or that may be given, to the town of Hadley for the promotion of literature and learning; the five persons to remain in the work till death or the Providence of God remove any of them, and then the survivors shall choose others in their place. Mr. Goodwin desired that the school might be called Hopkins School. On the 26th of March, he informed the town that he had chosen Mr. John Russell, Jr., Lieut. Sam uel Smith and Aaron Cooke; and the town voted as follows: — The Town voted their approbation of Mr. Goodwin's choice. The town also voted Nathaniel Dickinson, sr. & Peter Tilton to join with the three persons beforementioned, as a joint Committee who together with Mr. Goodwin while he lives, and after his death, shall jointly & together have the ordering & full dispose of the estate or estates given by Mr. Davenport and Mr. Goodwin, (as trustees as aforesaid to Mr. Edward Hopkins) to this town of Hadley, or any other estate or estates that are or may be given either by the town itself or any other donor or donors, for the use, benefit, maintenance & promoting of a Grammar School to & for the use & in this town of Hadley; as also jointly & together to act, do, conclude, execute & finish any thing respecting the premises faithfully & according to their best discretion. Voted also by the town that as to the five persons before expressed, if any decease or be otherwise disabled through the Providence of God, the rest surviving shall have the sole choice of any other in the room and place of those surceasing, to the full number of five persons, provided they be known, discreet, pious, faithful persons. Mr. Goodwin, with the consent of the other trustees, built from the Hopkins donation, a grist-mill upon Mill River, a little south of the school lands. No record is found of the year in which the mill is built, nor of any grant by the town of the use of the stream. A houselot for the miller was granted Oct. 16, 1671. Perhaps the mill was built that year. It was burnt by 50 HISTORY OF HADLEY the Indians in September, 1677, with the miller's house, the farm barn, fences and other property. The trustees of the school declined to rebuild, not having sufficient means, and apprehend ing danger from the Indians. The town needed a mill, and as Robert Boltwood was not afraid of Indians, a majority of the trustees were induced to dispose of the right belonging to the school, to the town for 10 pounds; and the town, to encourage Boltwood to build a mill, granted to him the mill-place and the remains of the dam, Nov. 6, 1677, and they granted four acres as a houselot for the miller, June 3, 1678. The mill was rebuilt by Boltwood, in 1678 or 1679. Mr. Russell, always solicitous for the prosperity of the Grammar School, did not consent to the sale of the mill-place and dam; and on the 30th of March, 1680, he presented to the County Court at Northampton, the state of the school, and what had been done by the other trustees, the town and Boltwood. The Court decided that the sale by the trustees was illegal. "We may not allow so great a wrong." They judged that Goodman Boltwood should be repaid what he had expended, and that the mill should belong to the school. At the September Court, 1682, the committee of the Hopkins School rendered an account of the school estate. Mr. Goodwin, before his death, received from the Hopkins donation 3o8£, from Thomas Coleman $£, Mr. Westwood 13^ and Widow Barnard z£, making 328^. He and others expended £172.14.4, for a house for the miller, a barn for the farm, fencing the farm or meadows before and after the war, loss on a house bought by Mr. G, paying a debt of Mr. Hopkins, &c, and the remainder of the 328^ was expended in building the mill and dam, repairing, maintaining the school-master, &c. The school estate that remained, consisted of the school mead ows, given by the town, estimated at 60 acres; 12 or 14 acres of meadow, (5 acres of it in Northampton meadow,) and his dwell ing-house and one acre and a half from his homelot, given by Nathaniel Ward; 12 acres of meadow given by John Barnard; and n| acres of meadow given by Henry Clarke. The Boltwoods, father and son, were resolute men and tena cious of their rights, but they did not like contention, and on the 8th of August, 1683, Robert Boltwood agreed to surrender the mill and appurtenances to the school committee, and they were to pay him 138 pounds in grain and pork. They took possession about Nov. 1, 1683. In the year 1684, they found that the town challenged some right to the stream and land, and there were HISTORY OF HADLEY 51 other difficulties, and they refused to consummate the bargain. The committee and Samuel Boltwood (his father Robert died in April, 1684,) referred the matter to John Pynchon and John Allis, and in consequence of their decision, March 30, 1685, the mill was delivered up to Samuel Boltwood, about May 1, 1685. Serious troubles to Mr. Russell and the promoters of the Gram mar School next arose from another quarter. As the donation of Mr. Hopkins was almost all dissipated, and the mill was in the hands of Boltwood, and the estate that remained was nearly all given by Hadley and by individuals of that town, the people concluded that the estate might as well be managed by the town for the use of an English School. Some of the most influential men were in favor of this course, especially Peter Tilton, who had resigned his office as trustee, and Samuel Partrigg, who still re mained a trustee, and on the 23d of August, 1686, the following votes were adopted by the town: — "Voted by the town that all that estate of houses & lands bequeathed & given by any donor or donors in their last wills and testaments to this town of Hadley, or to a school in said town or to the promoting and furtherance of learning in said town, as the legacy of Nathaniel Ward, John Barnard, Henry Clark, gent, they look on said estate and donations to belong nextly to the town to be improved according to the will of the testators ; and therefore take it into their handsto manage, order & dispose to the use of a school in this town of Hadley. — They had a full vote in the affirmative. "Voted by the town that Ens. Nash, Francis Barnard, Neh. Dickinson, Thos. Hovey & Samuel Barnard are a committee from the town to make demand of the school committee of all the produce, increase & rents of lands & estates abovesaid, and accruing thereto, which are at present in their hands undisposed." After these votes of the town, four of the school committee, viz., Mr. John Russell, Aaron Cooke, Joseph Kellogg and Samuel Porter, presented to the County Court at Springfield, Sept. 28, 1686, the declining state of the Grammar School, and complained of some persons in Hadley who obstructed the management of the school. The Court ordered that the lands given by Hadley, and the donations of Hopkins, Ward, Barnard and Clarke, should be improved for the Grammar School, and not for an English School separate from the Grammar School. Mr. Pynchon sent a copy of the order to Mr. Russell, and wrote to him a letter, dated Oct. 2, 1686, in which he mentioned the difficulties he had to encounter in getting the order passed. The Court was com posed of himself, William Clark of Northampton, and Peter Tilton. Mr. Partrigg was present and spoke in favor of Hadley. "I am heartily sorry, says Mr. Pynchon, that Mr. Partrigg is so cross in the business of the school: nothing will be done as it ought to be till he be removed, which I suppose the President and Council may do. It is too hard for the County Court to do anything. Mr. Tilton, fully falling in with him, is as full and strong in all his notions as Mr. Partrigg him self, and it is wonderful that any thing passed. Mr. Clark, though a friend in the business 52 HISTORY OF HADLEY \ yet wanted courage.* Mr. Tilton said it would kindle such a flame as would not be quenched. But if to do right, & secure the public welfare, kindle a flame, the will of the Lord be done/!/ To get the order passed, I was forced to declare that if Mr. Clark did not assent, I would [give leave to record it myself.f] But he concurred, the order being a little mollified. If Mr. Partrigg will obstruct, it is necessary that he be removed by the President and Council, who must do this business; we are too weak in the county court. I am full for it to leave all with the President,*) and glad it is like to be in the hands of them who will powerfully order. I pray God the school may stand upon its right basis, and all may run in the old channel." After the decision of the Court, Sept. 28, 1686, a paper was signed by those in Hadley who adhered to Mr. Russell and the Grammar School, and accepted the order of the Court. The signers were Samuel Gardner, John Ingram, Chileab Smith, John Preston, Joseph Kellogg, Samuel , Samuel Porter, senior, Aaron Cooke, William Marcum, Hezekiah Porter and widow Mary Goodman. These with Mr. Russell, made 12 persons in the minority. All the rest seem to have gone for the English School. Mr. Russell wrote to President Dudley, and he gave his opin ion decidedly in favor of the Grammar School. Mr. Pynchon received an order from the President and Council, dated Oct. 21, 1686, requiring him to examine the school affairs at Hadley and report. Mr. Pynchon came to Hadley, Nov. 18, and sent to Northampton for Capt. Aaron Cooke and Mr. Joseph Hawley. He desired a town meeting the next morning, that the town might depute some persons to give an account of the school affairs. A town meeting was ordered at sun a quarter of an hour high the next morning. || Capt. Cooke and Mr. Hawley came over. Mr. Tilton, Mr. Partrigg and others came as a committee from the town meeting, and were willing to discourse as friends, but not in obedience to the Council's order. The school committee were present and gave their reasons,** and the town's committeeff ?Mr. Clark was in favor of the Grammar School, and at the same time, a friend of Tilton and Partrigg. •f-This is a noble sentiment of Pynchon; nearly equivalent to the old Latin, fat justitia, ruat caelum. jThis seems to be the meaning, but it is difficult to read this part of the letter. §The despotic government of President Dudley, (soon followed by that of Andros,) was detested by most people in this part of the colony, yet some were willing to make use of it, to accomplish what they considered to be a good object. Doubtless the decision of the old Court of Assistants would have been similar to that of the President and Council. jjlt must have been a lively time in Hadley, when a town meeting was held at sun a quarter of an hour high in the morning. **The reasons why this estate should remain to support the Grammar School, are pre served. They were drawn up by Mr. Russell, with many scripture references and quota tions. ¦ftTne town's committee were Mr. Tilton, Mr. Partrigg, Ens. Timothy Nash, Nehemiah Dickinson, Daniel Marsh and Thomas Hovey. HISTORY OF HADLEY 53 read two or three long papers in reply. These things and many more are stated in a letter to the President and Council, dated at Hadley, Nov. 20, 1686, and signed by Pynchon, Cooke and Haw ley. They request that some speedy course may be taken by the Council, "for quieting the hot and raised spirit of the people of Hadley." The letter of Pynchon, Cooke and Hawley to the President and Council, had the effect intended, and the following order was issued: — "By the Honorable, the President & Council of His Majesty's Territory & Dominion of New England, in America: Upon perusal of the return made by Major Pynchon & the committee for the affair of the Hadley school. The President & Council do order that the committee for Hopkins School be and remain the feofees of the Grammar School in the said town, and that Mr. Partrigg be, and is hereby dismissed from any further service in that matter. And that the said committee make report of the present estate of said Mr. Hopkins and other donations to the school (which having been orderly annexed to the Grammar School, are hereby con tinued to that service,) unto the next county court of Hampshire, who are hereby empowered to supply the place of Mr. Partrigg with some other meet person in Hadley, And that the said court do find out and order some method for the payment of Boltwood's expenses upon the mill, that the mill, farm and other lands given to the School may return to that public use. The President and Council hereby declaring it to be beyond the power of the town of Hadley or any other whatsoever to divert any of the lands or estate or the said mill stream, & the privileges thereof (which are legally determined to the said Grammar School,) to any other use whatsover. The President and Council judging the particular gifts in the town a good foundation for a Grammar School both for themselves and the whole country, and that the Grammar School can be no otherwise interrupted, but to be a school holden by a master capable to instruct children & fit them for the university — By order, ED. RANDOLPH, Secretary. Council House, Boston, December the 8th, 1686. At a new County Court, appointed by Andros, and held at Northampton, June 7, 1687, the order of the President and Coun cil was read, and a petition and statement from the trustees of the school. Samuel Boltwood was summoned to appear and show cause why he detained the mill. He presented a paper giving a regular account of his father's building and selling the mill and of the award of Pynchon and Allis, which put the mill into his (Samuel Boltwood's) hands. Referring to the award, he says, "it seems rational, especially by those who profess relig ion, to stand by what was done" or make good their bond. "What is my just right I plead for, and no other." The next day, June 8, the Court, after referring to the order of the President and Council, — Ordered those persons in Hadley who had taken the school estate into their hands for an English School, to return it speedily to the former committee, the feofees of the Grammar School, viz. Mr. John Russell, Aaron Cook, Joseph Kellogg, and Samuel Porter, to whom they added Chileab Smith, in the room of Samuel Partrigg, removed. They also ordered that Samuel Boltwood should deliver up the school mill and appurtenances to the same feofees, for the maintenance of the school. If the feofees and Boltwood could not agree as 54 HISTORY OF HADLEY to what had been expended on the mill, by him and his father, the toll being considered, then Mr. John Allis and a man chosen by the feofees and- another chosen by Boltwood were to give in their award & determine what Boltwood should have for the mill. The town yielded so far as to pass the following vote, Aug. 29, 1687, which did not please the Court: — "Voted by the town that the lands seized and taken into their own hands with reference to an English School by their vote Aug. 23, 1686, wanting that formality in the seizure as might have been — the town do now let fall the said seizure, leaving said lands in the hands of the Committee called the School Committee as formerly, withall reserving a liberty to themselves and successors to make claim & plea according to law at any time for the future, For what may appear to be their right in the premises." The Court of Sessions sent the following letter to the Select men of Hadley, March 7, 1688, to be communicated to the town. The members of the court were John Pynchon, John Holyoke, Joseph Hawley, Capt. Aaron Cooke of Hadley, Lieut. John Allis. Honored Friends Having had a sight of the vote of the town of Hadley of August 29, 1687, in way of compliance (as we suppose) with the advice of the Court of Sessions, held at Northampton, June 7, 1687, we judge meet to let you understand our sense of it, that it is far short of what we expected and advised to, being at best lean in itself i if not a justifying of yourselves in your former precipitant, illegal entering upon the school estate, rather than a delivering it up to the committee as you were directed actually to do, and forthwith to declare it under the hands of those that had acted in entering thereon; and presuming upon- your readiness so to do it, we proposed it to the committee or feofees, if they saw cause to allow one half of the i6£ that was engaged toward a school master. But what you have done being so short of that directed to, & so worded as speaks your unsubjection to authority, especially in conjunction with your other actings, we must declare it no ways convenient the commit tee should allow any part of the said i6£ & that you are accountable for your perverseness towards the school affairs, & for your slighting of such who have more regard to your own good & interest than yourselves. Such a spirit we see breathing forth from you as will necessarily call for some further animadverting thereon, if you do not retract some of your actings which we earnestly desire you to overlook and rectify. We would not particularize, and yet in way of caution to amendment, might mention your unkindness and crossness in not granting the use of a house that stands empty and your illegal rating of the school estate, contrary to the declared direction in all our books, of colleges, schools, hospitals, &c. are not to be taxed, which we do particularly insist on, for your speedy rectification of what you have disorderly done (that we may not have occasion to lay it before his excellency.) Sev eral other things are before our consideration, which we do not mention, hoping and expect ing you will revise your own actings & amend, which is the [scope] of these lines to prevent any thing that may prove uncomfortable to yourselves, being assured that a sense of your own crossness, perverseness, unsubjection to order, & repentance for what is done amiss, will but become yourselves, and is the plainest path to your own comfort, which we pray God to direct you in, and are Your assured friends. We let you know & hereby declare that we forbid the constables and all officers from levying or collecting any particular tax toward any town affair, upon the school estate. Springfield March 7, 1687-8. By order of this Session, JAMES CORNISH. [Cornish was Clerk under Andros.] HISTORY OF HADLEY 55 The selectmen of Hadley replied to this letter, and in June, 1688 the Court sent another to Hadley, "enjoining them to seek their own peace." Samuel Boltwood gave up the mill to the trustees of the school in 1687, and arbitrators decided April 26, 1688, that he should be allowed 71^ 10s. for what his father and he had expended about the mill, of which sum he had received all but nine pounds. The bitter controversy was now at an end, and in a few years, a good degree of harmony prevailed in the town. Peter Tilton and Samuel Partrigg were restored to public favor as soon as the arbitrary government of President Andros and Coun cil at Boston was overthrown. Samuel Partrigg removed to Hatfield in 1687. He had been conspicuous in the English School party, and his conduct had been very offensive to Mr. Pynchon, and to Mr. Russell and those who acted with him. He was a powerful man, and his sway in the county of Hamp shire, after Mr. Pynchon's death, was greater than that of any other man, for many years. There is no reason to condemn the motives of those concerned in these unpleasant contentions. The Grammar School was a favorite object with Mr. Russell, and he probably looked forward to a more elevated literary institution. His efforts for the school were constant and untiring. The people of Hadley are not cen surable, because they judged it inexpedient to sustain a Gram mar School after the Hopkins donation was almost all consumed or scattered. They had not families enough to require such a school under the law. When the people of the town accepted the propositions of Mr. Goodwin, March 26, 1669, and used the expression, "a grammar school to and for the use and in this town of Hadley," they seem not to have intended to give up their land to support a school for other towns. Schools of New England. — By a law of Massachusetts, passed in November, 1647, it was ordered that every town with fifty families should provide a school where children might be taught to read and write; and that every town with a hundred families or householders, should provide a grammar school, the master thereof being able to instruct so far as to fit young men for col lege. Connecticut adopted this school law in nearly the same words. There were previously many schools in these colonies, but this was the first law requiring them. By a law of 1642, selectmen were to look after the children of parents and masters who neglected to train them up "in learning and labor." The 56 HISTORY OF HADLEY Puritans, before 1647, meant that every child should be taught to read, at home or at school, and be able to read the Bible. Grammar Schools. — In England, the distinct object of a gram mar school was instruction in Greek and Latin, especially in Latin. All the scholars were expected to learn Lily's Latin Grammar. The custom of forcing all to learn the rudiments of Latin, was strongly opposed by John Locke. New England grammar schools, with few exceptions, were Latin and English schools united. Some scholars were fitted for college, but perhaps nine-tenths were confined to English studies. Children were generally taught to read, at least in the primer, before they were sent to these schools. English Gram mar was not taught in the grammar schools of Old or New England. Free Schools. — The law of 1647 did not direct that schools should be free. In the towns upon Connecticut River and else where, schools were commonly supported partly by the parents of the scholars and partly by the town. Schools were not main tained wholly by towns, till after much discussion and agitation. Those in moderate circumstances, with large families, desired free schools. Some of the wealthy and of those with no children to send, were opposed to them. Few towns were willing to vote for schools entirely free to the scholars, till after 1700, and it was many years after 1700, before free schools became general in Massachusetts. Instruction of females. — The laws of the colony, and the votes of towns, relating to schools, used the word "children," and did not exclude females, yet it is abundantly evident that girls did not ordinarily continue to attend the town schools, many years, in the old towns. There was no controversy on the subject; it seems to have been considered unnecessary that girls should be instructed in public schools; and it may have been deemed im proper for boys and girls to attend the same school, as it still is in England, except among the poor. There were many cheap, private schools in Massachusetts and Connecticut, in the 17th and 1 8th centuries, kept by "dames" in their own rooms where girls were instructed to read and sew, and in some, small boys were taught to read. Children who did not attend school, were taught to read at home, and nearly all could read, females as well as males. Writing was considered much less important, and it was not judged necessary that females in common life should learn to write; and indeed the ability to write, would have been of little use to them, in former days. HISTORY OF HADLEY 57 Probably not one woman in a dozen could write her name, 150 years ago; and much later, at the time of the revolution, very many of those wives and mothers whose patriotism is so justly praised, could not write, but they could read. Some men of several generations made their mark. A few girls were sent to the public schools in Northampton and Hatfield before 1680, and undoubtedly in most other towns. Records do not show why or when they ceased to attend. Per haps they did not cease in all places. Some of the newer towns, settled in the last century, were more liberal in schooling the girls than the old ones. School dames were sometimes paid by the town. Many of the old towns were long remiss. Boston did not permit females to attend the public schools till 1790, and Northampton did not admit them into the town schools till 1802! It was an unheard of thing for girls to be instructed by a master, in Ipswich, till about 1769. They learned to read and sew of school dames. Schools and Scholars in Hadley. — The first recorded vote of Hadley respecting a school, was April 25, 1665, when the town voted "to give 20 pounds per annum for three years, towards the maintenance of a school-master, to teach the children, and to be as a help to Mr. Russell, as occasion may require." Caleb Wat son seems to have been the first school-master. He was here in January, 1667, and probably came in 1666. On the 2 1st of December, 1676, the town voted to give the school-master 30 pounds per annum, a part from the school estate, and the rest from the scholars and town. There being great fail ure in sending children to school, the selectmen were ordered to take a list of all children from 6 to 12 years old; all of these were to attend the school, and if any did not go, they were to pay the same as those that went, except some poor men's children. Jan. 10, 1678, they voted to give Mr. Younglove 30 pounds for another year, to be paid by the school estate, scholars and town; and he was to have the use of the house and homestead belonging to the school, and of twelve acres of land. Male children from 6 to 12 were to pay 10 shillings a year if they went, and five shillings if they did not go. Feb. 7, 1681, a committee was appointed to get a school master to teach Latin and English; to give him 30 pounds a year. Latin scholars to pay 20 shillings a year, and English scholars 16 shillings. Those from 6 to 12 that did not go, were to pay 8 shillings a year. This school was far from being a free school, and the votes indicate that the girls and some of the boys did not attend. On 58 HISTORY OF HADLEY the first of March, 1697, "the town voted that there should be a constant school in Hadley; the teacher to be paid wholly by the school committee and the town rate." This was a free school, but it did not continue. Men who had ho children to send, were dissatisfied, and the town voted, March 30, 1699, that one-half of what the school estate did not pay, should be paid by scholars. This was to stand 20 years. The Hopkins School was apparently the only public school in the old parish of Hadley, for more than a century, except a school for boys and girls voted in 1760 for that year. It was the com mon town school. The master, with rare exceptions, was a man of collegiate education, and he instructed some in Greek and Latin, but most only in reading, writing and arithmetic. When Hadley had 99 families, in 1765, there was but one town school. The number of children taught by school dames is not known. School Houses. — Nathaniel Ward, who died in 1664, gave a piece of his homelot on the street, with his house, for the use of the school. A part of this building was used for a school-house many years. After 1688, a room was hired for the school. In 1710, the Ward house was said to be "ready to fall down," and in 1 7 12, the school committee, having obtained leave from the Court, leased the school homelot of one acre and a half, with the buildings, to Doct. John Barnard, for 97 years, at 18 shillings a year. The town voted, July 13, 1696, to build a school-house, 25 by 18 feet and 7 feet between joints, to be set in the "middle of the town." This was the first school-house built in Hadley. It stood in the broad street. TEACHERS OF HADLEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL, From 1666 to 1725. A few of the teachers are not known. About 1666 to 1673. Oaleb Watson, a graduate of Harvard College in 1661. A native of Roxbury. fie removed from Hadley to Hartford, where he was many years a distinguished teacher. Salary not known. About 1674 to 1680. John Younglove, from Ipswich; was a preacher first at Quabaug, and after he left Hadley, at Suffield. Salary, 30^ and use of house and land. 1682 and 1683. Samuel Russell, H. C. 1681. Son of Rev. John Russell. Was min ister at Branford, Conn. 1685. Samuel Partrigg of Hadley. 3 months. 1686-7. Warham Mather, H. C. 1685. Son of Rev. Eleazar Mather of Northampton. Was Judge of Probate at New Haven. 1688-9. Jonn Younglove again. 6 months. 1689-90. Thomas Swan, H. C. 1689. From Roxbury. He was Register of Probate in Middlesex. 6 months. 1693-4. John Morse, H. C. 1692. FromTDedham. Was minister at Newtown, L. I. He kept school near a year. 1694-5. Salmon Treat, H. C. 1694. Son of James T. of Wethersfield. Wai minister at Preston, Conn. Kept a year. Wages, 39^. HISTORY OF HADLEY 59 1695-6. Joseph Smith, H. C. 1695. Son of Lieut. Philip S. of Hadley. Was minister at Upper Middletown. Kept 3 quarters, at rate of $£. 1696-7. John Hubbard, H. C. 1695. Son of John H. of Boston. Was minister of Jamaica, L. I. Kept one year at £30 as money. 1698-9. John Smith, again. A year or more. 1700-1. Samuel Melyen, H. C. 1696. Son of Jacob M. of Boston. Was minister at Elizabethtown, N. J. Kept one year. ^S£. 1701-2. Mr. Woodbridge. Either Ephraim or Samuel. Both graduated at Harvard College, 1701. Both were ministers. 1 year. 38^. 1702-3. Nathaniel Chauncey, Yale College 1702. Son of Rev. Nathaniel C. of Hatfield. Minister at Durham, Conn. 3 months. 1703-4. Samuel Ruggles, H. C. 1702. From Roxbury. Was minister at Billerica. Kept 8 months, at rate of 40^. 1705-6. Samuel Mighill, H. C. 1704. Son of Rev. Thomas M. of Scituate. A teacher in Mass. and Conn. Died in South Hadley, 1769. i\ year, at 4o£. 1706-7. Jonathan Marsh, H. C. 1705. Son of Jonathan M. of Hadley. Was minister at Windsor, Conn. 1 year. 30^ as money. 1707-8. John Partridge, H. C. 1705. Son of Col. Samuel P. of Hatfield. Died 1717. 1 year. 40^. 1708-9. Aaron Porter, H. C. 1708. Son of Samuel Porter, Esq. of Hadley. Was minister at Medford. Kept 6 months, at the rate of 40^. 1709-10. Daniel Boardman, Y. C. 1709. Son of Daniel Boreman of Wethersfield. Was minister at New Milford, Conn. Kept 8 months, at the rate of 26§£ as money. 1710-11. John James. A native of England. Honorary degree at H. C. 1710. He had previously been minister at Derby, Conn. 6 months, at the rate of 26$£ as money. 1711-12. Elisha Williams, H. C. 171 1. Son of Rev. Wm. W. of Hatfield. Was Pres ident of Yale College. 1 1 months, at the rate of 26§£ as money. 1712-13. Thomas Berry, H. C. 1712. Was a physician. Lived at Ipswich. 6 months, at the rate of 30^ in money. 1713-14. Stephen Williams, H. C. 1713. Son of Rev. John W. of Deerfield. Was minister at Longmeadow. i\ year, at the rate of 34^ in money. 1714-15. Ebenezer Gay, H. C. 1714. From Dedham. Was minister at Hingham. 9 months, at the rate of 26£. 1705-16. Nathaniel Mather, Y. C. 1715. Son of Rev. Samuel M. of Windsor, Conn. Minister at . Kept 4 months. 1716-18. "Mr. Chauncey's son/1 If he was son of Rev. Isaac C. of Hadley, he was only 16 to 18 years old. i§ year, at the rate of 36^. 1718-19. Stephen Steel, Y. C. 1718. Son of James Steel of Hartford. Was minister of Tolland, Conn. 1 year. 40^. 1719-20. Solomon Williams, H. C. 1719. Son of Rev. Wm. W. of Hatfield. Was minister at Lebanon, Conn. 1 year. 4o£. 1720-21. Hezekiah Kilburn, Y. C. 1720. He was born at Wethersfield and resided there. I year. 40^. 1721 to 1723. Daniel Dwight, Y. C. 1721. Son of Nathaniel D. of Northampton. Episcopal minister at Charleston, S. C. ij year, at 40^ a year. 1723-24. Benjamin Dickinson, H. C. 1723. Son of Nathaniel D. of Hatfield. A preacher many years. Lived in Hadley. 1 year. 40^. 1724-25. Israel Chauncey, H. C. 1724. Son of Rev. Isaac C. of Hadley. He was an able preacher, but became deranged, and was burnt to death in a small building, near his father's, Nov. 1736. Kept § of a year, at the rate of $o£. In March, 1743, Josiah Pierce, H. C. 1735, a native of Woburn, began to keep the Gram mar School. He was to instruct in reading, writing, arithmetic, Latin and Greek. He kept 12 years to 1755, and again 6 years from 1760 to 1766. His pay was 27^ in N. E. currency, or 91 dollars, and he had the use of 25 acres of meadow land. These teachers were almost all educated at college, and they generally began to teach soon after they graduated. Their year or less time in the school, commonly included a part of two years. 60 HISTORY OF HADLEY Their yearly salary to 1709 was from 38 to 40 pounds payable in produce at the usual prices, or 30^ at money prices. After 1709, their wages were paid in province bills, commencing with 26f pounds per annum, and increasing to 40 pounds, after the bills depreciated. Out of this salary or wages, they paid for their board, which was 4s. 8d. to 5s. per week when the salary was about ^o£, and 3s. 6d. to 3s. 9c!. when the salary was 30^ or less. After deducting the board, these young men. received only 18 to 21 pounds or 60 to 70 dollars, per annum, in any thing equiv alent to dollars at six shillings. Northampton gave to her Gram mar School masters, who were all educated men, only 80 dollars a year and board, down to the Revolution. Almost all were single men in both towns. Mr. Pierce's compensation was greater. If half the accounts of tyranny and cruelty of English school masters, given by English writers, are to be believed, they were an entirely different class of men from the school-masters of New England. Records and traditions furnish no evidence of the cruelty or profligacy of any of the old school-masters on Connect icut River. Where can more worthy men be found than those composing the list of Hadley school-masters ? In 1682, Mr. Samuel Russell taught the school six months for i$£. About 50 scholars attended and paid 4 shillings each, except a few that paid 6 shillings. He received from the scholars £10, 14s. and from the school committee, £4., 6s. For a few years after 1677, there was fear of Indians, and the School meadows were not fenced till 1680. They were let out in 1 68 1. The rent from 1684 to 1700 was generally from 6 to $£, when paid in produce at money prices. From 1704 to 1706, it was £8, 12s. as money. In 1720, the number of acres was said to be 80. The school land in other meadows, about 36 acres, was leased at 4, 5 or 6 shillings per acre, according to quality, when paid in produce at the usual prices; or from one-quarter to one-third less, if paid in any thing equivalent to money. Hadley School Committee for 50 years. — In 1669, the first five were Mr. John Russell, Jr., Lieut. Samuel Smith, Aaron Cooke, Jr., Nathaniel Dickinson, Peter Tilton. As vacancies occurred, others were chosen, viz., Philip Smith, 1680, Samuel Partrigg, 1682, Samuel Porter, 1685, Joseph Kellogg, 1686, Chileab Smith, 1687, Thomas Hovey, Samuel Porter, Esq., Sergt. Joseph Smith, Deac. John Smith. The last five were the committee in 1720. In new towns, where they had few families and no school, it was considered the duty of parents to teach their children to read. In September, 1677, Goodman Lancelot Granger of Suffield, HISTORY OF HADLEY 61 was presented to the Hampshire Court for the neglect of learning his children to read. He appeared at March Court, 1678, and declared he was using the means to learn them to read, and promised to do his best, and he was discharged. When a Hamp shire town was without a school a number of months, it was pre sented to the Court, and two or three towns in the southern part of the county were fined for their neglect. It was ordered by a law of 1642,* that the selectmen of every town, should see that none of their brethren and neighbors should "suffer so much barbarism, in any of their families as not to en deavor to teach by themselves or others, their children and ap prentices perfectly to read the English tongue," and to have knowledge of the capital laws, upon penalty of 20 shillings. This law was ordered to be enforced in 1668. At New Haven, in 1684, the Grammar School was to be kept 9 hours in a day in summer, (less in winter,) and 6 days in a week. Two hours in the afternoon of Saturday were to be employed in catechising the scholars, — a practice in New England schoo.ls, that came down to the present century, in the forenoon of Sat urday. School Books. — The early school books of New England were the same with those of Old England. John Locke, in his "Thoughts concerning Education," 1690, says the method of schools in England, in teaching children to read, has been to adhere to "the ordinary road of the Hornbook, Primer, f Psalter, Testament and Bible." These, he says, are the only books used "to engage the liking of children and tempt them to read." The "ordinary road" was the same in New England, and the same books were used in Hadley and other towns. Such books were sold to the people by John Pynchon of Springfield, from 1656 to 1672 and after, and by Joseph Hawley of Northampton, to his scholars, except Hornbooks, from 1674 to 1680, and both sold many Catechisms, and paperand paper books for writers. Neither sold Spelling-books, nor does John Locke refer to a Spelling-book in his treatise. They were but little used in the 17th century. Samuel Porter, of Hadley, who died in 1722, sold Primers, Psalters, Testaments and Bibles; also Catechisms, Psalm Books, &c. Spelling-books, chiefly Dilworth's, were gradually intro duced; were not common on Connecticut River till after 1750. Arithmetic was taught, but the books were rare. Traders sold the Latin Accidence or Grammar. — Hornbooks do not appear in This law is in the printed laws of 1672. •(•Our Primer differed from the English one, but the use in school was similar, 62 HISTORY OF HADLEY Hampshire after 1700. They contained the alphabet, with a few rudiments, on one page, covered, as Cowper says, with "thin translucent horn," to keep them from being soiled. A book called a Primer has been used by children in schools for centuries. Our early Primers were imported from England, in 1644, 1655, &c. and were probably Puritan Primers. The New England Primer seems to have been published after the Restoration in 1660, and to have been fitted for a child's school- book. It has undergone many changes. The Catechism was formerly published by itself. CHAPTER VII Ordinary-keepers or Inn-keepers — Retailers of wine and liquors— Selling liquors to Indians — Trial of Dr. Westcarr — Drinks in the 17th century — Distilling — Aquavitae — Intem perance in New England. When our fathers came from England, the people were addicted to malt liquors, the country was full of licensed ale-houses, and an alewife was a woman, and not a fish. Inns, taverns and ordi naries were plenty. Distilled spirits were- used, but wine and ale were the principal intoxicating beverages. The English were excessive drinkers, or as Shakespeare says, "most potent in pot ting." "Drinking is the plague of our English gentry," says Peacham in 1622. "Drunkenness hath diffused itself over the nation," says Camden in 1617. The first planters of New England were some of the best portion of this wine-bibbing, ale-guzzling nation. They abhorred drunk enness, and intended to be temperate drinkers, and they followed the English practice in licensing men to sell intoxicating drinks. As ale-houses were in bad repute in England, they avoided the appellation, and used the word ordinary, which in England sig nified an eating-house. Our early inns in Hampshire were all denominated ordinaries. Inns were called ordinaries in Virginia. The people of Hadley, conscious of the evil effects of liquor houses, were in no haste to have an ordinary, and when the subject was agitated in January, 1663, they proceeded with great caution, choosing one committee of ten to consider the matter, and to report to another of seven, and the latter were to report to the town, who were to choose the most fit man to keep an ordinary. The town did not select a man, and the county book does not record the license of any one, until March, 1668, when Richard Goodman had his license "continued," showing that he was HISTORY OF HADLEY 63 licensed in 1667.* After 1668, there is no notice of an inn or ordinary in Hadley or Hatfield for 24 years, but in Hadley, Joseph Kellogg, the ferry-man, had liberty to entertain travelers. Springfield and Northampton had houses of entertainment, for the courts were held in those towns, and the court-rooms were always in the ordinaries or inns. In March, 1666, Samuel Porter and William Lewis of Hadley, were both presented for selling strong liquors without license, and fined. It appeared that they were induced to do this, because no one in Hadley had liberty to sell liquors. In 1667 and 1668, Richard Goodman was licensed to sell wine and strong liquors; in 1671, Lieut. Samuel Smith was the next retailer in Hadley. In September, 1684, Deac. Philip Smith was licensed to sell wine to persons "in real need," meaning the sick. In March, 1678, Samuel Partrigg had liberty to sell liquors "to the neighbors," and in 1681, "for the helpfulnessf of neighbors." In 1685, he had liberty to retail wine, and he was afterwards a retailer of strong drink in Hatfield. The ordinary keepers and retailers, in those days, were very respectable men. Selectmen would not approve, nor the Court license, any other. John Pynchon was licensed to sell wine and strong liquors in 1671; the Court seem to have expected that he would reduc ethe price! In September, 1674, the Court that was sitting in the house of Nathaniel Ely, ordinary-keeper in Springfield, fined him 40 shil lings, for not keeping beer that was according to law, viz., made with four bushels of barley malt to the hogshead, (63 gallons.) This beer which ordinaries were required to keep, was not so strong as much of the beer used in England. The first inn-keeper in Hadley after 1668, in the county rec ords, was Hezekiah Dickinson in 1692 and 1693. Joseph Smith, cooper, was an inn-keeper in 1696. Luke Smith was a retailer in 1700 and an inn-keeper in 1701. Westwood Cooke was an inn-keeper from 1704 to 1707. Luke Smith was an inn-keeper most or all of the time from 171 1 to 1731, inclusive. No other inn-keeper or retailer in Hadley, is recorded in the county books that remain, during those 21 years. Selling intoxicating drinks to the Indians. — In consequence of the drunkenness of the Indians, "the fruits whereof were murder *In 1667, John Pynchon credited to Richard Goodman, for his "account of expenses at the General Training" and for other things, £8.2.0. There was a General Training in Hadley in 1667, and the officers were entertained by Goodman. •fThis kind of "helpfulness" has destroyed thousands of lives and millions of property, in Massachusetts. 64 HISTORY OF HADLEY and other outrages," the General Court, in May, 1657, forbid all persons to sell or give to any Indian, rum, strong water, wine, strong beer, brandy, cider, perry, or any other strong liquors, under the penalty of 40 shillings for every pint so sold or given. The Courts in Hampshire county were prompt to punish infrac tions of this law, and were sustained by almost all the people. There were a few persons who could not resist the temptation of exchanging spirits for wampum and beaver skins; and some times a farmer or his wife thought there was no great harm in selling to the'Indians, a few quarts of poor cider. The Indians were sure to be drunk whenever they could get liquor enough for that purpose. The following trial of Dr. Westcarr, and some other notices, are abridged from the county records: — In July, 1670, Doct. John Westcarr, of Hadley, was complained of by the Indians, for selling liquor to them. Capt. John Pynchon examined him and heard the witnesses. West carr confessed that he had two barrels of liquor in the spring, and being asked what he did with it, said he used it for his own occasions and for neighbors who desired him to procure it. He refused to tell to whom he had sold any, yet it was all gone but half a cask. He said he used four or five gallons at a time in preparing medicines. Wequanunco testified that John Westcarr sold him two quarts of liquor in the spring when corn was so high (which, by his sign, was 2 or 3 inches.) Benjamin Wait* standing by, said in a deriding manner, may be it was 2 or 3 years ago. The Indian replied, "no, it was this spring; what I say is true; Horns (that is, an old man) will not lie. I paid for it in wampum after two fadom a quart; I paid in black wampum.11 The same Indian's wife testified that she saw Westcarr sell her husband two quarts of liquor. Tackquellawant testified that John Westcarr sells liquors to the Indians; "and about a month ago, I had four quarts of him and paid him a beaver skin. This is truth, and Chabattan and Wottellosin know it, and saw it." Chabattan appeared and said Tackquellawant had four quarts as he testified, of J. W. "I was with him and saw it, and saw him pay a beaver skin for it.11 Nuxco testified: — "I fetched liquors from John Westcarr when the Indians were drunken, and my wigwam was broken and spoiled by the drunken Indians this summer. I was before the Northampton Commissioners about it. I had six and a half quarts of liquor of J. W. and paid him a great beaver skin of my wife's. I also fetched three quarts more, and paid him six fadom of wampum.11 Nuxco says it is a known trade among the Indians, that it's two fadom of wampum for a quart. Mr. Pynchon bound over Doct. Westcarr to the Sept. Court at Springfield, 1670. The preceding testimonies were read. Dr. Westcarr owned that the Indians so accused him. The Indians affirmed that Westcarr threatened to lay them in irons, if they told of him. He denied, but the Indians told him to his face that it was true and that they were afraid to speak all. Nuxco and Tackquellawant said he had feared [frightened] them so that they might not speak. Wamequam said Westcarr did so speak. Squiskhegan said Westcarr was angry with Mattawan, his son. Mattawan said J. W. told him the Indians were naughty for telling the Northampton Commissioners of his selling liquors, and J. W. took away his gun because of it. Doct. Westcarr here said he took the gun for debt. Mattawan said he owed him not a penny. Mattawan and Squiskhegan said J. W. lied, and that he took away the gun because Mattawan informed against him and he was angry. John Westcarr tendered to take his oath for his purgation, but the Court refused, and gave their reasons. The Court adjudged him guilty of selling at least 10 quarts, and fined him 40^. He appealed to the Court of Assistants at Boston, and was bound in 8o£, and Francis Barnard and John Coleman in 40^ each, as sureties. *B. Wait had also been complained of by the Indians and fined. HISTORY OF HADLEY 65 In September, 1 671, it appeared that there had been no issue of the case at Boston, the bench and jury not agreeing. The County Court, as he had been at considerable expense and trouble, accepted his offer of five pounds, and the matter was settled. He had been fined 30^ in 1667, for selling 15 pints of strong liquor to the Indians. In 1674, the Indians again accused him, and he was bound over by the Hadley Commissioners. At March Court, 1675, ne wished to be tried by the jury, except Lt. Smith and P. Tilton who had bound him over. He was tried by the other ten. The Indians did not appear. He put in his defence in writing, and John Smith of Hadley replied to it. The jury decided that he was "not legally guilty." In 1667, a man in Springfield was fined £16 for selling four quarts of cider to the Indians. In 1672, another Springfield man was complained of for selling cider to the Indians. He said it was water-cider. As it was such that an Indian was probably made drunk by it, and did mischief, the Court fined him 40 shillings. In 1673, a Northampton woman was pre sented for selling cider to the Indians. She appeared and acknowledged that she sold some sour cider mixed with beer. The Court fined her 45 shillings. In Sept. 1670, the Court say: — "the woful drunkenness of the Indians cries aloud to use the utmost laudable means to prevent what may be of that sin among them." In Sept. 1673, tney say: — "the Indians are very often found drunk, and cross to all good order and laws." The Indians in this valley were miserable, degraded beings, when these towns were settled, and it is evident that they did not become any better. The Connecticut Indians were similar. Ac cording to the General Court of that colony in Oct. 1654, "the great and crying sin of drunkenness reigns amongst them." The Court attributed this to the sale of cider and strong beer to them, which had not been forbidden, and these were now pro hibited as well as wine and spirits. Penalty, 5 pounds for every pint sold to an Indian. In Daniel Gookin's History of the Christian Indians, in 1677, he remarked — "A very little strong drink will intoxicate their brains; for being used to drink water, they cannot bear a fourth part of what an Englishman will bear." Drinks in the 17th century. — The early drinks in New England were wine of several sorts, comprising that called sack, beer, in cluding ale, and strong water or aquavitae, which was of two kinds, viz., brandy distilled from wine, and a liquor made from malt or grain, and named usquebaugh. Wine and beer were the principal drinks, until rum was brought from the West Indies. Rum was called "kill-devil" by Josselyn, and the General Court of Connecticut, in 1654, termed it "Barbadoes liquor commonly called rum-kill-devil."* It was much cheaper than aquavitae from Europe, and its use became much more common. Strong beer was first made of imported malt, and in a few years, of malt from grain raised here. Much ordinary household beer was ?This liquor was strangely misnamed. Instead of killing the devil, it has greatly extended and strengthened his kingdom. Josselyn called it a "cursed liquor." Aquavitae, which signifies, water of life, had also a very wrong name. 66 HISTORY OF HADLEY made. Hops grew wild in the intervals of the Connecticut. After some years, cider was added to the beverages. The second Henry Wolcott, of Windsor, had an extensive nursery and orchard, and he began to sell cider in 1648, at 2s. 8d. per gallon; in 1650, the price was is. 8d. and in 1653, is. 4d. and 30 shillings a barrel. He also sold boiled cider. In 1678, cider in Northampton was 10 shillings a barrel, and before 1700, 6 or 7 shillings. It was not very abundant, and beer was a more common drink than cider in the Hampshire towns until after 1700. New England rum, distilled from molasses, was added to the list of intoxicating drinks, about 1700. Other liquors, as mum, perry and metheglin, are noticed in New England in the 17th century. There were various prepa rations of wines and spirits, as mulled wine, or wine burnt or stewed, and sweetened and spiced; and cherry rum or brandy, called cherry-bounce. Flip made of beer, sugar and spirits, appears near the close of the century, and punch not long after. Malt-houses were early established, and they continued in some of the villages on Connecticut River more than a century. John Barnard, who died in Hadley in 1664, had a malt-house in Had ley, and another in Wethersfield, and was called "maltster." Andrew Warner hired his malt-house in Hadley, and it was burnt in 1665. He then built malt-works for himself, and was the maltster of Hadley, and his son Jacob seems to have succeeded him. Francis Barnard had a malt-house. Distilling. — Small stills, often called limbecs, were common in England more than 230 years ago, and housewives distilled cor dials, sweet waters and medicinal waters, from herbs, flowers, spices, &c. The early settlers of Massachusetts, in Boston and vicinity, had many of these small stills in their houses, which appear in their inventories, valued at from 15 to 45 shillings each. There were some at Hartford and Windsor. Several ministers had one of these little stills. Andrew Warner of Hadley, had a small still valued at 10 shillings, and Doct. Hastings of Hatfield, had one valued at 40 shillings. There were larger stills, and spirits were distilled in Massa chusetts, Plymouth and Connecticut, from grain apparently, before 1662. This kind of distillation could not have been extensive, nor of long continuance. Henry Wolcott distilled something called brandy before 1680, perhaps from cider, but not much cider-brandy was made in New England till after 1750. Samuel Porter of Hadley, had a still and worm, in 1722, valued at 9 pounds. What was distilled in it, is unknown. HISTORY OF HADLEY 67 Aquavitae was imported into New England in small casks, and in bottles packed in cases, perhaps like the gin-cases of later days. Such cases were brought to Hadley, and these bottles, probably from their shape, gave a permanent name to Aquavitae Meadow. John Barnard, in his will, in 1664, gave to a kinsman "my piece of land that lieth in the Nook, or Aquavita Bottle." The last word was not retained. The contents of these bottles were esteemed very precious, and Mary Barnard, widow of John, in her will, in 1665, gave to four friends "one glass of strong water" each, that is, one bottle of brandy each, and reserved other glasses for the use of sick and weak persons. — "Aqua- vitae" and "aquavitae bottle" are found in Shakespeare. Lechford, who wrote in 1642, says drunkenness was then rare in Massachusetts. Intemperance increased after the means of intoxication were more easily procured. There were many com plaints in the 17th century, that some men spent their estates and impoverished their families, by excessive dnnking. In Sam uel Clough's New England Almanack for 1702, are the following lines, which doubtless give a correct description of a Boston bar room, and of some in the country, 156 years ago: — Under December. "The days are short, the weather's cold, By tavern fires, tales are told, Some ask for dram when first come in, Others with flip or bounce begin." Under January. "Ill husbands now in taverns sit, And spend more money than they get, Calling for drink and drinking greedy, Tho' many of them poor and needy." Intemperance was more common in Boston and on the sea board than in the agricultural towns, but Hampshire was not entirely free from intemperate drinking and its evil consequences. The County Court, in March, 1675, remark — "it is found by experience that there is too much idle expense of precious time and estate, in drinking strong liquors, by many of our youth and others in our towns." The Court ordered that retailers should sell only to governors of families of sober carriage, "the intent being that such persons as have liberty to sell, should use their best to prevent a trade of drinking and drunkenness." — John Pynchon retailed brandy at the rate of 12 shillings per gallon in 1653, and rum at 6s. to 6s. 8d. in 1673. He did not commonly retail wine and spirits, but when he had rum for sale, there was no lack of purchasers. Rev. Pelatiah Glover, the minister of Spring- 68 HISTORY OF HADLEY field, bought of him about two gallons of rum, and six quarts of wine, in a year, from 1672 to 1675. Mr. Pynchon, at the raising of his mill-dam, in 1654, furnished wine and cakes to the amount of 13s. 6d. In Hadley, in 1665, the wine and cake at the funeral of John Barnard's widow, cost 40 shillings — a bad practice derived from England. When the Hadley School mill was raised in 1706, 11 quarts of rum at 4 shillings per gallon were used. As intoxicating liquors became more plenty, their use and pernicious effects became more common. CHAPTER VIII Town Meetings — Townsmen's Accounts — Freemen — Town Officers — Pound — Town By laws — Occupations of the people— Petitions of Hadley, in 1665, 1669 and 1670. The fathers of Hadley intended to have all business done in an orderly, methodical manner. In December, 1660, they voted that a moderator should be chosen at every town meeting, and when they chose Nathaniel Dickinson, to transcribe all town orders, they directed that the orders made .by the town, should be read openly in the presence of the meeting, before it broke up. When Peter Tilton was chosen to record town orders, Sept. 1661, he was to receive two pence for each order, and he was to forfeit four pence for every order not recorded before the next meeting. Mr. Tilton was a systematic, well educated man. In January, 1662, the following regulations for town meetings were voted by the town — Warnings were to be accounted legal, when each inhabitant had had notice by telling him, or some of his family, or by leaving word at his house, at least the evening before the meeting; otherwise not legal. Every person not coming to the meeting within half an hour of the appointed time, was to forfeit 6 pence, and not coming within an hour, 12 pence, unless excused at the next meeting, after giving a rational plea for absence. If the major part of the voters did not appear within an hour, those present might go away and attend to their own occasions, but if a major part appeared, it was a legal meeting. "The townsmen before every town meeting shall choose one of themselves to be moderator, who shall have the ordering of the meeting, of speech and silence therein," and no person shall depart without leave of the moderator, under the penalty of 6 pence, "and being accounted as one that gives an evil example of disorder to others." All in the meeting were to direct their speech to the moderator, and "he to value and make answer thereto, until it be ripened for a vote; that so we may avoid personal jangling." [Abridged.] They also voted to choose Townsmen yearly in January, who should have power to order and transact all public occasions but the following: — Admitting inhabitants, giving of land, laying out highways, alienating fences and properties, erecting common buildings, as houses, HISTORY OF HADLEY 69 mills, bridges, &c. of considerable value, levying of rates, and some other things. In all these, the townsmen must have the consent of the town. In 1662, the |townsmen were to meet the first Monday of every other month, to consider matters that concern the town. — The proceedings of townsmen and selectmen were seldom recorded. There was no town Treasurer in those days, and no need of any. Rates were not levied in money, and town debts were not paid in money. The townsmen kept the accounts, and after their year was out, the new townsmen with two other persons appointed for that purpose, examined their accounts, and the result was recorded. The record of these audits for many years, may be seen in the town book. There was no Treasurer in Had ley till some years after 1700. Richard Billings, of the west side, sued the agents of the town, in 1664, for witholding some of his land. He attended a town meeting, March 25, 1664, and offended them by his free and earnest speeches, and the town deliberately voted, " thatthe carriage of Rich ard Billings at this present meeting, is offensive." He gained his cause at the next Court, and did not trouble himself about the vote. Freemen. — By the early laws of Massachusetts, none but church-members could be freemen; and none but freemen could hold offices or vote for rulers. These regulations were modified in 1647 and 1658, and some non-freemen were allowed to vote in town affairs generally, and might hold town offices; and in 1664, some who were not church-members could be freemen. In those days, town offices were burdensome and were avoided, and many members of churches, in order to exempt themselves from public service, would not be made freemen, and in 1647, a ^aw was made compelling such men to serve, if chosen, or pay a fine not exceeding 20 shillings. In Hadley, the distinction of freemen and non-freemen is seldom alluded to in the records. It is evident that town meet ings were open to all, and that all came together and debated and voted freely, respecting town affairs. Only freemen voted for Magistrates or Assistants, County Commissioners and Treas urer, and they chose deputies to the General Court. Their votes and choice are not recorded in the town book. OFFICERS CHOSEN BY THE TOWN, And some appointed by others. Townsmen, were called Selectmen, after a few years. There were five from the beginning. They were chosen by the engagers, in November, 1659, in three places. They were chosen at Norwottuck, Dec. 14, 1660, viz., Andrew Bacon, Andrew Warner, Nathaniel Dickinson, Samuel Smith and William Lewis. The town of Hadley chose five Jan. 27, 1662, three from the east side and two from the west side. For a century after 1663, a selectman was very rarely chosen two years in succession. 70 HISTORY OF HADLEY Raters or Rate-makers, viz., Samuel Smith, Nathaniel Dickinson and William Allis, were first chosen to make the rates, Dec. 16, 1661. For some years after, S. Smith, N. Dickinson and Peter Tilton-were chosen. The raters were sometimes called assessors, before 1700, and commonly after 1715. Auditors. — Two were chosen yearly, to unite with the new townsmen, in settling the accounts of the old ones. The first were William Partrigg and Peter Tilton, who were chosen Dec. 11, 1661, to audit, with the townsmen, all rates and accounts for two years past. Constables. — They took their oath before the County Court. Thomas Coleman was the first Constable of Newtown, March, 1661, and Stephen Terry was the first Constable of Hadley, March, 1662. William Partrigg, for east side, and Isaac Graves, for west side, were chosen Jan. 27, 1663. Substantial men were elected to this office. After Hatfield became a town, only one was chosen annually in Hadley, until 1704. The constable had many duties to perform, and in executing them, he carried a black staff, 5 feet long, tipped with brass. In Massachusetts, he was the collector of taxes or rates. Town Recorder or Clerk. — Nathaniel Dickinson, who had before acted as recorder, was chosen to record town orders, Dec. 17, 1660; and Peter Tilton was chosen to record town orders, Sept. 4, 1661, and to record lands, Feb. 9, 1663. Mr. Tilton held the office 31 years and a half. Samuel Barnard was chosen in 1693, and is the first that is called Clerk in the record. Sealei of Weights and Measures, was called in England, and sometimes in Massachu setts, Clerk of the Market. John Barnard of Hadley was sworn by the County Court in 1663, and William Partrigg in 1665. Joseph Smith, the cooper and miller, was chosen by the town, in 1696, and he was sealer many years, and was succeeded by his son Joseph. Hadley and Northampton were complained of to the Court, for not having standard weights and measures, Sept. 1664. They were allowed until the next March to get stand ards. Hadley voted brass weights in 1707. In England, in the time of Elizabeth, according to Holinshed, many clerks of the market contrived to leave the measures too big or too little, in order to have another fee for repair ing. Some dealers had one measure to sell by, and another to buy by, yet all sealed and branded. It was the same with weights. Poor tenants that paid their rent in grain to their landlords, were often dealt with very hardly. The "golden days" of Queen Elizabeth, furnish abundant examples of all kinds of dishonesty and wickedness. Commissioners to end small Causes. — By a law of the colory, the towns where no magis trate dwelt, might request the County Court to appoint three Commissioners, to hear and determine causes, where the debt or damage did not exceed 40 shillings. A magistrate had the same power. The General Court appointed Commissioners for Hadley, in May, 1661, when the town was named, with unusual power, viz., Andrew Bacon, Samuel Smith and William Westwood. In April, 1662, the town chose the same men. In May, 1663, the General Court allowed Henry Clarke, Samuel Smith and Andrew Bacon to be commission ers till the next September, and their extraordinary power was then to cease, and Hadley was to have commissioners to end small causes as other towns. The same three men, Clarke, Smith and Bacon, were sworn by the County Court, as commissioners for small causes, in Sept. 1663, and Bacon was continued until 1669, Clarke till 1675 and Smith till 1678. Others were John White, Nathaniel Dickinson, Peter Tilton and Philip Smith. These town Courts ended with the first charter. Clerk of the Writs. — Every town might nominate a Clerk of the Writs, to be allowed by the shire Court, to grant summons and attachments in civil actions. They were to receive two pence for a warrant, three pence for an attachment, and four pence for a bond. The first Clerk of the Writs in Hadley, was John Russell, sr., appointed by the General Court, in May, 1661; no other is recorded until March, 1681, when Richard Montague was sworn by the County Court; Samuel Partrigg was sworn in 1682, and Samuel Barnard in 1686. Tithing-men, in Massachusetts, were first ordered in 1 677. Hadley selectmen chose four, and they were approved by the County Court, in March, 1678, viz., Timothy Nash, Samuel Moody, Samuel Church, Chileab Smith. After 1680, they were chosen by the town, four for some years, and then only two. They were to inspect the conduct of liquor-sellers, Sabbath-breakers, night-walkers, tipplers, &c. and present the names of the disorderly to a magistrate. HISTORY OF HADLEY 71 Surveyors of Highways were first chosen Jan. 27, 1663, viz., Edward Church and Chileab Smith, east side, and Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr., west side. After the town was divided, only two were chosen, one from the north and one from the south part of the village. Measurers of Land. — Were not chosen annually. After Samuel Smith and Peter Tilton, 1660, none were recorded for many years. In 1696, Capt. Aaron Cooke, Nehemiah Dick inson and Samuel Porter were chosen. A Packer was chosen to pack meat and fish intended for market. He was to inspect casks, and was called gauger of casks. The first one recorded in Hadley was Samuel Part rigg, in March, 1679. Daniel Marsh was packer, 1694-1698. Sergt. Joseph Smith, the cooper, miller, sealer, &c. was chosen packer in 1669, and many years after, and his son Joseph succeeded him. — Samuel Partrigg understood the cooper^ business, and the others were coopers. Fence Viewers. — Mr. Westwood and Brother Standley were chosen, April 24, 1661, "to view the meadow fences." Four regular fence viewers were appointed in April, 1662, two for the east side, and two for the west side. After some years, two were annually chosen for Fort Meadow and Hockanum, two for Great Meadow, two for Forty Acres and School Meadows, and one or two for Little Panset, on the west side. They were appointed by the selectmen till 1693, and afterwards chosen by the town. Hayward. — Goodman Montague was chosen a common Hayward, May 11, 1661, and again in 1662. He was to have 12 pence each for cattle and hogs, two shillings for a horse, and 20 pence for 20 sheep, that he should find loose in the meadow, and bring out; to be paid by the owners. At a later period, these officers were called Field Drivers, and two were chosen annually. In a colony law, 1693, they are called "Haywards or Field-drivers." Hogreeves were ordered by a law of 1720. No earlier law is found. Hadley first chose hogreeves in 1721. Hog-ringers. — In March, 1706, the town voted to choose hog-ringers annually, and they were to ring all swine 14 inches high, found unringed on commons or fields, from March 1 to Dec. 1. To have 4 pence for each. The west side voted that hogs should be ringed in 1663 and 1664. Hogs seem to have run at large if ringed, or sometimes if yoked and ringed. Cow-keeper. — There was a cow-keeper in Hadley, on the east side, in 1662, and long after, who had the care of the cows in their great pasture, the woods, and was paid by the owners of the cows. He is seldom noticed in the records. There was a cow-keeper on the west side, 1663. Sometimes there was a keeper of the dry herd. A Shepherd was to be hired, April, 1686 and 1687. Pens were to be made to fold the sheep at night, 1687, and "their lodgings" would help pay the charges. Selectmen to order. A shepherd had sometimes been employed years before. Grave Digger. — It was voted, March 9, 1663, that Richard Montague should have four shillings for every grave he makes for a grown person, and two shillings for the grave of a child under ten years. The persons who rung the bell and swept and took care of the meeting-house, are not noticed in the record. A Pound was ordered to be built by the "four quarters on this side," each quarter its share, Feb. 9, 1663. It was not built till Sept., 1664, after complaint to the Court. The place was not mentioned, but a few years after, the pound was in the middle highway into the meadow, which was 6 rods wide, and Thomas Webster, who had a little house in this highway, was called "pound-keeper and shepherd," 1684. A new pound was voted in 1689. There was a Guard on the Sabbath before there was any Indian war. The town voted, April 4, 1664, that the military officers "should choose the guard for the defence of the town upon Lord's days, Lectures and public meeting days of God's worship." In 1667, it was voted that every soldier, who attended on the guard a year, should receive a pound of powder and a pound of lead. The service was light. The soldier carried his arms to the place of meeting, and sat in the seat of the guard. By-laws and Orders of the town, voted May 3, 1693, and allowed by the County Court, Sept. 23, 1693, for directing and managing the prudential affairs of the town. Abridged. 1. Ten men, including a majority of the selectmen, having assembled, may proceed with the business of a town meeting, the meeting having been legally warned. 72 HISTORY OF HADLEY 2. Common fences are to be made good by March 20th, yearly — to be 4j feet high, or ditch and rails, or hedge equivalent thereto. To be so close as to keep out swine three months old. 3. Owners of defective fences, after one day's warning and nothing done, are to pay the viewers double price for mending the same. 4. Every man to have a stake 12 inches high at the end of his fence, with the two first letters of his name, facing the way the fence runs. 5. Hockanum and Fort Meadow are to be cleared yearly on Michaelmas day, (Sept. 29;) the Great Meadow a fortnight after; unless the selectmen order otherwise. 6. Those who leave open gates and bars of common fields, between March 20, and the opening of the fields, are to pay 5 shillings besides all damages. 7. No man to trespass by going over his neighbor^ land with team or cart, or by baiting, without leave. Fine, 2s. 6d. and to pay damages. 8. Horses, cattle, sheep and swine found in the common fields without a keeper, within the time aforesaid, are to be pounded, and hogs at all times. Horses and cattle to pay for each poundage, one shilling, and two pence for the keeper of the pound; hogs and sheep 6 pence and a penny for the keeper, besides damages. 9. All heads over 16 years, are to work one day on the highway; and owners of meadow -land at the rate of one day for 20 acres. 10. Any person refusing to work after 24 hours warning, forfeits 2s. 6d. 11. All heads over 14, when called out by the selectmen to cut brush or clear the commons, shall work one day yearly in June, or forfeit 2s. 6d. 12. All young cattle should be herded annually at some place remote from the townjthe owners to pay the expense. The selectmen to expend what is necessary. Occupation of the inhabitants of Hadley. — The early settlers were generally thrifty, substantial men. They all had lands and derived the greater part of their support from their lands and labors. Most of them were farmers, as they had been in the towns from which they came. There were some artificers, and a few that had been in trade. Several left buildings and lands in Connecticut. The estates of a number of them were worth from 800 to 1 100 pounds, after their decease. Trade must have been quite limited at Hadley in the 17th century, yet some persons connected traffic with their other employments, at times, as William Partrigg, Lieut. Samuel Smith, Philip Smith, Samuel Porter, and William Lewis. The fur-trade with the Indians was in the hands of John Pynchon, and he had agents in the towns. In Hadley, on the west side, Zechariah Field traded with Indians and whites, and failed about 1664. On the east side, Doct. John Westcarr had the Indian trade for a year or two before the Indian war of 1675. Previous to 1670, the people of Hadley bought many goods of John_ Pynchon at Springfield, and paid him in wheat, flour, pork and malt. — The second Samuel Porter, who died in 1722, was the most extensive trader there had been in the county of Hamp shire, except John Pynchon. He left a large estate. The artificers or mechanics were commonly farmers also. Timothy Nash was a blacksmith. John Russell, senior, was a glazier, a trade that required some skill in the days of diamond HISTORY OF HADLEY 73 glass. Richard Montague was a baker, but there was not much demand for his services in Hadley, except in the Indian war. William Partrigg was a cooper, as well as trader. The first Samuel Porter had a set of joiner and carpenter's tools, valued at £6, 2S. 6d., and he undoubtedly sometimes used them, and his son Hezekiah was a carpenter. Robert Boltwood may have been a carpenter; he could build a mill. The records do not make known the names of the men who built chimneys, made garments, or made shoes. Petitions or Addresses of Hadley relating to public affairs. I. Petition when the General Court was contending with the Commissioners of Charles II., 1665. King Charles II. asserted his right to interfere in the domestic concerns of Massachusetts, and sent commissioners, in 1664, to regulate the affairs of New England. The inhabitants of Mass achusetts, relying on their charter, resolved to resist the orders of the king, and to nullify his commission, and they succeeded. The requisitions of the king gave birth to the parties of prerog ative and of freedom, which continued to divide Massachusetts till the establishment of independence. The dawning- strife of the new system against the old one had begun.* In the midst of the contest between the General Court and the royal Commissioners, Hadley sent a long petition or address to the General Court, dated April 25, 1665. It was drawn up by Mr. Russell, who was a zealous opposer of the pretensions and encroachments of England. Northampton also sent a petition, dated April 19, 1665, signed by 86 persons, requesting the Court "to stand for, confirm, and maintain our former and ancient liberties and priv ileges, both in church and commonwealth." It was only about one-fourth as long as that of Hadley. Mr. Russell was inclined to be wordy, and was not always explicit.f To the much honored General Court of the Massachusetts now assembled at Boston, the humble petition of the inhabitants of the town of Hadley: Honored and worthy fathers, if we call you fathers and Gods too, we speak but after the most high one of these relative titles, bespeak the tender and natural love we confide in you for; the other tells us what power you have in your hands to help us and the end for which God hath clothed you therewith; both show us our duty of repairing to you for help (in time of danger) under him who is over all. If ever there were appearances of danger towards us, we think now more. The cry of our sins as well as the Lord1s threatenings being so manifest to them that have ears to hear. Had the Lord but spoken by the meanest of his messengers, tender hearts would have trembled; but when the Lord hath seconded so many voices of his ?Bancroft'6 History of United States, Vol. II. flf my minutes are correct, Mr. Russell preached the election sermon at Boston , May , 1665. 74 HISTORY OF HADLEY precious servants by the midnight cries of those portentous signs* in the heavens, once and again; and that in conjunction with the disastrous state-shakings among us, we would not Pharaoh like harden our hearts, or refuse to see the lifting up of the Lord's hand. Either of these might administer sad thoughts of heart; both together give us more cause to look out that with the prudent we may foresee the danger and hide ourselves, rather than with the simple, pass on and be punished. The Good Lord our God (forever blessed be his name) hath in a day of danger in the world, bid us enter into our chambers and hath kept us safe with himself. His eyes have been upon us, his salvation for walls and bulwarks; when we nor had, nor could have any other, he hath graciously made his word to be verified to us, that he would go before us and be our rere-ward, himself creating on all our dwelling places, his cloud and smoke and flam ing fire; and upon all the glory causing a defence to be; affording here a tabernacle for a shadow from the heat, and a place of refuge and covert from the storm. Have we seen the Lord assaying so to do to any other since he brought his own redeemed his son and first born out of Egypt ? May we not look from one end of the earth, yea and heavens too, to the other and not see it ? And in what way the Lord hath done this for us, and what statutes and judgments he hath caused us to keep; which hath been our wisdom and made us great in the sight of the nations, hath been a thing too public and glorious to be concealed or doubt ed of. By what shepherds the Lord hath led and fed us here, and what hath been the in tegrity of their hearts and skillfulness of their hands; would be wretched ingratitude if we should so soon forget, especially having so often and lately sung the Lord's praises for the same. That we have not so carried toward these as we ought we know, and desired to be humbled for. We know also that there is a dreadful difference between serving the Lord under these, and other services. That we may not know this, as fools come to understand good and evil, is our humble petition and request to yourselves; who under God are the only means to save us therefrom, and whom we have trusted with all we have for this very end. We humbly but most earnestly beseech you that the same may be kept for us and for the Lord. Nor do we herein ask any more than the Lord allows and commands us to do. We would fear God, and honor the king. Whatever royal grants of grace we have received either from the Lord in Heaven or kings on earth, the accepting, holding fast and maintain ing of the same with due thankfulness, is the true magnifying of that grace, and to throw away, or cowardly to suffer ourselves to be flattered or frightened from it, is the despising and dishonoring thereof. The faster we hold the grace of God, even when he seems to be angry and thrust us away; the more we honor and please him. The king of heaven will give his poorest subject on earth, leave to challenge resolutely his right and 'not to let it go for frowns or threats. And why should we think that a just and gracious king on earth will not do in like manner. We have right from God and man to chuse our own governors, make and live under our own laws. Our liberty and privileges herein as men we prize and would hold as our lives; this makes us freemen and not slaves. Our privilege herein as Christians in regard of the kingdom, name, glory of our God is far more precious than our lives. Here by we enjoy and are not without God in the world. And we must give an account of our holding and improving thereof, to the hazard of much more than the worth of our lives,. We would not live so accursed as to live having betrayed our trust herein. We should then be ashamed to live and afraid to die, when now through the maintaining of the same, thro' the Lord's grace, we are neither. Nor is it our own portion only that we trade with in this case, but our children's stock also — even their advantages as men and Christians to serve the Lord and be accounted to him for a generation forevermore. Can we bear to think that they should rise up and call us cursed for betraying them in their successive generations, and to publish the same to the ends of the earth. Honored and endeared in the Lord, you are our nail, we hope, in a sure place. On you we hang our enjoyments, houses, lands, liberties, wives, children, lives and all our sanctu ary vessels. At your hands we look for them again, and the Lord will require them. True, what danger is, you are in the forefront of it, but is it not the Lord that set you there ? And he that gave Joshua so many charges to be strong and very courageous knows what all his Joshuas need, and will withhold no good thing from them that walk uprightly. Your place is not worse than David's valley of the shadow of death; he that was with him will be with you and then no fear of ill. Nor is your help less than Jonathan's when the Lord wrought ?One of these signs was the comet of 1664 and 1665. HISTORY OF HADLEY 75 such deliverance for and by him. We with our prayers and endeavors, heads and hearts, and lands and estates and lives will be with you and subject unto you. He can deliver if he will; if not, we are not careful in this matter. We again beseech you, Let us give fear, honor, tribute, obedience to the Lord and the king, with all humility, constancy, and willing ness as his due. And what is given us for ourselves and for our God, let us never bereave ourselves nor rob him of. We crave pardon for the length and plainness of our speech (which yet, we hope hath not been rude.) Our hearts have been and are full of affection. We desire to leave this testimony of it with yourselves and to pour out the remainder before the Lord in our earnest and hearty prayer for his presence with and blessing upon you and your resolves; to your own comfort, the continuance and increase of the prosperity of our Zion, and the advancement of the honor of his most glorious name. And so hoping in the Lord, we rest your humble suppliants. Hadley, April 25th, 1665. This petition was signed by 91 persons, who must have included almost every male in the town, above 21 years of age. About 63 belonged to the east side of the river, and 28 to the west side. II. Petition of Hadley against the impost or customs, 1669. On the 7th of November, 1668, the General Court of Massa chusetts ordered that duties should be imposed on goods and merchandise, and on horses, cattle and grain imported into this colony, after the first of March next. Petitions against this act were sent from some towns on the sea-board, and from Spring field, Northampton and Hadley on Connecticut River. These three towns apprehended that Connecticut would retaliate, and impose a tax on their produce sent down the river. The duty was reduced in 1669, and suspended as to Connecticut and Ply mouth in 1670. The Hadley petition is subjoined. It appears to be in the hand-writing of William Goodwin. Northampton stated that it cost is. 8d. a bushel to transport wheat to Boston, viz., is. to Windsor, 2d. thence to Hartford, and 6d. from Hartford to Boston. This was the cost of transport when grain was carted to Windsor. To the Right Worshipful Richard Bellingham, Esq., Governor, and to the rest of the Worshipful Assistants and Deputies of the General Court of the Massachusetts Colony. The humble petition of the inhabitants of the town of Hadleigh sheweth: That whereas we have been informed of an order made the last General Court about customs to be laid on all (unless some specials excepted) imports and exports, which order was left with some preparatives (in case) towards an execution this next ensuing March. The sense we have and fears that we are filled with of evil and danger towards the whole in general, and ourselves in special (with reference to the same) do enforce us to present these following considerations to this honored Court. 1. Liberty, liberty of the subject and commons being the great thing we have made (and we trust in sincerity) profession of, the clogging and loading of trade, the freedom whereof is the advance of a people, will it not administer matter of discouragement, sulk ing discouragement to our own people and occasion of evil report among others, that we who have been an example of seeking liberty should become an example of taking it away from ourselves and others ? 76 HISTORY OF HADLEY 2. The moving (that we say not commotion) of men's spirits generally at the thing, as indeed we find it which (we think) we may say of all sorts among us, demonstrates the tender sense that people have thereof, and the working of passions within. Now the general motions of spirits hath still been accounted a thing regardable in societies of all sorts, and this we find to be as of one man with us against this thing. 3. Its to us matter of no small fear lest the thing itself circumstanced with the dissentions and strivings about it, should administer occasion of drawing of an heavier yoke upon us from others and afford a plea for the expediency and necessity of the same to us, who could not live without customs nor agree in having them. 4. We cannot but suspect the product thereof will be the diversion of trade especially as to our neighbor colony in Connecticut, and then if the trade be gone the customs will be of little avail to the supply of our wants or others. 5. We ourselves in this part of the colony are like to have not only the common share in the evils and dangers likely hereupon to ensue, but also a burden even a sinking load of overplus more than we can bear, for our transport being unavoidably through Connecticut Colony we must look to have so much taken from us as will make our trading (without which we cannot subsist) intolerable. How much we may or shall suffer we know not, but words are high and that which sounds in our ears is, that its no reason they should be losers by our colony; hence they say its but equal that they should take so much again as is by our order taken from them. And so we shall bear the burden of the whole colony though we sink under it. 6. Seeing we are required (and according to righteousness joyfully do it) to bear our share of the burthens and duty belonging to the whole, we trust we shall share in the privileges proportionably and find such protection and safeguard under the government as that the laws and order thereof may not expose us (more than others of the colony) to detriment and ruin. In respect of all these as well as of other considerations our humble request to the Hon ored Council is that if possible there may be no procedure to execution of this law (which passed so barely also in the General Court) until the next General Court; that so we may have liberty and opportunity to present our petitions unto and seek help from them, that either the thing may not proceed or some effectual course may be taken that we be not thereby oppressed beyond measure only because we are members of this coiony. Thus craving pardon for our so far troubling of you and beseeching your help in this our distress, we rest your suppliants ever wishing and praying for your welfare and prosperity in the Lord. Hadley, Feb. 19, 2668-9. East Side. — 34. Henry Clarke, Andrew Bacon, William Goodwin, Samuel Smith, Joseph Kellogg, William Marcum, Thomas Dickinson, John Russell, Jr., John White, Sr., Philip Smith, Nathaniel Dickinson, Sr., John Russell, Sr., Will. Westwood, Aaron Cooke, Peter Tilton, William Lewis, Andrew Warner, Samuel Gardner, Sr., Samuel Church, Chileab Smith, Timothy Nash, John Crow, John Taylor, Samuel Porter, Richard Goodman, Thomas Coleman, Richard Mountague, Edward Church, John Dickinson, Sr., Francis Barnard, Robert Boltwood, Joseph Baldwin, Thomas Wells, John Hubbard. East Side. — 30. Caleb Watson, Nehemiah Dickinson, Hezekiah Dickinson, Azariah Dickinson, Samuel Foote, John Smith, Samuel Gardner, Jr., Thomas Partrigg, Daniel Marsh, Isaac Harrison, Noah Coleman, Joseph Warriner, Samuel Marsh, Richard Lyman, Samuel Crow, Philip Lewis, William Webster, William Rooker, Isaac Stanley, John Abot, Isaac Warner, Samuel Partrigg, Peter Mountague, ¦* John Westcarr, John Dickinson, Jr., John Warner, John Peck, Jonathan Baldwin, Samuel Boltwood, John Barnard. HISTORY OF HADLEY 77 West Side. — 28. Samuel Hinsdell, Samuel Gillet, Thomas Meekins, Sr., Samuel Billing, Samuel Field, Thomas Meekins, Jr., John Hawks, James Brown, Isaac Graves, Sr., John Coules, Sr., Barnabas Hinsdell, John Graves, Sr., . Daniel Warner, Joseph Allis. William Allis, John Coules, Jr., John Allis, Isaac Graves, Jr., East side, 34 old names. William Gull, John Graves, Jr., " " 30 later names. Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr., Samuel Dickinson, West " 28 names. Daniel White, Obadiah Dickinson, — Philip Russell, Samuel Kellogg, Total, 92 " Richard Billing, Samuel Allis, A few did not sign. III. Petition of Hadley and Northampton in reference to the provocation of the people and God's displeasure, 1670. "To the worshipful and much honored General Court of the Massachusetts now sitting in Boston: It being abundantly manifest to them that know the Lord and do consider the operations of his hands that his carriage towards his churches and people in this country hath not been as in former times the years of the right hand of the most high; but that instead of his wonted blessing and lifting up the light of his countenance, he hath shewed us both many signs of his displeasure against and departure from us; which if he proceed to do then is that fearful woe Hosea 9: 12 accomplished towards us. The consideration and fear whereof occasioneth us to present this our humble enquiry to this honored Court, viz. Whether the rod of God upon our churches and land has not this speaking voice to us, that there should be some public and solemn enquiry what it is that hath provoked the Lord (who doth not afflict willingly, but if need be) against us. The genuine and tender filial spirit when it sees the father angry, cannot rest without inquiry why it is; the example of that made after God's own heart 2 Samuel 21 : 1, 2 (as well as others) is a pattern to us. Our own distresses and dangers may necessitate us to faithful and diligent search if there be any Achan or Jonas that may hazard the loss and ruin of all. The finding and unan imous agreeing in what our evil is seems to be the necessary and just means and part of our turning to the Lord, whereby only we can hope for his return (in mercy) unto us, according to his wonted loving kindness, which, that we may surely and speedily [word illegible] is the earnest prayer of your humble servants. Hadley, May 3, 1670. HENRY CLARKE, JOHN RUSSELL, SAMUEL SMITH, In behalf of the freemen of Hadley. WILLIAM HOLTON, 1 • , ., , WILLIAM CLARKE, / of N°rthan>Pton> in the name of sundry of the freemen there, who have had the consideration of the above writing. This petition or address was written by Mr. Russell, Jr. The signature of John Russell may be that of his father. North ampton had no settled pastor at that time.* In May, 1670, the writing from Hadley and Northampton was considered by the deputies, and a committee of five including Peter Tilton, made a report, which was accepted, wherein were noticed the causes of God's displeasure, the effects of it, and the means of removing it. Among the prevailing evils were men- ?Rev. Eleazar Mather, the first minister, died July 24, 1669. Mr. Russell assisted at his ordination, June 18, 1661. The Northampton church was organized the same day, and not June 4, as stated page 47. 78 HISTORY OF HADLEY tioned, innovations threatening the ruin of the Congregational way. Some days after; in another paper, the deputies censured the magistrates and ministers who consented to the organization of the third church in Boston, (now the Old South,) composed of seceders from the first church, who had not been dismissed. They contended for "the liberty of every church to exercise all the ordinances of God among themselves." An altercation en sued between the magistrates and deputies. The papers of the latter are in the hand-writing of Peter Tilton. The persons censured by these deputies were justified by those of the next year. CHAPTER IX Separation of Hatfield from Hadley — Proceedings of Hatfield. The settlers of Hartford, on each side of Little River, managed many of their concerns separately, in what were called side-meet ings. The planters of Hadley, settled on both sides of the Con necticut, and followed the example of Hartford, each side per forming many things apart. The settlers on the west side held side-meetings and kept side-records which still remain. In March, 1665, the town voted that the west side should make and maintain all their ways and bridges, and the east side all their ways and bridges, except the mill-bridge on the west side, which was to be maintained by both sides. In June, 1665, the east and west sides voted to carry on the work of town and church as one "until the Lord make it appear that one part of us have a call to make a society of themselves." The west side people began to think of becoming a separate parish in 1665, but they did not send a petition to the General Court, to be a parish or society, till May, 1667. They were apparently too few in number to support a minister, and build a meeting-house, but they were united, active and persevering, and such men commonly perform what they undertake. Their peti tion, which follows, may contain a little exaggeration, but those who live near the Connecticut can readily believe the account of their trouble in crossing the river, and of the screeching of the women and children. The Latin quotation was not called for. The word "ordinances," as used in the petition, refers especially to the usual services of the Sabbath. HISTORY OF HADLEY 79 To the Honored Governor, Dep. Governor, Assistants and Deputies, now in General Court assembled: The petition of us whose names are underwritten, being inhabitants of the west side of the river at Hadley, sheweth — (May 3, 1667,) — that, whereas it hath pleased God to make you the fathers'of this Commonwealth, and it hath pleased the Lord, by your great care and diligence under him, to continue our peace and plenty of outward things, and in a more especial manner the chieftest and principal of all, the Gospel of peace, with the liberty of his Sabbaths, which mercies your humble petitioners desire to be thankful unto God and you for, that you are so ready and willing for to help those that stand in need of help, which hath encouraged us your humble petitioners for to make this our address, petition and request, to you for relief in this our present distressed state and condition. First, your petitioners, together with their families within the bounds of Hadley town, upon the west side of the river, commonly called by the name of Connecticut river, where we for the most part have lived about 6 years, have attended on God's ordinances on the other side of the river, at the appointed seasons that we could or durst pass over the river, the passing being very difficult and dangerous, both in summer and winter, which thing hath proved and is an oppressive burden for us to bear, which, if by any lawful means it may be avoided, we should be glad and thankful to this honored court to ease us therein, conceiving it to be a palpable breach of the Sabbath, although it be a maxim in law: nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, yet, by the Word of God to us, it is evidently plain to be a breach of the Sabbath: Ex. xxxv: 2; Levit. xxiii: 3, yet many times we are forced to it; for we must come at the instant of time, be the season how it will. Sometimes we come in considerable numbers in rainy weather, and are forced to stay till we can empty our canoes that are half full of water, and before we can get to the meeting-house, are wet to the skin. At other times, in winter seasons, we are forced to cut and work them out of the ice, till our shirts be wet upon our backs. At other times, the winds are high and waters. rough, the current strong and the waves ready to swallow us — our vessels tossed up and down so that our women and children do screech, and are so affrighted that they are made unfit for ordinances, and cannot hear so as to profit by them, by reason of their anguish of spirit; and when they return, some of them are more fit for their beds than for family duties and God's services, which they ought to attend. In brevity and verity, our difficulties and dangers that we undergo are to us extreme and intolerable; oftentimes some of us have fallen into the river through the ice, and had they not had better help than themselves, they had been' drowned. Sometimes we have been obliged to carry others when they have broken in, to the knees as they have carried them out, and that none hitherto hath been lost, their lives are to be attributed to the care and mercy of God. There is about four score and ten persons on our side of the river, that are capable of receiving good by ordinances, but it is seldom that above half of them can go to attend, what through the difficulty of passage and staying at home by turns and warding, some being weak and small which, notwithstanding, if the means were on our side the river, they might have the benefit of the ordinances which now they are deprived of to the grief of us all. Further, when we do go over the river, we leave our relatives and estates lying on the outside of the colony, joining to the wilderness, to be a prey to the heathen, when they see then- opportunity. Yet, notwithstanding, our greatest anxiety and pressure of spirit is that the Sabbath, which should be kept by us holy to the Lord, is spent with such unavoidable dis tractions, both of the mind and of the body. And for the removing of this, we unanimously have made our address to our brethren and friends on the other side of the river, by a petition that they would be pleased to grant us liberty to be a society of ourselves, and that we might call a mimster to dispense the word of God to us, but this, by them, would not be granted, although, in the month of June, in the year 1665, it was agreed and voted, at a town meeting, that when the west side had a call of God thereto, they might be a Society of themselves. We sent a second time to them, entreating that according to said agreement they would grant our request to put it to a hearing, but they will not, so that we, your humble petitioners, have no other way or means, that we know of, but to make our humble address to this honored court for relief, in this our distressed state, humbly praying this honored court to vouchsafe your poor petitioners that favor as to be a society of ourselves, and have liberty to settle a minister to dispense the ordinances of the Lord unto us, which we hope will be for the furtherance of the work of the Lord amongst us, and for our peace and safety. 80 HISTORY OF HADLEY Not that we desire to make any breach among brethren, for to attain our desires, nor yet to hinder the great work of the Lord amongst us, but that which we' aim at is the contrary. Thus, committing our cause to God and this honored court, and all other your weighty affairs, we leave to the protection and guidance of the Almighty, which is the prayer of your humble petitioners. — May 3, 1667. Thomas Meekins, Sr., Daniel White, John Allis, Wm. Allis, John Welles, Obadiah Dickinson, John Coule, Sr., Nathaniel Dickinson, Jr., Samuel Gillet, Isaac Graves, Eleazer Frary, John Field, Richard Billing, Samuel Billing, John Coule, Jr., Wm. Gull, Samuel Dickinson, Ursula Fellows, Samuel Belden, Thomas Meekins, Jr., Mary Field. John Graves, Samuel Kelog, Daniel Warner, Barnabas Hinsdell, John Coleman, Philip Russell, Samuel Allis and Benjamin Wait did not sign the petition; perhaps they did not all reside on the west side in May, 1667. An abstract of "the Answer of the inhabitants of Hadley on the east side to the complaints made by them of the same town on the west side." We have done our brethren and neighbors no wrong. We hold to the covenant made between us, which was done upon their desire. This covenant related to the upholding of the worship of God among us. We think that granting what they request will be the break ing and marring of them and ourselves, as we are together too weak. Should we grant their desire we should sin against the Lord, ourselves and them. We desire that nothing may be done by this Court to the making void of the agreements between us. — May 7, 1667. This answer was signed by 44 of the inhabitants of the east side. The General Court heard the allegations of both parties, pre sented by Thomas Meekins, William Allis and Isaac Graves, in behalf of the -petitioners, and by Mr. John Russell, pastor, Mr. Samuel Smith and Mr. Peter Tilton in behalf of the town. They judged it not best to make a division at present; thought the best expedient would be for them jointly to settle another minister, who would accommodate those on the west side, when the pass age of the river was difficult. The petition of the west side was again presented in September, 1667, and a committee reported, but the two houses disagreed, and the report was not accepted. The two sides had some correspondence in 1667, and in the early part of 1668, but could not agree. The east side were will ing to have a second minister, but expected the west side people would attend worship on the east side, except when the passage was difficult. The west side desired to be a society by them selves, and to have a minister constantly with them. In April, 1668, the east side inhabitants sent to the General Court another answer to the complaints of those on the west side. It was written by Mr. Russell, and is very long. Some part of it follows. HISTORY OF HADLEY 81 When we moved to this plantation, we engaged to each other to have two ministers. We gave to poor men liberty to suit themselves, and those who had more estate denied them selves, not taking up half as much as they might have done, no man having more than 45* acres of interval land. This was done in respect to maintaining the ministry and ordi nances. When those on the west side of the river took up land there, they did it on condi tion that they were to be one with us and to come to the east side on the Sabbath, except in extraordinary times, one of the ministers would go over to them. The meeting-house was to be set where it is, for their sakes, to our great inconvenience. The difficulties of crossing the river were presented to them at first, and they chose to go. In some other towns, the river is crossed on the Sabbath. It is doubtful whether they can make a plantation of them selves. The place does not afford boggy meadows^ or such like, that men can five upon, but their subsistence must be from their homelots and intervals. A great part of these men are in near relation to us and we would not injure them. If the Court judge that our brethren have a call of God to be by themselves, we trust we shall do our duty without dis turbance. Our place is hard, remote and inconvenient. In asking that the river may be the bounds between them and us, and all the land on that side pay public charges to them, they demand what is unjust. We are about 46 or 47J families, and if the river be the bounds, we shall not have so much land to maintain public ordinances as they, who are a little more than half as many. Signed by Henry Clarke, John Russell, Jr., William Good win, Andrew Bacon and William Lewis, in the name of the rest of the inhabitants of Hadley, on the east side of the river. April 22, 1668. William Allis and Isaac Graves, who were in Boston, made a long reply, May, 1668, in behalf of the inhabitants on the west side, to the declaration of their brethren and neighbors on the east side. They owned the covenant of 1660, but did not suppose such a covenant perpetual, when things should so change as to require an alteration. Thought they had a clear call of God to be a society. Mentioned the hazard of passing the river. In nine Sabbaths from Dec. 15 to Feb. 16, 1667-8, they were hindered from goingover by the danger of the river. There was danger from the Indians. One of their houses was burnt on the Sabbath some time ago, and they saw the beginning, but could render no relief. They had only their proportion of the lands jointly purchased. All was equalized by a committee. "When the meeting-house was put where it is, we declared that it should be no engagement to us, and desired them to set it where they pleased." — The subject was postponed to the next session. November 7, 1668. "In answer to the petitioners on the west side of the river at Hadley, the Court judgeth it meet that they be allowed to procure an able minister to settle with them on their side of the river, for whose maintenance they are carefully and comfortably to pro vide, and shall be freed from the maintenance of the minister on the east side, unless the inhabitants on the east side of the river and they shall agree together for the maintenance and allowance of both jointly; provided that the inhabitants of the west side shall not rate any of the estates or lands of the inhabitants of the east side lying on the west side of the river, towards the maintenance of their ministry." In May, 1669, John Russell, pastor, and William Goodwin, ruling elder, in the name of the church, pointed out some diffi- ?This is nearly correct. Though some had 50J acres of land, this included 4 or 5 acres of the Meadow Plain, that was not interval land, and was not so considered. •)-They here allude to the water grass or sedge, of which much was formerly mowed. {According to this statement, the number of families had not increased in 5 or 6 years. The population had increased. 82 HISTORY OF HADLEY culties in the preceding order, and desired explanations from the General Court. The Court replied and made explanations, and judged it reasonable that the inhabitants of the west side should have the unappropriated lands on that side. Thomas Meekins and Isaac Graves informed the Court, May, 1669, that the west side had done much towards setting up a meeting-house, and as to a minister, "we have already pitched upon a man, who is recommended to us by sundry reverend and godly persons, and hope we shall obtain his help. The man whom we have in our eye is one Mr. Atherton, a son of the late Worship ful Humphrey Atherton, of Dorchester." In October, 1669, the east side remaining unsatisfied, the Court appointed a committee from Northampton and Springfield, but they do not appear to have met; and on the 22d of December, 1669, the following agreement ended the contest for many years. "Articles of agreement between the inhabitants on the east side of the river in Hadley with those of the same town on the west side of the river. I. It is covenanted and agreed that those on the east side of the river do grant and give to those on the west side, liberty to be a distinct town or township of themselves, and so of and among themselves to carry on all of their common or town occasions; and this to take place as soon as the Gen. Court shall grant their approbation or allowance thereof. 2. For the bounds of each society or town, those on the east side are to have and enjoy now and forever the free and full disposal of all the land on the east side of the river, for the maintaining of all common charges respecting things ecclesiastical or civil. And on the west side, the bounds between the two societies or towns are to be the high way between their several furlongs of land, viz. the highway running from the river to the Widow Fellows her house; and from thence downwards, the fence to be the bounds until it comes to the Mill river, and then the river to be the bounds until it meets with Mr. Webster's lot in Little Ponsett; and from thence the fence of Little Ponsett to be the bounds unto Con necticut River, where the end of the said fence is; this to be and remain forever the bounds of each society or town, for the maintaining of the rights and privileges of each; viz. all the land on the lower or southwest side of the highway shall be unto the society or town of Had ley on the east side of Connecticut, and all every parcel thereof to pay all common charges to the said town of Hadley on the east side of the river. Except those lands within the said highway and fence which are already either given or sold to inhabitants on the west side; which land or parcells of land are the whole accommodations of Mr. Terry on the west side the river; and the whole accommodations of Nathaniel Dickinson, sen. and half of Mr. Webster's accommodations there, and John Hawks his whole accommodations, and all Joseph Kellogg's, and all Adam Nicholls his, and that which was Samuel Gardner's in Little Pon- set, and Goodman Crow's in Little Ponsett, and Nathaniel Stanley's in Little Ponsett, and Richard Montague's in Great Ponsett; and Jos. Baldwin's whole accommodations, and John White's in Great Ponsett, and John Dickinson's in Little Ponsett; and except 12 acres and a half above and besides all this when it shall be given or sold to an inhabitant or inhabit ants on the west side of the river; all the other land within the lower part or S. West side of the highway and the forenamed fence to be to the town on the east side of the river forever. And the Society on the west side of the river are to have for their bounds all the lands on the west side of the river of Connecticut, except what lies within the highway from the river to the widow Fellows her house, and within the fence abovenamed. All the rest of the land not within the said highway and fence to be to the town and society on the west side of the HISTORY OF HADLEY 83 river and at their free and full dispose forever, for the maintaining of all common charges respecting things civil and ecclesiastical. And they also are to have all the land within the highway and fence on the south west or lower side of the river, that is already given or sold to any inhabitant on the west side, which land in all the particulars and parcels of it is above specified, with 12^ acres more, which shall be next given or sold to any inhabitants, &c; to be to the society and town on the west side for the maintaining of all common charges forever. Only provided they shall not dispose of any land without the consent of the town, to any that are not approved and settled inhabitants of the town, until the General Court have granted them to be a town of themselves, and then forthwith and forever to have the full dispose of all the land on the west side the river except that above excepted, for the main tenance of all common charges. 3. It is mutually agreed and covenanted that the society or town of Hadley on the east side of the river, have liberty to get fencing stuff on the west side of the river, for their land lying on that side the river, both now and from time to time always, as also to get timber if any see cause to build a barn or shelter for securing his fruits raised there. The present fence in being, and the rest of the common fence [an omission here.] 4. The inhabitants of the west side shall allow to those on the east side the sum of 6£, as the remainder of what is due for purchase money to the said inhabitants on the east side. 5. In case there shall hereafter be a ferry between these two places, this agreement shall be no detriment with respect thereto to those on either side more than if they continued one town. Hereunto as a full and final issue of all controversy respecting our bounds of each society, and the manner or way of maintaining their public charges, (notwithstanding all manner of sales or gifts that shall or may be,) we who were chosen by each Company, viz. those on the east and those on the west side the river respectively, and impowered to issue the said difference, have set to our hands, this present 22d of December, 1669. Henry Clarke, Tho. Meekins, sen. John Russel, Jr. William Mice, Samuel Smith, John Coule, sen. Nathaniel Dickinson, sr. Isaak Graves, Peter Tillton, Samuel Belden. This agreement was copied from the original paper in the hand writing of Mr. Russell, which was sent down to Boston by Hadley, in the second controversy with Hatfield, about 1710, and remains among the public archives in the state-house. The town of Hatfield was incorporated on the 31st of May, 1670, and a copy of the acts from the printed records, is annexed. "In answer to the petition of the inhabitants of Hadley on the west side of the riuer, that they may be allowed to be a toune of themselves, distinct from Hadley on the east side, the deputy of Hadley certifying that that toune haue consented to release them if this Court doe approove thereof, Sec this Court doe therefore allow them on the west side of the riuer, to be a touneship distinct from them on the east side of the riuer, and doe grant them a tract of land westward, sixe miles back into the woods from the great river; their southerly bounds to be Northampton northerly bounds, and the land which Hadley reserves to them- selues, and from their sajd southerly ljne torunne vp the riuer northerly upon the square sixe miles; their northerly bounds likewise to runne backe from th: great riuer sixe miles westward, as before, reserving proprietjes formerly granted to any person; and that this toune be called Hattfeilds." Hatfield was named from one of the three Hatfields in Eng land, perhaps from Hatfield Broad Oak in Essex, so called from a broad-spread oak. 84 HISTORY OF HADLEY Proceedings of the West Side and Hatfield. — On the 6th of November, 1668, the west side held a side-meeting, and voted to build a meeting-house 30 feet square, and chose a committee to procure timber, call out men, &c. On the 21st of November, they chose three men to procure a minister "to dispense the word of God to us," and in April, 1669, they sent men to Boston, who "pitched upon" Mr. Hope Atherton of Dorchester. The side manifested unanimously, May 17, 1669, that they were willing to call Mr. Atherton to the work of the ministry, and to give him 5o£ a year. Before Nov. 25, 1670, Mr. Atherton had accepted a call from the town of Hatfield to settle among them, and they had voted to give him a houselot and meadow land, to build him a house 40 feet long and 20 wide, double story, and to allow him 60 pounds a year, two-thirds in wheat and one-third in pork. There is no record of the forming of the church, or of the ordina tion of Mr. Atherton. These acts took place after March 28, 1 67 1, perhaps in April. Before the close of 1671, this small town had settled a minister, giving him 6o£ a year, and built a house for him which cost above <)o£, and a meeting-house. Only 6 of the males were members of any church, including Mr. Ath erton. The church-members and those not so, were like-minded and united in all their proceedings. Hatfield may have had 30 families in 1670. The persons taxed in 1678, after the Indian war, were 48, and in 1682, 57. The number of families in 1682 may have been 48 or 50. They had five selectmen and other town officers as in Hadley. The herd- men and shepherds were recorded. Men were employed in the spring to burn the woods. Hatfield usually had a school after 1678, and probably before; and a school-house was built in 1681. Doct. Thomas Hastings was one of the teachers, but most of them were educated at Harvard College. They received from 30 to 35£ a year in grain at the usual prices, and boarded them selves, previous to 1700. A few girls attended the school, or might attend if they paid the same as boys. The scholars paid about two-thirds of the salary, and the school did not become free till 1722. — The small meeting-house had galleries and a turret and bell, and the bell was to be rung at nine o'clock in 1686. The meeting-house was in the street, and the pulpit was at the west end, and there was an aisle from the east door to the pulpit. A second meeting-house was voted Nov. 13, 1699; it was to be 45 feet square, "with gable windows upon each square of the roof." — Mr. Hope Atherton, the first minister, died June 8, 1677. Mr. Nathaniel Chauncey, the second minister, died Nov. 2, 1685. HISTORY OF HADLEY 85 He had of the town a house, barn, homelot, firewood, and a salary of 60 pounds, in produce at the usual prices. Mr. William Will iams was the third minister, 1686. His salary was 70^, — not equal to 175 silver dollars. In 1692, Hatfield began a new contest with Hadley, demanding that the river should be the boundary between them, and gained her object in 1733. The attempt of Hatfield to carry her south line into territory long in possession of Northampton, failed in 1720, after a dispute of 26 years. Col. Samuel Partrigg or Part ridge was powerful in Hatfield, and for many years was the most prominent man in the county. CHAPTER X County of Hampshire — Towns and Churches before 1700 — Courts in Hampshire — Town marks — Hadley Cases in Courts — Presentments for wearing silks — Expenses of Courts — Transportation — Sleds — Prices of grain — Contributions for Harvard College. Feb. 26, 1662, Springfield appointed a committee, "concerning settling the towns in this western part of the colony, into the form of a county." On' the 7th of May, 1662, the General Court established the County of Hampshire, by the following act: — Forasmuch as the inhabitants of this jurisdiction are much encreased, so that now they are planted farre into the country vpon Conecticott Riuer, who by reason of their remotenes cannot conveniently be annexed to any of the countyes already setled, & that publicke affaires may with more facility be transacted according to lawes heere established, it is ordered by this Court & authority thereof, that henceforth Springfeild, Northampton, and Hadley shall be & hereby are constituted as a county, the bounds or ljmitts on the south to be the south ljne of the pattent, the extent of other bounds to be full thirty miles distant from any or either of the foresajd tounes, & what tounes or villages soeuer shall hereafter be erected within the foresajd precincts to be & belong to the sajd county; and further, that the sajd county shall be called Hampshire, & shall haue & enjoy the libertjes & priv- iledges of any other county; & that Springfeild shall be the shire toune there, & the Courts to be kept one time at Springfeild & another time at Northampton; the like order to be observed for their shire meetings, that is to say, one yeere at one toune, & the next yeare at the other, from time to tjme. And it is further ordered, that all the inhabitants of that shire shall pay their publicke rates to the countrey in fatt catle, or young catle, such as fitt to be putt off, that no vnnecessary damage be put on the country; & in case they make pay ment in corne, then to be made at such prises as the same doe commonly passe amongst themselves, any other former or annual! orders referring to the prises of corne notwith standing. When Hampshire was incorporated, it had but three towns, Springfield, Northampton and Hadley. Westfield was allowed 86 HISTORY OF HADLEY to be a township, May 19, 1669. Hatfield was incorporated May 31, 1670; it was settled before Westfield. Deerfield* was allowed the "liberty of a township," May 7, 1673; it was destroyed in 1675 and re-settled about 1682. Brookfield was incorporated Oct. 15, 1673; it was destroyed in 1675 and re-settled by a few, and a garrison was kept there. It had not town privileges again till 1718. Suffield, often called Southfield, had an informal in corporation, June 3, 1674; the people dispersed in 1675, and returned after the Indian war. Enfield was made a town, May 16, 1683. These nine towns (including Brookfield) composed the county of Hampshire in 1700. Squakeag, (Northfield,) granted in 1672, had been twice settled and twice broken up. Swampfield, (Sunderland,) was granted in 1673, to sundry inhab itants of Hadley, and preparations were made for settlement, but owing to Indian wars, and fear of Indians, it remained deso late forty years. Longmeadow and West Springfield were old settlements, but belonged to Springfield. Nine churches were organized in the county before 1700, viz., 1st, at Springfield; 2d, Hadley; 3d, Northampton, 1661; 4th, Hatfield, 1671; 5th, Westfield, 1679; 6th, Deerfield, 1688; Suf field; Enfield; West Springfield, 1698. Courts in Hampshire. — County Courts were regularly held twice a year, viz., at Northampton in March, and at Springfield in September. They had probate jurisdiction. Capital causes were tried by the Court of Assistants at Boston, and not by County Courts. The Hampshire courts were held by the Springfield commissioners till March, 1663, excepting two courts where John Webster was the principal judge. In 1663, 1664 and in March, 1665, the courts were held by the town commissioners of the three towns. From 1665 to 1687, one or two magistrates with two, three or four men, nominated by the freemen of the county, and approved by the General Court, and called Associates, were judges of the County Courts. John Pynchon was the first mag- istratef in Hampshire county, and was chosen in 1665, and Peter Tilton was the second, in 1680. They presided in the County Courts, and were members of the house of magistrates at Boston, and judges of the Court of Assistants. John Webster and some others had "magistratical power," but it did not extend beyond the county. From 1663 to 1687, the commissioners and associate ?It was then Pacomtuck. It had no other incorporation. ¦(•His father, William Pynchon, was a magistrate at Springfield many years, before there was any Hampshire county. HISTORY OF HADLEY 87 judges from Hadley were Henry Clarke, n years, Samuel Smith, 8 years, Andrew Bacon, Peter Tilton and Philip Smith, about 3 years each, and Samuel Partrigg, one year. Capt. Aaron Cooke was one of the justices of the courts from 1687 until his death in 17 16. The courts were differently formed under Andros in 1687; and under the new charter, 1692, a Superior Court was substituted for a Court of Assistants, and Courts of Sessions, of Common Pleas, and of Probate, for County Courts. — Provision was made for a yearly session of the Superior Court at Springfield, but owing to hazard from the Indians, and the necessity of a guard for the judges, it is supposed that no regular Superior Court was held in Hampshire county till some years after 1700, perhaps not till 1716. In 1698, some judges that came up to Springfield, to try a person for murder, had a guard up of 26 troopers. Twelve jurors from the towns attended at every County Court. There was but one jury previous to 1687, the jury of trials serving as a grand jury, as provided in the act incorporating Hadley, May 22, 1661. The Court remarked in 1676, that this was allowed as a favor, the county being small, to prevent the charge of two juries. Corporal Richard Coy, from whom Coy's Hill received its name, was a juror from Brookfield in 1674 and in March, 1675, but that place, which was laid waste in 1675, sent no other juror for more than 40 years. A county Treasurer was chosen yearly. Peter Tilton held the office about ten years. A county Marshal was appointed by the court in 1668. After 1692, there was a county Sheriff instead of a Marshal. The second Samuel Porter held the office several years, and in 1696, executed two Indians for murder. Elizur Holyoke was Recorder for the courts from 1660 to his death in 1676. Samuel Partrigg succeeded for Northampton courts, and John Holyoke for Springfield courts. James Cornish was Clerk under Andros, 1687 to 1689. A prison or House of Correction, with a house for the prison keeper under the same roof, was begun at Springfield in 1661 and finished in 1668. Most of the boards, plank and timber were sawed by hand. It was 40 feet long. Simon Lobdell was the first prison keeper in 1668. It was burnt by the Indians in 1675, and another was built, 1677 — 1680, which cost about 60^. A prison was built in Northampton in 1707, 24 by 16 feet besides the chimney, and a small house at the end for the keeper. It stood near the site of the new town hall. 88 HISTORY OF HADLEY Town marks in Hampshire. — Every town was required to have a distinct mark for cattle and horses, appointed by the General Court, and all these animals which fed in open common without constant keepers, were to have a brand-mark upon the horn, or left buttock or shoulder, that it might be known to what town they belonged. In 1681, brand-marks were ordered by the Court for the Hampshire towns, viz., S. P. for Springfield, N. H. for Northampton, H. D. for Hadley, H. F. for Hatfield, W. F. for Westfield, and S. and something else for Suffield. The two letters for each town were united, as HD for Hadley. Hadley Cases in Court. The people of Hadley were in general staid, regular and peace ful, and not inclined to quarrels and law-suits. Most of the people of Northampton and Hatfield were similar. There were more contentions and litigious persons in the southern towns in the county, especially in Suffield. Hadley people had but little business for the courts. Misdemeanors were rare, and those who committed them were usually servants, transient persons, or a few wild young men of the town. A large portion of the white servants in this country for a century were Europeans, brought over by captains of vessels and their services sold for a few years, to pay their passage. The poor people of Great Britain could come to the colonies in no other way. 1662. Richard Fellows sued Judith Varlete (a Dutch woman) of Hartford, for defa mation, in saying Fellows had played the rogue. Jury found for plaintiff ios. damages, and 13s. 6d. costs. 1662. William Pixley vs. Joseph Root of Northampton, for slander. The jury found for Pixley, j£io. 1663. Benjamin Wait, for being the author of a libelous writing found about Goodwife Hawks's door, defaming her, was to pay her 5^ and pay costs. 1664. Hadley was fined forty shillings, for not prosecuting their appeal from the County Court to the Court of Assistants, in the case of Richard Billings, respecting land. 1664. Richard Goodman had a servant named John Mardin. He ran away and stole a gun, powder and a hdkf. He was taken at Windsor: and was sentenced to be whipped 10 stripes. The damages and expenses amounted to £5.0.4, and he was to pay this, by serving his master six months after his apprenticeship had expired. 1665. The legatees of John Barnard demanded of Andrew Warner, pay for a malt-house, which was burnt down in his occupation. The parties agreed. w 1666. Thomas Meekins, the miller on the west side, was fined 3s. 4d. for not carrying his weights and measures to the sealer when notified. 1666. Wm. Goodwin had a servant named Thomas Helme, and Stephen Terry had one named Joshua Wills. Both ran away, and took a horse from Mr. Goodwin and some other things. The horse valued at io£ was lost, and they were ordered to pay treble dam age, ^o£, and charges, £10, us. Helme was to serve Mr. Goodwin two years and Wills to serve him 18 months, and Mr. Terry 6 months, after their time had expired. Also both fined 40 shillings each. 1 668. .Sept. Hadley was presented for one or two defective bridges, in the way between Hadley and Chickopee river. They amended the defects, and were discharged. HISTORY OF HADLEY 89 Death of Samuel Nash and Decision of the Court. "May 23, 1668. A Jury of twelve men was summoned by the Constable of Hadley to enquire concerning the sudden and untimely death of Samuel, son of Timothy Nash. The child was about 9 or 10 years old. Mr. Henry Clark and Andrew Bacon gave the jury their oath. They, after diligent search respecting the cause of this death, did find: — 'That said boy coming riding upon a mare from pasture, having a long rope fastened about the mare's neck, & fastened about the boy's waist, a dog coming out, frightened the mare, so that the mare threw the boy & ran away with him, dragging him about 40 rods, and broke over five rails, the rails being broken down, he was dragged over them into and through a narrow gate, into his father's yard, and died forthwith.' [Signed by 12 Hadley men.] "Att a County Corte* holden at Northampton ye 30th day of ye 1st Month 1669 [March 30, 1669.] "Tymothy Nash of Hadley presenting a complaynt this winter before ye worshipfull Capt. Pynchon against Mr Goodwin concerning the untimely death of his child ye last sum mer, and the sde Capt Pynchon by warrant under his hand dated Feb. 27 — 68 warning the sde Mr Goodwin to appeare at this Corte, he being very weake in body & not able to attend ye Corte in his own person, Mr Andrew Bacon and William Lewis appeared to answer on his behalfe. And now at this Corte the sde Timothy Nash presented his complt in that his child, a member of this Common Wealth is lost; and that as he apprehends by means of Mr. Goodwins dog frightening the mare upon which the child rode shee throwing the child. The Corte having heard ye case long debated & considered ye allegations & evidences on all hands doe conceive & judge yt there is not ground to lay such blame on Mr. Goodwin as is pretended in the sde Timothy Nash his complt, for yt it doth not appeare yt Mr. Good. win or Mrs. Goodwin had sufficient notice given them of their dogs curstness or any due warning to restrayne their dog; and therefore the Corte doth acquitt them, as to have such legall warning as aforesaid; But yet inasmuch as it appeares that the sde dog was something more than ordinary active in running after persons riding their horses in ye street whereby diverse persons have had falls from their horses. This Corte doth apprehend that Mr. Goodwin or Mrs. Goodwin might probably know something yt way, and Mr. Crow who exercised care about Mr. Goodwin's affaires: And therefore yt they may be blame worthy in not taking care as they ought, to have restraynd that dog. And therefore this Corte doth beare witness against all neglects in such matters whereby the lives of persons may be hazzarded. Also ye Corte apprehends that the said dog hath been partly an occasion of the death of the said child, though yet divers other things did concur to yt sad accident, but specially the child's winding a rope about its own wast ye other end whereof was tyed about ye mare's neck, & the child having nothing whereby he might well rule her, yt when shee threw ye child, shee dragged him after her to its destruction. Wherefore the Corte also accounteth Goodm. Nash or his Wife blame worthy in not have ing a more strict watch over their son, but letting him go to fetch ye mare from pasture with such meane tackling. And there being much trouble in hearing this case, the Corte ordered yt Mr. Goodwin and Goodman Nash shall pay 10s. apiece towards defraying Corte charges." Remarks by Rev. Sylvester Nash. — The decision of the Court obviously turned on a legal quibble, viz., the want of legal notice, while the court allowed that Mr. Goodwin probably knew of his dog's curstness. And well they might, if diverse persons had been thrown from their horses, endangering their lives! The decision may be deemed at least a legal curiosity. 1669. The names of several persons in Hadley were returned to the court, for not living under family government. The court ordered the selectmen of Hadley to inquire into such disorders, and settle young persons under government, according to law. 1670. Richard Fellows (son of Richard) and Benjamin Allen, of the west side, for com ing into the yard of Thomas Meekins, Jr. and cutting off the hair of the mane and tail of his horse, were fined one 30s., the other 15s. Allen was a servant. 1670. March. Mr. Russell's negro servant, Margaret, had a child, and was to be whipped 15 stripes; and the father, John Garret, was to be whipped 24 stripes, and pay to Mr. Russell £7, 10s. ?Corte is a contraction of the recorder for Courte. 90 HISTORY OF HADLEY 1674. Hezekiah Dickinson sued Garret Tuenson of Albany. Jury found for Dickinson, 16 pounds of beaver, and costs, 29s. 6d. [There was some trade by people on this river with the Dutch at Albany.] 1675. March. Joseph Selding was presented for cutting and disfiguring John Smith's horse. Maj. Pynchon was directed to deal with him. 1676. Sept. Joseph Selding was fined 20 shillings for abusing the Constable. Great Riot in Hadley, chiefly of young men, Feb. 15, 1676. — At March court, 1676, nine men were charged with being actors in a riotous assembly in Hadley, on the 15th of February, where there was a public affronting of authority, in the stopping and hindering of the execution of a sentence which was ordered by authority. The record does not tell what the sentence was, nor against whom it was directed. It was in the time of Philip's war, when there were many soldiers in Hadley. Edward Grancis was a leader in the riotous assembly, and said tbe sentence should not be executed. He was adjudged to be whipped 12 stripes, well laid on. Jonathan Gilbert, Jr. and Joseph Selding were bound in a bond of 10 pounds each for good behavior. Thomas Dickinson was fined 3^. Nehemiah Dickinson, William Rooker, Thomas Croft and Jonathan Marsh were fined 5^ each. Samuel Barnard was present in the riotous assembly with his club, though his father, Francis Barnard, commanded him not to be there, and he was accused of plotting with some of the garrison soldiers to go to Narraganset. The court adjudged him to be whipped 12 stripes, but he made a humble acknowledgment, and his father pleaded for him, and his sentence was changed to a fine of $£. 1677. Daniel Hovey vs. Mr. John Russell, Jr. for defaming him at the last court in Springfield, by saying he was a man of scandalous life. Jury brought in for Hovey, cost of court, 33s. 6d. 1677. John Fisher of Hadley, for slandering and reviling Thomas Beaman of Hatfield and his mother, saying that he was the son of a w and that his mother was a witch and that he looked like one, was ordered to pay the county 20s. and Thomas Beaman 40s. [To say that a person was a witch and had bewitched any one, was slanderous and actionable in England. — Comyns.] 1677. Thomas Beaman was ordered to pay 10s. to the county and 10s. to John Fisher, for falling upon him and beating him. 1678. Jane Jackson, servant of Lt. Philip Smith, had stolen from her master, and then lied about it. Sentenced to be whipped 20 lashes, upon her naked back which punishment was performed in Court. [She would have been hanged for stealing in England.] 1682. Gershom Hawks for having a pack of cards and refusing to tell whose they were, was fined 20s. 1682. March. Joseph Kellogg, Jr. and Gershom Hawks were fined 10s. each for breach of the Sabbath, having traveled till midnight in the night before the Sabbath. 1683. William Wake, a vagabond, for enticing away the servant of Joseph Selding, and stealing some of his goods, was adjudged to be whipped on his naked body 20 lashes, well laid on. 1686. March. Cyrus, Mr. Russell's negro, for fraudulent dealings with the Indians and violent carriages in his master's house, was to be whipped 15 stripes at Hadley, on the next lecture day, or pay 50s. to satisfy the Indians, &c. 1690. An illegitimate child was born in Hadley in 1690, the only white child born out of wedlock in Hadley in the 17th century. The parents were married a few months after. 1693. Mr. Peter Golding of Hadley was fined $£ for scurrilous and vilifying expressions respecting Peter Tilton, Esq., charging him with packing a court, &c. Mr. Golding appealed to the Superior Court at Charlestown. 1696. Joseph Selden, (or Selding,) being in the court room when two of his relatives named Church were fined 20s. each for abusing the constable, spoke out, and said there was no color of law in what was done; that the men were not guilty; and when in discourse, Samuel Partridge, Esq., one of the justices, said, "so it seems," Selden, in a scoffing manner HISTORY OF HADLEY 91 replied, "so it seems," and again Partridge said "so it seems," and again Selden replied "so it seems." Further, Selden took up the tongs in the room where the justices sat and lit his pipe, and threw down the tongs violently and used many unhandsome expressions. He was fined 20 shillings. [This Joseph Selden, so passionate and unruly in Hadley, became a wealthy and respectable man, in the north part of Lyme, Conn.] Wearing of the river. — In 1692, the year of the great flood, the river did much damage to the county road at the south end of the town (village.) The court appointed three men of Northampton, to join with the selectmen of Hadley, and consider what must be done to settle said highway. — The river had been wearing there some years. This is the first notice of it by the County Court. Law regulating dress. — Sumptuary laws restraining excess of apparel in some classes, were common in England and other nations for centuries. Massachusetts enacted such a law in 1651, ordering that persons whose estates did not exceed 200 pounds, and those dependent on them, should not wear gold or silver lace, gold or silver buttons, bone lace above 2s. per yard, or silk hoods or scarfs, upon penalty of 10s. for each offense. Any persons wearing such articles might be assessed in country rates, as if they had estates of 200 pounds. The first attempt to have this law observed in Hampshire, was made in 1673. At the March court, 25 wives and 5 maids, be longing to Springfield, Northampton, Hadley, Hatfield and West- field, were presented by the jury, as persons of small estate, who "use to wear silk contrary to law." Six of these belonged to Hadley, viz., Wife of John Westcarr — was acquitted. Joseph Barnard — was fined 10s. and cost, 2s. 6d. Thomas Wells, Jr. — was admonished. Edward Grahnis — was admonished. Joseph Kellogg — was acquitted. Maid, Mary Broughton — was admonished. • Of the thirty, only three were fined, and the fines were remitted at the next court. At the March court, 1674, the wife of Edward Grannis was again presented for wearing silk. Her silk hood and scarf were brought into court, and "though something worn, they had been good silk." She was fined 10 shillings. At the March court, 1676, the jury presented 68 persons, from five towns, viz., 38 wives and maids, and 30 young men, "some for wearing silk and that in a flaunting manner, and others for long hair and other extravagancies." Two were fined 10 shil lings, and many of the others were ordered to pay the clerk's fees, 2s. 6d. each. There were ten from Hadley, viz., Joseph Barnard and his wife Sarah, and his sister Sarah, William Rooker, Thomas Crofts, Jonathan Wells, Joseph Grannis, Nehemiah Dickinson, 92 HISTORY OF HADLEY wife of Mark Warner; and the wife of Thomas Wells, Jr. who was fined 10 shillings. Nine were admonished and ordered to pay the clerk's fees. Several of the 68 presented were wives, daughters or sons of men of good estate. Two unmarried daughters of Elder John Strong of Northampton were of this number. In January, 1677, Mrs. Hannah Westcarr, "for wearing silk in a flaunting garb, to the great offence of several sober persons in Hadley" was admonished to reform. Her husband died the year before and left her an estate of 431 pounds. At the same court, a daughter of Joseph Baldwin, Jr., the wives of Joseph Gaylord and Thomas Selding, Ruth Warner and Mercy Hubbard, for wearing silk contrary to law, and two of them for wearing it "in a flaunting manner, and excess of apparel to the offence of sober people," were admonished and ordered to pay the clerk's fees and the witnesses. Andrew Warner, the father of Ruth, was worth 356^. If Mercy Hubbard was a daughter of John H., her father died worth 1063^. Estates seem not to have been much regarded. In March, 1678, 8 females of Northampton, Springfield, &c. were complained of for wearing silk contrary to law, in this day of calamity and trouble. Two were fined 10 shillings, some paid clerk's fees, and some were referred to another court. The boldest of these females was Hannah Lyman, 16 years of age, daughter of Richard Lyman, of Northampton, deceased. She was presented September, 1676, "for wearing silk in a flaunt ing manner in an offensive way and garb, not only before, but when she stood presented, not only in ordinary but in extraor dinary times." She was fined 10s., Jan. 1677. The March Courts in those days were held at the house of Henry Woodward in Northampton, who kept an ordinary, near where Samuel F. Lyman now resides. Most of these women and men from five towns, came to this house, and appeared before the judges in the court-room. They, and the spectators attracted by the novelty of the scene, must have filled the house. Those on the bench when the females appeared in court, March, 1673, were John Pynchon and Elizur Holyoke of Springfield, William Clarke of Northampton, and Henry Clarke of Hadley. In September, 1682, the selectmen of the five towns were all presented to the court, for not assessing according to law, their inhabitants that wore silk and were excessive in their apparel. The court endeavored to stir up the selectmen to assess those wearing unsuitable and excessive apparel, but it was too late; HISTORY OF HADLEY 93 the women had already gained the victory, and no longer feared fines or taxes for wearing silks. — Many good men lamented the extravagance of the age, and the love of finery, among the women. Expenses of Hampshire Courts. — Their sessions continued one, two or three days. The commissioners or judges, jurors and a constable, or marshal, making 16 to 18 persons, dined to gether, or dined at the same price, every court day, at the ordinary where the court sat, and those from other towns had supper, lodging, and breakfast. Some wine and considerable beer were drank. The judges and jurymen of these upper towns, in order to attend court one day at Springfield, had to be absent two nights. They lived well, the ordinary keeper charging much more than the common price for their meals. Their food, drink and horse- keeping, which were paid for by the county, seem to have been the principal compensation that they received. John Pynchon kept an account of the court expenses at the ordinaries, but neither he nor the recorder of the courts noticed the pay of the judges and jurors, and what they received is unknown. Many of the entries of actions and of the fines, and sometimes a part of the county rate, seem to have been required to pay the ordinary keepers for court expenses, which amounted to from 4 to q£ at each court. The record twice mentions that most of the county rate was needed to pay the county reward for killing wolves. The keepers of ordinaries received nothing directly for the room used by the court and fire. Litigation was not cheap in Massa chusetts. Every person that sued another in a county court was required to pay 10 shillings for the entry of his action. Hampshire Transportation down and up the river. — All the produce that went to Boston was carried down the river, and all the merchandise from that place, except some light articles, was brought up the river. At Springfield, they had small boats, carrying perhaps two, three or four tons, which, in the accounts of William Pynchon and John Pynchon, were named canoes. Each boat was managed by two men down and up the river and falls, (now called Enfield Falls.) Grain was carried to Hartford in these boats, sometimes at 4d. or 5d. per bushel, but a more common price was 6 pence. Barrels of flour and pork were carried at is. 9d. to 2s. each, and hhds. of beaver at 2s. 6d. each. Goods were brought up at 12 shillings per ton, hhds. at 3s. (probably of 63 gallons,) and salt at 6d. to 8d. per bushel. For some years, Northampton and Hadley carted their grain to Windsor, through Westfield, but as early as 1667 and 1668, Samuel Porter and John Smith of Hadley, had a boat on the 94 HISTORY OF HADLEY river and boated some for Pynchon. After a road was laid near the Connecticut in 1673, if not before, Hadley had a landing- place on the river below Willimanset Falls, and Northampton and Hatfield had one on the west side. Grain was carted from Hadley to the landing at 4 pence per bushel, or ten shillings for a cart-load of 30 bushels. The freight from this landing to Springfield was two pence per bushel. The freight of grain from Hadley to Hartford was usually one shilling per bushel, but sometimes one or two pence less. In Pynchon's books, the price of a bushel of grain received at Northampton or Hadley, was always 6 pence less than when received at Springfield, and one shilling less than at Hartford. Grain was conveyed from Hart ford, Stratford, &c. to Boston for 6 pence per bushel. Barrelsof pork and flour, both large, were carried from Hadley to Hartford for 3s. 6d. to 4s. per barrel, and from Hartford to Boston at about 3s. It is supposed that the first settlers of Hadley and Hatfield came up on the Northampton "cartway to Windsor," having their own horses, oxen and carts to convey the women and chil dren and some of the men, and the household goods and farming implements. The Springfield boats sometimes brought up the furniture of families removing. Sleds in Hampshire. — The first settlers of New England knew nothing about sleds and sleighs, nor did they use them for some years. Heavy sleds were used long before sleighs. In Hamp shire, wood was sometimes sledded before 1670, but in general, it was carted long after that date. For many years, logs were conveyed to saw-pits and saw-mills on wheels, and almost every thing was carted. In 1683, Hatfield voted that all men and teams should turn out on the 5th and 6th of November, and cut and cart Mr. Chauncey's wood. Here were 60 cords of green wood to be carted three weeks before winter. Logs were carted to John Pynchon's saw-mill for some years after 1667, but in 1674 he bought a sled and many logs were sledded. Sleds did not convey produce to Hartford from this valley, or from Spring field, till the latter part of the century, and perhaps not till after 1700. Oxen seem not to have been shod in Hampshire in the 17th century. The people did not keep open sled roads in the winter, even for 15 or 20 miles. There were no sleigh-rides in these towns till after 1730 or 1740. Prices of Grain in Hampshire in the 17TH Century. The prices of grain in Hadley, for the payment of their minister, school-masters, town rates and private debts, for near 40 years, history of hadley 95 were as follows: — winter wheat, 3s. 6d., summer wheat, 3s., peas, 2s. 6d., Indian corn, 2s. Rye was raised after 1680, and the price was 2s. 6d. Barley was sometimes 3s. and malt, 3s. 6d., meslin, 3s. and oats, is. 6d. The prices were nearly the same in North ampton and Hatfield. Winter wheat was sometimes 3s. 6d. The money prices of grain, when noticed, which was not often, were one-fourth less, and sometimes still lower. — The nominal prices advanced in Hadley a year or two before 1700. Winter wheat was 4s., summer wheat, 3s. 6d., peas, 3s. and rye, 3s. Indian corn was 2s. as before. One-third was deducted from these prices to bring them to what were called money prices, which were for winter wheat, 2s. 8d., summer wheat, 2s. 4d., peas and rye, 2s. and corn, is. 4d. The value of the coins referred to as money, did not vary much from 6s. 8d. for an ounce of silver, or 6 shillings for a piece of eight, or Spanish dollar. Flour in Hadley and Northampton was sold at from 11 to 12 shillings for 112 pounds. It was about one shilling per cwt. higher at Springfield and near 2 shillings at Hartford. Most of the barrels held from 260 to 280 pounds, and some above 300 pounds. The price of barrels was from 2s. to 2s. 6d. A bushel of spring wheat yielded about 34 pounds of good flour. John Pynchon's prices at Springfield, which he called "town prices," for about 40 years, were for winter wheat, 4s., summer wheat, 3s. 6d., peas, 2s. 6d. to 3s., rye, 3s., Indian corn, 2s. 6d. His prices were commonly about 6 pence a bushel higher than those at Northampton and Hadley. He sometimes sent to Boston more than 2000 bushels of wheat and peas in a year. Indian corn was not sent to Boston. A large portion of the wheat raised in Hampshire and Connecticut was spring wheat, usually called summer wheat in the 17th century. In Connecticut, the prices of grain received for country rates, as fixed by the General Court for near half a century, were for winter wheat, 4s. 6d., summer wheat, 4s., peas and rye, 3s., Indian corn, 2s. 6d. There were a few variations. Winter wheat was not named till 1677. These were the common prices at Hartford, and had much influence on the prices up the river, especially of wheat. After 1680, one-third of the tax was to be abated, if paid in money, and for three years, one-half was to be abated, if paid in money. This was reducing grain to very low prices in money. Massachusetts received grain for country rates at higher prices. For more than 40 years, with a few exceptions, wheat, without any distinction of winter and summer, was 5s.; barley, malt, peas 96 history of hadley and rye, 4s.; Indian corn, 3s. After 1672, one-quarter or one- third of the tax was to be abated if paid in money, and for two years, one-half was to be abated for money. Grain and other articles at colony prices were called "country pay" or "provision pay" or simply "pay;" in Hampshire, pro duce at town prices was sometimes called "provision pay" or Hampshire Contributions for Harvard College. — A contribu tion was made throughout the colony, commencing in 1672, for a new college building. About £1989 were received from towns and individuals, in a few years. "A fair and stately brick edifice" was erected. The contributions in produce from the Hampshire towns, after taking out the expense of transportation, were as follows : £¦ Hadley, 33 Northampton, 20 Springfield, . 17 Hatfield, 14 Westfield, 12 Northampton contributed £29.17.10 in flax, summer wheat, and flour, but the freight, shrinkage, casks, &c. reduced it almost one-third. s. d. 15 3 9 18 2 4 9 6 8 1 CHAPTER XI Lands in New England before it was settled by the English — Indian Burnings — Bushes — Burnings by the English — Wood and Timber — Fire-wood — Building Timber — Rift Timber— Clapboards — Saw-logs — Pasturing domestic animals in the woods. New England was far from being an unbroken wilderness when first settled by the English. In the vicinity of the Indian settlements, there were not only plats of cleared land, upon which the squaws raised Indian corn, beans and squashes, but many openings where the earth was covered with grass, and extensive tracts of woodland, where the trees were so scattered that green herbage, and even strawberries, flourished among them. The early writers compared these thin forests to the English parks. Mr. Graves, wrote from Salem, in 1629, that the country was "very beautiful in open lands mixed with goodly woods, and again open plains, in some places 500 acres, some more some less, not much troublesome to clear for the plough." "The grass and history of hadley 97 weeds grow up to a man's face; in the lowlands and by fresh rivers abundance of grass, and large meadows without any tree or shrub." The burning of the grass and leaves by the Indians is noticed by Morton, in 1632. He says the savages burn the country that it may not be overgrown with underwood. The burning makes the country passable by destroying the brush-wood. It scorches the older trees and hinders their growth. "The trees grow here and there as in our parks, and make the country very beautiful." Wood, in 1634, says, "in many places, divers acres are clear, so that one may ride a hunting in most places of the land. There is no underwood, save in swamps and low grounds; for it being the custom of the Indians to burn the woods in November, when the grass is withered and leaves dried, it consumes all the underwood and rubbish." He says there is good fodder in the woods where the trees are thin; and in the spring, the grass grows rapidly on the burnt lands. Vanderdonck, a Dutch writer, in his "Des cription of the New Netherlands," now New York, about 1653, describes the burning of the woods. "The Indians have a yearly custom, which some of our Christians have adopted, of burning the woods, plains and meadows, in the fall of the year, when the leaves have fallen and the grass and vegetables are dry. This 'bush-burning,' as it is called, is done to render hunting easier, and to make the grass grow. The raging fire presents a grand and sublime appearance. Green trees in the woodlands do not suffer much." These accounts, relating to other parts of the country, will help us to form some general idea of the lands, forests, and natural scenery in the vicinity of the Connecticut, when first possessed by the English. No early writer has given a description of this part of Massachusetts, nor indeed of any portion of the country on the borders of this river, but we may safely conclude that there were Indian corn-fields, green meadows, grassy uplands in scat tered, open woods, and dense forests on wet lands, in this Nor wottuck valley. There was wild, and perhaps gloomy scenery, but there must have been much that was pleasant and beautiful. The first planters of New England were entirely unaccustomed to the business of clearing woodlands, and they selected places where they could immediately begin to cultivate the earth. They found the best lands generally divested of timber. The inter vales or rich alluvial lands, upon the Connecticut and its tributary streams, were more free from trees than the adjoining uplands. The first settlers of Northampton, Hadley and Hatfield, found plenty of land ready for the plow, and began to raise Indian corn 98 history of hadley and other grain, and to mow grass, as soon as they had fixed themselves in these places. Nor did their homelots upon higher ground require much clearing. The upland woods on each side of the river, above and below these towns, were passable for men on horseback, and with little preparation, for carts. In Philip's war, and in later years, companies of horsemen, and larger bodies of foot soldiers seem to have penetrated the woods without difficulty in every direction. Growth of Bushes. — After the Indians ceased to burn over a tract of land, bushes and brambles commonly began to grow abundantly upon it. When some of the people of Northampton petitioned for a plantation at Squakeag (Northfield) in 1671, they stated that the Indians had deserted the place, and that for want of inhabitants to burn the meadows and woods, the under wood had increased, "which will be very prejudicial to those that shall come to inhabit, and the longer, the worse." The inhabit ants upon Connecticut River were greatly annoyed by the bushes that sprung up so plentifully in their homelots, highways and elsewhere. There was so little travel within and between the towns with wheels and two animals abreast, that the bushes choked up the ways and it was difficult to keep an open path. In Connecticut, a law obliged every man to work one day in the year in clearing bushes from the highways. Hadley adopted a sim ilar by-law in 1693. Burning over the lands by the English. — The woods were for a long time the pasture grounds for all kinds of domestic animals. The inhabitants fired them annually, as the Indians had done before. They did not set fires near their habitations and fenced fields, but in the more distant parts of the township. Massa chusetts enacted a law forbidding any person to set the common woodlands on fire, except between March ioth and April 30th. According to tradition, there were some splendid burnings in the woods on the hills and mountains, around this valley, espe cially in the night. The people of Hadley not only burnt over their own lands, but extended their fires to the hills of Pelham and Belchertown, in order to increase their pasturage. Brook field burnt over the lands in Ware, and they were called " Brook field pastures." Northampton and Hatfield spread their fires westerly over the hills of Westhampton, Williamsburgh, &c. These burnings continued in many places down to 1750, and later. A law of Massachusetts in 1743, made to restrain such fires, says the burning of the woods greatly impoverishes the soil, prevents the growth of the wood, and destroys much fence. Tra- history of hadley 99 ditional accounts say that the woods were so free from underbrush and the trees so thinly scattered, that a deer could be seen 40 rods on the wooded hills. The burnings were as favorable to the white deer-hunters as they were of old to the Indian hunters. Wood and Timber. — The annual burnings by the Indians, and afterwards by the whites, destroyed small trees and hindered the growth of large ones, and valuable timber was not so plenty as some have imagined. Some of the towns on the river had fears about a scarcity of timber in early days. Springfield voted in 1647, that no timber, boards, planks, shingle-timber, nor pipe staves should be carried out of the town, from the east side of the river. Hatfield voted, in 1671, that no man should sell clapboards, shingles or rails, out of the town, and coopering stuff was not to be sold out of the town until wrought into casks. In May, 1706, this prohibition was so far relaxed as to permit John Field, Jr. to transport shingles "to supply those whose houses were burnt down in Hadley."* Northampton, in 1699, "considering the great difficulty we are in to get fire-wood," ordered that no staddles should be cut, that were less than 9 inches in diameter. Hadley, in 1713, ordered that no oak staddles under 12 inches in diameter should be cut, on penalty of five shillings. These town votes all relate to common lands. They clearly evince that timber was not very abundant. Fire-wood. — Much of the fuel consumed in Hadley, during the 17th, and a great part of the 1 8th century, was oak and walnut. From some regulations in 1733 and 1737, it appears that oak, walnut, maple and elm were then chiefly used. Pine, chestnut and other soft woods, were not extensively employed as fuel until a much more recent period. From the supplies of wood given to clergymen, some idea may be gained, of the great quantities of wood .consumed in the spacious fire-places of former days. Hat field at first gave Mr. Chauncey 50 cords of wood annually, and afterwards 60 cords. South Hadley voted from 50 to 70 loads of wood yearly, for Mr. Woodbridge. Hadley gave Mr. Hopkins 50 cords, many years. The third precinct in Hadley, now Am herst, gave Mr. Parsons, ^heir first minister, 80 loads of wood some years, and 90 loads'in 1749. Mr. Edwards of Northampton, after 1740, consumed from 75 to 80 loads of wood in a year. Wethersfield gave Mr. Woodbridge, (settled in 1680,) 80 loads of wood — probably over 50 cords. Some persons who had not a ?This is the only record that remains of the burning of houses in Hadley, in the early part of 1706. 100 HISTORY OF HADLEY study to warm consumed as much wood as the ministers, or about 50 cords. When Hadley had only 100 families, about 1765, the consumption of wood was not much less than 3000 cords annually. Building Timber, &c. — The first settlers of New England knew the value of oak, but did not at first understand the impor tance of pine. In many places, they not only used oak timber for the frames of buildings, but oak clapboards and oak shingles, and some used oak boards to wainscot rooms. Posts, pails and rails were of oak. Where pine was plenty, pine boards were sawed perhaps as early as oak boards, and pine shingles and clapboards gradually took the place of those of oak. How early the people of Hadley began to use chestnut for posts and rails, is not known. They may have split out chestnut rails for some of their early meadow and homelot fences, but there is no evidence of this. The Norwottuck valley was to a considerable extent an ever green region. Pines predominated in many places in Hadley, but were mingled with oaks and other trees. Rift Timber. — This kind of timber could be rived, cleaved or split. One of the first votes of the early settlers of Hadley related to it. "Dec. 17, 1660, voted that if any men fell any rift timber, and do not rive it out into bolts, pales, rails, clapboards, or shingles, within six weeks, any inhabitant may fetch it away for his own use; and that if any man fell any pine timber, and cart it not away in three months, any man may make use of it." This vote makes adistinction between"rift timber" and "pine timber." The former was apparently oak. The articles into which it was rived require some explanation. Bolts denoted pieces of wood cleft out, in order to be split again into shingles, laths, &c. Pales were stakes, posts, and any cloven pieces of timber placed upright for a fence. The picket fences of door-yards are a light kind of paling. Rails were used for post and rail fences. Our fathers had to learn how to split rails from logs after they came to this country. Zigzag or Vir ginia fences were unknown. Shingles of oak and pine in New England in early days, were from 14 inches to 3 feet in length. John Pynchon, when he built his brick house in 1660, put on shingles 18 inches long, and an inch thick at the thick end; but for several other buildings, he used shingles 3 feet long. He had cedar shingles for a building in 1677. He gave for shingles 18 inches long, 20 shillings per thousand, and for the 3 feet shingles, from 35 to 40 shillings. Clapboards. — Coffin's History of Newbury gives a satisfactory derivation of this word. "Clapboards, he says, were originally HISTORY OF HADLEY 101 cloven and not sawn, and were thence called clove-boards, and in process of time, cloboards, claboards, clapboards." It is quite certain that clapboards were cloven in the manner of shingles in New England, more than a century. In England, an act of Parliament under Elizabeth, 1592-3, names the timber of which beer and fish casks were made, "cloven-borde" and "clapborde." English writers represent that clapboards in that country were used by the cooper for casks, and not by the joiner on buildings. The use of short, narrow, cloven boards, over-lapping each other, to cover the outside of buildings, seems to have been a con trivance of the early settlers of New England, before they had saw-mills, and sawn boards were scarce and dear. It may be that they had been previously so used in some parts of Europe. In this country, they were at first split from oak, and afterwards from pine, and made smooth by "hewing,"* or shaving. The wages of "rivers of clapboards" and the price of clapboards, were regulated by law in some places. Their length for a time was various — 3, 4, 5 or 6 feet. In the 18th century, the laws of Mass achusetts ordered that pine clapboards exposed for sale, should be 4 feet 6 inches long, 5 inches broad and f of an inch thick on the back, and be straight and "well shaved." The last law ordering such clapboards was passed in the year 1783. Such short, split, shaved clapboards may still be seen on some old houses, built before the Revolution, in Northampton, Hadley and other places. Saw-logs. — John Pynchon built saw-mills in Springfield, Suf field and Enfield. After his first saw-mill in Springfield was built in 1667, he hired men to cut logs ready for the saw at 8 pence each; and others were engaged to cart them to the mill with their own teams, at is. 8d. each. They were to be between 12 and 25 feet in length and from 17 to 24 inches in diameter, at the small end. Most of them were pine. White oak logs cost much more. In 1684, he gave for pine logs at the mill at the rate of is. 3d. for every hundred feet of boards which they made. In 1690, Clark and Parsons of Northampton, gave for pine logs at the rate of is. 6d. for every hundred feet of boards sawed from them. Price of Boards. — Those sawed by hand at Springfield had risen to 7 shillings per 100 feet, before Pynchon built his mill in 1667. After that his price was 4s. 6d. per 100 feet. The price of Clark and Parsons, of Northampton, for many years after 1682, ?The operation of smoothing clapboards and shingles was called " hewing " for many years. Afterwards, they were said to be "shaved." 102 HISTORY OF HADLEY was 4s. per 100 feet. Their charge for sawing boards for others was 2s. 6d. per 100 feet. Hadley prices did not probably vary much from those of Northampton. These prices of logs and boards were all in "provision pay." Laths for plastering are rarely named in the writings of the 17th century. The houses of farmers had very little plastering. The wealthy plastered their rooms. Pasturing domestic animals in the woods. — The first pastures in this and other British colonies were the woods, which had previously been the hunting grounds of the Indians. The in habitants of the Norwottuck valley had a very wide range for their cattle, more than half a century. The great pasture of Hadley extended to the north indefinitely, until Sunderland was begun in 17 14; and the eastern limit was Brookfield, or the "Brookfield pastures" in Ware, until Amherst was commenced, about 1728. The nearest inhabitants to the south, were in the vicinity of Chickopee River, in Springfield, previous to the settle ment of South Hadley, about 1725. Horses, horned cattle, sheep and hogs were pastured upon these plains, hills and mountain sides. Goats apparently were not kept in Hadley, though some towns in the colony had many. Cows were under a keeper, and sheep after they were numerous enough for a shepherd. Young horses, hogs, and young cattle commonly roved without restraint, but the latter sometimes had a keeper. A cow-keeper or herdsman was employed in Hadley every year, but is seldom mentioned in the record, and information respect ing this manner of pasturage must be sought in other towns. In Hatfield, in 1680 and 1681, a man agreed to keep the town herd from early in May to Sept. 29, for 12 shillings per week, payable in grain. He was to drive out the herd every morning by the time the sun was an hour high, take them to good feed and bring them home seasonably at night. In many places, the wages of a cowherd were 12 shillings per week; in some towns a little higher. A shepherd was not needed in Hadley and Hatfield for many years. Those who had a few sheep, kept them on their homelots and about the village, until the number was so much increased that the owners could afford to pay a shepherd. After shepherds were employed, the sheep in both towns were folded at night, and the manure was paid for by those on whose lands were the pens or folds. In Hatfield, the sheep were folded in hurdles or movable pens, which were carried from one place to another. The wages of a shepherd were ordinarily 12 shillings per week. Hatfield had 273 sheep in 1691 and 291 in 1699. The Hadley HISTORY OF HADLEY 103 flock increased slowly. By a law of the colony, a dog that bit or killed sheep was to be hanged.* In Hatfield, the cow-keeper and shepherd enjoyed the privi leges of most of the Sabbaths. In 1672, every man that had three cattle on the commons, was to take his turn in keeping the herd on Sabbath-days. In 1693, the shepherd was to keep the sheep every ioth Sabbath, and the proprietors were to guard them 9 Sabbaths in 10. In most of the towns, the owners of the herds and flocks took care of them, on many of the Sabbaths, that the keepers might attend public worship. It is presumed that horses and oxen, whose services were fre quently called for, fed at the barns, on the homelots and in the broad streets. Oxen were at times under the care of the cowherd. As soon as the crops in the intervals were gathered, cows and some other animals were pastured in the meadows until snow fell. Hadley and Hatfield usually opened one meadow Sept. 29th or about the first of October, and the others within a fort night. Indian corn was gathered early. Young cattle and horses ranged the woods in every direction. In Hadley, they ascended Mount Holyoke to the steep rocks, and crossed the mountain in those gaps called cracks. In 1709, the town gave John Taylor 20 acres of land, to maintain a fence across the crack of the mountain, meaning a gap, now about half a mile north-east of the mountain house. Cattle from the south side sometimes came through this opening into Hockanum and Fort Meadow. The common fields and private lots required strong barriers to protect them against restless, rambling animals. Young cattle and horses often remained in the woods until winter, and some became wild and unruly, especially horses, and wandered to other towns. Many days were spent in the winter and in other seasons in looking up horses and cattle in the woods. This mode of pasturing, though not without inconveniences, was the best that the new settlers in this and other colonies could adopt. Swine were not often killed by wolves or bears; according to tradition, they defended themselves and their young vigorously when attacked. ?The hanging of mischievous dogs sometimes gave a name to the place where the exe cution was performed. I have noticed the name, "Hang-dog swamp," both in Massachu setts and Connecticut. The dog was taken to the woods, a leaning staddle was bent down and a cord was fastened to the top and to the dog's neck; the elastic staddle then sprung back, with the dog dangling in the air. In former days, cats and dogs were sometimes hanged at the heavy end of a well-swipe. 104 HISTORY OF HADLEY CHAPTER XII Good land of little value to Indians — Purchases by Penn and Pynchon — Purchases of the Indians in Norwottuck Valley — Remarks on the Indian Deeds — How Hatfield was purchased — How much Hadley paid for land — The name Norwottuck. The Indians upon Connecticut River were very desirous that the English should settle among them. They willingly and gladly sold their lands; no urging was necessary. They understood what was meant by a sale of land. When the Norwottuck Indians sold the lands at Northampton in 1653, and at Hadley in 1658, they knew perfectly well what use the English made of the lands they had purchased in other places long before, and what they claimed under an Indian deed. The Indians never pretended that they were ignorant of what was intended by a sale of land, and no quarrels arose on that ground. The price obtained by the Indians for land, however small, was all they demanded, and in the opinion of intelligent men, all the land was worth. "Whoever is conversant with the hardships, toils and privations attending a new settlement in the wilderness, and will take the trouble to compute what is expended and laid out on and about a settlement to make land produce any thing; how much its value depends on neighboring settlements, on roads, fences and the various improvements of civilized life; will inevitaby come to the conclusion that wild land in a wilderness, remote from neighbors, cannot be of much value."* Gov. Hutchinson observed that land in New England, at the time of its settlement, was of no value.f Very erroneous opinions are entertained in regard to the value, to the Indians, of the land which they sold to the English. They manifestly were not conscious of giving up much that was useful or important to themselves. The Indian men were fond of fight ing, hunting and fishing, and disdained other pursuits. All agricultural labor and all kinds of drudgery were thrown upon the women, who, with hoes of shells, wood or iron, cultivated small pieces of land. It may be doubted whether all the Indian corn-fields in this valley, from Holyoke and Tom on the south, to Toby and Sugar Loaf on the north, contained more than sev enty acres. Agriculture was a minor object with the Indians. ?Bliss's Sketches of the History of Springfield, 1828. ¦j-As quoted by Trumbull. HISTORY OF HADLEY 105 These fine intervals, which so much delight the civilized man, had few attractions for the Indians. In Connecticut, the Indians in most of their deeds, retained the right to hunt, fowl and fish within the lands disposed of. So the Norwottuck Indians, in their deeds of land in Hadley and Hatfield, reserved to themselves the liberty of hunting and fowl ing on the lands they sold, and of fishing in the streams; and in two of the deeds, they had liberty to set their wigwams and take fire-wood on the commons.* They had the same use of most of the land and water after the English came, that they had before. The women lost their corn-patches in the meadows. The men continued to hunt, fowl and fish, and the women to raise corn.f It was not rich land that principally induced the Indians to establish themselves in this valley or elsewhere. The most numerous tribes of New England Indians were not upon the best lands. The Pequots, the most powerful tribe in Connecticut, resided in one of the most sterile sections of the colony. The sandy, barren island of Nantucket, had as many Indians 200 years ago (if correctly estimated in 1659) as the fertile lands upon the Connecticut in the whole course of the river. The Indians had no permanent settlements above Northfield, and they voluntarily deserted that place. Some European writers have been strangely ignorant of the fact, that most of the early settlers of New England occupied their lands by actual bargain with the Indians. These writers have represented that William Penn was the first to purchase a conveyance from the Indians, and have bestowed much praise upon him for doing what had been done a hundred times in New England, before Penn came to America. J Penn is said to have completed his bargain or treaty with the Indian chiefs under an elm tree near Philadelphia, and the trans action has been rendered famous by the historian and the painter. Yet it would be difficult, perhaps, to tell why the purchase of Indian lands in Pennsylvania by Wm. Penn, is more worthy of renown, than the purchase of Indian lands in Northampton or Hadley by John Pynchon, 20 years before. Both bought as cheaply as they couid. ?Pres. Dwight says, in his Travels in New England, "the Indians were always consid ered as having a right to dwell and to hunt within the lands which they had sold." Such a right seems to have been practically enjoyed, though not expressly reserved in all the deeds. j-When the women took land of the English for half the crop, they may have obtained from well plowed land more corn than the same amount of labor produced when the land and all the crop were theirs. jGrahame, in his History of the United States, Vol. II, p. 346, has corrected the error of these writers. 106 HISTORY OF HADLEY INDIAN DEEDS OF LANDS AT NORWOTTUCK. Deed of Northampton. This purchase was made by John Pynchon, Sept. 24, 1653, at Springfield, (perhaps under an elm tree) of six Indians, two of whom appear as owners of land on the east side of the river, viz., Chickwallop alias Wawhillowa, and Awonusk, wife of Wulluther. The tract of land purchased was at Nanotuck or Nonotuck, and extended from the brook below Munhan, called Sankwonk (now below Asahel Lyman's) up by the Quinetticott to the brook or gutter below Capawonk called Masquomp, (now called Half-way brook,) and out into the woods westerly nine miles. The consideration was 100 fathoms of wampum, 10 coats and some small gifts; and the English were to plough up for the Indians, on the east side of the river, sixteen acres of land, in the summer of 1654. Capawonk Meadow in Hatfield. Northampton bought this of a chief, named Lampaunchus, or Umpanchala, July 20, 1657, for 50 shillings. This meadow was then called Pewonganuck or Capawonk. In October, 1658, Northampton proposed to sell it to the "Hartford men," on four conditions, (on page 11,) which were not complied with. On the" nth of March, 1659, Joseph Fitch, John Webb and Joseph Parsons, in behalf of Northampton, agreed with William West- wood, Samuel Smith and Andrew >Warner, acting for the purchasers of the new planta tion on the east side of the river, to sell Capawonk Meadow, for 30 pounds sterling, in wheat and peas, delivered at Hartford at the current price, before June 1, 1659. The 30 pounds were paid at or near the time. The deed from Northampton agents to the agents of Hadley, was given Jan. 22, 1663. The bounds of Capawonk in the deed, were, the riverett running into the Great River easterly, the Great River south and east; and the bank of upland, north and west. The agreement of March n, 1659, is the first instrument recorded in the first Book of Deeds at Springfield. Elizur Holyoke recorded it Dec. *, 1660. Deed of Hadley. This deed embraces the land from the mouth of Fort River, and Mount Holyoke, on the south, to the mouth of Mohawk brook, and the southern part of Mount Toby on the north, extending easterly nine miles into the woods. "Here followeth a copy of a deed or writing whereby the Indians of Nolwotogg, upon the river Quienecticott, made sale of certain lands unto Maj. John Pynchon, of Spring field, together with the copy of the said Maj. John Pynchon his assignment of the said deed to the use and behoof of the inhabitants of Hadley, and his acknowledgment thereof. Be it known to all men by these presents that Chickwollop alias Wahillowa, Umpan- chella alias Womscom, and Quonquont alias Wompshaw, the sachems of Nolwotogg, and the sole and proper owners of all the land on the east side of Quonicticot river, from the hills called Petowamachu, and from the mouth of the brook or river called Towunuck- sett, and so all along by the great river upward or northward to the brook called Nepas- sooenegg, and from the hither part or south end of the great hills called Kunckquachu, (being guessed at near about nine miles in length) by the river Quenecticott — We the aforenamed Chickwallop alias Waahillow, Umpanchala alias Womscom, and Quonquont alias Wompshaw, of Nolwotogg, on the one party, do give, grant, bargain and sell unto John Pynchon, of Springfield, on the other party, to him, his assigns and successors for ever, all the grounds, woods, ponds, waters, meadows, trees, stones, &c. lying on the east side of Quenicticot River, within the compass aforesaid, from the mouth of the little Riv erett called Towenucksett, and the hills Petowomuchu northward up the great river of Quenecticot, to the Brook Nepowssooenegg, and from the south end of the hills Quaqua- chu, being near about nine miles in length, from the south part to the north part, and all within the compass from Quenecticot River eastward nine miles out into the woods, all the aforesaid tract of ground called Towunucksett, Sunmukquommuck, Suchaw, Noycoy, Gassek,' Pomptuckset, Mattabaget, Wunnaquickset, Kunckkiunk-qualluck, Neposeo- neag, and to the south end of the great hill called Kunckquachu, and for nine or ten miles eastward from the great river out into the woods eastward — We the said Chickwallop, Umpancbella, and Quonquont, do for and in consideration of two hundred fathom of wampom, and twenty fathom and one large coat of eight fathom, which Chickwallop sets In the Churchyard at Hadley, England Table Stones in the Meadow Cemetery HISTORY OF HADLEY 107 off, of trusts, besides several small gifts, and for other good causes and considerations do sell, give, grant, and have given, granted, bargained and sold to John Pynchon, of Spring field, and to his assigns and successors all and singular the aforenamed land, or by what ever other name it is or may be called, quietly to possess, have and enjoy the aforesaid tract of ground free from all molestations or incumbrances of Indians, and that forever, only the Indians aforenamed, and in particular Quonquont, doth reserve and keep one com field about twelve, sixteen, or twenty acres of ground, a little above Mattabaget, by the brook called Wunnaquickset, lying on the south side of the said brook, and compassed in by a swamp from that brook to the great river, and also they reserve liberty to hunt deer, fowl, &c. and to take fish, beaver, or otter, &c. but otherwise all the aforesaid premises the said John Pynchon, his assigns and successors and their heirs shall forever enjoy abso lutely and clearly, free from all incumbrances of any Indians or their corn fields forever, except as before excepted. And in witness hereof, we the said Indians do subscribe our marks this present twenty-fifth day of December, 1658. It is only the corn field on this or south side of the brook called Wunnuckeckset, and the little bit of ground by it within the swamp and betwixt the swamp and the great river which the Indians do reserve, and are to enjoy. But the little corn field on the other side or further side or north side of Wunnaquickset, and all the other corn fields within the compass of ground aforenamed, the Indians are to leave and yield up, as witness their hands. The mark — of Umpanchla alias Womscom. The mark — of Quonquont alias Wompshaw. The mark — of Chickwalopp alias Wowahillowa. Witnesses to this purchase and that the Indians do fully sell all the lands aforementioned to Mr. Pynchon, and that the marks were subscribed by the Indians themselves. Joseph Parsons, Edwd. Elmore, Joseph Fitch, Samuel Wright, Arthur Williams, The mark R. T. of Rowland Thomas, who was privy to the whole discourse and con clusion of the purchase, and Joseph Parsons was present and acquainted with the whole agreement; the other witnesses came in to testify to the subscribing, and that the Indians owned all as it was read to them. The Indians desired they might set their wigwams at some times within the tract of ground they sold without offence, and that the English would be kind and neighborly to them in not prohibiting them fire-wood out of the woods, &c. which was promised them." Assigned by John Pynchon to "the present Inhabitants of Hadley," Oct. 28, 1663 — in which he says he acted in the purchase as an agent entrusted by them. The corn-field of 12, 16 or 20 acres, reserved in the foregoing deed, was sold to Hadley in a few years. It seems to have been a part of the upper School Meadow. Deed of Hadley west of the River, or Hatfield. The land included in this deed, is bounded by Hatfield Mill River on the south, and the upper side of the Great or North Meadow on the north, extending westerly nine miles. "Here followeth a copy of a deed of sale whereby Umpanchala, an Indian Sachem formerly of Nolwotogg, did sell and alienate his right and interest in certain parcels of land on the west side of Quenecticot River, unto Maj. John Pynchon, of Springfield, for and in behalf of the inhabitants of Hadley, as also his, the said Maj. John Pynchon's assignment of the same to the said inhabitants, and acknowledgment of it likewise: Be it known unto all men by these presents that Umpanchala, alias Womscom, a sachem of Nolwotogg, on the one party, being a Chief and proper owner of the land on the west side of Quinecticot River, from Cappowoungomuck to the upper side of Mincomonk, (viz. to Quonquont's ground) do give, grant, bargain and sell to John Pynchon of Springfield, on the other party, to him, his assigns and successors forever, all the grounds, woods, ponds, waters, trees, stones, meadows, uplands, &c. lying and being at Nolwotogg, on the we6t 108 HISTORY OF HADLEY side of Quenecticut River, from the meadow on the south called Capawonk, formerly sold by Umpanchala to the inhabitants of Northampton, upon the great River of Quenecti cut, northward to the upper side of Mincomunck, that is to say, the Brook or Riverett called Cappowong alias Mattaoolanick, which parts Cappowonganick and Wequetayyag, and the meadow and upland called Wequetayyag, and so northward to Yowanckhomuck and Natocouse, and the brook called Wunckcompss which comes out of the pond, and over the said Brook Nattacows or Wonckcompss still northward, viz. all the ground and meadow called Mincommuck to a marked Walnut tree, at the great River side, and so off from the River to a great White Oak marked, and thence to run out into the woods westward from the great River nine miles, and so down southward till it come to Coppowoung Riverett, which is to Northampton bounds, the aforesaid tract of ground called Wequetayyag, Yow- unckhommuck, Wonckcomss, Nattacows, Mincomuck, and from Quenecticott River to run westward nine miles into the woods both at the southward bounds up along the riverett Cappawoung, as well as the northward bounds of it; the said Umpanchala alias Womscom on the one party, for and in consideration of the sum of three hundred fathom of wompum in hand paid, besides several other small gifts, and for other good causes and considerations, do sell, give, grant, and have sold, given and granted, to John Pynchon, of Springfield, aforesaid, on the other party, and to his assigns and successors forever, and to their heirs, all and singular the aforesaid land, or by whatever other names it is or may be called, quietly to possess, have and enjoy the aforesaid tract of ground, free from all molestation or incumbrance of any Indians, and that forever; only the said Umpanchala doth reserve the Chickons alias Cottingyakies, which is to say, their planting ground, together with liberty to hunt deer or other wild creatures, to take fish, and to set wigwams on the commons, and take wood and trees for use; but otherwise all the premises and the whole tract of land before mentioned, with all the appurtenances and privileges thereof, the said John Pynchon, his assigns and successors and their heirs shall forever enjoy, ab solutely and clearly, free from all molestation by any Indians; and further Umpanchala doth engage and covenant, and it is the intent of these presents that all the Indian corn fields or old planted ground above Wequetayyag shall come to the English after his death, and then the Indians to have and enjoy only the old planted ground in Wequetayyag and down to the Brook Cappowongseate alias Mattoolanick. In witness hereof the said Um panchala hath set to his "hand and mark this tenth day of July, 1660. The mark — of Umpanchala. The mark — of Etowomq, brother to Umpanchala, own ing and approving of the sale of the land, and is a witness to it. Subscribed in presence of John Russell, Jr. Andrew Bacon, Richard Church, Richard Montague, The mark — of Woassomehuc, alias Skejack, an Indian witness." The above said was here entered Dec. 25, 1678, Per me, Saml. Partrigg, Recorder. Oct. 28, 1663. John Pynchon assigned the above to the inhabitants of Hadley, because "it was purchased in the behalf of several persons who had obtained a grant from the Gen eral Court of Massachusetts for a plantation, then intending to plant and settle themselves on the land," said Pynchon acting "only as being intrusted by the said persons now inhab itants of Hadley." On the 17th of Jan. 1662, Umpanchala, with the consent of Etoomp, deeded to four men, for the town of Hadley, the planting ground in and above Wequetayag, reserved in the first deed, excepting five acres, which Hadley was to break up and fence for the Indians. The five acres, which were in Indian Hollow in Hatfield, were sold a few years after. The Indian planting ground, in the deed of 1660, is called "Chickons alias Cottingyakies." In the deed of 1662, it is named "Chickons Cottones Akers." Umpanchala was in debt to John Pynchon, who allowed him £12, 10s. for this land, and received his pay of Hadley. HISTORY OF HADLEY 109 Deed of Hockanum and part of South Hadley and Granby. This deed takes in the territory from the mouth of Fort River, and Mount Holyoke on the north, to Stony brook, in South Hadley, on the south, extending easterly 10 miles, or to three ponds. "Here followeth a copy of a deed of the purchase of certain tract or tracts of land by the Worshipful Maj. Pynchon of the Indians, and his assignment of the same to the inhab itants of Hadley, and their successors, with his acknowledgment of the same. Be it known to all men by these presents, that Wequagon (formerly called Wulluthearne) and his wife Awonusk, and Squomp their son, being the sole and proper owners of the land at Nolwotogg, on the east side of Quenicticott River, from the brook Towonunkset and hill Petawamachu down southward towards Springfield bounds. We the said Wequagon, Awonunks and Squomp (for ourselves and heirs) on the one party, do give, grant, bargain and sell unto John Pynchon of Springfield, on the other party, to him, his heirs, assigns and successors forever, all the grounds, woods, trees, ponds, waters, stones, meadows, and uplands, &c. lying and being at Nolwotogg, on the east side of Quinecticott River from the hill called Petawamuchu, and the brook or little riverett called Towunuckset, which formerly Umpanchala and Wowwhillowa sold to the English, when they sold them Sunnuckquommuck and bounded it by the mouth of the brook Towunuckset and the hill Petowomachu. Now from the said hill and brook down Quinecticott River southward to a brook or riverett called Chusick, where the cart way goes over it, but at the mouth it is called Cowase,and all within the compass from the great river Quenicticott eastward into the woods about ten miles, viz. to the three ponds called Paquonckquamog, Scontocks, Paskisukquopoh. The aforesaid tract of land called Petowamuchu, Suchow, the great neck or meadow which the English call Hoccanum, together with the uplands adjoin ing, and the brook or riverett called Cowachuck alias Quaquoonuntuck, at the mouth of it, and so south to the riverett Chusuck alias Cowase, at the mouth of it — and eastward to the three ponds before named. — We the said Weequagon, Awonusk and Squomp, do clearly and absolutely grant and sell to John Pynchon, of Springfield, aforesaid, and to his successors forever — And by these presents, for and in consideration of 150 fathom of wampom with ten coats, and more two yards of cloth over in the large ness of their breeches, and several other small gifts, considerable all of them, and all in hand paid (the receipt whereof we do by these presents acknowledge) and for other good causes and considerations us thereunto moving, do grant and sell, and have sold, given, and granted to John Pynchon of Springfield, aforesaid, and to bis assigns and successors, and their heirs forever, all and singular the aforenamed land from the north bounds Towu nuckset to the south bounds Chusick alias Cowase, and from the west bounds the great river to the three ponds eastward called Paquonckequamog, Scontocks and Paskesicquopoh, or hy whatever other names it is or may be called, quietly to possess, have and enjoy the aforesaid tract of ground, free from all molestation and incumbrance of any Indians, and that forever — only the said Weequogon and Awonuske his wife do reserve and exempt from this sale a parcel of land in the neck or Suchaw, called by the English Hoccanum, which parcel of land they say is upwards of fifty or sixty acres, being already mortgaged to Joseph Parsons of Northampton, and bounded out to him by stakes and marks in the presence of two Englishmen of Northampton, the which parcel of land being made over to Joseph Parsons they exempt from this sale but not otherwise, all the premises and the whole tract of land before mentioned, with all the profits, privileges and advantages and com modities thereof, the said John Pynchon, his assigns and successors and their heirs shall forever enjoy, absolutely, clearly and free from all molestation by Indians against. We the said Wequogan, Awonunske and Squomp will defend and will unto the said Pynchon warrant the premises against all lawful claims whatsoever by any other except as before exempted — only the intent of these presents is not to exclude the Indians from hunting deer, beaver, or other wild creatures on the tract of land aforesold, which liberty they yet reserve to themselves — and also to take fish and sometimes to set their jwigwams on the commons, and to take wood and trees off on the commons for their use. In witness whereof the afore said Indians have hereunto set their hands and marks this 8th day of August, 1662. The mark — of Wequogon. The mark — of Awonunsk. The mark — of Squomp. 110 HISTORY OF HADLEY Signed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of us, Pelatiah Glover, The mark — of Richard Sikes, John Lamb, James Taylor." John Pynchon's assignment to inhabitants of Hadley, Feb. 6, 1671. Indian chiefs were inclined to get into debt, and Wequagon (or Weackwagen) and his wife and son Squomp owed Joseph Parsons of Northampton, 80 beaver skins, for coats, wampum and goods; and on the 28th of May, 1662, they mortgaged to him a parcel of land in the meadow and upland by it, commonly called Hockanum, but by the Indians Peta , as security for the debt, and if the debt was not paid before the first of September, Parsons was to have the land. James Wright and Judah Wright of Northampton, were witnesses to the mortgage. This land, which was excepted from the sale in the preceding deed, was sold by Joseph Parsons to the inhabitants of Hadley, for a considerable sum which was paid, but through negligence, his quit-claim deed was not given until March 29, 1683. The land was then estimated at 60 or 70 acres. Deed of the North part of Hatfield and Whately. This tract of land was purchased by Hatfield, Oct. 19, 1672. It was bounded on the south by the land bought of Umpanchala, July 10, 1660, and on the north by Weekioan- nuck or Sugar Loaf brook, where the Pacomtuck path crossed it, the north line running thence east to the great river and west 6 miles into the woods. Part of the land abutted on the farms of Major Denison and Mr. Bradstreet eastward, and extended 6 miles west of them, and part abutted on the great river. This had been the land of Quanquan, (same as Quonquont) a sachem, and was sold by his widow Sarah Quanquan, his son Pocuno- house, Mattabauge, a squaw, Majesset, daughter of Quanquan, and Momecouse, for 50 fathoms of wampumpeag. Deeds of Swampfif.ld or Sunderland. On the 10th of April, 1674, John Pynchon, acting in behalf of Robert Boltwood, Joseph Kellogg, John Hubbard, and Thomas Dickinson, of Hadley, and their associates, bought of several Indians, all the land from Nepesoaneag brook, (now Mohawk brook) next to Hadley bounds, up to the brook called Papacontuckquash, over against the mouth of Pa- - comptuck (Deerfield) river, and six miles easterly from the Connecticut into the woods. Two deeds were given, one by Mishalisk, an old woman, the mother of Wuttawchincksin, deceased, who owed Pynchon; and one by Metawompe alias Nattawwassawett, for himself and in behalf of Wadanummin, Squiskeag and Sunkamachue, for 80 fathoms of wampum and some small things. The lands were in Sunderland, Montague and Leverett. The Indians belonged to the Norwottucks. Pynchon paid for the lands and the Hadley pur chasers paid him and his son £26. Remarks on the Indian Deeds. The principal chiefs of the Norwottucks, north of Mount Tom and Mount Holyoke, were Chickwallop, Umpanchala and Quon quont. They claimed to be the owners of most of the land on both sides of the river, Chickwallop of the southern, Umpanchala of the middle, and Quonquont of the northern part of the territory. Besides these, there were petty chiefs and owners of land at North ampton, and at Sunderland. Awonusk seems to have been the daughter and heir of some deceased Norwottuck chief. Her husband, Wequogon, called also Wulluther, united with her in the deed of the land below Fort River, but he was a Springfield Indian and not a Norwottuck. history of hadley 111 It appears from the names of witnesses, that the deed of Had ley was executed at Northampton; that of Hatfield at Hadley, and that of Hockanum and South Hadley at Springfield. It will be perceived that the orthography of Indian names is often changed in the same deed. This may have been partly the result of care lessness, and some words may have been designedly varied. It was very difficult to express some of the Indian sounds by letters. The Indian names of some places may be ascertained from these deeds. They will be noticed elsewhere. Hockanum was an Indian name at East Hartford, but the Meadow near Mount Holyoke was so named by the English and not by the Indians. The English often gave the same Indian name to a stream and to the land adjoining it. The Indians may have done the same, or they may have varied the determination of the name, to dis tinguish land from water. Indian signatures. — Indians, in signing deeds, commonly did something more than make a mark; most of them made a picture or representation of some object. In the old records at Spring field, many of these Indian hieroglyphics may be seen, as a beaver, a snake, a snow-shoe, a bow, a hand, &c. Wequogon and Squomp both drew a rude picture of a hand, including the wrist, thumb and four fingers. Umpanchala made a bow and string. Chickwallop made a circular figure with a neck to it, intended for — I know not what. Awonusk manifested a different taste from the male chiefs; her sign looks like a strip of net-work, and was intended perhaps to represent a piece of wampum. Quonquont only made zigzag marks, like two or three of the letter W put together, and Umpanchala sometimes did the same. How Umpanchala received his pay for the lands in Hatfield. John Pynchon's account book has all the wampum and other articles, that he sold to Umpanchala, to pay him y^£, or 300 fathoms of wampum, for his land in Hatfield, including his fine of two fathoms for being drunk. Accounts with Indians were kept in fathoms and hands of wampum. Pynchon, in this account, estimated 10 hands equal to a fathom, making his hands more than 7 inches, instead of the usual hand of 4 inches. Wampum was an article of traffic, and also the money of the Indians, — the standard by which they measured the value of all other things. Pynchon valued the cheaper or white wampum, in 1660, at five shillings a fathom. A fathom of wampum was a string of beads 112 HISTORY OF HADLEY made of shells, six feet in length. Pynchon wrote "fadam" for fathom. The following is copied from Pynchon's book, the items being a little compressed. The shag cotton of that day was made of wool. "Umpanchala, the Indian Sachem and owner of the land at Norwotog, hath taken up of me towards pay for his land, which he promises to sell: — Fadams. hands. £ s. d. 1659. Sept. 23. 2 yards Bilboe rug, 7 o 1 15 o Red Shag Cotton and Trading Cloth, A shirt, 2f. A coat, 5f. 1 pair breeches, 1660. Feb. 13. Wampum now and in Sept. A coat, 5f. A gun, 6f. 5I1. April 12 / Shag cotton and shag, to 16. \ 2 blue coats and 1 coat, A coat and a pair breeches, Wampum, 20 1 5 2 4 0 12 0 7 0 1 IS 0 1 5 0 7 6 »7 1 6 '5 6 11 5 2 17 6 2 4 0 12 0 15 0 3 '5 0 6 0 1 10 0 *5 April 16. A shirt and shag cotton, Wampum, " 25 to 27. Wampum,Red shag, 2f. 7h. Coat, 5f. May 9 to / Wampum, June 7. \ 3 Coats, I5f. Waistcoat, 2f. 4I1. June 19. Wampum, 1 coat, 51. Shag cotton, 3f. 6h. June20 / Blue shag cotton, toJulyio\ 2 coats, shag and wampum, Wampum, Had of Joseph Parsons, Coat and wampum at Parsons's, Payment to Mr. Goodwin, Red shag cotton and knife, July30to / Wampum and 2 coats, Aug. 23. \ "For your being drunk," Sept.6toi 4 Wampum,A kettle, 3 0 0 •5 0 7 0 1 15 0 '3 8 3 9 0 7 7 1 18 6 32 1 8 0 6 17 4 4 7 0 10 4 2 12 0 8 6 2 3 0 *5 20 0 10 0 14 0 10 0 2 8 I 4 22 0 2 0 II 0 5 0 5 0 2 10 3 10 2 10 0 H 0 7 5 10 0 10 2 •5 1 5 25 In all 300 fadams at 5s. which make £75. So much I engaged to him for his land at Nalwotogg; and I have paid him all to his own content, in the particulars abovesaid. This account is set off with Hadley town, it being paid for the purchase of their land. September, 1660." Umpanchala expended all he received for the first sale of Hat field in one year; and in three months more, from Sept. to Dec. 1660, he bought of Pynchon goods to the amount of £12, ios. and to pay this, sold the land to Hadley which he had reserved HISTORY OF HADLEY 113 in the first deed. He had pledged this to Pynchon. Such want of foresight and calculation was characteristic of the Indians. A few chiefs seem to have sold all the lands and to have used the avails. What Hadley paid for Lands. Pynchon charged the people of Hadley for the Hatfield lands only the amount that he paid to Umpanchala, 75^, and £12.10. Compensation for his services must have been derived from a large profit on the goods and wampum sold. His account against Hadley follows: — THE TOWN OF HADLEY, Dr. £ - 1658. Dec. 25. To the purchase of the land on the east side of the river, 62 10 1660. July 10. To the purchase of the land on the west side of the river, 75 o To law books, 1 10 1660. Dec. To colors, staff, tassels and top, 5 o To second purchase on the west side, 12 10 1662. Aug. 8. To the purchase of the neck which they call Hockanum, 50 o £206 10 Pynchon received his pay of individuals, and not of the town, from 1661 to 1668. The account was balanced Nov. 12, 1669. He has credit for most if not all the settlers. The remark of Hadley men, on page 20, that they had purchased lands of the Indians at higher rates than other plantations in New England, seems to have been true. In addition, they paid to Mr. Brad street 200;£ in money, and to Joseph Parsons not less than £20. Their lands cost them 1400 dollars or more. This large sum was paid when wheat in Hadley was only 3s. and 3s. 3d. per bushel; and in money not above 2s. 6d. Who ever takes into consideration all the circumstances, will come to the conclusion that the people of Hadley paid for the land which they cultivated, a much higher price than those now pay who buy good land of the U. S. government at $1.25 per acre. The people in the towns on the river had war with the Indians about half the time, for 50 years after 1674. Pynchon paid from his shop, in wampum and merchandise, for almost all the lands near the river, that were purchased of the Indians, from Suffield and Enfield, to Deerfield and Northfield, and received his pay from the settlers and proprietors of the new towns, to whom he assigned the Indian deeds. Only a small part of the assignments of the three Hadley deeds are given on pages 107, 108 and 110. 114 history of hadley Indian name of Norwottuck Valley. In Eliot's Indian Bible, the word for "the midst" of any thing, is usually noeu or noau, (sometimes nashaue,) and tuk at the end of a word generally signifies a river or brook. In our English version, the words, "the city that is in the midst of the river," are found in Joshua 13, verses 9 and 16; and in Eliot, in both verses, "the midst of the river" is rendered by noautuk. This is the Indian name of our valley. The peninsulas and projecting points of land at Hadley, Hockanum, Northampton and Hatfield, were "in the midst of the river." This Indian word was varied in different dialects, and in the records of the English. Some tribes did not pronounce / and r, and these letters are not in Eliot's Bible. The Nipmucks pronounced /, and some Indians on Con necticut River, below Massachusetts, had the sound of r. The following variations of the name of this valley, are taken from the records of Connecticut, Massachusetts, the United Colonies and Hampshire towns, and from the writings of the Pynchons. Nawattocke, 1637, Nowottok and Nawottock, 1646, Nau- wotak, 1648, Noatucke, 1654, Nanotuck, 1653, Nonotucke, 1653, 1655, 1658, Norwotake, 1657, Norwootuck and Norwuttuck, 1657, Northwottock, 1656, 1661, Norwottock, 1659, 1660, Nor- woottucke, 1659, Norwotuck, 1661. John Pynchon has in his accounts Nalwotogg, Nolwotogg and Norwotog, and in his deeds Nolwotogg. The latter spelling was probably according to the pronunciation of the Nipmucks, who lived here. Nonotuck was used when there was no town but Northampton. The Hadley settlers introduced from Hartford, Norwottuck, and that name was more used by the English than the others. CHAPTER XIII Indians near Connecticut River — The Norwottucks and their Forts — The Mohawks and their cruelty and cannibalism — The Mohawks in Hampshire county — Talks at Albany — Presents to the Mohawks — Entertainment of Indians — Wampum, or the money of the Indians. From 1636, when Springfield was settled, until the Indian war of 1675, the Nipmucks or Nipnets inhabited the interior of Massachusetts, occupying many places in the present county of Worcester, and in the old county of Hampshire, and some dwelt in Connecticut, south of Worcester county. They were not subject to a common sachem, but had many petty chiefs, and some were partially under the dominion of tribes not Nipmucks. There were four small tribes or clans upon Connecticut River, HISTORY OF HADLEY 115 or a few miles from it, viz., the Agawams at Springfield and West Springfield, the Waranokes at Westfield, the Nonotucks or Norwottucks at Northampton, Hadley and Hatfield, and the Pocomtucks at Deerfield. Those who established themselves at Northfield for a time, may have been Pocomtucks. It is not known that there were any permanent Indian settlements above Northfield, nor upon the Housatonnuc River within the limits of Massachusetts, in the 17th century. There is some reason to suppose that a part of the Indians at Waranoke came originally from Hudson's River, and returned to that river in Philip's war. The Quabaugs at Brookfield were in Hampshire county. Few if any Indians resided constantly in the territory now in Suffield and Enfield. The four tribes of western Nipmucks near Connecticut River and its branches, may be reckoned at ten or eleven hundred when most numerous. Their numbers were considerably reduced be fore they left this part of the country, and did not perhaps exceed eight hundred in 1675, and they were some hundreds less when the war ended. The Norwottucks may have been the most numerous clan; the Pocomtucks were the most energetic and manly. The numbers of barbarous tribes and nations are almost always over-rated. There has been not a little exaggeration in regard to the Indian population of New England. Trumbull over-estimates the Connecticut Indians, and errs exceedingly in regard to those of Windsor. Misled by "manuscripts from Windsor," he supposes that about the year 1670, there were 2000 Indian bowmen in that town, and 19 Indians to one Englishman! Such accounts require no refutation. In 1680, the government of Connecticut received some official inquiries from England, one of which related to the number of Indian warriors in the col ony; to this they replied, "as for Indian neighbors, we compute them 500 fighting men." This computation seems to include only the Indians in or near townships settled by the English, but it exhibits the great decrease of the Indians. From other docu ments, it might be inferred that the Indians in all the Connecticut River towns in the colony, with Farmington and Simsbury, did not exceed 1200 in 1680.* *The Indians in the river towns were not destroyed by war, but they diminished so fast, that at the end of every 40 years, they were only about one-half as many as at the beginning. At this rate, only one-eighth of the number in 1640 would remain in 1760. "The Indian disappears before the white man simply because he will not work." — Gallatin. 116 HISTORY OF HADLEY The first naming of the Norwottucks in public records was by the General Court of Connecticut in 1637. They were noticed in the records of the United Colonies in 1646, and Chickwallop was named for the first time. William Pynchon mentioned the Norwottucks and Chickwallop in 1648. For some years, the Norwottucks, Pocomtucks and others were at war with Uncas and the Mohegans. Uncas or his brother assailed these river Indians in 1656. In 1657, they and others made an incursion into Con necticut against Uncas and his Indians. The Pocomtucks were conspicuous in this war with Uncas, and when the United Colo nies sent messengers to them in 1659, requesting them to suspend hostilities, the sachems declined to make peace, and replied to the messengers with moderation, shrewdness and firmness. About 1663, these river Indians with many others commenced a war with the Mohawks, and were defeated. Peace was made in 1671. The Norwottuck chiefs could sell lands, but had little authority over the Indians, and were of little importance. The historians and novelists will not be able to make heroes of any of the river sachems, from Saybrook to Northfield. The Indians in this valley at times had no acknowledged sachem, and in 1668, they agreed that Chickwallop should be their chief, three men having . been appointed by the General Court, at the request of the Hamp shire deputies, to treat with them. There was nothing in Chick wallop to inspire the English or Indians with respect. He did not live many years after 1668. The Norwottucks committed no great offences. They some times harbored evil-doers from other tribes. Some were inclined to petty thefts. When they could get strong drink, they became drunk, and brawls and tumults ensued, and they would insult and abuse the constable and others. When free from liquor, they were generally peaceful and respectful towards the whites, who intended to treat them justly and humanely.* The last chief men of the Norwottucks. — In 1672, Petomanch committed divers thefts in Northampton and Hadley and fled to Quabaug; he came back to the "Indians' fort in Northampton," and when an attempt was made to take him, Wuttawan helped him to escape. Some of the principal men of the tribe then came forward, and agreed to deliver up Petomanch or Wuttawan, or otherwise make satisfaction, as the court should order. Their names were Wahinunco, Wadnummin, Massoamat, Wawwar- *It is a hard and difficult matter, for those who are conscious and proud of their supe riority, to treat inferiors with justice and humanity. Even good men are very deficient in this respect. The apostolic injunction to "honor all men," is not much regarded. HISTORY OF HADLEY 117 ranckshan, Sunckamachue, Wuchuwin, Mummuncott, Rollo, and blind James. The last two had names given by the English. Some of these nine Indians may be considered the last of the Nor wottuck leaders, while they remained in their native land. Two of them sold land in Sunderland in 1674, viz., Wadnummin and Sunckamachue. In August, 1675, they and the tribe fled from their fort and became enemies. In the winter of 1675-6, these Indians were towards Albany, and were called Hadley Indians, and Sancumacha, (same as Sunckamachue,) was their sachem. In this war and after, they were denominated Hadley Indians, and Northampton and Hadley Indians; and in Connecticut, they were often called Norwottucks. The Indians' means of subsistence. — There is no intimation that the Indians in this valley and others in the vicinity lacked food, or that their supplies had been perceptibly diminished previous to their departure. The forests in every direction remained nearly as extensive as ever, and wild animals, fish and wild fruits were still abundant. The whites sometimes hunted and fowled, but they were too industrious to spend much time in such pur suits. There was land enough for corn, but without fences it was useless, and the women took meadow land upon shares, which the English plowed. The squaws planted, hoed, picked and husked the corn, their lazy husbands disdaining such labor.* In Connecticut, the Indians divided the corn on the land, after it was husked, and had half of it. It may be inferred that the crop was divided in the same manner at Norwottuck. There is noth ing to show that the subsistence of the Indians from the land was materially lessened. The first settlers of Northampton, Hadley and Hatfield lived in peace with the Indians until Philip's war in 1675. There was frequent intercourse between them, the Indians often coming into the villages for traffic and other purposes, and the salutation of netop, (my friend,) was often heard in the streets. Indian men, women, young men, maids and small children, in their scanty dresses, were every-day sights, and excited no curiosity. The men sold furs and venison, and the women made and sold baskets and mats and other things. Among these laborious Indian women, were some that were mild and kind-hearted. The western Nipmucks continued to be pagans. *" Extremes meet." The ignorant savage and those who think themselves the most highly civilized, viz., many of those in fashionable high life, harmonize in many things. Both contemn and scorn useful labor, and consider those engaged in toilsome occupations as mean and despicable; both delight in gaming, chasing animals and carousing. 118 HISTORY OF HADLEY Norwottuck Forts. The Indians of the Norwottuck valley had several forts, erected to protect themselves against the attacks of their enemies. Van- derdonck, the Dutch writer, says the Indians build their castles in places difficult of access, on or near the crown of a hill; the wall is made of palisades set in the ground and within are their wigwams. The forts of the Norwottuck Indians seem to have been generally built upon the top of a bluff or high bank, projecting into a valley or interval, near a stream. In Northampton, there were at least three forts in such places; they were probably successive and not cotemporaneous. One was near the north-east end of Fort Hill, overlooking the meadow; one was on Fort Plain, now in East- hampton, above the high bank near the Manhan; and the third was on another Fort Plain, about halfway to Hatfield, on the top of the high, bank of the Connecticut, opposite the north-west corner of Hadley Great Meadow. In Hadley, Indian bones have been found on several projecting points or ridges. One place was near the north-west angle of Fort Meadow, on a corner of upland long since washed away. Another was on Spruce Hill, near the southern extremity, which projects into Fort River valley, and is now covered with light sand. There was an im portant fort on the western side of Lawrence's Plain, on the top of the high steep bank which is the eastern boundary of Fort Meadow Skirts and Fort River valley. The river and meadow were named from this fort. In 1684, Timothy Nash had a grant of two acres of land, "where the old fort stood" above the bank, adjoining his land in the Skirts below. These two acres and the site of the old fort can be easily identified. The old common fence from Connecticut River, on the north side of Fort Meadow, came up the steep bank, just north of the fort, continued easterly some distance, and then turned southerly towards Mount Holyoke, embracing the ground on which the fort stood. This ground had the almost perpendicular bank, rising 40 or 50 feet above Fort River, on the south and west sides, and the river flowed at the bottom of this bank on the west side. Lawrence's Plain, a high, pleasant tract of land, extended easterly. From this fort, or from openings near it, the Indians had fine views of meadows and uplands; and some of the new village at Northampton was visible. The fort was about 140 rods east of the Connecticut. I visited this place in 1846; the brow of the bank was covered with trees; grass, Johnswort, thistles and a few small buttonwoods grew upon the site of the fort, and cows were HISTORY OF HADLEY 119 quietly ruminating in the shade of the trees. All was silent and desolate, where in former days the Indians danced and powowed, and indulged in noisy merriment and boisterous revelry. o3 to Common Fence. High bank. This is an imperfect representation. The shape of the fort is conjectural. The Lawrence's out^nes 0I tne t0P °f ^e bank are irregular. Plain Those in the fort got water from the river below the bank. The cows now (1846) have a path down the bank a little south of the fort place. North of the village of North Hadley, on a ridge that separates the eastern and western School Meadows, was another residence of the Indians, supposed to have been that of Quonquont. More bones have been found here than in any other place in Hadley. The ridge becomes wider near the north end, where it approaches the Connecticut, and this broad part may contain an acre. This was probably the seat of the fort or village. The Connecticut flows along the base of the hill, on the north-east and north, and the hill is partially protected from its ravages by rocks and sand stone. This is a pleasant place with a goodly prospect, and must have been so when the Indians occupied it. River. This plan with straight lines is very defective. The general course of the river is southerly, but for some distance against the upper and lower School Meadow, it is westerly. The triangle is River, the supposed site of Quonquont 's fort. The rocks are near the north-east corner of the triangle. The brook Wunnaquickset, of the Hadley deed, is Upper S. M. above this ridge, and crosses the Upper School Meadow. Some have admired the taste of the Indians as exhibited in the picturesque situations which they chose for forts and villages. There is not much foundation for this admiration. The tribes were pugnacious, and it was owing to their wars that they selected elevated places for villages, where they could more easily secure and defend themselves, and more readily discern the approach of an enemy. The last fortified residence of our Indians in the land of their fathers, was in the place before referred to, between Northamp ton and Hatfield, on a high bank west of the Connecticut, not far from the mouth of Half-way brook, and so near the river, that men could speak with the Indians in the fort, from the Hadley side of the river. This high plain, formerly called Fort Plain, is now crossed by the railroad, many feet below the surface. There 120 HISTORY OF HADLEY was no fort in Hadley for some years before 1675. The Indians did not all live in forts, and when they feared the Mohawks or other enemies, many sought refuge near the houses and in the out-buildings of the English, and their living among them was very troublesome. Hubbard says the fort from which the Indians fled in 1675 was within a mile of Hatfield, but it must have been about two miles from the main street in Hatfield. The records do not allude to any fort in Hatfield in 1675, or before, though Umpanchala doubt less had a fort on the high bank of Capawonk or elsewhere on his land, when he sold it in 1660. The Mohawks or Maquas. The "Five Nations," so called, were the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas and Senecas. The name Mohawks was often extended to all those confederate nations. They were brave, fierce and ferocious, and carried on an exterminating war fare more than a century after 1600, making a perfect desert of the country for 500 miles, west and south, and destroying more Indians than have been destroyed by Europeans in war since the country was settled. They were the worst of conquerors, and seemed to conquer to gratify their thirst for blood.* — The Mo hawk tribe lived about 40 miles west of Albany. They were extremely filthy, never washing face nor hands, and they cooked fish from the water, and the entrails of deer, without any cleansing, f Cannibalism of the Mohawks. — The early Dutch and New England writers affirmed truly that the Mohawks were cannibals or man-eaters. A writer J in 1644, says they tortured their cap tives, and then roasted them before a slow fire and ate them. They were cannibals half a century later. In February, 1693, Col. Schuyler at the head of whites and Mohawks pursued a party of French and Indians and killed many Frenchmen, and the bodies of 27 were found. A letter from S. Van Cortland in New York, to Connecticut, dated March 2, 1693, says: — "Our Indians did quickly eat up the bodies of the 27 Frenchmen, after their natural barbarity, and have brought the scalps to Albany." Governor Fletcher of New York wrote to Connecticut, March 11, 1693: — ?Gallatin's "Synopsis of the Indian Tribes of North America." fFrom Megapolensis, a Dutch minister at Albany, 1644. All savages are filthy. The New England Indians were not cleanly. By an agreement made with sachems at Concord in 1646, the Indians were not "to pick lice as formerly and eat them." jTbid. HISTORY OF HADLEY 121 "Our Indians found 27 bodies of the enemy, whom (after their crowns taken off,) they most barbarously roasted and ate."* Cannibalism was not however the worst part of the Mohawk character.f War between the Mohawks and New England Indians. — About 1663, war was commenced between the Mohawks and the New England Indians, and in the summer of 1669, the latter united their forces, entered the Mohawk country and besieged the nearest Mohawk fort. In a few days they retreated, were attacked on their retreat, and more than 50 slain. They came home much ashamed, and retired under the shelter of the English. Sancumacha, a Norwottuck, is said to have been a captain in this expedition. During the war, the Mohawks, in small parties, made incursions into New England. Peace was made in 1671. The Mohawks in Hampshire county. — In the summer of 1667, a number of hogs and some cattle belonging to Hadley, North ampton and Springfield, were killed in the woods. The inhabit ants were satisfied that some of them were killed by the Mohawks, and they were suspicious of some Kennebec Indians who had been this way, and even of the Norwottucks. The Mohawks shot and scalped an Indian servant of Nathaniel Clark, of Northampton, Aug. 28, 1667. In October, 1667, the deputies of Hampshire complained to the General Court of the injuries done by the Mohawks and other Indians. A committee recommended that a letter be written to the Mohawks demanding satisfaction for the damages, &c. The General Court, Oct. 31, wrote a long letter to the chief sachem of the Mohawks, and a short one to the Kennebec sachem. The former follows from the records — not retaining the old orthog raphy. To the chief Sachem of the Mohawks: The General Court of Massachusetts, upon complaint made to them by some of their people of Hadley and Northampton, that they have suffered much damage this last summer by the Mohawks, have thought meet to signify the same unto you and to let you know that about mid-summer last, some of our Englishmen saw some of your people, whom they had speech with, going with burdens from their fires and place of lodging, where several hog's feet, new and bloody, were left behind, viz., 16 feet of swine; Also others of ours have taken up shoes made of green hogskins, which were left at the places where the Mo hawks made their stands, and from whence they were seen to go; and about the same time, we had several cattle shot and wounded, and some killed, and the flesh cut off from then- bones and carried away; many Mohawks being then about our towns and seen by some English, we have cause to suspect that this also was done by some of them, (not to speak of the damage your people formerly, some years past, did in gathering, carrying away and ?Archives of Connecticut. •|There were rare instances of cannibalism in New England. In 1637, Uncas and his men made a horrid repast upon the body of a Pequot at Saybrook. 122 HISTORY OF HADLEY spoiling our corn.) Their killing of our swine as aforesaid being very evident, we have reason to move for speedy and full satisfaction, which our people expect, and we hope you will cause to be made them accordingly. We have further to let you know that an Indian youth who was servant to an Englishman at Northampton, was murthered about the end of August last, close by the town, and part of his hair flayed off his head,* on which day some Mohawks were seen nigh the very place where he was killed, and we have heard that not long after this time the Mohawks showed a lock of hair at Albany, which was short hair as this youth's was; so that we have probable grounds to think that some of your people are guilty of this murder, which yet we are apt to think may not only be unknown to you, but contrary to your order, and do presume you will not allow any such thing; and therefore do acquaint you therewith, desiring you would take some special course for redress of these insolencies and prevention of like evils for future, lest your people, if they go on in such ways, should occasion a breach of the peace betwixt you and us. We must also tell you that these actings are expressly against the promise of those of your nation, which we once had in our hands/j- whom we secured from any violence by our Indians and sent them home with manifestation of love and friendship, and willingness for the con tinuance thereof, who told us that your people would not meddle with any Indians that wore English clothes, or that had their hair cut short. But this aforementioned action, as it gives us cause to suspect your people, so also to let you know we do not judge it con venient for you to suffer your people in an hostile manner to approach nigh us or our Indians that are dwelling amongst our towns, which we desire you so to take notice of and consider as not to disturb our peace by any unlawful attempts of your men, but to cause them to shun and avoid all just offence and prejudice to us which may provoke our people against you. We never yet did any wrong to you or any of yours, neither will we take any from you, but shall right our people according to justice; yet are we desirous to continue all amicable correspondence with you, if the fault be not in yourselves by offering insolencies to our people, which we may not bear or suffer. Thus hoping of your readiness to make satisfaction for what is past, and care for your future continuance of friendship, your loving friends, The Governor and General Court of the Massachusetts. This letter had some effect. It was undoubtedly interpreted by men at Albany, and as the Mohawks desired to be on good terms with New England, they made some reparation. The records of the county court in March, 1669, mentioned that about 20 pounds had been received from the "Magnaws." It was sent to Milford, but was then in the hands of Simon Lobdell of Spring field, in leather. The court ordered that Springfield should have $£ for those who had lost swine and cattle; Northampton, j£, of which, half was for Nathaniel Clark's Indian servant killed; and Hadley, $£, for those who had been damaged. Hadley had lost more cattle and hogs than any other town. Lobdell was to pay in shoes at fair prices. In Philip's war, in 1676, Massachusetts and Connecticut tried to engage the Mohawks against the Indians of New England. Governor Andros of New York, in letters to Connecticut, pre tended that the Mohawks had done "great execution on your ?Scalping was evidently something new to the English. •fin September, 1665, five Mohawks or Maquas came into Cambridge well armed. They were arrested and imprisoned at Boston. The English had never seen any Mohawks before, and they attracted much attention. The Indians flocked into Boston, and wished to put them to death. The Court dismissed them with a letter to their sachems, and a convoy of horse to. conduct them clear of our Indians. A copy of the letter is extant. HISTORY OF HADLEY 123 Indian -enemies" and trusted Connecticut would be mindful of their service. Connecticut, in reply, Aug. 31st, 1676, professed to be in the dark about these services, and said they could not be mindful of them, until they knew what they had done. Gov. A. did not enlighten them. These Indians had performed no im portant services. This was the first attempt to draw presents from New England for the Mohawks. In the spring of 1677, Massachusetts desired to make a friendly league with the Mohawks, and very unwisely sought their aid against the Indians in Maine. Obtaining the concurrence of Connecticut, John Pynchon of Springfield and James Richards of Hartford, were sent to Albany. They treated with the Indians, and gave them presents of wampumpeag, duffels, powder and shot. The Indians gave three belts of wampum, boasted of what they had done for New England, and gave assurance of their endeavors against the Indians at Kennebec. New England was deceived by the pretensions and promises of the Mohawks. The Indians did not regard their engagement, and instead of proceeding to Maine, they came down upon the peaceable, pray ing Indians of Massachusetts, in September, 1677, and again in June, 1678, and killed some and made captives of others.* They brought two squaws through Hadley, and the people of that place tried to redeem them, but the Mohawks would not let them go. They returned evasive answers to those sent to Albany to demand the release of the captives. In November, 1680, John Pynchon was again sent to Albany. He charged the Mohawks with injuring our friendly Indians, and not delivering up those taken; with killing swine and cattle of the English, in the summer of 1680, robbing some houses, and march ing through villages in a hostile posture. He said such things must be stopped. He presented his gift of duffels, shirts, blankets, wampum, rum, tobacco, &c, amounting to near 90 pounds or 300 dollars. — The Mohawks said he had spoken many hard things, but they were sweetened by the present. They made an artful, dishonest reply, and declined to give up the Christian Indians. In October, 1683, the Mohawks sent a presentf of 20 beaver skins to Massachusetts; and the colony sent in return a much more valu able present, in wampum, shirts, duffels, stockings, rum and tobacco. ?Belknap says the Mohawks did not attack the hostile Indians in New Hampshire, but the friendly ones; and the scheme of engaging them in our quarrel was a source of many calamities. •(•The expression, "an Indian gift" was a by-word in New England, denoting a present made by a person who expected five or ten times as much value in return. 124 HISTORY OF HADLEY After the war between England and France and between their colonies in America, commenced in 1689, it was an object of great importance to please the Five Nations and keep them faith ful to England and her colonies. As New York was a feeble colony, Massachusetts and Connecticut deemed it necessary to contribute largely for this purpose. In 1689, three Agents from Massachusetts and one from Con necticut were sent to Albany. They left Westfield, Aug. 27, escorted by 10 troopers, and were gone more than four weeks. They gave large presents to the Maquas, small presents to the river Indians, gifts to the sachems privately, and feasted 100 of their people. All expenses were 32j£. Great Britain and New York also gave presents to the Five Nations. Robert Livingston, who resided in or near Albany, in a letter dated July 2, 1691, "wished that we needed not to court such heathen as the Maquas for assistance, for they are a broken reed to depend upon." The Mohawks or Maquas were the allies of Great Britain, New England, and the other English colonies. Sensible that they were of some importance, they were sometimes insolent and in jurious in houses, in these river towns, and farther east. The people generally submitted to these things; it would not do to quarrel with the Mohawks. Entertainment of Indians. — Parties of Indian chiefs often came to Boston whose principal object was to obtain presents, and to feast and carouse at the expense of Massachusetts. In 1723, Aug. 21, 63 New York Indians, chiefly Mohawks, came to Boston, "with sham proposals of alliance against the Eastern Indians, but their real object was only to receive presents."* They were treated with much respect, were received by the General Court and feasted at the castle. They were entertained in Boston four weeks, and furnished profusely with the best of food and liquors, and received rich presents to a large amount. The whole expense to the colony was above 1000 pounds. Luke Smith of Hadley had a bill for entertaining some of these Mohawks. They re turned to Albany, and eventually denied what they had promised at Boston. Other Indians who had been enemies, as the French Mohawks in Canada who had been converted by the Jesuits/)" and the Penob- scots and other eastern Indians, came to Boston in time of peace and made fair promises, and feasted at the colony's expense *Dr. Douglas says this. •j-One great object of their conversion was political influence. The converted Indians, so called, became friendly to the French and ready to fight against the English and other heretics. HISTORY OF HADLEY 125 and received presents, but joined the French as soon as war commenced. It was difficult to restrict any of these Indians; they must have what they desired. They had a great abundance of beef and other meats, rum, wine, cider, beer, pipes and tobacco, and indulged in drunken revels. In 1733, John Sale charged the colony 195 pounds for keeping 22 French Mohawks 19 days, including a feast at the castle. He charged for their breaking windows, tables, chairs, knives, mugs, cups and glasses, and for daubing the walls, tables and chairs. They had in 19 days, 48 dozen pipes and 39 dozen of tobacco. In 1736, John Sale enter tained nine Penobscot chiefs 24 days, and charged the colony 145 pounds. In his bill, he says they ate between 50 and 60 pounds of the best of meat daily, (six pounds to a man,) and each had daily one pint and a half of wine and a shilling's worth of rum, and in all they had 120 gallons of cider and two gross of pipes with tobacco. They were taken down to the castle and treated. He had charges for their breaking furniture, and for "washing 49 of their greasy shirts," and his charge for "cleansing and whitewashing two rooms after them" was 60 shillings. It was no easy matter to cleanse a room that had been occupied by these dirty bacchanals. There were similar scenes and transactions, in other colonies, when Indians assembled to make or renew treaties. "The European governments encouraged the natural propensities of the Indians. Both France and England courted a disgraceful alliance with savages, and both armed them against the defenceless inhabitants of the other party." — Gallatin. Wampum, or the Money of the Indians. Wampum, used by the Indians for money and ornament, was first brought to Plymouth in New England in 1627. In 1643, when Roger Williams wrote, wampum or wampumpeag or white money, and suckanhock, or black or blue money, were so plenty that the English, French and Dutch bought with them, furs and other things of the Indians, for 600 miles north and south from New England. This Indian money, which was in the shape of beads, was made of sea shells, by the Indians of Long Island, and afterwards by those of Block Island, and others. Six of the white beads, or three of the black ones, including blue and purple, passed for a penny, and a fathom or six feet of the white shell beads were worth five shillings. The black beads were of double the value of the white. The English used the words white wam pum, and black wampum, but as wampum was the Indian word for white, these expressions sounded strangely to the Indians. The wampumpeag or white beads were much more plenty than 126 history of hadley the black ones. When the price of the white beads was 6 for a penny, and 5s. for a string of 6 feet, the number of beads was 360 in a fathom, and 5 in an inch. These prices continued nominally many years, but the supply exceeded the demand; the value be came less and less, and white beads fell to 8, 12, and 16 for a penny, and in 1675, some were sold for money at 24 for a penny. The price of the black beads fell answerably. Massachusetts ordered, in 1650, that wampumpeag should pass for debts to the value of 40 shillings, the white at 8 and the black at 4 for a penny, except for country rates. This law was repealed in 1661, and wampum had no legal price. Silver coins were scarce, and the people found wampum very convenient, and much of it was used in the Hampshire towns, and in other parts of New England. It was frequently used to balance the accounts of traders, and it was often paid at the ferries and inns. Many men when they paid a tavern bill on a journey, did not take out a purse of coins, but strings of wampum and loose beads. Inn-keepers and ferrymen received much wampum, and they complained of losses, for large quantities could not be disposed of as they received it. William Pynchon, and afterwards his son John Pynchon, were extensively engaged in trade with the Indians and whites, and they dealt more largely in wampum than any others on Connecti cut River, above or below Springfield. They purchased some bushels of loose shell beads at a time, whether by weight, or measure, is not known; and employed the women and children of Springfield to string them at their dwellings, at three half pence per fathom of 6 feet. Near 20,000 fathoms were strung in Spring field at this rate. One kind of wampum was called scosue. John Pynchon sold to those whom he had licensed to trade with the Indians, wampum to the amount of 20, 50, 100, and even 125^ at a time, and he received great quantities in payment for goods. Wampum continued to depreciate, and in 1675, a fathom of white beads was worth only is. 3d. in money, and the English did not deal so much in them. The Pynchons' accounts with Indians were always kept in fathoms and hands, or in fathoms, hands and pence; never in shillings and pence. They made use of compound addition and subtraction that are not found in arithmetics. The Indians made of shell beads and threads, belts, girdles, scarfs, head-bands, bracelets, necklaces, pendants for the ears; and some made rich caps, aprons, &c. of these beads. A rich girdle required about 2300 beads. HISTORY OF HADLEY 127 CHAPTER XIV The Indian War of 1675 and 1676* — Erroneous notions about Philip — Importance of the Nipmucks — Destruction of Brookfield — Mr. Stoddard's account of the attempt to disarm the Norwottucks, and of their escape — Fight above Hatfield — Deerfield burnt — Men slain at Northfield — Capt. Beers and his party cut off at Northfield — Northfield deserted — Attack upon Hadley repelled by the aid of Gen. Goffe — Capt. Lathrop and his company slain at Bloody Brook — Deerfield abandoned — Burning of Springfield — Attack on Hatfield. This war is commonly denominated "Philip's War," from the English name of the sachem of the Wampanoags or Pokanokets, who commenced it. His chief seat was called Mount Hope by the English, and is now within the town of Bristol, R. I. In this war, the people of Massachusetts, and of some of the adjoining colonies, first experienced the devastation and barbarity which distinguish Indian warfare. Our ancestors viewed Philip as the master spirit, who influenced the councils and conduct of other tribes, and contrived and directed most of the attacks, slaughters and desolations of the war. They represented him as a malignant demon, bent on the blackest deeds. Some of their descendants are inclined to view him as " a great warrior, a penetrating statesman, and a mighty prince." Neither the old nor the recent writers seem to have formed a just esti mate of his character. Philip, in great qualities, did not surpass many other sachems in New England and other colonies. Indeed, some Nipmuck sagamores seem to have been as enterprising and efficient actors in this bloody and desolating war, as Philip him self. The great foresight, profound schemes, and unbounded influence attributed to him are to a great extent imaginary. He was no more inhuman and cruel than other Indians. Philip was not able to combine against the English in 1675 more than 850 or 900 fighting men,f nor so many at one time; these men, and the women and children connected with them, may have numbered 3500.J More than half were Nipmucks, some of whom were subject to Philip. He did not persuade a single tribe in Connecticut, Rhode Island, or New Hampshire, to unite with him, though Indians from those colonies may have aided him. The Indians in Plymouth Colony were more numer ous than in Massachusetts, and many owed some kind of alle giance to Philip, yet not many were willing to engage in his quarrel. ?Most of the account of this war was prepared in 1847. ¦(•The war in Maine which commenced in Sept. 1675, had a different origin. JThe Indians in New England exclusive of Maine, in 1675, may have been 21,000. 128 HISTORY OF HADLEY The Indians in Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 1674 did not exceed 4400. Gookin,* in 1674, estimated the Paw- tuckets in New Hampshire and Massachusetts at 250 men, and the Massachusetts nation at 300 men. Reckoning every fourth person, a man or warrior, the whole number of these two nations would be 2200. The Nipmucks or Nipnets may have been about 2200 more, and their fighting men, 550. Bayliesf esti mated the Nipmucks at 1000 and FeltJ at 2400. Some of these were praying Indians who did not unite in the war. About one- third of the Nipmucks were in the vicinity of Connecticut River. Not many of the Pawtucket and Massachusetts nations joined in the war. The hostile Indians in 1675 were mostly Nipmucks. Philip's Wampanoags and others that aided him in Plymouth Colony may have been 250 fighting men. But after he left the Pocasset swamp, Aug. 1, 1675, and fled towards the Nipmuck country, many of his men withdrew from him, and the squaw- sachem of Pocasset and her men drew off to the Narragansetts. Gookin had been "certainly informed that he had little above fifty men left, but hundreds of old men, women, and children." § It may be supposed that some Indians from Plymouth Colony, and from tribes elsewhere, joined Philip after he came to Hamp shire with 40 or 50 men, but his warriors exclusive of Nipmucks, were not numerous at any time, perhaps 200. His Wampanoags were not distinguished from other Indians and performed no greater deeds than others. It is a little remarkable that the his tories, letters and other documents relating to this war, do not furnish any evidence that Philip, after he came among the Nip mucks, was present in a single fight with the English. No partic ular exploit or achievement performed by him is recorded. It is hardly to be doubted, however, that he was actively engaged in some of the furious attacks made upon the English near Con necticut River. But the Nipmucks showed that they were cap able of planning and executing daring enterprises without the assistance of Philip. They destroyed Brookfield, and made num erous fierce assaults upon the garrison house. The river Nip mucks burnt Springfield. The dreadful carnage and devastation *Gookin's "Historical Collections," 1674 and "Christian Indians," 1677. He was more pains-taking and accurate than some other writers. ¦(¦Memoir of Plymouth Colony. ^Statistical Collections, Vol. I., Part II. §George Memecho, a Christian Indian, who was taken by the Nipmucks, was present when Philip and his party first came to the Nipmucks, on the fifth of August, a few miles from Brookfield, and he related that Philip then had about 40 men, besides women and children. The greater part of the men who were with him when he escaped from Pocasset, had left him. HISTORY OF HADLEY 129 at Lancaster, Feb. 10, 1676, were chiefly the work of the Nip mucks, when Philip was far distant. The Narragansets favored the hostile Indians, and protected those that fled to the Narraganset country, but did not assault the English plantations until February and March, 1676, after the English had destroyed their fort and many of their people. When assaults were made by Indians, it was impossible to know how many there were, and loose conjectures always exag gerated their numbers. There is no reason to believe that 500 Indians were engaged in any fight or attack during this war, the Narraganset swamp fight excepted. The number of Indians which the English imagined they had killed in an engagement, was usually much over-rated. They did not find the dead bodies, and could judge only by guess. They relied too much upon what captive Indians "owned" or "confessed." These Indians often told a story to please those in whose power they were, and their admissions are seldom worthy of credit. Philip cherished enmity against the English, because he sup posed they had wronged him; yet the tradition in Rhode Island, sixty years after his death, was, that Philip himself was not for war, but was forced into it by the fury of his young men, against his own judgment and inclination.* "The commencement of the war was accidental. "f There are no intimations that the Nipmucks, who entered into the war so furiously, had ever complained of being wronged by the English. The Quabaugs, and perhaps other Nipmucks, had long been accounted subjects of the Wampanoags, and when Uncas attacked the Quabaugs in i66i,they were defended by a brother of Philip. They were intimately connected with the Wampanoags, and readily joined them in the war. The Nor wottucks and others near Connecticut River, were closely related to the Quabaugs. This memorable war began near Mount Hope, on Thursday, June 24, 1675, when the Wampanoags slew nine of the inhabit ants of Swansey. Soldiers were sent from Boston and Plymouth, and Philip and his people fled to Pocasset, now in Tiverton; and houses were burnt and people slain in some places in the vicin ity. The English enclosed Philip and his Indians in Pocasset Neck, but early on the first of August, they found means to escape. ?Century Sermon in 1738, by Mr. Callender, a Baptist minister at Newport. ¦(•Bancroft's History of the United States. 130 HISTORY OF HADLEY They were discovered at Rehoboth, and pursued towards the Niprhuck country, and fourteen slain. On the 14th of July, while Philip was near Pocasset, the Nip mucks began their mischief, and killed four or five persons at Mendon. This was the first English blood shed in war, in Massachusetts. When the war began, Hampshire county contained the follow ing towns and plantations: — Springfield, including West Spring field and Longmeadow; Westfield, Northampton, Hadley, Hat field, Deerfield, Northfield, Brookfield and Suffield. The people at Suffield soon left the place; and if there were any settlers at Swampfield (Sunderland,) they did not long remain. The second attempt of the Nipmucks was in the county of Hampshire. The council ordered Capt. Edward Hutchinson to take Capt. Thomas Wheeler and about twenty horsemen, and Ephraim Curtis for a guide, and go to the Nipmucks near Qua baug, and treat with them. They reached Brookfield, with three Christian Indians, on Sunday, the first of August. The Indians, who were at Meminimisset,* supposed to be about ten miles distant, northerly, promised to meet Capt. H. the next morning, on a plain,f about three miles from the village. On the 2d of August, Capt. H. and his party and three of the principal men of Brookfield, rode to the plain and found no Indians. Capt. H. was persuaded by the Brookfield men to go farther, and when they had proceeded northerly four or five miles, and were in a narrow passage, having a bushy, rocky hill on the right, and a thick swamp on the left, a large body of Indians lying in ambush on both sides, suddenly, fired upon them and killed eight and wounded five. The survivors were forced to go up the steep hill, and by the guidance of the Christian Indians, they escaped to the village. Having arrived before the Indians, they took pos- ?Meminimisset, or Wennimisset, the new seat of the Quabaugs in 1675, is often named in the Histories of this war. Ephraim Curtis visited it twice in July, 1675, and noticed its situation. Here Philip first came to the Nipmucks on the 5th of August. Mrs. Row- landson was brought to th" same place, a captive, in February, 1676, and here her wounded child died. It was part of a tract of land which is now in New Braintree, about eight miles from West Brookfield, and has Ware river on the north, the meadow or swamp in which Meminimisset brook flows on the west and south, and the same low, swampy land on most of the east side. The road from Hardwick to New Braintree crosses it. I visited this place in 1854. — The spot where the party of Capt. Hutchinson was ambushed, was south ward from the Quabaug camp, and cannot be identified. It seems to have been on the east side of the valley. ¦(¦This plain is said to be near the head or north part of Wickabaug pond in West Brook field. HISTORY OF HADLEY 131 session of one of the largest and strongest houses,* and fortified themselves as well as they could in a short time. The inhabit ants, fifteen or sixteen families, being informed of the disaster, all came in haste to the same house, bringing but little with them. The Indians soon flocked into the village and assailed the house with their bullets, and began to burn other buildings. During the two succeeding nights and days, they continued to besiege the house, and made various attempts to burn it, without success. One man was mortally wounded at the garret window, and another was killed without the building, and some others were wounded. The house contained twenty-six men capable of doing service, the wounded, and fifty women and children. The twenty- six men, vigilant and brave, extinguished the fires upon the building, and repelled the assaults of the Indians, until the even ing of the third day, August 4th, when Major Simon Willard came to their relief with Capt. Parker and forty-six men and five friendly Indians. Before the next morning, the Indians left the place. The Indians were judged to be 300, and one afterwards taken, "confessed" that they had about 80 killed and wounded.")" On the first night, Ephraim Curtis, to obtain help, crept out on his hands and knees, and reached Marlborough, on the morn ing of August 4th. Some travelers towards Connecticut River, observing the burning at Quabaug, returned to Marlborough, the same morning, a little before Curtis arrived, and a post had been sent to Major Willard, who was near Lancaster. The eight persons killed by the Indians in ambush, were Sergeant John Ayres, Sergeant William Pritchard, and Corporal Richard Coy, all of Brookfield; Zechariah Phillips, Timothy Farley, Edward Coburn, Samuel Smedley and Shadrach Hapgood, of other towns. Captain Hutchinson, severely wounded at the same time, died at Marlborough, Aug. 19. Those killed at the house were Henry Young, and Samuel Pritchard, son of Wm. P. Besides these eleven, James Hovey and another were slain some where in Brookfield the same day 4 ?They selected the house used for an inn, and the Hampshire records show that John Ayres kept the inn. It was on Foster's Hill, and the site is about 60 or 70 rods south-east of the dwelling-house of the late Judge Foster. The village was on this hill, and the road between Hadley and Springfield and Boston, passed over this hill, near 150 years after 1675. fCapt. Wheeler's Narrative. — Perhaps there were 200 Indians. If the 26 men killed and wounded half of 80, they did well. ("A list of men slain in the county of Hampshire" in 1675, prepared by Rev. John Russell of Hadley, and now in the State archives, says 13 men were slain at Quabaug, Sept. 2, but names only 11. In the printed accounts of the destruction of Brookfield, the Christian name of Sergt. 132 HISTORY OF HADLEY The wounded left the house as soon as they were able to travel, and the inhabitants of the town removed to other places.* The buildings were all burnt except that of John Ayres, and another that was unfinished. The meeting-house was burnt, and also a grist-mill owned by John Pynchon. A garrison was kept in the place till sometime in October, and it was re-established early in March, 1676. The events at Brookfield produced much alarm in the colony and especially in Hampshire county. Major John Pynchon of Springfield, sent a messenger to the Governor and Council of Connecticut, August 5th, and Capt. Thomas Watts of Hartford and 40 dragoons came up to Springfield on the 6th, where 27 dragoons under Lieut. Thomas Cooper and 10 Springfield Indians joined them, and all marched to Brookfield on the 7th. Captains Lothrop and Beers, sent up by the Council at Boston, arrived at Brookfield the same day. On the 8th, they proceeded northerly to the place called Meminimisset, but found no Indians. The Springfield company proceeded ten miles further but found no track of Indians, and they returned to Springfield on the 10th. The others returned to Brookfield. A company of 30 river In dians from towns about Hartford came up and ranged the woods with the others; and Joshua, son of Uncas, came up with 30 Indians, Aug. 9th. Major John Talcott was sent up Aug. 12th, to consult with Major Pynchon and others in Hampshire. Capt. Mosely of Boston came up to Brookfield with his company, and left for Lancaster, Aug. 15. Major Willard continued at Brook field some time. After the arrival of troops at Brookfield, the Nipmucks and Wampanoags seem to have fled northerly to Paquayag, now Athol, and other places in that neighborhood. The English could not trace Philip, after he came into the Nipmuck country, and knew not certainly where he was for some months. After Philip's escape from Pocasset, Plymouth Colony was nearly free from the ravages of Indians for six or seven months; and excepting those slain at Mendon, July 14, some at Lancaster, Aug. 22, and two others, the Indians killed none in Massachusetts, east of Brookfield, in 1675, nor until February, 1676. The hostile Indians were gathered together in the region about Connecticut Pritchard, is erroneously Joseph or John, and Corp. Coy's is by mistake John. The Hampshire records and Pynchon accounts prove that the former was William and the latter Richard. ?John Warner and his sons and some others came to Hadley. Mr. John Younglove, who had been preaching at Brookfield, came to Hadley, perhaps before 1675. HISTORY OF HADLEY 133 River, after the latter part of August, 1675, and their fury fell upon the Hampshire villages and the troops sent to their aid. The troops under Captains Lothrop, Beers, and Watts, and the Connecticut Indians, explored the country up Swift River, Connecticut River and elsewhere for some days, without meeting an enemy. Some of our Norwottuck Indians went forth with them. Major Pynchon wrote to Secretary Allyn of Connecti cut, in the night of Aug. 22d, and stated that Capt. Watts had returned to Hadley, and the Bay forces to Quabaug; that nothing had been done, except the burning of about 50 wigwams found empty: that our Indians that went out were suspected of being treacherous; and that the enemy was supposed to be at Paquayag. Major Pynchon wished to have Capt. Watts remain longer, and make discovery of the enemy at Paquayag, but he and the Con necticut Indians soon returned to Hartford; he left ten men at Deerfield. A guard of 20 men had been sent to Northfield. Cap- tailflTLothrop and Beers came to Hadley about the 23d of August. Mr. Stoddard's Letter. Rev. Solomon Stoddard, of Northampton, wrote the following letter to the Rev. Increase Mather, dated Sept. 15, 1675, which is copied from Mather's " Brief History of the War with the Indians in New England," printed in 1676. Mr. Stoddard sent to Con necticut, the "Reasons alleged for demanding the arms of the Indians of Northampton and Hadley," more extended than those in his letter to Mr. Mather, and extracts are made from the former. "Reverend and dear brother, I received yours, wherein among other things, you desire an account of the passages of our war with the Indians. I shall, in answer to your desire, relate the most remarkable passages. The people here having many causes of jealousy of the unfaithfulness of our Indians, presented the same before the committees of the militia, whereupon it was thought meet to desire of them the surrendry of their arms, and by persuasion obtained about nine and twenty. But about three days after, they being desirous to go forth with some forces from Hartford, both Indians and English, and some from the Bay, in pursuit of Philip, their arms were delivered to them again; but a while after their return, jealousies still in creasing, there was a general desire in the people of these three towns, that they should be again disarmed, and such things as these were presented to the council here, as inducing thereunto: — [Reasons for disarming the Indians, i. The Indians were wont in former years, to apply for ground to plant on, in the winter and beginning of spring. This year they desired not ground to plant on till planting time. 2. Many went to Quabaug to our enemies. 3. Wappaye told Deac. Goodman of Hadley, before the war broke out, that there would be war between the Indians and English this summer. 4. Before tidings of the war in Plymouth colony had been received, our Indians, who in all times of danger and war, had been wont to seek shelter by crowding into our homelots, as near our houses as possible, and begging house-room for their stuff and themselves, now, on a sudden, plucked up their wigwams, and took away the goods they had laid up in our houses. 5. They shot bullets at our men five several times, in diverse places, — one at John Clary as he was passing by the fort in the road, between Northampton and Hatfield. 6. After men were killed at 134 HISTORY OF HADLEY Quabaug, they made eleven triumphing shouts, as their manner is when they have slain their enemies. 7. An Indian woman told the English that two of Philip's men were come to the fort. 8. A Frenchman going towards Quabaug, saw three Indians, who told him they were coming to Norwottuck to persuade the Indians to join in the war. 9. When our Indians went out with the army, all were dissatisfied with their behavior, and Joshua, son of Uncas, said our Indians made fools of the English. 10. The sachems of the Connect icut Indians advised us to disarm them. 11. When they were with our army, near Poteti- paog, they said they must not fight against their mothers, brothers and cousins, (for Qua baug Indians are related to them.) 12. Their carriage was surly and insolent. 13. A squaw counselled goodwife Wright to get into town with her children, and said she durst not tell her news, for the Indians would cut off her head. Wappawy confessed that he and several of our Indians had been with Philip.] Other things too many to enumerate were presented, and the council saw cause to demand their arms, August 24th. They made some objections but were fully answered. The sachem left the council, to try whether he could persuade the Indians, promising however to bring in his own, [arms.] In the afternoon, the council sent to the fort for their answer; they told the messenger that some Indians were abroad in the meadows, and they were not willing to deliver up their arms without their consent, but in the morning they should have their answer. The messenger was desired to go again to them in the evening, to confer with them, to try whether he could persuade them, and coming to the other side of the river, wished some of them to come over; they bid him come over to them, and bid him kiss . Whereupon Captains Loth rop and Beers,* with whom the thing was left, intended to take their arms by force, and at midnight sent over to our officers, to draw as nigh the fort as they could without being perceived, and they would do the like on Hatfield side, and so at break of day come upon them, but before they came, the Indians were fled, having killed an old sachem who was not willing to go with them. The captains resolved to follow them, and pursued a great pace after them, with about an hundred men, having sent back a part of ours for a guard of the town. They intended to parley with the Indians, but on a sudden the Indians let fly about forty guns at them and were soon answered by a volley from our men; about forty ran down into the swamp after them, poured in shot upon them, made them throw down much of their luggage, and after a while, our men, after the Indian manner, got behind trees and watched their opportunities to make shots at them. The fight contin ued about three hours; we lost six men upon the ground, though one was shot in the back by our own men; a seventh died of his wound coming home, and two died the next night, nine in all, of nine several towns, every one of these towns lost a man.j- Of the Indians, as we hear since by a squaw that was taken, and by three children that came to our town from them the day after, there were slain twenty-six.J An Indian and a squaw both own that our Indians received wompam from Philip in the spring. After this fight we heard no more of them till the first of September, when they shot down a garrison soldier of ?Captains Lothrop and Beers were in Hadley. The messenger had been sent on that side, and the river was between him and the fort. The captains sent over at midnight, **to our officers," jhat is, the Northampton officers. Captains L. and B. crossed the river from Hadley into Hatfield and marched down towards the fort, while the Northampton men marched up to it. The fort was about half way between the two villages. ¦j-The nine persons slain in this first fight near Connecticut River, were: — Azariah Dick inson of Hadley, son of Nathaniel D.; Samuel Mason of Northampton, only son of Thomas M.; Richard Fellows of Hatfield, son of Richard F., deceased; James Levens, John Plummer, Mark Pitman, Joseph Person, Matthew Scales, William Cluff, from six eastern towns. {As the Indians chose their own ground, and fought in their own way, it is hardly to be believed that they lost more men than the English. Menowniet, a half Narraganset and half Mohegan Indian, was in this engagement; he affirmed that no Indians were killed, in this fight. This testimony is not to be relied on, but is as worthy of credit as many things more favorable to the English, which the Indians "owned." HISTORY OF HADLEY 135 Pocomptuck,* that was looking after his horse, and ran violently up into the town, many people having scarcely time enough to get into the garrisons. That day, they burnt most of their houses and barns, the garrisons not being strong enough to sally out upon them, but killed two of their men from the forts. The next day [Sept. 2d] they set upon several men that were gone out of the fort at Squakheag; they slew eight of our men, not above one of them being slain that we know of, but made no attempt upon the fort. The next day [Sept. 3,] this onset being unknown, Capt. Beers set forth [from Hadley,] with about thirty-six men and some carts to fetch off the garrison at Squakheag, and coming within three miles of the place, the next morning [Sept. 4th,] were set upon by a great number of Indians from the side of a swamp, where was a hot dispute for some time. They having lost their Captain and some others, resolved at last to fly, and going to take horse, lost sev eral men more, I think about twelve; the most that escaped got to Hadley that evening; next morning another came in, and at night another that had been taken by the Indians, and loosed from his bonds by a Natick Indian; he tells that the Indians were all drunk that night, that they mourned much for the loss of a great captain, that the English had killed twenty-five of their men. Six days after, another soldier came in, who had been lost ever since the fight, and was almost famished, and so lost his understanding that he knew not what day the fight was on.f On the 5th of September, [Sunday] Major Treat set forth for Squakheag with above an hundred men; next day coming nigh Squakheag, his men were much daunted to see the heads of Capt. Beers* soldiers upon poles by the wayside.J Aftertheywere come to Squak heag, some were fired upon by about fourteen Indians, Major Treat was struck upon the thigh, but not harmed. Coming to the fort, he concluded forthwith to bring' off the garrison; so they came away the same night, [Sept. 6th] leaving the cattle there, and the dead bodies unburied, since which, seventeen of their cattle came a great part of the way themselves, and have since been fetched into Hadley.§ Upon the 12th of this month, [Sunday] the Indians made an assault upon twenty-two men of Pocomptuck, that were going from one garrison to the other to meeting, in the after noon, made a great volley of shot at them, but killed not one man; they escaped to the garrison whither they were going, only one man, running to the other garrison, was taken *This was James Eggleston of Windsor, left at Deerfield by Capt. Watts. Menowniet was in this attack. He said the Indians were about 60, and that they killed one English man. ¦(¦A note in Mather says the men fought till their powder and shot were spent; and the Indians killed above twenty and only thirteen escaped. A cart with some ammunition fell into the hands of the enemy. According to Hubbard, Capt. Beers went up with sup plies for the garrison; and they were set upon "very near to the town" out of the bushes, by a swamp side, and Capt. Beers and about 20 of his men were slain. The swampy ravine south of the village of Northfield, where the Indians were in am bush, and Beers's Plain, across which the soldiers retreated, to their horses, are well known at this day. Men now living have found bones and bullets near where the> fighting took place. Mr. Russell, in his list, reports only sixteen slain at Squakeag, Sept. 4, and gives the names of eleven, viz., Capt. Richard Beers, John Chenary, Ephraim Child, Benjamin Crackbone, Robert Pepper, George Lyruss, John Gatchell, James Miller, John Wilson, Joseph Dickinson [of Northfield], William Markham, Jr. [of Hadley, an only son; he was with a team.] Robert Pepper, erroneously numbered among the slain, was taken, and was with the Indians when Mrs. Rowlandson was a captive. Capt. Beers was from Water- town, and was in the Pequot war 38 years before. His widow died June 19, 1706, aged 92. J Hubbard says one man, if not more, was found with a chain hooked into his under jaw, and so hung upon the bough of a tree. It was feared that he was hung up alive. §Cattle often fled from the Indians and sought the protection of the English. When Major Willard came near Brookfield, the cattle which had been frightened away by the yells and firing of the Indians, fell into his rear and followed him and his company into the village. In this and later Indian wars, the people were always alarmed, when the cattle ran furiously out of the woods to the village. 136 HISTORY OF HADLEY alive.^ The Indians took up their rendezvous on an hillf in the meadow, burnt two more houses, killed many horses, and carried away horse-loads of beef and pork to the hill. The next day, we persuaded some of our inhabitants to go volunteers, and sent to Hadley to do the like, who going up with some of Capt. Lothrop's soldiers, joined them selves to the garrison at Pocomptuck, and on Tuesday [Sept. 14th,] very early went out to assault the Indians, but they were all fled. Last night Capt. Mosely and his men came into Hadley, and this night we expect more forces from Hartford. If the Lord give not sudden check to these Indians, it is to be feared that most of the Indians in the country will rise. I desire you would speak to the governor, that there may be some thorough care for a Reformation. I am sensible there are many difficulties therein; many sins are grown so in fashion, that it becomes a question whether they be sins or not. I desire you would espe cially mention oppression, that intolerable pride in clothes and hair;| the toleration of so many taverns, especially in Boston, and suffering home-dwellers to lie tippling in them. Let me hear soon from you. The Lord bless you and your labors. Forget us not at the throne of grace." [A small part of the letter is omitted.] The Norwottucks and Pocomtucks.— The fight between the Norwottuck Indians and their pursuers happened "about ten miles above Hatfield, at a place called Sugar Loaf Hill," accord- ng to Hubbard; "at a swamp beyond Hatfield," according to Mr. Russell of Hadley. The place is now unknown. These Indians left their native valley, in the night succeeding August 24th, and never dwelt in it again. No doubt there were some among them, especially females like the one that informed goodwife Wright of her danger, who were favorable to the English, and left the fort with heavy hearts. The kindly greeting and the friendly " netop"§ between them and the English, were now at an end. Their number when they fled may have been between 200 and 225, with 50 or 55 fighting men. They manifested more spirit and energy in the war than they had been supposed to possess, and this may be said of some other tribes. The Norwottucks united with the Pocomtucks not long after the fight of Aug. 25. Hubbard says the Deerfield Indians withdrew from the English and joined the hostile Indians, but no circum stances are given relative to their defection. Both tribes may have united in the assault upon Deerfield, Sept. 1st. They were the only enemies on the west side of the Connecticut for some time. The tidings of the fight of August 25th reached Hartford the same day, and the next day, the Council sent up George Graves and twenty men, "to assist the plantations of Norwottog." ?He was probably slain then or soon after. Mr. Russell has the name of Nathaniel Cornberry, slain at Deerfield. ¦fThis hill is now a conspicuous object in Deerfield meadow. It was