59

LAND SYSTEM OF THE CONNECTICUT TOWNS.

WHEN the inhabitants of the three river towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield left Massachusetts for their new homes upon the banks of the Connecticut, they settled upon territory to which they had no title, except a squatter’s right of possession. In the absence of any royal charter or grant from the New England Council, the colonists early turned their attention to strengthening their right of possession by purchasing the claims of the native proprietors. There is no evidence that the founders of Connecticut accepted the view of Roger Williams, that a valid title could only be obtained by purchase from the Indians, but they possessed themselves of the native title as the only one that could be obtained under the circumstances. Unquestionably the colonists were also prompted by a spirit of fairness towards the Indians in paying them for their land, for even after the granting of the royal charter in 1662, when the title of the colonists to their land no longer rested upon occupation and purchase, there was uniform action in extinguishing the Indian title by purchase and treaty.¹

It was clearly recognized that much confusion would result from indiscriminate purchases of land from the natives by individuals. The Indians were none too careful about selling the same land several times to different purchasers, and many conflicting claims resulted.² To avoid such confusion of titles, the colonial authorities attempted to restrict the purchase of land from the Indians to those who had received the consent of the General Court.³ These orders of the General Court, however, seem to have been “more honored in the breach than in the observance.” It is true that there are instances where persons or groups of persons applied to the Court for authority to purchase

60

land from the Indians,¹ but unauthorized purchases undoubtedly continued, and it must be confessed that the action of the General Court would incline one to believe that it did not consistently enforce its own orders.² By the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century, practically all the Indian claims to the territory of the colony had been extinguished by purchase or treaty, some of them several times over.³

For more than twenty-five years, the colonists of Connecticut held their lands merely by de facto possession and native purchase.⁴ In 1662, however, through the efforts of John Winthrop, the younger, a royal charter was obtained, confirming to the colonists not only the land which they occupied, but also annexing the formerly independent jurisdiction of New Haven. The charter granted the land to be held as “of the manor of East Greenwich” in free and common socage on the condition of the payment of one-fifth the gold and silver found in the colony.⁵

Prior to the formation of the Fundamental Orders, in 1639, the inhabitants of the three river towns appear to have acted upon their own initiative in making purchases of land from the natives. Neither the Massachusetts Commission nor the Court which displaced it seems to have controlled the granting of land. After 1639, however, all unoccupied land became public domain, and by the Fundamental Orders the right to dispose of such land was given to the General Court.⁶

The parceling out of the land of the colony was accomplished in two ways, first, by grants to individuals, and second, by

61

grants to groups of individuals. The individual grants, which were very common during the first fifty years of the colony’s history, were in the nature of pensions, salaries, gratuities, or for the encouragement of some commercial enterprise.¹ These grants were often made by the General Court in the most indefinite way, allowing the grantee to choose the land wherever he pleased, so long as it did not prejudice any former grant.² As we approach the end of the seventeenth century, individual grants of land by the General Court become less common, but do not entirely cease.³

By far the most important manner of dividing the colony lands was by means of grants to groups of individuals with the object of forming new plantations. These grants were usually made in answer to petitions from actual or prospective settlers of a new plantation.⁴ If the petition was approved by the Court, a committee was generally appointed to view the proposed plantation, to see if the location was suitable, to consider the number of inhabitants it would accommodate and to lay out the town plot and home lots.⁵ The General Court might, and often did, direct more fully the formation of a new town. It was common for the Court to restrict the time in which the settlers should occupy and improve their grants.⁶ The manner in which the land should be divided among the settlers was at times specified by the General Court. Thus it was ordered that each proprietor should have “equal and even shares” of the lands in Ridgefield.⁷ In granting the plantation at Litchfield, the Court ordered that the township should be divided into sixty “rights,” three of which were to be reserved for pious purposes.⁸ In settling the town of Waterbury, the committee

62

of the General Court controlled the plantation for five years.¹ Add to the above activities of the Court the appointment of surveyors to fix the bounds of town grants, the settlement of disputes between towns as to their respective boundaries, and the occasional minute direction in special cases, and we have a substantially complete view of the land system, so far as the colony was concerned. In short, the land system of Connecticut was similar in all respects to that of the other corporate colonies of New England.² In these colonies there appeared no systematic attempt to obtain a revenue from the public domain. Land was granted freely to the settlers, and seldom leased or sold by the colony. Quit rents and alienation fines formed no part of the revenue of the corporate colonies. It is true that during the eighteenth century public land was not granted with such a free hand in Connecticut as had formerly been the case. It became common, in fact even the rule, for the colony to require some compensation for land grants,³ but there is no evidence that the colony aimed to obtain a permanent revenue by leasing the public lands, nor do any officials distinctly charged with the administration of the public domain appear.

We come now to consider the manner in which the land granted to groups of individuals was distributed; how individual ownership displaced joint ownership. It is in this connection that the real importance of the land system appears. It is to be expected that the different localities in working out an agrarian policy would vary in some essential points and in many details. Such being the case, it is difficult to make a general statement as to the land policy which would apply equally to all the towns. There was, however, enough similarity of treatment to justify us in speaking of a land system. Furthermore, there was sufficient difference between the territorial policies of the towns formed during the seventeenth century and of those

63

formed during the eighteenth century to warrant us in treating them separately.

It has been noted that the settlement of a town was usually occasioned by a petition from prospective or actual settlers. These settlers formed a reasonably definite group, and we are met at the outset with the question: Were these petitioners granted the land as proprietors in fee simple, or were they acting merely as trustees for the town in its corporate capacity? During the first fifty years of the colony’s history, the question did not appear to be of much importance. In most of the towns the grantees included all, or nearly all, the freemen of the town, and under these circumstances a town meeting would be at the same time a meeting of the proprietors. As a result it became customary in most of the towns during the seventeenth century to make allotments of land and provide for the regulation of the undivided land in the town meeting.¹ The attitude of the General Court, moreover, seemed to confirm the view that the towns should have the power to regulate their common lands. In 1639, in defining the power of towns, the General Court stated that the “Towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, or any other Towns within this jurisdiction, shall each of them have power to dispose of their own lands undisposed of.”² Again, in 1643, the General Court ordered that as the condition of the plantations required that much of the land should be improved in common, each town should, before the next meeting of the Court, choose seven “able and discreet men to take the common lands belonging to ech of the seurall townes, respectively, into their serious and sadde consideration.”³

As we approach the end of the seventeenth century, however,

64

the distinction between the original settlers and their descendants, and those who came in after the settlement of the towns, becomes more marked. Land had increased in value with the increase in population. The number of inhabitants who were not descendants of original settlers was constantly augmented. As a result we find developing in most of the towns three distinct classes of inhabitants: first, the original settlers or “proprietors,” their heirs, assigns and successors; second, admitted inhabitants of the town, who were not proprietors; third, transients, who were neither proprietors nor admitted inhabitants.¹ The first two classes formed the active part of the population of the town. The proprietors were, relatively, a fixed group, while the admitted inhabitants were constantly increasing. In the natural course of events, the latter would soon come to hold the balance of power in the town meeting, and as the administration of the land had become a function of the town meeting, they would control the distribution of the undivided land.

The proprietors, in order not to lose control of the land, set up the claim that the grant of the township by the General Court was made to the original settlers, their heirs, assigns and successors in fee simple, and not to the town in its corporate capacity; and that the proprietors should have the exclusive right to grant the undivided land in the town. In some of the towns where the proprietors were still in the majority, no effective opposition was made to their claims,² but in towns where the non-commoners equalled or outnumbered the proprietors, the pretensions of the latter were not quietly acquiesced in. In Simsbury, as early as 1672, a controversy arose as to whether the “outlands” belonged to the original proprietors, or to the inhabitants of the town generally. At a town meeting held in April, 1672, it was voted to divide a portion of these lands

65

among the inhabitants of the town; similar divisions were also voted in 1680 and 1688, against all of which the proprietors protested ineffectually. The question again arose in 1719, when a committee appointed for the purpose reported, and the town voted, that

the right of disposal of common or undivided land, is and shall be in all such and them only who can derive their right so to do, either from an act of the General Assembly, and their heirs and assigns, or those who have been admitted inhabitants, and their heirs and assigns, or shall hereafter be admitted inhabitants with that power and right expressly inserted in the town’s vote of admission.¹

To this action of the town the proprietors took exception. The town, however, continued to grant the undivided land until the action of the General Court sustained the contention of the proprietors, after which the remaining common lands were managed and conveyed exclusively by the proprietors. Similar controversies occurred in New London, Canterbury, Ashford and other towns.²

It was in connection with the struggle in New London, that the question was brought before the General Court in 1719 for final settlement by petitions from both the town and the proprietors.³ The attitude of the General Court had been at first, as we have seen, that the towns were empowered to regulate and dispose of the common lands. The first indication of a change of view on the part of the Court was in 1685, when patents were first issued to the various towns.⁴ In these patents it was stated that the land in the towns was granted “to the said proprietors inhabitants, their heirs and assigns.”⁵ In confirming

66

the patents of several towns in 1703, the following even stronger expression was used:

all and every the several above mentioned lands with all rights and immunities contained in the above mentioned patent, shall be and remain a full and clear estate of inheritance in fee simple to the several proprietors of the respective town.¹

The next expression of the General Court upon this important question, was in answer to the New London petitions. When the petition of the town was first presented long debates ensued, the Upper House favoring the proprietors and the Lower House favoring the town.² The Court finally ordered that, it “being a matter of so great weight and general concern as to effect the generality of the towns,” consideration of the question should be postponed until the next session of the Court.³ At the following session it was resolved that the patent to the town did

confirm the lands in said township to each and every proprietor in such towns, and to such as have any distinct propriety there though not living in such towns . . . also all lands not divided or disposed to hold as tenants in common; all of which undivided lands were confirmed to them, the said proprietors, their heirs and assigns, so that no person by becoming an inhabitant afterwards could have any right to dispose of any land in said town by voting in a town meeting.⁴

But the General Court ordered that all titles to land which had been previously obtained by town votes were to be valid.

The proprietors having carried their point, in many of the towns they took steps to organize themselves in a more permanent manner. Proprietors’ meetings were held distinct from the town meetings, and the regulation and disposal of the undivided land was thenceforth controlled exclusively by the proprietors. The corporate character of the proprietors was recognized by the General Court in a number of acts. The

67

proprietors were required to hold a meeting upon the application of at least five of their number; they were empowered to levy taxes upon themselves, and to choose a clerk duly sworn to record their proceedings.¹ At a proprietors’ meeting a moderator and clerk, and usually a treasurer, were chosen. Much of the business of the proprietors was transacted by means of committees. Thus committees were appointed to provide for the division of the common lands, to look after the common fence, to search out and prosecute trespassers, to survey grants and lay out highways, etc.² Attorneys were also appointed by the proprietors to prosecute and defend all actions brought in the name of the proprietors.

While the proprietors in any given town were, in theory, the heirs, assigns and successors of the original settlers, and hence tended to become a close corporation, in many of the older towns the theory did not agree with the facts. Through lack of records in some towns it was impossible to discover who were the original settlers, and in such cases the taxable inhabitants at a given time were reckoned as proprietors.³ Furthermore, the proprietors not infrequently added to their numbers. Thus in 1713, the proprietors of Colchester voted to add some twenty-four persons to the list of proprietors.⁴ In Waterbury we find a distinction made between the original proprietors called “Grand Proprietors” and those later admitted called “Bachelor Proprietors.” The latter shared in the division of common lands, but had no voice in granting lands

We have thus far examined the administration of the land system, as it developed in the towns of the seventeenth century. The attempt has been made to show that, while at first the

68

towns in their corporate capacity regulated the territorial policy, by the end of the century the proprietary system had become general. In many of the older towns, however, the greater part of the common land had been distributed before the proprietors obtained exclusive control, and hence their activity was considerably restricted. It is when we reach the towns formed during the eighteenth century that we find the system of proprietary holdings most fully developed. We come now to consider these towns.

The territory from which the greater number of the towns of the eighteenth century were formed was the so-called “Western Lands,” covering approximately the present county of Litchfield. All of this vast territory, comprising over 300,000 acres, had been granted by the General Court to the towns of Hartford and Windsor, in 1675.¹ This grant was made in anticipation of the loss of the charter, and in order to prevent the lands from falling into the hands of Andros. Not much attention was paid to the territory until after the opening of the eighteenth century. The land was rugged, and other more desirable territory was available for settlement.

The first attempt made by the Hartford and Windsor patentees to improve their grant was in the settlement of the town of Litchfield in 1719. The General Court, while granting the privilege of settling this town, practically rescinded, at the same time, the former extensive grant to the two towns.² The inhabitants of Hartford and Windsor resisted³ this act of the General Court, and the title to the lands was in dispute until 1726, when a compromise was reached by dividing the territory between the two towns and the colony.⁴ The territory reserved to the colony embraced the present towns of Canaan, Norfolk, Goshen (including Warren) and about two-thirds of Kent, while Hartford and Windsor received the present towns of Colebrook, Hartland, Winchester, Barkhamsted, Torrington, New Hartford

69

and Harwinton. These towns may be taken as typical of nearly all the towns formed during the eighteenth century, and an examination of the system of land administration in these towns will suffice as showing the chief characteristics of all towns formed during this period.

In 1732 the towns of Hartford and Windsor made a division of their portion of the Western Lands, by which the townships of Hartland, Winchester and New Hartford, and the eastern half of Harwinton went to Hartford, and the townships of Colebrook, Barkhamsted, Torrington and the western half of Harwinton fell to Windsor. In the same year the General Court authorized the inhabitants of Windsor, and the following year the inhabitants of Hartford, to meet and make partition of their land to individual proprietors.¹ The taxable inhabitants of the two towns were then divided into seven “companies,” each owning a township. The share of any individual in a company depended upon the amount of his ratable estate in Hartford or Windsor.

The manner in which the part of Western Lands reserved to the colony was disposed of, and proprietorships created, is of interest, as characteristic of the way in which practically all the remaining public domain was parceled out. In 1737 the General Court ordered that the five townships on the east of the Housatonic River, and the two on the west,² should be sold at public auction in certain specified towns of the colony.³ Six of the seven townships were divided into fifty-three “rights” or shares.⁴ Three of the rights in each township were reserved, one for the use of the ministry, one as a gratuity to the first minister, and one for the support of the town school. The remaining fifty rights were sold to the highest bidders. The

70

Court, however, fixed certain minimum prices for each right, ranging from 30 to 60 pounds[.] Certain restrictions were placed upon prospective purchasers. They were required to be inhabitants of the colony, to settle themselves or their agent and live three years in the town in which they purchased land, to build a house of certain specified dimensions, and clear and fence at least six acres of land.¹ The method thus employed of distributing the public land might be termed the “eighteenth century plan,” and from it developed certain characteristics which were markedly different from those of the land system in the older towns.

Perhaps the most striking distinction in this respect between the older and later towns, was the appearance in the latter of absentee proprietors, and the land speculation incident to such proprietorship. In the older towns the proprietors were, to a large extent, actual settlers, and their land holdings were confined largely to the town in which they lived. In the towns formed during the eighteenth century, however, the proprietors bought land in a township having no intention of settling there. The land was purchased merely upon speculation, and it was common to find a large part of the land in a township change hands before any settlement had been made.² Proprietors’ meetings were held where a majority of the proprietors lived,³ and this was often not in the town of which they were proprietors.

71

An outcome of the tendency to land speculation was the delay which resulted in the settlement of some of the towns. Land being held largely for a speculative increase in value and not for actual settlement, long periods of time elapsed between the sale of a township and its actual settlement.¹

The distinction between the proprietors’ meetings and the town meetings, and between their spheres of activity, was much more clearly marked in the towns of the eighteenth century, than was the case in the older towns. Seldom or never do we find the town meetings in the later towns interfering in the regulation or distribution of the common land. The exclusive right of the proprietors to deal with these questions was generally conceded from the outset. Disputes between the towns and the proprietors did arise, but these were usually concerning the right of the town to tax the proprietary lands.²

The proprietors as a body, in the later as in the older towns, continued their activity as long as there remained common or undivided land. At first their meetings were frequent, but as the successive divisions of common land constantly diminished their holdings in severalty, their activity decreased and meetings were held less and less frequently.³

Thus far in the treatment of the land system, emphasis has been laid merely upon the question of administration. The attempt has been made to show that the activity of the colonial authorities in administering the land system was little more than supervisory, while the real direction and administration of the land was left to the localities; and, furthermore, that in the

72

towns the system of proprietary administration had displaced the town administration of land by the end of the seventeenth century. The system of proprietary control which became general during the eighteenth century was in all essential points analogous to the administration of the land system in the proprietary provinces.¹ The proprietors in the Connecticut towns were a reproduction on a smaller scale of the proprietors of Maryland and Pennsylvania. While the elaborate administrative machinery of the latter did not appear in any of the Connecticut towns, still the aims of the proprietors in each case were identical, namely, to obtain a revenue from their lands.

We come now to consider the manner in which the land of a township was distributed among the individual proprietors. Here again a distinction will be made between the earlier and later towns.

The character of the land in any township varied according to its location and topography. In most of the older towns which were situated on or near rivers or streams, the land might be classified roughly under the following heads: (1) Meadow or marshy land; (2) cleared upland; (3) uncleared or wooded land. Upon the cleared upland was usually located the town plot, home lots and planting grounds. The meadow furnished hay and pasturage, while in the wooded land were pastured the swine, sheep and young cattle.²

The first step in the settlement of a town was the laying out of the town plot and the assignment of home lots. This, as we have seen, was often done by a committee of the General Court.³ The home lots varied greatly in size in the different towns, and often within the same town. In Guilford they ranged from 1 to 10 acres; in Wallingford and Enfield they were uniformly 10 or 12 acres; in Litchfield 15 acres, while in Woodbury the inhabitants were divided into six “ranks,” the home lots of the different ranks being 25, 20, 18, 16, 12 and 10 acres.⁴ Generally

73

the location of a person’s home lot was determined by chance, but not infrequently the minister or other prominent settler would be allowed first choice.¹ After the home lots had been granted, the upland and meadow was subject to grant. Here again the division was usually made by lot. The circumstances which determined the size of a person’s home lot, as well as his share of meadow and upland, varied in different towns. Occasionally, though not often, a rigid equality was observed in the assignment of home lots and other land.² Generally, in the earlier divisions, an attempt was made to proportion a person’s share to his investment, or his activity in forming the plantation, or his ability to advance the interests of the community. As time passed, the amount of a person’s taxable estate became the common index for determining his share in the undivided lands.³ In Wallingford the whole population was divided into three “ranks.” The persons in the first “rank” paid double the amount of taxes of those in the lowest “rank,” and one-third more than those of the middle “rank.” Land was then divided among the ranks in the proportion of 4, 6, and 8.⁴ In Guilford, in the fourth division of land, the rule was that there should be given one acre of land for every pound in the list, 18 acres for each male child, and 10 acres for each woman or female child.⁵

There appeared in some of the towns a desire to prevent too large an accumulation of lands in the hands of a few persons. In the “Articles of Association and Agreement,” entered into by the planters of Waterbury, it was provided that no person should subscribe to more than 100 pounds’ allotment.⁶ In Guilford it was provided that no one should put in his estate above 500 pounds to “require accommodation in any division of lands.”⁷

Seldom, or never, was all the undivided land of a town

74

granted in one division; successive divisions were made as occasion demanded. As a result it was common to find a person’s estate distributed about the town in a number of small tracts.¹

Besides the regular division of land in which all, or a majority, of the inhabitants shared, a large number of individual grants appear in the records of the different towns. These grants were made sometimes to accommodate new settlers, at others to equalize a person’s share in a regular division because of deficiency in the quality of the land, and again to poor settlers who did not share in the general distribution.²

A result of the manner of dividing land which has just been described was that a considerable portion of the land would remain for a greater or less period of time undivided. The fencing and regulation of this common land was an important function of the town or proprietors’ meetings. Furthermore, it was customary, when a given portion of common land had been divided among the proprietors, to allow the land to remain in one common field. Each owner improved his own part of the common field in his own way, and after the crops had been removed, it was the custom to depasture the field, allowing each owner to turn in a number of cattle proportioned to his acreage of land in the field.³ Of the common fence each proprietor was required to build and keep in repair an amount proportioned to the amount of his holding in the field. The fences were viewed at regular intervals by fence viewers, and fines were imposed on those proprietors who failed to keep their portion in repair.⁴ Besides the proprietary fields which lay in common, there were the town “commons.” The latter were certain

75

amounts of land sequestered by vote of the town or proprietors for the use of the town generally. These commons furnished pasturage, firewood, timber, stone, etc., to the inhabitants of the town without any reference to their proprietary ownership. These commons were maintained in some towns for many years, but finally were divided as the other proprietary lands.¹ The maintenance of common herds and herdsmen was a characteristic accompaniment of the system of common fields. The cattle and sheep of a town were placed in one or more herds under the charge of regularly chosen town herdsmen and shepherds.²

An interesting feature of the land system of the older towns was the restrictions which were placed upon the right of an individual to alienate his land. As the entire right of commoners both in the divided and undivided lands might be sold or transferred, it was deemed necessary in order to prevent undesirable persons from becoming land holders and possible inhabitants of the town, to restrict the right of a person to dispose of his land at will. In 1659 the General Court provided that no person should sell his land until he had first offered it to the town in which the land lay and the town had refused to purchase it.³ To this general enactment the towns added other restrictions. From the first, Hartford had required the consent of the town to the sale of lands.⁴ In Enfield a person was required to occupy

76

his grant of land seven years, and also obtain the consent of the town before he could sell it.¹

During the eighteenth century when it became usual for the General Court to sell townships instead of freely granting them, a different system of division prevailed. These townships, as we have seen, were usually divided into a certain number of “rights,” each right entitling the purchaser to an equal share in the land of the township. Thus the basis for the division of land was exclusively investment, not ability or taxable estate, as had been common in the older towns. Naturally this resulted in much greater uniformity in the size of home lots and other holdings. The successive divisions of land followed each other with greater rapidity in the later than in the older towns.² The frequent transfer of land holdings was a feature of the land system in the towns of the eighteenth century. Often, an entirely new set of proprietors would participate in the third and later divisions of common lands. Common fields, fences, and herds were much less a feature of the town economy of the later than of the earlier towns. This was due in part to the fact that the colonists had emerged from the primitive conditions of land cultivation, but more largely to the fact that in many of the later towns the proprietors, being non-residents or speculators, did not improve their holdings.

Nelson P. Mead.

Columbia University.