Hadley Town (part 4 of 16)

In i66z, 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 Hadley 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,andthetowndeliberately voted," that the carriage of Richard 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 ^"'^ 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, ^ 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 meetings 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 Treasurer, and they chose deputies to the General Coun. Their votes and choice are not recorded in the town book.

Officers Chosen By The Town

OFFICERS CHOSEN BY THE TOWN, And some appointed by others. Townsmen, were called Selectmen, after a few years. There were five from the begmnme. 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.

Raters or Rate-makers, viz., Samuel Smith, Nathaniel Dickinson and William AJlis, were first chosen to make the rates, Dec. i6, i66i. For some years after, S. Smith, N. Dickinson and Peter Tilton were chosen. The raters were sometimes called assessors, before 1700, and commonly after 17 15.

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 taies 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 Massachusetts. 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 standards. 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 httle, in order to have another fee for repairing. 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 magistrate 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 commissioners 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 i66q, Clarke till 1675 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 1677. 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.

Suireyors 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 Dickinson 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 ganger of casks. The first one recorded in Hadley was Samuel Partrigg, 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's 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, afterwards chosen by the town.

Ha3rward. - Goodman Montague was chosen a common Hayward, May n, 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."

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 i to Dec I. 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.

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 earned his arms to the place of meeting, and sat in the seat of the guard.

B^-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.

I. 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.

2. Common fences are to be made good by March 20th, yearly - to be feet high, or ditch and rails, or hedge equivalent thereto. To be so close as to keep out swine three monrlis old.

5. Hockanum and Fort Meadow are to be cleared yearly on Michaelmas day, (Sept. ig;) 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 openine; of the fields, are to pay 5 shillings besides all damages.

8. Hordes, 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.

1 1. 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 town; the 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 Hampshire, except John Pynchon. He left a large estate.

The artificers or mechanics were commonly farmers also. Timothy Mash was a blacksmith. John Russeil, senior, was a olazier, a trade that required some skill in the days of diamond 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.

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 Massachusetts, 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 prerogative 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 privileges, 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 tiie end for which God hath clothed you therewith; both show us our duty of repairmt; 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 Lord's threatenincs 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 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, wc would not Pharaoh hlie 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 flaming 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 bom 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 integrity 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 maintaining 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. Hereby 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 pubHsh 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 sanctuary 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 such deliverance for and by him. We with our prayers and endeavors, heads an i 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 willingness 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.

On the 7th of Novemb er, 1668, the General Court of Massachusetts 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 Springfield, 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 Plymouth 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.

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 dogging and loading of trade, the freedom whereof is the advance of a people, will it not administer matter of discouragement, sinking 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 ouTselves and others ?

2. The moving (that we say not commotion) of men's spirits generally at the thing, as indeed we find it which (we thmk) 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 Honored 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 colony.

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.

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 : i, 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 unanimous 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.

John Russell

This petition or address was written by Mr. Russell, Jr. The signature of John Russell may be that of his father. Northampton 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, 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 ensued 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

The settlers of Hartford, on each side of Little River, managed many of their concerns separately, in what were called side-meetings. The planters of Hadley, settled on both sides of the Connecticut, and followed the example of Hartford, each side performing 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 petition, 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.

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 fnr 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 maiim 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. xiiii: 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 eitreme 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. Sometiines 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 their 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 distractions, 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 minister 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 settie 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.

History Of Hadi.Ky

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.

John Coleman, Philip Russell, Samuel .Alii', and Benjamin Wait did not sign the petition; perhaps they did not all reside on the 'A-est bide in May, 1667.

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 breaking 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.

The General Court heard the allegations of both parties, presented 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 passage 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 willing 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 themselves, 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.

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 themselves, 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 ordinances. When those on the west side of the river took up land there, they did it on condition 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 diiSculties 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 themselves. The place does not afford boggy meadowsf or such like, that men can live 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 disturbance. Our place is hard, remote and inconvenient. In asking that the river mav 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 47! 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 Goodwin, Andrew Bacon and William Lewis, in the name of the rest of the inhabitants of Hadley, on the east side of the river.

William AUis and Isaac Graves, who were in Boston, made a long reply, May, 1668, in behalf of the inhabitants on the west s;de, 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. 1 5 to Feb. 16, 1 667-8 , they were hindered from going over 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 provide, 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."

*This IS nearly correct. Though some had 50^ acres of land, this included 4 or 5 acres of the Meadow Plain, that was not interval land, and was not so considered.

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 Worshipful 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.

1. 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 dviL

And on the west side, the bounds between the two societies or towns are to be the highway 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 Connecticut 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 Hadley 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 Ponset, 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 iz acres and a half above and besides all this when it shall be given or sold to an inhabitant or inhabitants 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 river and at their free and full dispose forever, for the maintaining of aU common charges respecting things civil and ecclesiastical. And they also arc 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 12J 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 forevr to have the full dispose of all the land on the west side the river except that above excepted, for the maintenance 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 bam 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 maimer 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.

This agreement was copied from the original paper in the handwriting 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.

"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, &c. 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 themselues, and from their sajd southerly Ijne to runne 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."

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 50;^ 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 ordination of Mr. Atherton. These acts took place after March 28, 1671, 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 90;^', and a meeting-house. Only 6 of the males were members of any church, including Mr. Atherton. 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 herdmen 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 168 1. 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 themselves, 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 squareof theroof." - Mr. Hope Atherton, the first minister, died June 8, 1677. Mr. Nathaniel Chauncey, the second minister, died Nov. 2, 1685.

He had of the town a house, barn, homelot, firewood, and a salary of 60 pounds, in produce at the usual prices. Mr. William Williams was the third minister, 1686. His salary was ']o£, - 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 Partridge was powerful in Hatfield, and for many years was the most prominent man in the county.

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 encrea. .d, 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 Ijmitts on the south to be the south Ijne 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 & priviledges 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 payment in come, then to be made at such prises as the same doe commonly passe amongst themselves, any other former or annuall orders referring to the prises of corne notwithstanding.

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 incorporation, 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 inhabitants of Hadley, and preparations were made for settlement, but owing to Indian wars, and fear of Indians, it remained desolate 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, 1 671; 5th, Westfield, 1679; 6th, Deerfield, 1688; Suffield; 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 magistrate! 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 judges from Hadley were Henry Clarke, ii 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 1 7 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 6c;^.

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.

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.

The people of Hadley were in general staid, regular and peaceful, 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 defamation, in saying Fellows had played the rogue. Jury found for plaintiff los. damages, and 13s. 6d. costs. /

1663. Benjamin Wait, for being the author of a libelous writing found about Goodwife Hawks's door, defaming her, was to pay her ^£ 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 sii months after his apprenticeship had expired.

1 665. The legatees of John Barnard demanded of Andrew Warner, pay for a malt-house , which was burnt down in his occupation. The parties agreed.

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 damage, 3o£, and charges, £10, lis. 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.

"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 1 2 Hadley men.]

"Tymothy Nash of Hadley presenting a complaynt this winter before ye worshipfull Capt. Pynchon against Mr Goodwin concerning the untimely death of his chiid ye last summer, 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 Cone 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 Uves 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 jt 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 haveing 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 los. 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 coming 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, los.

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.]

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 Granris was a leader in the riotous assembly, and said the 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 ^£ 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.

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.)

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. March. Joseph Kellogg, Jr. and Gershom Hawks were fined los. each for breach of the Sabbath, having traveled tiU 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 bom 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 5^ 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 maimer 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 los. 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, belonging to Springfield, Northampton, Hadley, Hatfield and Westfield, 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..

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 shillings, 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, wife of Mark Warner; and the wife of Thomas Wells, Jr. who was fined lo 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 io63;£^. 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 ro 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 flaunting manner in an offensive way and garb, not only before, but when she stood presented, not only in ordinary but in extraordinary times." She was fined los., 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; 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 i6 to i8 persons, dined together, 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 horsekeeping, 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 9;^ 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 Massachusetts. 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. gd. to is. 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 river and boated some for Pynchon. After a road was laid near the Connecticut in 1673, if not before, Hadley had a landingplace 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 Hartford, Stratford, &c. to Boston for6 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 children 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 Hampshire, 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 Springfield, 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.

were as follows: - winter wheat, 3s. 6d., summer wheat, 3s., oeas, 2s. 6d., Indian com, 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 Northampton 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 thecoins 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 II to 12 shillings for 1 1 2 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 Hanford, 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 and rye, 4s.; Indian corn, 3s. After 1672, one-quarter or onethird 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, produce at town prices was sometimes called "provision pay" or

Hampshire Contributions for Harvard College. - A contribution was made throughout the colony, commencing in 1672, for a new college building. About ;^i^i989 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:

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

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 "Description 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 scattered, open woods, and dense forests on wet lands, in this Norwottuck 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 intervales 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 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 httle 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.