Richard Treat and Alice Gaylard

Freemanship Records

Name:    John Hollister
Date:    10 May 1643
Original Source:    C. R., Vol. II. pp. 27, 28.

Source: Ancestry.com. Massachusetts Applications of Freemen, 1630-91 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2000. Original data: Paige, Lucius R.. List of Freemen of Massachusetts. Boston, MA, USA: New England Historical and Genealogical Society, 1849.

Probate Records

Click the link to view the probate records of James Treat

Name:    Richard Treat Sen
Location:    Wethersfield
Date of Will:    13 Feb 1668
Page:    72-3
Full Text:    Invt. œ69-10-08. Taken by John Deming, Robert Webster and John Nott. Will dated 13 February, 1668.The last Will & Testament of Richard Treat sen. of Wethersfield, Colony of Connecticut: Item: I give to my wife Alis Treat, after my decease, all the lands of what kinde soever I stand possessed of, within ye bounds of Wethersfield, and five acres of land lying in the dry swamp, of wch I have improved and pr pared for use, lying next my son James his land. Item. One peece of meddow lying in the great meddow comonly called by the name of send home. Item. The one halfe or eight acres next home of that peece of meddow comonly cald Filbarne. Item. The home lotte by the plaine land side. Item. Ye dwelling howse that I formerly lived in, with Convenient yeard room, and that end of ye barne on ye side the threshing flowre next the dwelling, with one halfe of that lotte belonging to ye said dwelling house lyeing next his son Richards howse & lotte, except my wife & son James shall agree otherwise. Item. All my pasture land fenced in, beyond my Daughter Hollisters lotte. Item. The use of two of my best Cowes, wch shee shall chuse, wch if they shall continue & Stand longer than my loveing wife liveth, they shall be my eldest sone Richard Treats. Item. I give to my wife the Handing bed, bedding, bedsted, wth all the furniture thereto belonging, with the use of so much of the houshold goods during her life time as shee shall judge needfull for her comfort, of what sort soever.Item. I give and bequeath to my eldest son, Richard Treat, the full possession & Confermation of the farme of Mayog, wth all ye Respective priveledges thereto belonging, with three of my youngest Heifers. Item. I give to my second sonne, Robert Treat, ten pounds. Item. I give to my youngest son, James Treat, besids the lands already made over to him, my Mill & grinding stone, fann, Timber chaine, Stilyeards, and my little bible.Item. I give to my sonn-in-law, Matthew Camfield, twentie pounds for that wch is remaining of his portion. Item. I give to my daughter Hollister fourtie shillings. Item. To my daughter Johnson ten shillings. Item. My debts being paid, I give to my loveing sons, John Demon and Robert Webster, equally, all the rest of my goods and Chattells whatsoever, except Mr Perkins Book, wch I give to my sonn John Demon, and my great bible to my Daughter Honour Demon, and that money in my Cousen Samuel Welles his hand unto my Cousen Daniel Demong, son of John Demon senir. And my desire is that my son-in-law John Demon, Robert Webster and Richard Treat would be my Overseers for their mutual helpfullness to my wife, & endeavor to see the accomplishment of this my last Will & Testamt. And for the Ratification hereof I have this 13th of ffebruary, 1668, set to my Hand & Seal.Richard Treat, sen.Court Record, Page 97--3 March, 1669-70: Will endorsed & Exhibited in Court, and, with the Invt., approved.
Source:    A DIGEST OF THE EARLY CONNECTICUT PROBATE RECORDS.1663 to 1677.

Name:    John Hollister
Location:    Wethersfield
Date of Will:    20 Apr 1665
Page:    13-14-15
Full Text:    Invt. œ1642-02-06. Taken 20 April, 1665, by John Chester, Richard Treat, Samuel Boreman, Samuel Welles.I John Hollister of Wethersfield, being weake in body & of perfect understanding, doe make my last will and testament this third day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred & sixty five:Impr. I give to my wife Joana Hollister all my housing and home lot in Wethersfield, and five acres of plaine lying between John Goodrich and Thomas Hollister, and five acres of meddow lying on the north side of the upper high way which I bought of Thomas Parks, & three acres of meddow called Betts Lott lying south of the upper highway, and six acres at the lower end of the meddow lying on the west side of the highway in three several parcells, & two acres that was Samuel Bowrmans yt lys by Rennold's his Lott, and foure acres at the meaddow gate; all this during her life, & after her decease I give my house and Barne & Orchard unto lazarus my fourth son, and unto Stephen that part of the lot beyond the Brooke, and the meddow and plains, equally to be divided between them.Ite. I give to John Hollister, at the age of 22 years, my whole farme at Naog, for want of heirs to my 2nd son Thomas Hollister, and doe require him to give to his mother every year during her life twenty bushells of apples and two barrells of syder, provided the orchard doe thrive and prosper.It. I give to Thomas Hollister, at the age of 23 years, all yt prcell of swamp, with Sixe acres of meddow, all bought of Richard Treat, Jr., and 5 acres of plaine nexe to Thomas Colman, and 6 acres of Upland in my Lot beyond the Brooke, the homeward Side of it, & to his heirs for ever, and for need of issue to the next successively.Ite. I give to Joseph Hollister, my 3d son, at the age of 23 years, my meddow lot bought of Samuel Hale lying next Mr. Chester, and 10 acres of meddow called Rennolds his lot, and 6 acres of upland lying in my lot beyond the Brooke.It. I give to my daughter Mary four score pounds.It. I give to my daughter Sarah three score and ten pounds.It. I give to my three grand children œ5 apeice.It. The remainder of my estate I give to my wife Joane Hollister, whom I appoint my executrix. I desire Jonathan Willoughby, John Chester, Richard Treat Jr. and Samuel Welles to be my Overseers.Witness: Jonathan Willoughby, John Chester, Samuel Welles.John Hollister, Ls.Court Record, Page 33--1st June, 1665: Will Proven. Page 122--(Vol. IV)--2nd September, 1686: 2 of the Overseers of the Estate having died, Capt. Talcott and John Deming sen. are desired to fill their place.
Source:    A DIGEST OF THE EARLY CONNECTICUT PROBATE RECORDS.1663 to 1677.

Name:    Joan Hollister
Location:    Wethersfield, Decd
Full Text:    Court Record, Page 75--2 November, 1694: This Court appoint Lt. Stephen Hollister Adms. on the Estate of Joan Hollister, there being no Inventory taken of the same.
Source:    A DIGEST OF THE EARLY CONNECTICUT PROBATE RECORDS.1687 to 1695.

Name:    Lt Robert Webster
Date of Will:    29 Jun 1676
Page:    170
Full Text:    Invt. œ670-16-08. Taken 29 June, 1676, by Thomas Bull, James Steele, George Grave. Will dated 20 May, 1676.Whereas, I Robert Webster of Hartford doe see Cause to set my house in order and doe declare this to bee my last Will & Testament, I give all to my wife Susannah Webster during her widowhood. But if my wife change her name, then I give her but one-third part of my estate. the remainder to be equally divided amongst my children, except the Eldest a double portion; to my sons at 21 years of age, and to my daughters at 18 years of age. I make my wife sole Executrix, and desire Mr. John Coales sen., Andrew Benton sen., and John Blackleach of Hartford to be Overseers.Robert Webster Ls.Witness: Thomas Stedman, Phineas Wilson.Court Record, Page 156--7 Sept., 1676: Part of Invt. only exhibited. Adms. to the Widow for the present.Hartford Land Records, Vol. 5--18 March, 1707-8: Thomas King, John Seymour and Elizabeth Seymour, his wife, all of Hartford, quit claim to Jonathan, Samuel, Robert, William, and the Heirs of John Webster, Dec., all of them sons of the late Robert Webster, Dec.
Source:    A DIGEST OF THE EARLY CONNECTICUT PROBATE RECORDS.1663 to 1677.

Source: Ancestry.com. Hartford, Connecticut Probate Records, 1639-1700 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2000. Original data: A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records, Hartford District, 1635-1700. Vol. I. n.p., 1906.

Cover page of Richard Treat's probate records

Source: Probate Files Collection, Early to 1880; Author: Connecticut State Library (Hartford, Connecticut); Probate Place: Hartford, Connecticut. Ancestry.com. Connecticut, Wills and Probate Records, 1609-1999 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015. Original data: Connecticut County, District and Probate Courts.

Greensmith, Nathaniel. Court Record, Page 182 — 15 October, 1662.
At a particular Court held at Hartford 30 December, 1662. The Indictment of Nathaniel Greensmith and of Rebecca his wife for witchcraft: Nathaniel Greensmith, thou art here indicted by the name of Nathaniel Greensmith for not haveing the feare of God before thine eyes ; thou hast entertained familiarity with Satan the grand Enemy of God and Mankind, and by his help hast acted things in a preter naturall way beyond human abilities in a naturall course, for which according to ye Law of God and ye established laws of this Commonwealth thou deserveth to die.

The Jury returned that they find ye prisoner at ye Barr, Nathaniel Greensmith, guilty of ye Indictment.

Respecting Rebecca Greensmith, Prisoner at ye Barr, the Jury find her guilty of ye Indictment. The said Rebecca Confesseth in open Court that she is guilty of ye charge laid in agaynst her.

Magistrates:
Mr. Allyn modr, Mr. Treat, Danll Clarke, Sec,
Mr. Willys, Mr. Woolcot, Mr. Jo : Allyn.

Jury:
Edw. Griswold, Walter Filor, Ensign Olmsted, Samll Bordman, Goodm Winterton, John Cowles, Samll Marshall, Samll Hale, Nathanll Willet, John Hart, John Wadsworth, Robert Webster.

Source: Manwaring, Charles William, A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records, Vol I (Hartford District, 1635-1700), Hartford, CT: R. S. Peck & Co., 1904.

Page 132.

Deming, John, Sen., Wethersfield. (No inventory or apprisers mentioned.) Will dated 26 June, 1690:
I, John Deming, Senior, do declare this to be my last will and testament: I having done well by my son John, I now give him my great Bible, Geneva print, and my feather bed and bolster, and my great kettle. I give to my son Jonathan my fifty-acre lot at the west side of the bounds, to be to him and his heirs forever. I give to my son Samuel my house and home lot, wth all the buildings upon it, containing nine acres be it more or less, and bounded as in the record; as also my meadow adjoining, containing about 17 acres, and abutting on Mr. Willis south, Thomas Standidge his land east, the highway north, and my homelott west; and 12 acres in the West Swamp, at the rear of my son David's lott. Also I give unto him my flock of sheep, and my neat cattle, and all my horses and swine, and all my moveables, within doors and without (not otherwise disposed of by this my last will), and all my husbandry tools, he paying my just debts, funeral charges and such legacies as I do hereby appoint him to pay. I give to my son David all my materials and tools in my shop, and my book debts, he paying those debts I owe about my trade. I give to my son Ebenezer my best coat and my best hat. I give to my daughter Morgan, my daughter Beckly, my daughter Hurlbut and my daughter Wright, five pounds apiece, to be paid by my executor within five years after my deceasse. I give to my couzen Unis Standidge, and to my cousin Sarah Wyer, wife of John Wyer, twenty pounds apiece, to be paid by my executor within two years after my decease. I give to my daughter Moody 10s, having already given her a good portion. I give to my grandchild Ann Beckley £5. I appoint my son Samuel executor, and desire Capt. Samuel Talcott and my son Ebenezer Deming to be overseers.
Witness: John Allyn,                                                                                                                                                                       JOHN DEMING, SEN., LS.
              George Grave.

Codicil, dated 3d February 1692: Whereas, I gave to my son John my great Bible, my feather bed and bolster, and my great kettle, I now withdraw that gift and give unto my son John all my materials and tools in my shop and my book debts, he paying those debts I owe about my trade. And whereas, in my will I gave my grandchild Ann Beckley £5, shee having miscarryed, I withdraw my gift from her, and that £5 I give to my son David.
Witness: John Allyn,                                                                                                                                                                       JOHN DEMING, LS.
               Zachariah Sandford.

Court Record, Page 72--21 November, 1705: Will exhibited by Samuel Deming. Proven by testimony of Zachary Sandford, the other witness being dead.

Source: Manwaring, Charles William, A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records, Vol II (Hartford District, 1700-1729), Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1995 (originally published 1904).

E. J. D., Lib. F, pp. 44, 45.

1672-3, March 19. Camfeild; will of. Wife mentioned but not by name. Sons - Samuel, Ebinezar, Mathew, Jonathan. Daughters - Mary, Hannah, Ruth, Sarah. Lands at Norwack already given to son Samuel; other lands next to Sergeant Ward's, to Goodman Waters, to Mr. Pierson on Robard's Neck, at Wheeler's Point. Executors - the wife, brother Deten Tompkins, brother Henry Lion and son Mathew. Witnesses - John Brown, senior, and Tho. Pierson, senior. Proved June 1, 1673.
1673, June 11. Inventory made by John Brown and John Ward (£324.4.3).
1673, June 30. Administration granted to his widow, Sarah.

Source: Collection Title: Volume XXX, Abstracts of Wills, 1730-1750. Ancestry.com. New Jersey, Abstract of Wills, 1670-1817 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. Original data: New Jersey State Archives. New Jersey, Published Archives Series, First Series. Trenton, New Jersey: John L Murphy Publishing Company.

John Harvey Treat's The Treat Family

Pages 23:
THE TREAT FAMILY IN WETHERSFIELD.
No early trace of Richard Treat, or of any one bearing the name of Treat, has as yet been found in Massachusetts, but as Wethersfield was settled by colonists from Watertown, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it had generally been assumed that he belonged to Saltonstall's colony which settled in Watertown in 1630. When and how the family came to Wethersfield is not known. They came to New England probably about 1637 or 1638, and were certainly here as early as 1639. Their youngest child, Katharine, was baptized June 29, 1637, in Pitminster, and they must have come subsequent to that event.

Pages 24-35:
Church dissensions throw a little light on the Treat family in Wethersfield. In 1656, a quarrel arose between Rev. John Russell and Lieut. John Hollister, whom he had excommunicated without giving him any reason for the act. A petition was presented to the General Court, Aug. 17, 1658 (Conn. Col. Rec. 1:370), signed by John Holister, Thomas Wright, sen., John Demminge, sen., John Edwards, sen., and Richard Smith, sen., and six females, among whom was Alice wife of Richard Treat, sen., and his daughter Joanna, wife of Mr. Hollister, all members of the church, and thirty-eight others not members of the church, but probably of the society, many of whom were men of high position, including Richard, James and Matlhias Treat, asking that Mr. Russell might be removed and another minister be substituted. The name of Richard Treat, sen., does not occur in this petition. He may have been away on a visit to his son Robert In Milford at that time. March 9, 1658-9, the Court sustained Lieut. Hollister in demanding that he should be informed of the nature of the charges upon which he had been excommunicated. They also observe that "whereas Mr. Treat, Mr. Holister, Jo : Demant [Deming] are desirous and willing to attend some regular way for the composing their differences, and to y^t end desires some Ch^s: or p^rsons may be thought on, to lieare and determine tlie same : It is desired by the Courtt, that Wethersfield Ch : , w^th y^e officer, would consid^r the matter and seasonably, w^thout delay conclude if it can be, vpon some way that may effect the issueing their sad differences." (C. C. R. 1 : 330-1.) Oct. 9, 1659, the court took means to settle this quarrel by calling in the aid of the church at Hartford and that at Windsor. The difficulty was ended in that year by the withdrawal of the minister and his family to Hadley, Mass. (See Hollister, Hist, of Conn., 1 : 462 ; Hollister Genealogy, p. 19-23.)

Among the freemen of Wethersfield, Oct. 11, 1669, according to the Colonial Records, were "Richard Tret, sen., James Trett, . . . Richard Tret, junr." Robert Treat, son of Richard Treat, sen., had long before removed to Milford, and Matthias Treat, who had been made a freeman in 1657, had died in 1662.

RICHARD TREAT : FIRST GENERATION.
Richard¹ Treat (Robert, Richard, William, John), was born 1584, in Pitminster, probably in the hamlet of South Trendle, now the parish of Trull, Somerset, England; baptized in Pitminster church, Aug. 28, 1584 ; died —, 1669-70, in Wethersfield, Conn., was alive Oct. 11, 1669, and the inventory of his estate was presented to court, March 3, 1669-70; married, April 27, 1615, in Pitminster, Alice Gaylard, who was baptized May 10, 1594, in Pitminster, when her name was spelled Gaylaud, and the daughter of Hugh Gaylard, who was buried Oct. 21, 1614, in Pitminster, and whose will is recorded in the Taunton Probate Court in 1614, but has utterly perished. When Alice Treat died is unknown, but she survived her husband. The tradition that Alice was a second wife, and that the name of the first wife was Joanna, who was the mother of Mr. Treat's children, has proved, upon investigation, to be unfounded. The name of Hugh Gaylerd appears in the Taunton Manor Register, 1573, Poundisford, for two Messuages and two Furlongs of Bondland, and two acres of Overland in Smalecrosse, and one acre of Overland in Lakemead, in the Tythingof South Trendle, late of Nicholas Gaylerd, and the said Hugh first surrendered one acre of Bondland called Southgrove, in Tything aforesaid, by surrender of John Gaylard ( ? Johane widow of Nicholas) to hold to said Johane a Messuage and land for residence, &c. His name also appears in the Calendars in 1574, '81, '88, '92, '94, '96. Oct. 4, 1608, he surrendered a Close called Smalerest in the Tything of South Trendle, to son George Gaylard. Richard Treat was the son of Robert and Honora or Honour Trott (p. 16), and the grandson of Richard and Joanna Trott (p. 14), all of Pitminster. His great grandfather was probably William Trott (p. 14). of Staplegrove, and his great great grandfather, John Trott (p. 13) also of Staplegrove. He was baptized under the name of Trott, married under the name of Trett; his children were baptized by the names of Trott and Tratt, and he was called Treat when he died. The name of Treat first appears in 1647, and in 1664 he signed two dilferent documents under the name of Treat and Treate. I find the following in regard to Richard Treat, or Trott in the Taunton Manor Registers. This is an exact copy :

1600. Poundisford. "Ricua Trotte p. i mesuage et dimid virgat terr nat i cotag cum s. ptm et iiij acr terr de ou^rland in decem de southtrendle quond'm Hugonis Hollwell ex reddicoe Robti Trotte per s. Hend sub condicoe qd Honora Trotte relict eiusdem Robert Heat teneat et gardeat oia el singula p.miss Durant viduetat &c. Dat 4 Mar xlij Eliz. Bonds John Prist & Nichi Dolling."

Translation. "Richard Trotte for one Messuage and half a Virgate of Bondland, one Cottage with its Appurtenances, and four acres of Overland in the Tything of South Trendle, late held by Hugh Holwell, by surrender of Robert Trotte, to be hold by him under condition that Honora (Honour) relict of said Robert (Trotte) have hold and possess all and every of the Premises during her widowhood, &c. Given March 4th in the 42d year of Queen Elizabeth. Bondsmen, John Prist and Nicholas Dolling."

This is the same land that was once held by his grandfather Richard and father Robert Trotte, 1571-72 (page 15).

Also the same year, for four acres of Overland pasture in Hollimore in the Tything of South Trendle, late of Wm. Wills, by surrender of Robert Trotte, &c.; also for three acres of Overland, called Stoney Downe next the road in the Tything of South Trendle, late of Agnes Hering, by surrender of Robert Trott &c. ; also, for two Cottages with Courtyards containing (blank) in the Tything of South Trendle, late of Richard Aplyn, by surrender of Robert Trott, &c. See also the Calendars for 1601, '18, '19, '22, and '30.

The family lived in the hamlet of Trendle, now the parish of Trull, in the parish of Pitminster, a large parish and village 4 1/2 miles south of Taunton, now in the Hundred of Taunton Dean, in the Diocese of Bath and Wells. The soil is clay and the chief crops are wheat, oats, barley, roots and pasture land. The population was 1382 in 1881. The reservoirs of the Taunton water works are in this parish. Barton Grange, anciently the residence of the Priors of Taunton, is at the foot of the Blagdon Hills, and the park contains some magnificent oaks and elms. Blagdon 1 1/4 miles southwest, Howleigh 11/2 miles west, Feltham 1 3/4 miles south, and Lowton 2 miles west from the church, are hamlets in the parish. John and Robert Trott, doublless distant "cousins," now reside in the parish. According to Collingson's history of Somerset. p. 5, Vol. 1, in 1791, Pitminster comprised five hamlets: Blagdon, 47 houses; Leigh, 57 houses; Fulford, 23 houses; Trendle (now Trull), 30 houses; Duddleston, 28 houses. The village of Pitminster contained 38 houses, and the whole number of inhabitants was 1036. This manor, anciently called Pipeminstre and Pipplemenstre, is mentioned in the Domesday book, 1086, and was given by King Hardicnute to the church of Winchester. In the time of King Stephen, the church of Pitminster was appropriated to the priory of Taunton, by Henry de Blois, bishop of Winchester. It is dedicated to St. Andrew and St. Mary. The present structure is not very ancient but built upon the ruins of one of the Saxon times. It is eighty-eight feet long, and forty feet wide, in the perpendicular style, consisting of a chancel, nave, two side aisles, south porch and western tower with a spire and five bells. There are some ancient and richly carved benches, a finely carved stone pulpit and reredos, and some very interesting altar tombs to the Coles family, daling from the 16th and I7th centuries. Two of the windows are stained, The sittings are for four hundred people. (See frontispiece.)

Trull, anciently North and South Trendle, is a parish and village lying between Pitminster and Taunton, two miles south from the latter and on the high road to Honiton. It was formerly in the Hundred of Poundisford, now in that of Taunton Dean. The chief crops are wheat, barley and roots. In 1881, the population was 960. The church of All Saints formerly belonged to the priory of Taunton. The register of baptisms and burials dates from 1670; marriages, 1677. The earlier ones have been lost. The fabric is built of local stone, of the perpendicular period, consisting of chancel, nave of three bays, aisles, south porch, aud an embattled western tower of two stages, with pinnacles, and containing six bells. Some of the ancient 16th century benches have very richly carved ends. One represents the oridinary Sunday procession of a small parish church of the period, and includes (1) a boy in short surplice, carrying a cross; (2) a man in fleshed trunk hose and short surplice, carrying a candle or torch ; (3) a similar figure, wearing a maniple on the left arm and carrying a reliquary; (4) a man in a long surplice, holding an open book, probably a deacon or second priest; (5) the priest, vested in a fringed alb and embroidered cope, and holding an open book; neither holy water nor incense is shown. Another bench end represents the instruments of the Passion and the figure of a cock; two more bear the letters S and W respectively, the latter letter being upheld on the peaks of two birds; at the back of the furtherest seat are eight panels, ornamented with the linen pattern and bearing this inscription: ''John Waye Clarke here," and "Simon Warman, maker of this worke, Ano Dni 1560." Our ancestors must have sat in these very seats. On the back of the pulpit are figures of St. John the Evangelist, and the four Latin Doctors; there is an ancient screen of carved oak and six stained windows. The church was restored in 1862. (See Kelly's Somerset Directory, 1889, pp. 308, 309, 374.) If the early Trull registers had not perished they would doubtless supply many gaps in the family history.

SOCIAL RANK OF RICHARD TREAT.
Mr. Treat must have been a man of high social standing and of much influence in the town of Wethersfield, and in the colony of Connecticut. This ia evident from the various positions of trust occupied by him. Titles once meant something. Not every one, as at the present day, had Esq. attached to their names. Even the prefix Mr. or Master was a mark of importance. It was then a title fully as high as Honorable is now. Generally speaking, not more than five freemen in a hundred had the title of Mr., and very few of the deputies and magistrates.

By the General Court of Massachusetts, Sept. 21, 1631, "It is ordered, that Josias Plastowe shall (for stealing 4 basketts of corne from the Indians), returne them 8 basketts againe, be ffined V.^l and hereafter to be called by the name Josias, & not Mr. as formerly hee vsed to be." (Mass. Records, 1 : 92.)

In the list of freemen of Wethersfield for 1659, only three besides Richard Treat, sr., are styled Mr., and he bore that title as early as 1642, and perhaps earlier. In 1695, out of a list of 114 legal inhabitants of Eastham, Mass., only two have the title of Mr., — Mr. Sunderland, who was the schoolmaster and held in high respect, and Mr. Treat the minister. It is said that Mr. Treat was a deputy from Wethersfield as early as 1637, but there is no proof of this so far as I know and it is doubtful whether he was there as early as that. Certainly he is not mentioned as one in the Connecticut Records before 1614. He was chosen a juror, June 15, 1643, — a high position then, generally occupied only by the most prominent persons, — and grand juror, Sept. 15 of the same year. (C. C. R. 1 : 88, 93.)

In April, 1644, he was chosen deputy, and was annually elected for fourteen years, up to 1657-8 (ib. 1 : 103).

He was elected assistant, or magistrate, eight times, from March 11, 1657-8 to 1665 (ib. 1 : 310).

Oct. 25, 1644, he and Mr. Wells were the committee from Wethersfield to receive money for maintaining scholars at Cambridge (ib. 1 : 112).

In 1654, he was chosen on a committee to lay out lands granted by the town.

In 1660, he was a townsman, an office answering to the present selectmen.

Oct. 4, 1660, he was appointed to examine Thirty mile Island, a valuable township, thirty miles from the mouth of the Connecticut, with a view to settlement.

In 1663, he was appointed to procure a minister. He also held various other offices of honor and trust, which have been mentioned on pages 20 and 21.

March 14, 1660-1, the General Court of Connecticut applied to King Charles II, for a charter for their colony, which was granted April 23, 1662. It was of a very liberal character. Richard Treat, and two of his sons-in-law, John Deming and Matthew Camfield, were among the patentees:

"CHARLES THE SECOND, BY THE GRACE of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Iieland, defender of the Faith, &c.; TO ALL to whome theis shall come, Greetinge: WHEREAS, by the several Navigaiçons, discoveryes & successfull Plantaçons of diverse of our loveing Subjects of this our Realme of England, Several Lands, Islands, Places, Colonies and Plantaçons have byn obtained and settled in that parte of the Continent of America called New England, and thereby the Trade and Commerce there hath byn of late yeares much increased, AND WHEREAS, we have byn informed by the humble Petiçon of our Trusty and well beloved John Winthrop, John Mason, Samuel Willis, Henry Clerke, Matthew Allen, John Tappan, Nathan Gold, Richard Treate, Richard Lord, Henry Woolicott, John Talcott, Daniel Clerke, John Ogden, Thomas Wells, Obedias Brewen, John Clerk, Anthony Haukins, John Deming and Matthew Camfield, being Persons Principally interested in our Colony or Plantaçon of Conecticutt in New England, that the same Colony or the greatest parte thereof was purchased and obteyned for greate and valuable Conaideracons, And some other parte thereof gained by Conquest, and with much difficulty, and att the only endeavours, expence and Charge of them and their Associates, and those under whome they Clayme, Subdued and improved, and thereby become a considerable enIargement and addiçon of our Dominions and interest there, — NOW KNOW YEA" &c. (C. C. R. 2: 3-11.)

He was a member of Governor Winthrop's Council, Dec. 17, 1663, and July 1, 1664 (ib. 15 : 388).

Mr. Treat was also a man of considerable wealth for those times and an extensive land owner in Wethersfield. At the laying out of the Naubuc farms, which consisted of lands on the east side of the Connecticut river, within the limits of what was then Wethersfield, but now Glastonbury, in 1640, or as early as 1639, the town gave him a large tract of land, lot No. 36, 310 rods wide by the river, computing south from Roaring Brook, and extending back a long ways into the wilderness, some three miles. The exact size of this lot is not known, but is supposed to have contained about 900 acres. It was called the "farm of Nayog," and long known as the "Treat farm." Richard Treat, jr., inherited this farm. He also bought several homesteads. In 1641, he bought the house of John Whitmore, on the east side of High St., at the north end, with 12 1/2 acres of land around it, and also his lot No. 27, at Naubuc, of 54 acres. The same year, or a little earlier, he bought both of the homesteads of Matthew Mitchel, one on the east side, and the other on the west side of Broad St., both having dwelling houses and barns attached. He also purchased the homestead of Thurston Raynor, on the west side of Broad St., and his lot No. 6, containing 330 acres, across the river. These three — Whitmore, Mitchel, and Raynor — removed to Stamford, Conn. In 1659, he bought the homestead of Rev. John Russell, who went to Hadley, situated on the west side of Broad St. He gave away much of his properly while alive. One of the lots which he owned in 1641, remained in the family down to about 1855. It was on Broad street. No one by the name of Treat now (1890) lives in Wethersfield.

Autograph of Richard Treat, senior, and Alice Tret, his wife, Sept. 28, 1664:

Signatures of Richard Treat and Alice Treat

WILL OF RICHARD TREAT.
The last will & Testament of Richard Treate sen^r in the Colony of Connecticut in maner & forme as Followeth:
Imprimis I being weak & Infirm of body but of sound understanding & of competent memory doe resigne my soule to the Lord hoping to be Justified & saved by the merits of Christ, & my body to be biiryed. Item I give & bequeath to my loving wife Alis Treat after my decease all the lands of what kind soever I stand possessed of within the Bounds
of Wethersfield : viz : five acres of land lying in the dry swamp which I have Improved & prepared for use lyeing next my sonn James land. Item, one peice of meadow lyeing in the great meadow Commonly called by the name of Send Home. Item the one halfe or eight acres next Home of that peice of meadow commonly called fillbarne. Item the Home lott By the playne lain side. Item the dwelling house that I formerly lived in w^th convenient yarde roome and that end of the Barne on this side the threshing Floare next the dwelling house, with the one halfe of that Lott belonging to the said dwelling house lyeing next his son Richards house & Lott except my wife & son James shall agree otherwise; Item all my pasture land fenced in beyond my daughter Hollisters lott: Item the use of Two of my best cowes which she shall chuse, which if they shall continue & stand longer than my loving wife liveth they shall be my eldest sonn Richard Treats; Item I give to my loving wife the standing bed bedding bedsted with all the furniture thereto belonging, w^th the use of so much of the household Goods during her life time as she shall Judg needful for her comfort of what sort soever.
Item I give and bequeath to my eldest son Richard Treat the full possession & confirmation of the farme of Nayog, with all the respectiue privileges thereto belonging with Three of my youngest Heifers.
Item, I give to my second sonn Robert Treat Ten pounds.
Item, I give to my youngest sonn James Treate besides the Lands already made over to him my mill & grinding stone fann Timber Chaines, stillyards & my little bible;
Item I give to my sonn in law Matthew Campfield Twentie pounds for that which is remayning for his portion;
Item I give to my daughter Hollister Forty shillings. Item, to my daughter Johnson, Tenn shillings.
Item my debts being payed I give to my loving sons John Demon & Robert Webster, equally all the rest of my Goods & chattels whatsoever except M^r Perkins Booke which I
give to my sonn John Demon [Deming], & my great Bible to my daughter Honour Demon, & that money in my cousin Samuel Wells his hand, unto my cousin David Deming, son of John Demon sen^r & my desire is that
My sonn in law John Demon, Robert Webster and Richard Treat would be my overseers for their mutual helpfulness to my louing wife, & endeavoure to see the accomplishment of this my last will and Testament, and for the ratification hereof I have this Thirteenth day of February, 1668, set to my hand and seale

Richard Treat Sen : (seal)

There is one expression in this document, "next his son Richards house," instead of "next my son Richards house," which would seem to indicate that Mr. Treat did not himself write the will, but that it was drawn up at his dictation. Probably he was too weak and infirm to do it personally.

The Inventory of his estate was exhibited in Court, March 3, 1669-70, and is as follows:
                Imp. Cattel & Swine                                                                               £34—00—00
Item several Goods in the house the particulars have       }
been valued which are those that followe                          }                             £05—06—00
in the Chamber next the Barne                                             }
In the other Chamber                                                                                           £05—15—00
More in the same chamber                                                                                 £02—16—00
To several In the Kitchen which have been valued at                                     £13—11—02
In the parlour                                                                                                          £03—12—06
Oates & Indian Corne & Salt                                                                                £04—10—00
                                                                                                                                _________________
                                                                                                                                £69—10—8

Jan : 69 aprised by
John Deminge                                                                                                      exhibited In Court
John Nott                                                                                                              March 3^d 1669
Robert Webster                                                                                                                          70

Children born and baptized in Pitminster, England :
(1.) Honor,² b. — 1616; bapt. March 19, 1615-6; d. —; m, about 1637. John Deming.
(2.) Joanna, b. — 1618; bapt. May 24, 1618; d. Oct. — 1694; m. — John Hollister.
(3.) Sarah, b. — 1620; bapt. Dec. 3, 1620; d. —; m. about 1644, Matthew Campfield.
(4.) Richard, b. —, 1622-3; bapt. Jan. 9. 1622-3; d. about 1693; m. about 1661, Sarah Coleman.
(5.) Robert, b. — 1624-5; bapt. Feb. 25, 1624-5; d. July 12, 1710; m., 1st, — Jane Tapp; 2d, Oct. 24, 1705, Mrs. Elizabeth (Hollingsworth) Bryan, dau. of Michael Powell, of Boston.
(6.) Elizabeth, b. — 1627; bapt. July 25, 1627; d. —; m. about 1649, George Wolcott.
(7.) Susanna, b. — 1629; bapt. Oct. 8, 1629; d. — 1705; m. about 1652, Robert Webster.
8. Alice, b. — 1631-2; bapt. Feb. 16, 1631-2; buried Aug. 2, 1633, in Pitminster.
(9.) James, b. — 1634; bapt. July 20, 1634; d. Feb. 12, 1709, In his 75th year; m. Jan. 26, Rebecca Lattimer.
10. Katharine, b. — 1637; bapt. June 29, 1637; d. —; m. Nov. 29, 1655, Rev. William Thompson, or Tomson, of New Haven, by Gov. John Endecott, at Boston, according to the Boston Records. He was the son of William and Abigail Thompson, who came from England about 1637, and settled in Braintree, Mass. He graduated at Harvard in 1653, and was a preacher in Springfield, Mass., in 1654-6. In March, 1657, he came to Stonington, Conn., with his family. Was employed by the Commissioners of the United Colonies acting for the London Society "for Propagating the Gospel in New England," as a Missionary to the Pequot Indians, in 1658, at Wastuxet, in Westerly, R.I. Mr. Stanton, then Interpreter General of New England, was employed by the Commissioners as Interpreter to Mr. Thompson. About 1659, he resided in New London, Conn. After 1661, his salary from the Society was withdrawn as he neglected the business, probably from ill health. March 14, 1660-1, he was made a freeman of Connecticut. In 1663, he left New London in feeble health, and in Sept. 1664, was in Surry Co., Va. Oct, 11. 1664, he made a tender of his property to the Court of Magistrates at Hartford, for the liquidation of a debt, being about to remove to Virginia; and Oct. 13, the Court ordered the Constable of New London to take possession of his property. June 29, 1665, he wrote a letter from Pixford Bay, Va., to his "Loving brother Mr. James Treat of Wethersfield," authorizing him to sell property in New London, and that the last that we hear of him. His death probably occurred soon after, though the date is unknown. Richard Treat in his will. Feb. 15, 1668-9, mentions "my daughter Johnson," but as the Boston Records state explicitly that she married Mr. William Thompson, who also calls James Treat "brother", meaning brother-in-law, the name Johnson mast be a mistake or a misreading, for Tomson or Tompson,— and the mistake could occur very easily from a similarity of appearance of the names in writing,— or Johnson may have been the name of a second husband, though he is never heard of elsewhere. In the copy of Mr. Treat's will on record now at the State House, Hartford, Conn., the name is plainly Johnson. We have no record of any children. (See Sibley's Biographical Sketches of Graduates of H. U., pp. 354-367, Vol. 1.)

HONOR TREAT: SECOND GENERATION.
(I) Honor² Treat (Richard¹), born 1616; baptized March 19, 1615-6, in Pitminster, Somerset, Eng., died -----; married about 1637, John Deming, who died in 1705, in Wethersfield, Conn., where he was among the earliest settlers in 1635. He was admitted a freeman in 1645; is named in the Charter of Connecticut of 1662; was deputy nineteen times from 1646-1665, and had the title of Mr. His will is dated Jan. 26, 1690, and probated in 1705. (See Goodwin's Genealogical Notes.)

Children (not in order of birth), of John and Honor Deming, born in Wethersfield:
1. John³, b. Sept. 9, 1638; d. Jan. 23, 1712, in Wethersfield; m. Sept. 20, 1657, Mary Mygatt, b. in 1637, and dau. of Dea. Joseph Mygatt of Hartford, Conn. Had seven children, five sons and two daughters.
2. Jonathan, b. --- 1639 ; d. Jan. 8, 1699-1700, aged about 61, in Wethersfield ; m., 1st, Nov. 21, 1660, Sarah --- who d. June 2, 1668 ; 2d, Dec. 25, 1673, Elizabeth Gilbert, who d. Sept. 4, 1714. Had twelve children, five sons and seven daughters.
3. Samuel, b. --- 1646 ; d. April 6, 1709, aged 63, in Wethersfield; m. March 29, 1694, Sarah Kirby, dau. of John Kirby, of Middletown, Conn.
4. David, b. about 1652 ; d. May 4, 1725, aged 73, in Boston (g. s. Granary burying ground) ; m. Aug. 16, 1678, Mary --- who d. Oct. 14, 1724, aged 72 (g. s. Granary). He was a fence viewer in Cambridge in 1690, and tything man in 1700. Owned the Brattle estate, extending from Brattle Sq. to Ash St. No record of his family in Cambridge. Removed to Boston before 1707, where he resided on Newbury St. In his will dated April 23, 1725, probated May 25, 1725, he is called a "Knacker." Inventory, £846. 128. 3d., including an Indian boy valued at £60 (Suff. Prob.). He and various members of his family are buried in Boston. Is frequently mentioned in Sewall's Diary. His son Rev. David Deming, grad. H. C. 1700, and d. 1746.
5. Ebenezer, b. ---; d. May 2, 1705, in Wethersfield; m. July 16, 1677, Sarah --. Had three children, two sons and one daughter.
6. Rachel, b. ---; d. ---; m. Nov. 16, 1665, John Morgan.
7. Daughter, b. ---; d. ---; m. -- Beckley.
8. Mary, b. ---; d. ---; m. --- John Hurlbut of Middletown, Conn., b. March 8, 1642; d. Aug. 30, 1690.
9. Elizabeth, b. ---; d. ---; m. June 16, 1657, Thomas Wright.
10. Sarah, b. ---; d. Sept. 29, 1717, in Hadley, Mass. ; m. --- Samuel Moody, of Hartford who d. Sept. 22, 1689.

JOANNA TREAT: SECOND GENERATION.
(2) Joanna² Treat (Richard¹), born —, 1618; baptized May 24, 1618, in Pitminster, Somertiul, Eug. ; died Oct. — 1694, in Wethersfield, Conn.; married —, JOHN HOLLISTER, said to have been a native of Bristol, England, born about 1612; died between April 13-20, 1665. He is said to have come to New England about 1642; was made a freeman, May 10, 1643, in Weymouth. Mass. There is reason, however, for thinking that there were two John Hollisters in New England at the same time, one at Weymouth who afterwards returned to England, and the other at Wethersfield. In June, 1644, was a member of the jury at Hartford, from Wethersfield, Conn. He was a deputy fourteen times, from 1644-1658, and had the title of Mr. when he first come to Conn., but after 1657, was styled Lieut. Hollister. In 1656, he became involved in a church quarrel with the Rev. John Russell, of Wethersfield, who excommunicated him that year, and refused to give any reason for his act. Hollister and his friends petitioned the Court, Aug. 17, 1658, for an order compelling Mr. Russell to give his reasons. This petition was granted. As near as we can judge from the scant records which have come down to us, Mr. Hollister had accused Mr. Russell of having given false testimony in a certain case which was probably true, though perhaps, not intentional. The result of the quarrel was that Mr. Russell and his friends moved to Hadley, under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, in 1659. (See Genealogy of the Hollister family, pp. 19-27.)

Children of Lieut. John and Joanna Hollister, probably not in the order of birth, born in Wethersfield:
1. Elizabeth³, b. —, d. —; m., about 1650, Samuel Welles, of Glastonbury. Conn., who d. July 15, 1675, and was the son of Gov. Thomas Welles. For his second wife he m. Hannah, dau. of George Lamberton, of New Haven. Had six children, two sons and four daughters.
2. John, b. about 1644; d. Nov. 24, 1711 ; m. Nov. 20, 1667, Sarah Goodrich, who d. about 1700, and was the dau. of Ensign William Goodrich of Wethersfield. He was sergeant in the militia. Had ten children, six sons and four daughters.
3. Thomas, b. about 1649; d. Nov. 8, 1701 ; m., 1st, about, 1671. Elizabeth Latttimer. who was b. Dec 26, 1652; d. about 1690, Mrs. Elizabeth Williams, widow of Amos Williams. He was a Lieut. in the ndlitla. Had eight children, five sons and three daughters.
4. Joseph, b. —; d. Aug. 29, 1673-4; unm.
5. Lazarus, b. —, 1656; d. Sept. —, 1700; unm.
6. Mary. b. —: d. — : m. — 1669, John Welles, of Stratford, Conn., who d. March 24, 1714, son of John Welles, and gr. son of Gov. Thomas Welles. Had eight children, four sons and four daughters.
7. Sarah, b. —; d. Dec. 8, 1691: m., 1st, about 1674, Rev. Hope Atherton, who was b. in 1646, d. June 8, 1677, aged 31, and son of Maj. Gen. Humphrey Atherton, of Dorchester, Mass., and first minister of Hatfield, Mass.; 2d, about 1679. Lieut. Timothy Baker, of Northampton, Mass., who d. Aug. 30, 1729. Had eight children, four sons and four daughters.
8. Stephen, b. —, 1658; d. about Oct. 2, 1709; m., 1st, about 1683, Abigail² Treat, b. 1659, and dau. of Matthias¹ Treat; 2d. between 1702 and 1709, Mrs. Elizabeth (Coleman) Reynolds, widow of Jonathan Reynolds, and dau. of John Coleman. Capt. Stephen Hollister d. at Greenbush, near Albany, N. Y., "about Oct. 2, 1709," of camp distemper. Had eleven children, seven sons and four daughters. Sec Abigail² Treat under Matthias¹ Treat.

SARAH TREAT : SECOND GENERATION.
(3) Sarah² Treat (Richard¹), born —, 1620; baptized Dec. 3, 1620, in Pitminster, Somerset, England; d. —, in Newark, N. J.; married about 1644, Matthew Campfield. The name is sometimes spelled Canfield. In one old document he is called "Mathu Camphile of Norwack." He had the title of Mr. He was first of New Haven, Conn., but subsequently removed to Norwalk, Conn. Was made a freeman in 1654; was deputy 1654-1666; assistant 1658, 1663. His name occurs in the charter of 1662. Afterwards, about 1669, he became one of the first settlers of Newark, N. J., where he was magistrate 1670-72; assistant 1669, 1671, 1673. The inventory of his estate is dated in 1673, in which year he died, between March 19, 1672-3, and June 6, following.

Children of Matthew and Sarah Campfield, the first six born in New Haven :
1. Samuel,³ b. —; bapt. Oct. 19, 1645; d. —; m. — Willoughby, dau. of Hon. Francis Willoughby of Charlestown, Mass., who was made an inhabitant, Aug. 22, 1638, and afterwards became Deputy Governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Campfield was made a freeman in 1669, and settled In Norwalk, Conn., and received his portion of his father's estate there.
2. Sarah, b. May 23, 1647; bapt. May 24, 1647.
3. Ebenezer, b. —, 1649; d. Nov. — , 1694; m. —, Bethia —.
4. Matthew, b. May 9, 1650; d. before 1705.
6. Hannah, b. June 21, 1651 ; bapt. June 22, 1651.
6. Rachel, b. July 29, 1652; d. probably before 1673.
7. Jonathan, b. —; d, Nov. 26, 1688.
8. Mary, b. —; d. —.

RICHARD TREAT: SECOND GENERATION.
(4) Richard² Treat (Richard¹), born 1622-3 ; baptized Jan. 9, 1622-3, in Pitminster, Somerset, England; died about 1693, in Wethersfield, Conn.; married, about 1661, Sarah Coleman, daughter of Thomas Coleman, one of the first settlers of Wethersfield, afterwards of Hatfield, Mass. She died Aug. 23, 1734, aged ninety-two, at Rocky Hill, Wethersfield, at the house of Capt. Ephraim Goodrich, her son-in-law. Mr. Treat was the oldest son of Richard Treat. By his father's will in 1668-9, he inherited the great farm of Nayog, or Nayaug, of some 900 acres. I find the following record in Vol. 1, Wethersfield Land Records, p. 120. There is no date to the entry:

"The Lands of Richard Tratt junior, lying on the East sid of the Great River, at a place called Nayake, w^h was given by the Towne to his Father for a farme, and is now given to him by his said Father. The bredth by the River sid, meadow and swamp, is three hundred and ten rods; from the River to a markt tre, being a white oke, is two hundred eighty six rods, on the South sid of that furme. Upon this farme stands his house and barne, upon a parcell of upland w^h lys within Mr. Hollister's farme, containing seaven acrs, more or lese. The ends abuts on Mr. Hollister North, and his owne land South; and the sids next the said Mr. Hollister East, and West."

This was long called the "Treat Farm," situated in Glastonbury, Conn., and some portion remained in the family to the present generation. March 11, 1657-8, Mr. Treat was chosen corporal of the Train Band in Wethersfield, the first body of cavalry in Connecticut. He is supposed to have died between Feb., 1690, and 1693, as his name appears in a petition of the former date for the incorporation of Glastonbury, but does not appear in a similar document in 1693.

Children born in Wethersfield ;
2. Richard,³ b. Feb. 14, 1662 ; d. —.
3. Sarah, b. June 8, 1664; d. Jan. 26, 1711-2; m. May 20, 1684, Capt. Ephraim Goodrich.
4. Mary, b. Oct. 8, 1666; d. Jan. 1, 1748; m. Dec. 10, 1684, Thomas Chester.
5. Thomas, b. Dec. 12, 1668; d. Jan. 17, 1712-3; m. July 6, 1693, Dorothy Bulkley.

Pages 130-163:
ROBERT TREAT: SECOND GENERATION.
(5) Gov. Robert² Treat (Richard¹), born about 1624 ; baptized Feb. 25, 1624-5,
in Pitminster, Somerset, England; died July 12, 1710,¹ aged eighty-eight (gravestone, in Milford, Conn.); married, first, —, Jane Tapp, who died the last of October, 1703, aged seventy-five (gravestone, almost illegible), at Milford, where her name is spelled Treate, and daughter of Edmund Tapp, one of the founders of the Church in Milford, Aug. 22, 1639, and one ot its "seven pillars;" second, Oct. 24, 1705, for her third husband, Mrs. Elizabeth (Hollingsworth) Bryan, born June 16, 1641, died Jan. 10, 1706, aged sixty-eight (? sixty-five) (gravestone, almost illegible, Milford). She was the daughter of EIder Michael and Abigail Powell of Boston, married, first, Aug. 23, 1659, Richard Hollingsworth; second, about 1678. Richard Bryan, the settler and merchant of 1639. He was born in England. The inventory of her personal property, amounting to £24. 1s., was presented to Probate the second Wednesday in April, 1706. Wepowage, which received the name of Milford, Nov. 24, 1640, was purchased of the Indians Feb. 12, 1639. The deed was given to four persons in trust for the Planters. Among those who came from Wethersfield was Robert Treat. His name, as well as the names of some others, does not appear among the "free planters," probably on account of his extreme youth. Ten names are recorded immediately below the "free planters," and Mr. Treat's is seventh on the list. At the first meeting of the Planters, Nov. 20, 1639, Robert Treat, though less than sixteen years old, was one of the nine appointed to survey and lay out the lands. His name appears eighth on the list. He subsequently returned to Wethersfield, and was elected ratemaker there in 1647. Soon after he removed to Milford, where he had owned land for some years, and there his eldest son Samuel was baptized Sept, 3, 1648, on which occasion he is recorded as belonging to the church at Wethersfield, but was received into the church at Milford, April 19, 1649, together with his wife Jane. ln 1649, Edmund Tapp gave land to his son-in-law Robert Treat. Milford was early united with the New Haven Colony for greater protection against the Indians and Dutch. The town records commence Oct. 13, 1653, fourteen years after the settlement. The earlier and many of the subsequent records arc lost. What remain are very defective and scanty. There are also defects in the church records. Mr. Treat is said to have held the office of Town Clerk in 1640, though there is no record of this.

¹There appears to be a discrepancy between the baptismal and gravestone date as to his age. If born in Feb., 1624, old style, he would have been aged 86 y. and about 5 m. at the time of his death 1710. But sometimes baptism was deferred for months and even years, though usually administered a few days or weeks after birth. So that if his baptism occured many months after his birth, he would have been over 87 years old, and in his 88th year; or the date on the gravestone may be an error, such as frequently occurs.

Governor Treat is commonly said to have had twenty-one children, but there is no foundation whatever for this statement. The mistake probably arose from counting the children of his son and grandson Robert as his. In his will, dated Jan. 5, 1707, he mentions only seven, — Samuel, John, Mary, Robert, Hannah, Joseph and Abigaii. See Lambert's History of the Colony of New Haven, pp. 85-160, for an account of Milford, and a sketch
of Governor Treat. It also contains a view of his house, on lot 35, plan of Milford, p. 93, and a fac-simile of his autograph, and the seal used by him, on p. 138.

But scant justice has as yet been done to the memory of Governor Treat. Many years ago, Mr. Henry Champion, of New Haven, to whose widow, Sarah Elizabeth Champion, I am under very great obligations, prepared a most excellent paper on the Life and Character of Robert Treat, which was read before the New Haven Historical Society, Sept. 25, 1865. This paper I have printed. I have also added an article which I had
prepareg long before I knew of the existence of Mr. Champion's paper, as it contains many things upon which he has touched but lightly or not at all. Both papers are the results of independent investigation.

We know nothing as to the early history of Robert Treat. That he must have been well educated may be inferred from the fact that though he was not a college-bred man, he was familiar with Latin, and sometimes makes use of it in his letters, as in one to Fitz-John Winthrop, — who succeeded him as Governor of the Colony, and with whom he was on terms of the closest intimacy — dated Aug. 17, 1700, "sperare pro timere." Mass. Hist. Coll. 6th Series, Vol. 3, Winthrop Papers, Part V, p, 57; also in a letter to Winthrop, dated April 7, 1702, "my utinam," Ib. p. 90. He was then nearly eighty years old. There is a tradition that be was an inmate of the household of Rev. Mr. Prudden, the first minister at Milford. If so, perhaps it was once the intention to educate Robert Treat for the ministry.

Children, born in Milford and baptized in the First Church, by his first marriage:
2. Samuel,³ b. —; bapt. Sept. 3, 1648; d. March 18, 1716-7; m., 1st, March 16, 1674, Elizabeth Mayo; 2d. Aug. 29, 1700. Mrs. Abigail (Willard) Estabrook.
3. John, b. — ; bapt, Oct. 20, 1650; d. Aug. 1, 1714; m., 1st, — , Abigail Tichenor; 2d. —, Mary —.
4. Mary, b. May 1, 1652; bapt. May 30, 1652; d. Nov. 12, 1704; m. —, Dea. Azariah Crane.
5. Robert, b. Aug. 14, 1654; bapt. Aug. 20, 1654; d. March 20, 1720; m., 1st, —, Elizabeth —; 2d. — Abigail Camp.
6. Sarah, b. Oct. 9. 1656; bapt. Oct. — , 1656; d. probably in infancy.
7. Abigail, b. about 1660; bapt. (no record); d. Dec. 25, 1727, in her 68th year; m. —, Samuel Andrew.
8. Hannah. b. Jan. 1, 1660-1; bapt. between 1659 and 1661-2, baptism recorded, but date not given on the record; d. March 3, 1707-8; m. —, Rev. Samuel Mather.
9. Joseph, b. Sept. 17, 1662; bapt. Sept. 19, 1662; d. Aug. 9, 1721; m., 1st. —, Frances Bryan; 2d, Nov. 8, 1705, Mrs. Elizabeth Merwin.

LIFE AND CHARACTER OF GOV. ROBERT TREAT.
BY HENRY CHAMPION, ESQ.
When Milford was settled in 1639, one of those who came from Wethersfield was Robert Treat, a young man not more than eighteen years.¹ He was not enrolled among the planters, but his name appears immediately afterwards with eight others² not in church fellowship, and therefore without the requisite qualification for freeman. We are not informed why he left his home, but as during the stay of Rev. Mr. Prudden in Wethersfield many of the inhabitants had formed so strong an attachment for him, that they followed him to Milford, we may well suppose Robert to have been actuated by the same impulse, and indeed tradition vaguely hints that he was a member of Prudden's family.³ "He was,"
says Lambert,⁴ and Hollister repeats the story,⁵ but on what authority I do not know, "at the first meeting of the planters chosen to assist in surveying and laying out the township." It is not at all unlikely that he did assist, being a young man by no means indolent, but the persons chosen for that purpose are expressly directed to be church members,⁶ and this, as we have seen, Robert Treat was not; nor did he unite with the church until after his marriage, in 1649."⁷ Lambert also gives him the credit of being town clerk from 1640,⁸ but this must be mere tradition. The first notice which the Milfonl records take of him after the enrolment of his name, is his appointment in 1652, with several others to survey a piece of land. The New Haven colonial records do not mention his name before 1644. The unfortunate loss of records that exists from that date till 1653, leaves a blank that cannot be filled up, but it is probable that the young man had gradually been rising more and more into notice, and in 1653, he was chosen deputy to the General Court⁹ for Milford. The next year Milford honored him further by choosing him their lieutenant, and the General Court confirming the choice, declared him "the chiefe military officer there for the present to order ye military affaires of that towne."¹⁰

In 1655, a number of persons purchased land at Paugasset, now Derby, and asked and received, from the General Court permission to establish themselves at that place without being under the jurisdiction of New Haven or Milford,¹¹ but upon the strenuous opposition of Milford, and especially of the two deputies, Robert Treat and Thomas Buckingham, together with Rev. Mr. Prudden, who made it evident that the proposed settlement would narrow too greatly their bounds, the Paugasset settlers agreed to sell their purchase to Milford if that town would furnish them with "comfortable accommodations for their subsistence." This Milford was unable to do, professing to have no meadow to dispose of, but Robert Treat settled the matter by offering seven acres of his own land for their use.¹² He had now become an extensive landholder, though he had no assignment of land in the first distribution,¹³ but lived upon the land of his father in law, Edmund Tapp, and had large grants of land made to him from time to time.¹ In 1659, he had the further privilege granted him of taking shares in the distribution of some public land on behalf of his children, and this was extended to all such distributions a few years later,² an honor granted to no one else in the colony.

¹ He could not have been more than sixteen. - J. H. T.
² Milford Records.
³ Lambert's Hist. of New Haven, 137.
⁴ lb., 137.
⁵ Hist. of Conn. 1 : 369.
⁶ M. R.
⁷ First Church Rec.
⁸ Hist. 97.
⁹ New Haven Colony Records, 2 : 2.
¹⁰ lb., 99.
¹¹ lb., 156.
¹² N. H. C. R. 2 : 178-9.
¹³ Lambert, 90.
¹ M. R.
² lb.

Milford received a reprimand for requiring their lieutenant ''to watch as other men," from the General Court, in 1655.³ He was chosen by his townsmen several times to purchase and divide public lands.⁴ He assisted in 1660, at the installation of Rev. Roger Newton, Mr. Prudden's successor, being one of the laymen chosen to perform the ceremony of laying on of hands,⁵ and held the post of deputy for Milford until 1659, with the exception of one year, and then being elected magistrate he served for five years on the Governor's Council, when, though re-elected, he declined to serve.⁶ In 1661, the first serious trouble in the quiet life of the New Haven Colony arose, and gave to the General Court more perplexing duties than the usual business of punishing criminals, deciding disputes, and electing officers.

On May 17,⁷ the Deputy Governor (Governor Newman having died the December previous), called in haste a meeting of the General Court and laid before them a copy of a letter from the King, Charles II, commanding the arrest of the regicides, Judges Goffe and Whalley. The magistrates and deputies all professed themselves utterly ignorant that they were in the colony. "They wished a search had been sooner made and did now order that the Magistrates take care and send forth warrent" for "a diligent search." Robert Treat in pursuance of this order issued and signed a writ commanding certain inhabitants of Milford to make diligent search throughout that town for "Colonell Whalley and Colonell Goffe," doubtless well aware that no search however diligent would find them at that time within the town limits. They subsequently resided there for some time, however, and numbered Robert Treat, tradition says, among their select acquaintances and friends.⁸

Soon after, the threatened subjection of the New Haven jurisdiction to Connecticut, called for the exercise of all the statesmanship of the colony. In this Robert Treat took an important part. He was a man of considerable note, having been chosen captain by Milford⁹ and by the colony, in 1661-2, as a substitute for either of the commissioners to the United Colonies,¹⁰ though he had no occasion to act. He must have been second to none in the colony, unless we except the Governor, William Leete and a few others, as Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Crane and Mr. Fenn.

He was peculiarly fitted to engage in the task of uniting and harmonizing the two colonies, from the circumstances of his birth and connections. His father was an important and honored member of the Connecticut colony, for many years a magistrate, a patentee, at the special request of Connecticut, and this request may have been dictated by his connection through his son with the New Haven jurisdiction. His brothers and brothers-in-law too, were no unknown persons, — Richard, jr., and James Treat, John Hollister and John Deming, the last also a patentee,¹¹ — and are constantly named in the colonial records. Matthew Campfield of New Haven, another brother-in-law, was also a patentee in the charter. By his own marriage he had connected himself with an influential settler, Edmund Tapp, one of the chief men, and one of the "seven pillars" of the first church in Milford.

³ N. H. C. R., 2:177.
⁴ M. R.
⁵ Lambert, 102.
⁶ N. H. C. R., 2:543.
⁷ Ib. 389.
⁸ Holllster 1:244.
⁹ N. H. C. R., 2:410.
¹⁰ Ib., 402, 451
¹¹ Conn. Col. Rec., 2:3.

And here perhaps it may be as well to go back and look at his private life, what little there is known of it. He was married about 1647 to Edmund Tapp's only daughter Jane. The tradition mentioned by Lambert,¹ though comparatively well known, must not be omitted here. One day when calling upon the elder, he took Jane upon his knee and commenced to trot her. "Robert," said she, "Be still that, I had rather be Treated than trotted," which hint led to his proposal of marriage, and she soon became Mrs. Treat. He seems to have taken up his abode with his father-in-law, as his homestead stood upon the lot originally granted to Edmund Tapp.³

Whether the insinuation of Jane Tapp had any reference to the old name of Trott, I leave for the consideration of any who wish it. Tradition leaves us in the dark in regard to his family affairs hereafter, and the Milford records give us all we know. According to these, up to the time of the union of the two colonies, he had eight children, four boys and four girls, all of whom, with one exception, lived to become substantial citizens of this and other colonies. Goodwin's Notes⁴ give two other daughters who died in early life, but there is no record authority for them, much less for the absurd story which credits him with the number of twenty-one, accounted for by Savage⁵ on the ground that some of his grandchildren had been counted in, and the only solution which I can offer is, that some enthusiastic genealogist had counted all the children of Robert Treat he could find on the Milford records as the Governor's, including even some of his great grandchildren, which would just about complete the requisite number.

He was an active participant in all that concerned the welfare of the town, aand among other occupations found time to establish a fulling and grist mill.⁶ And we must turn now to the part he took in the union of the two colonies. I cannot, of course, go into all the details of this matter, but it may be necessary to allude to the fact that Connecticut had, through their agent Governor Winthrop, procured a charter so framed as to include within its bounds the territory of New Haven and the towns under its jurisdiction, and this without their consent in any way expressed or implied. As a natural consequence the New Haven colonists were sorely tried and grieved, and resisted the efforts of Connecticut to either compel or persuade them to submit, and in the end it was mainly the pressure of outside danger that caused the union. In Oct 1662, correspondence was commenced between the two colonies, and was carried on from time to time, mainly by the Governor and Council, on the part of New Haven. One is tempted to think that the hand of Robert Treat can be seen in the construction of many of the documents sent to Hartford. Moderate and cool in determining his course, but inflexible when once he had settled upon it, as his whole course shows him to have been, much of the correspondence shows these two traits of character in a remarkable degree. His signature is that of a cool and collected, though resolute person, and compares favorably with any of the other autographs appended to the letters to Hartford.⁷ In 1663, Mr. Treat was again chosen magistrate for Milford,⁸ and was also mentioned in a communication from Hartford as one who should have "magistraticall powers" in that part of the colony in event of a union.¹

¹ Lambert, 137.
² It is a tradition that Robert Treat was married at a spinning bee on Christmas night at the house of Edmund Tapp. Jane's eldest sister had already married Wm. Fowler. On this occasion, he is said to have trotted Jane. The "toggler" having become cool Robert Trent seized the andirons and heated the flip. The old "flipdog" or "toggler" was bequeathed to Elder Daniel Buckingham who married Hannah, daughter of Wm. Fowler, and preserved by him as a memento of the three families. Buckingham's grandson married In 1788 Susannah Fowler, a descendant of Wm. Fowler and the "toggler" was brought out us the identical one used by Robert Treat at his wedding. It was always used on the anniversary of the Governor's wedding. It is now in the possession of Nathan G. Pond of Milford, who obtalned it of Mrs. George Tibbals. It is said to be the only one now in existence. - J. H. T.
³ Lambert, 89, 93, 138.
⁴ Page 328.
⁵ Geneal. Dict.
⁶ Lambert, 118.
⁷ C. C. R., 2:469.
⁸ Ib., 488.

The matter was delayed another year, and in May, 1664, Governor Leete, having sent to the colony of Massachusetts for counsel and receiving word that they laid appointed a committee to confer with them on the subject of their differences with Connecticut, sent Robert Treat and William Jones to meet the gentlemen from Massachusetts.² They returned without accomplishing anything, and meanwhile circumstances were rendering any other issue than the Union entirely hopeless. Mr. Treat, with his townsman Benjamin Fenn, were upon the election day, three weeks after, again elected as magistrates for Milford, but Mr. Treat declined to hold the office,³ doubtless believing that he could better assist his country in other positions. Connecticut now assumed the government, and invested several persons, among them Mr. Treat, with "magistratical power" in the towns of the New Haven jurisdiction.

This power, however, was never exercised, unless indeed in Milford, which submitted on its own account, doubtless by Mr. Treat's advice, about a month afterwards. This act was much disliked by their neighbor of New Haven, but they also, deserted by the rest, finally yielded "as from a necessity brought upon us by their meanes of Connecticutt aforesaid," and appointed the General Court as a committee, adding Robert Treat⁴ and several others, a committee to consummate the agreement of Union. This committee engaged in a very amicable correspondence, resulting in the settlement of all difficulties, and the authorizing all the officers of the old colony to act until the next election.

At the same time the Genenal Court of the now United Colonies nominated most of the old New Haven magistrates for election as assistants,⁵ but for some reason or other Mr. Treat failed to gain the election. Perhaps the part he had taken had made him too many enemies, but it is more than probable, that already contemplating a move to New Jersey, he declined an office in the United Colony, since the Union, though he had assisted in it, was not founded upon the strict principles in which he had been brought up, and must have been disagreeable to him. He does not seem to have lost favor with the General Court, for he was very soon appointed captain of the Train Band of Milford, in view of the expected attack of the Dutch from New York, and was also selected as one to watch for and give notice of the approach of the enemy.⁶ In 1665, he was elected as Deputy to the General Court,⁷ and the succeeding year nominated as assistant,⁸ but again either failed of an election, or refused the place, and from this time for several years his name disappears from the colonial records. But he was busy elsewhere. Many of the inhabitants of Milford and the other towns, disliking the Union forced upon them by Connecticut, assisted by untoward circumstances, and hearing that the colony of New Jersey offered favorable opportunities for establishing their peculiar form of mixed ecclesiastical and political government, in 1666, sent Robert Treat and two or three others to investigate and, if possible and desirable, to make preparation for the founding of a new town in that place.

¹ N. H. C. R., 2:494.
² lb., 542.
³ lb., 543.
⁴ lb., 551.
⁵ C. C. R. 2:30.
⁶ lb., 21.
⁷ lb., 23.
⁸ Ib., 31

They selected what is now Newark for the site of their town, purchased it from the Indians — satisfying a doubtful claim to a part of it rather than enter into a conflict — and made all necessary preparations for the arrival of the settlers. Early in May, some of the settlers came and established a "Godly Government" upon the spot. Robert Treat, with ten others, five being a quorum, was chosen to act in settling the place and preserving order.¹ A year after, all the emigrants arrived and the lots already laid out were divided, those from each town taking lots in a group by themselves. But first the neighbors of Milford and New Haven gave way that Captain Robert Treat should choose his lot, which being done, and two more acres than the average being given to him, the remainder was distributed evenly among the rest.² Thus they honored their pioneer.

Here, as in Milford, he was foremost whenever bounds were to be settled. Elizabethtown, their nearest neighbor, had a dispute with Newark concerning the extent of their respective rights, and commissioners from Elizabethtown met Robert Treat and others from Newark, empowered to settle the dividing line upon a hill, thence called Divident hill, where the captain first lifted up his voice in prayer, "that there might be a good agreement between them," and the line being run, the completed task was closed by John Og den of Elizabethtown giving thanks for their loving agreement.³

In New Jersey there was a general assembly or colonial legislature, and to this for five years, from 1667-1672, Robert Treat was annually chosen deputy by Newark,⁴ having already acted first as their town clerk.⁵

In 1672 , he returned to Connecticut.⁶ What his reasons were cannot of course be known, but while it seems unlikely that he had even intended permanently to settle there, for I cannot learn that his whole family moved, or that he sold his Milford property, yet it may have been that he found that not even in New Jersey could he find that perfect liberty he desired, and preferred to end his days in his old home. He left two of his children, however, as pledges of his interest in the welfare of the town, his son John and daughter Mary, wife of a prominent citizen of Newark, and he left, too, a cherished memory, that is not yet quite exlinguished from the minds of the inhabitants of Newark.

Upon his return he was immediately called upon by the General Court to act as second in command of the forces of New Haven County in the anticipated conflict with the Dutch,⁷ and at the next election was chosen assistant,⁸ which office he filled for the three ensuing years, and in that capacity formed one of what is known as the "Committee of safety,''⁹ often appointed during threatening times to act while the General Court was not in session. He was placed in command of all the New Haven County forces, 120 men,¹⁰ and second to Maj. John Talcott in command of the Connecticut force,¹¹ which they expected to send against New York, but the peace of 1673 rendered these preparations needless, and the militia was disbanded.

Though released from military duties, he did not remain idle. He is one of a committee to run the lines of Norwalk, Stamford, Greenwich, and Rye;¹² to settle a dispute in Saybrook about common lands; "to hear the Indian complaints and draw the same to an issue;"¹³ to settle the bounds between New Haven and Milford;¹⁴ and he seems to have been especially relied upon in matters of this nature. He is sent with several others "to improve there best abilities and endeauours to setle an accomodation between the people and minister of Fayrefeild . . . and to endeauour allso the obteyning and settling of a minister at Rye."¹⁵ His private offices were very numerous. As trustee, executor, appraiser, etc., he appears many times upon our probate records and it would not be too much to say that hardly an estate of couseqiienee in Milford was settled from 1670 to 1700, without some allusion to him in its progress. He was often called upon also to perform the marriage ceremony, for couples in those times went oftener to the magistrate than to the minister, and he seems to have been universally relied on by persons in all walks of life as one whose honor and integrity were supported by wisdom and prudence.

¹ Stearns' Newark, 6-14.
² Ib., 20.
³ Ib., 40.
⁴ Ib., 52.
⁵ Ib., 32.
⁶ Ib., 32, 33.
⁷ C. C. R., 2:83.
⁸ Ib., 291.
⁹ Ib., 201.
¹⁰ Ib., 207.
¹¹ Ib., 218.
¹² Ib., 203.
¹³ Ib., 225.
¹⁴ Ib., 233.
¹⁵ Ib., 240.

The opening of the year 1675 brought upon the colonies at once two direful evils, either of which alone had buen a blow severe enough to threaten their existence. These were the one external, the other internal; the first personified in Sir Edmund Andros, the second, in King Philip.

The limits of this sketch will not justify an account of the causes or history of these two perils, save in so far as they are connected with Robert Treat, and as he was the principal actor in King Philip's war, I will relate his part in that without noticing the contemporaneous disputes with Andros till afterwards.The colony of Plymouth was the first to suffer from the Indians in this new outbreak, and the alarm and destruction soon spread to Massachusetts and Rhode Island, while as yet Connecticut was unmolested, and at liberty to use all her strength against Andros.¹ In the middle of September, however, the commissioners of the United Colonies ordered 1000 men to be raised,² and the Governor and Council of Connecticut commissioned Major Treat as commander-in-chief of the quota of Connecticut. This commission I have ventured to copy at length, for it shows exactly the trust and confidence reposed in him, and with the annexed instructions is of considerable general interest. It is as follows:³

"To Major Rob^t Treat

"You being nominated and appointed by the Councill of Connectlcott, August 25, 1675, Commander in Chiefe of such forces as are sent forth from this Colony to assist and defend o^r confederates of the Massachusetts in the persuit or prosecution of these Indian enemies that are in open hostility against the English, These are in his Maj^ies Name to will and require you, and you are hereby commissionated to take under your conduct, charge, and gouerment, all the sayd military forces with all such armes, ammunition, provsions and other appurtenances, with all officers and soldiers, to be ordered, martialled managed and dissposed of upon all occasions by yourself and the council of warr according to the course of military discipline, and according to such instructions as you shall herewith receiue and from time to time receiue from them till you shall return agayne. You are allso hereby impowered wth the councill of war to use and execute martial discipline upon all offendors and delinquents, as occasion shall be, by fines or other military punishments if need shall require. We doe appoynt your commission officers to be your councill, whereof yourselfe is to be president and have a casting voyce. And you or your council, or the greater number of them, shall haue power from time to time, as a councill of war, to manage all affayrcs concerning this present expedition; and you may joyne in councill with such other of the Gentlⁿ of the Massachusetts as shall be empowered to joyn in councill with you and to take their assistance with you in the pursuit of the enemie; and you are according to your best skill to take all fitting wayes and ineanes and opportunities to destroy the enemie; and in want of any officers in your army, you, with your councill are hereby authorized to make up such defects or vacancies. You are also impowered to use any stratagems of war for aduantage against the enemie, and to induce or draw of parties or persons from them upon just and hon^ble terms of concessipn or quarter as you may; provided that grand contriuers and murtherers be exempted from pardon, and due satisfaction made for other wrongs when proved against them."

¹ Trumbull, Hist., ed. 1797, 1:343-349.
² lb., 353.
³ C. C. R., 2:356-7.

To this commission a series of instructions were added, commencing, "Forasmuch as the most holy and just God for our many and great sins hath seen cause to exercise New England, by letting loose the barbarrous heathen to commit outrage, murther, and spoyle," and then ordering the Major where to go, and how to cooperate with the "Bay forces." He was especially "to see well to the carriage and behauior of all under" his "command, that it be sober, Christian and comely, both in words and deeds according to the Gospell profession, before the heathen and in the sight of all men; that so the name of our God be not dishonoured by o^rselves while we are endeavoring to vindicate the same against the heathen's wickedness and blasphemies." He was further to "improue the best of his skill to preserve the lives and limbes" of his soldiers, and to take special care that the Reverend Mr. Whiting (their Chaplain) be "accomodated with the best supplyes and in the greatest security."¹

Armed with this commission and with such designs, he took a portion of the quota of Connecticut to the north to assist in the defence of some of the Massachusetts towns. There he arrived in season to render that colony the eminent service of saving the town of Springfield from utter destruction. Deerfield had just been sacked and burned; a body of the best young men from the county, "the flower of Essex," employed in guarding a train of wheat-laden wagons on their way to Hadley had been attacked and barely rescued from destruction by the timely arrival of the Major on his northward march, and the Indians having devastated the regions around these towns, now plotted the destruction of Springfield. Major Treat, after a campaign of hard marching and fighting, now lay at Westfield, fifteen miles the other side of the Connecticut. Informed by a friendly Indian of the contemplated attack, he started at night, but being delayed for want of boats in crossing the river, he was not in season to prevent it. Many houses had been burned, much property destroyed, and several lives lost, for the inhabitants were in no condition to successfully resist, but the arrival of the troops turned the tables. The enemy were routed, and Springfield saved from destruction.

This defeat paralyzed the Indians for awhile, and Major Treat returned home. At the next General Court in October, he appeared before them and laid down his commission. It is not possible to ascertain his reasons for this, but it is most likely that having been appointed only by the governor and council, he was unwilling to serve without the assent of the whole court in whom the charter had vested the government of the militia. They, however, would not accept the resignation, but voted that "hauing considered the same doe thankfully accept of the good seruice the Major hath done, and have taken so good sattisfaction in the Major's good conduct that they doe desire and order Major Robert Treat to continue his regiment ouer the forces of this Colony raysed for the prosecution of the enemie and do order the continuance of his commission granted as before by the Councill."² One would look for a vote of thanks from Massachusetts, as the greatest benefits of the Major's "good service" resulted lo them, but it was never given.

At the same session, Oct. 14, he was ordered to Norwich, but intelligence arriving that the danger was over, he was sent instead to the north again.³ On the 19th, 800 Indians attacked Hadley, but Major Treat, by a hurried march, arrived just in time to turn their victory into defeat, and so fearful a chastisement did he inflict upon them that from that time they were unable to carry on the war in the neighborhood, except in small parties, and in a desultory manner, against which the settlers were able to defend themselves.⁴

¹ C. C. R., 2:357.
² lb., 266.
³ lb., 264-5.
⁴ Trumbull , 1:352.

Major Treat's attention was now directed to another field of conflict by the General Assembly. The Narragansetts in Rhode Island had engaged in acts of amity and friendship toward Philip and his scattered warriors, and of hostility towards the English, in violation of their solemn engagements with the colonies. In order to strike an effective blow at the whole Indian combination, a winter campaign was ordered by the commissioners of the United Colonies. A large army was raised by the three colonies, which rendezvoused at Pettyquamscott in Rhode Island, and started on the morning of the Sabbath, Dec. 19, as soon as it was light, Major Treat with his 450 men from Connecticut, 135 more than her quota, forming the rearguard of the expedition. At one o'clock they reached the Indian fort, where were congregated nearly all the Indian forces in that part of the country, the destruction of which was the object of this march, and a principal object of the whole campaign. It was a palisaded enclosure in the midst of a swamp, accessible only by a long log raised five or six feet from the ground, and without artillery. No way was left to gain it but by a charge across that log, and the troops from Massachusetts, in the vauguard, no sooner had arrived, than they threw themselves upon the fort with great spirit. They crossed the log bridge exposed to a murderous fire from within, entered the fort, and had almost gained it, but were finally driven back, so fierce was the fire of the Indians from every side. At this juncture the Major arrived with the Connecticut forces, and sending a handful of his bravest men to discover some other approach, and make an entrance if possible elsewhere, in his turn attempted the perilous charge. There was a block house just inside the entrance to the palisades, which the Massachusetts troops had been unable to pass, but the Major's men succeeded in passing it, though with great loss, and the few who had been sent around having found an entrance by almost impenetrable paths now joining them, they were enabled to attack the Indian defenders in the rear. This added to another vigorous charge from the Massachusetts and Plymouth troops, completely routed the enemy, and the battle ended in their almost entire annihilation. But Connecticut had suffered severely, losing nearly half of all that were killed or wounded in the whole encounter. Four of their five captains were slain, and a large number of their best men. The major was unhurt, but a bullet hole through his hat attested his presence. He is said by the General Assembly to have had "no less than seventeen fair shots at the enemy," and to have been thereby as often a fair mark for them. He was the last to leave the burning fort in the darkness of the winter's evening, and it was to the bravery of his troops, and his forethought in sending a few men to enter elsewhere that the capture of the fort was due.

The large losses of his troops and a due regard to "the lives and limbes" of his remaining soldiers induced him to lead them home in order to recruit, and to place the wounded in more favorable circumstances. Leaving the Massachusetts and Plymouth troops to finish the war, he returned to New London, capturing on his way a number of the enemy,¹ and remained there with his troops for some weeks, with the exception of a visit to Hartford early in January to consult with the governor and council,² and of a visit to Milford, at the same time. From New London, after his return, he writes to the General Court, then in session, and as this is the first letter of his that is now in existence, so far as I know, I have ventured to copy the principal part of it under date of "N. London 23d instant, at night 1675."³

¹ Trumbull, 1:353.
² C. C. R., 2:394.
³ lb., 401.

He says "Hono^rd Gentlemen: Through much trouble & difficulty, I am so far got ready as that I intend, God willing, to begin my march tomorrow. The trouble and difficultys w^th such comanders, to prepare for my service is almost too hard and heavie for me: and if you had appointed me a victualler of your army, I hope I might have done something at it. Our part of y^e westerne forces are arrived the last night, and y^e vessell prepared to saile, and I heare w^th about 5000 of bread & 20 barrels of beefe and porke, a hogshead of rum, but no wine, and some small necessaries. . . We are fully purposed if weather prevent not to be setting forth this day from N. London. . . . I am for want of clark, commissary & others so little forwarding me, as that I cannot enlarge, but beg yo^r prayers to y^e God of wisdom, courage & strength, to be w^th me all that turn the battle to y^e gate when the Lord shall call thereto. W^ch is the prayer, and that y^e Lord would also giue a spirit of councell to them y^t sit in Councell, — from your servant,

Robert Treate."

The army started on the morrow and spent two weeks in effectual pursuit of the enemy, returned to New London and from time to time rendered effectual service in pursuit of the Indians, until in April the greater portion was disbanded, and the remainder under command of Major Talcott aided in finishing the war.¹ Aug. 12, King Philip was slain and the peril successfully overcome, though with the loss to the colonies of nearly one tenth of the fighting men, and as large a proportion of the buildings.⁸ An instance of the clemency and magnanimity of Robert Treat is placed on record during this war, and must not be omitted from this sketch. "Daniel Clarke, jun^r," say the records, ''being convicted before the Council for notorious reproachful, contemptuous speeches, and threatening of Major Treat, is adjudged by the Council to pay a fine of twenty pownd and to be committed to prison there to continue dureing the Councill's pleasure and was accordingly committed. Daniel Clarke having confessed his fault, and hauing manifested some signes of repentance and the Hono^rd Major Treat hauing very earnestly sollisited the Councill that they would upon his request release him from imprisonment, it was accordingly granted,"³ and subsequently the fine and subsequently the fine was remitted at the intercession of Mr. Treat, then Deputy Governor.⁴

The Major's services were now needed at home and upon his return he was elected Deputy Governor, William Leete, the Deputy Governor, having been advanced to the chair of Governor left vacant by the death of Governor Winthrop.⁵ This post he held for the succeeding seven years, serving at the same time in various other capacities, now as judge, or committee, especially in regard to Indian affairs,⁶ now at the request of Northampton to mediate with the Indians for the return of captives and a treaty of peace,⁷ now as the war committee of safety, and twice being sent as commissioner for the United Colonies,⁸ and twice chosen as substitute for those elected.

In April, 1683, Gov. William Leete died, and at the succeeding election Robert Treat was elected his successor. The troubles inaugurated by Andros were now rapidly approaching a climax. Commissioned by the Duke of York, afterward James II, as Governor of all his territory in New England, he claimed jurisdiction over not only New York and part of New Jersey, but more than half of Connecticut.⁹ Once already he had sent an armed force to Saybrook and attempted unsuccessfully to establish his authority,¹⁰ and the colonists had appealed to his Majesty and tlieir Charter rights,¹¹ while he still continued to molest them, particularly in the matter of Fisher's Island.¹² In England meantime many bitter enemies of the colonies were seeking their ruin, while even the king, Charles II, was not at all favorably inclined to their mode of self government, and was particularly incensed by their opposition to the acts of trade and navigation,¹³ and the accession of James was even more to be dreaded than the continued reign of his brother.

¹ C. C. R., 2:434.
² Trumbull, 1:367-369.
³ C. C. R., 2:416.
⁴ lb., 483.
⁵ lb., 273.
⁶ lb., 3:15, 52, 78,103, 311.
⁷ Trumbull, 1:372.
⁸ C. C. R., 3:76, 98.
⁹ Trumbull, 1:341, 342.
¹⁰ lb., 343-344.
¹¹ lb., 346-347.
¹² C. C. R., 3:283.
¹³ Trumbull, 1:373.
¹⁴ lb., 335.

I am not aware that Deputy Governor Treat bore any part in the difficulty about boundary lines with Andros, and it was not till after his election as Governor that he took the chief control in the matter. Upon entering the governor's chair, he found the colony in a boundary line dispute about Rhode Island, which he quickly settled,¹⁴ and then turned to New York. Here Governor Andros had been succeeded by Thomas Dongan, and was plotting mischief in England. Upon Governor Dongan's arrival in October, 1683, the governor and council wrote to him, congratulating him upon his arrival and alluding to the disputed claims in regard to that portion of Connecticut river, and receiving an answer rather lordly but on the whole amicable.¹

To this the governor replied, declaring their freedom from intention to molest the duke in any of his rightful claims, referring to the doings of some former commissioners in settling the bounds upon Mamaconick river, and declaring their intention to "mayntaine a good correspondency between his Royal Highness his Government and this."² To this Governor Dongnn replied, claiming at least all the lands within twenty miles of Hudson's river, If not all west of the Connecticut, and desiring the appointment of commissioners on their part for file final settlement of the line.³ Governor Treat now called a special session of the General Assembly, laid the matter before them, informed them of Governor Dongan's claims and advised the appointment of commissioners as suggested.

The governor and several others were accordingly appointed by the court to go to Governor Dongan and "manifest to him this Court's grateful resentment of his Honors profession of his desire to be in amity with us, and to assure him of our good wishes" in regard to bounds. A most judicious series of instructions were prepared, probably by Governor Treat himself, advising the utmost caution and care to lose as little as possible of their territory.⁴ They, with commissioners on the part of New York, fully settled the disputed bounds⁵ with the loss to the colony of the town of Rye, to whom Governor Treat wrote in December, stating the necessity which had compelled them reluctantly to yield the separation, and urging them "to be satisfied and content with this change and carry it suitably to the Government under which you are now stated and apply yourselves to the Honorable Governo^r who is a noble Gentⁿ and will do what you shall desire in a regular manner to promote your welfare."⁶

The governor was requested by the same court that appointed the commissioners, to draw up and send a petition to the king. The colonies had been accused by evil designing persons of harboring criminals and fugitives from justice in England, and the discovery of the gunpowder plot, and several others at this time was also used to throw odium upon them.

The governor accordingly represented to the king their horror at the nefarious plots which had been discovered, their thankfulness for the escape of himself and the Duke of York, their prayers for his future welfare and safety, and their design to use all their power for the discovery of all who stirred up tumult or rebellion. At the same time he took the opportunity to recite the reasons which had induced them to leave home and friends, and the favors which had been bestowed upon them, and to pray for the continuance of this grace and favor, and the full enjoyment of the privileges they possessed.⁷

This same year the Duke of Hamilton made claim to a large part of the colony, and was only prevented from gaining it by a long and hard contest, both at home and in England.⁸ But as Governor Treat bore no very active part in these transactions, I barely allude to them, and pass on to the more stirring times of the administration of Andros.

¹ C. C. R., 3:326-7.
² lb., 328, 829.
³ lb., 330.
⁴ lb., 4:133-6.
⁵ Trumbull, 1:384.
⁶ C. C. R., 3, 133-6.
⁷ lb., 136-8
⁸ Trumbull, 1:379-382.

Hardly had the colonies recovered from the difficulties just related and either brought them to a successful issue or to some prospect of a settlement, and hardly had they struggled through a disastrous year of floods and famine, sickness and death, — many of their best men, particularly among the clergy, having been taken away, — when Charles II died and his brother ascended the throne. Immediately upon receiving the news of his accession, the governor ordered the proclamations of his Royal Majesty, James the second, to be read, and sent an address, announcing the order, condoling with him upon the death of his brother, congratulating him upon his accession, and beseeching his ''excellent Ma^tie to grant the benigne shine of your favour to this your poore Colony of Connecticut,"¹ and shortly after, by order of the general court, and in their name, he despatched another and longer address couched in much the same terms, and taking grateful notice of his Majesty's declaration in council of his intent to regard justice, clemency and liberty in his realm.²

Before these documents had reached him, James had sent to his "trusty and well beloved" Governor Treat a letter relating to some of his proceedings against the Earl of Argyle and the Duke of Monmouth, written in an exceedingly friendly and amicable spirit.³

But the answer to the two petitions came in the shape of a letter to the governor from Edwin Randolph, informing him that his Majesty "intends to bring all New England under one Gouernmen^t, and nothing is now remaineing on yo^r part but to think of an humble submission and dutiful resignation of your charter, w^ch if you are so hardie as to offer to defend at law, whilste you are contending for a shaddow, you will in the first place lose all that part of your Colonie from Conecticot to N. Yorke, and have it annexed to that gouernm^t, . . . and nothing will prevent but yo^r obuiating so generall a calamitie to all New England by an hartie and timely application to his Ma^tie with an humble submission wi^th an annexed petition."⁴ At the same time he informed him that in order to carry out these threats, two writs of Quo warranto had been placed in his hands.⁵ These were in effect suits against the colony "for a breach of duties upon the performance of which their Charter depended, inquiring by what authority they still continued to exercise the privileges which by that breach of duty they had forfeited, and commanding them to appear in England upon a certain day and show cause why their Charter should not be forfeited." These Randolph declared his intention to serve unless the colony should immediately submit.

The thing that they feared had now come upon them, and the only apparent course was to delay and procrastinate, retaining their charter as long as possible, assured that every day gained before its surrender was one day more of liberty and one day less of tyranny. With this object in view, Governor Treat despatched an evasive answer to Randolph, and immediately called a special session of the general court. At their request he drew up a petition to the king, informing him that they had heard of the threatened writs, but that they had not yet been served, and that the return day, on which they were to appear and defend themselves having passed before Randolph had reached Boston, they were consequently void and of no effect. He requested their recall, and suggested that they had been obtained through misrepresentation, declaring the loyalty of the colony to his Majesty to be unimpeached.⁶ The suspense and anxiety of the colony were now intense. We are "waiting wi^th sylence and patience," said the Governor, "what may be next,"⁷ and while they feared the possible division of Connecticut between New York and New England, and its consequent obliteration as a colony, yet the character of Andros, and his doings in Massachusetts, made the prospect of coming under his power equally to be dreaded. The governor himself did not consider it any greater calamity, if Connecticut must fall, that part should he westward. "lt may be as easie for us," he said, "to fall that way as eastward."¹ As has been said, the return day of the writs had already passed, and more than that, they had not been legally served. This the governor insisted on in a letter to Randolph.² "But," answered Randolph, ''you have acknowledged the receipt of my letter informing you of them, and that is sufficient acknowledgment of service to justify me at Whitehall.³ This "way of proceeding," replied Governor Treat, "we understand not, seing it is his Majesties proclamation to continue as we were until his Royal pleasure be manifested to us, and there we stand."⁴ At the session of the general court in July, the colony took further steps for their safety, appointing an agent. William Whiting, to represent them in England, sending a second address to the king, and appointing the governor and council a committee of safety.

¹ C. C. R., 3:341.² lb., 179-80.
³ lb., 315-6.
⁴ lb., 352-4.
⁵ lb., 353.
⁶ lb., 210.
⁷ lb., 354.
¹ C. C. B., 3:354.
² Ib., 210.
³ Ib., 355.
⁴ Ib., 355-6.

To Governor Dongan of New York, Governor Treat wrote in August, desiring him in view of the troubles of the colony, to give advice "what may be the best way to manage our affaires so as to obtain his Majesties favor and the continuance of o^r privileges."⁵ Governor Dongan, an accomplished courtier, was amply able to give them good advice, and had he been so disposed, might have used his influence in their behalf. But he saw the great advantage the acquisition of half of the colony would be to his own government, and sensible that unless they gave up their charter, he could not gain this, he wrote advising unconditional submission and promising that should they then desire to be annexed to New York, he would give them all his influence for favorable considerations.⁶ Disappointed in Governor Dongan, Governor Treat now devoted his attention to the necessary instructions for the agent of the colony, and in an able and well written document, which still exists on file at Hartford, in Robert Treat's own handwriting, he gives minute and clear instructions for every emergency, especially enjoining him to procure the best of legal advice in every step he took,⁷ and he adds to it a petition to he presented to the king, in case of the overthrow of the charter, praying for the continuance of christian liberties, free from any impositions upon conscience, the confirmation of the tenure of their estates, and free commerce with other colonies.⁸ But before their agent reached England, a third writ had been issued against the colonies, and upon receiving it, Randolph informed the governor, adding "a door is open yet for you. . . . You have no way to make yourselves happy but by an early application to his Excellence," Edmund Andros.⁹ "I am authorized," says Andros, in a letter written to Governor Treat at the same time "to receive the surrender of your Charter and to take you into my present care and charge."¹⁰ To these the governor replied, that they relied still upon their charter which they had not forfeited by any crimes or misdemeanors, that they were the loyal subjects of the king to whom they had applied for help, but from whom as yet they had received no answer, neither had they had any opportunity of defending themselves against the writs.¹¹ His Majesty, said Andros, has given me his command for you as above, which certainly is a perfect answer to the several applications mentioned in your letter. I give you another opportunity of suitable and dutiful resolves. I do hope better of you, and the whole colony by your good example and loyal acting in your station ere it be too late.¹² We cannot vary, replied the governor, from what we informed your Excellency in our former letter, and request a good neighborhood between your Excellency and the colony till his Majesty's further pleasure be made known to us.¹³ Andros in reply declared that judgment had by this time been entered on the writ against the colony, and that he soon expected his Majesty's commands in regard to them, but he would still urge a free compliance with his wishes.¹ "We cannot make a surrender of o^r Charter at present," answered the governor; "we are resolved thorow the help of allmighty God to prove o^rselves his ma^ties loyall and dutifull subjects."²
⁵ Ib., 365.
⁶ Ib., 366-7.
⁷ Ib., 368-70.
⁸ Ib., 374-5.
⁹ Ib., 375.
¹⁰ Ib., 375-6.
¹¹ Ib., 377-8.
¹² Ib., 379-82.
¹³ Ib., 381.
¹ C. C. R., 3:381.
² lb., 383.

All things now tended to the consolidation of the New England colonies under Andros, and Dongan seeing this, and that all his exertions had been fruitless, yet wished to make one more effort to gain the coveted territory. With this object in view,he wrote to the general court, charging the governor and clerk with fraud in their dealings with Andros, that for one in Connecticut that desired consolidation, a hundred favored annexation to New York, and that "Gov. Treat and Mr. Allen had writt [to England] desiring ye Colony of Connecticut might be added to Boston under Sir Edmund Andros." Allen, the clerk, he thought to be a designing rascal, but as for "yo^r Gov^rn^r," said he, "he is an easy good natured gentleman and I believe has bin imposed upon." The court, however, paid no attention to this attempt to set them at variance with their governor.³

In October, 1687, Edmund Andros wrote to the governor that he had receivcd orders for the annexation of Connecticut lo his government with "particular regard and favor" to Mr. Treat, and that he should be at Hartford shortly to attend to his duties. On the 31st, he came and took into his hands the government, and demanded the charter.⁴ Bulkley, in his "Will and Doom," relates the officiousness of Governor Treat in welcoming him to Hartford and waiting upon him, but if anything of the kind was true, it was doubtless all for the purpose of gaining time. The story of the day's proceedings, and of the preservation of the charter, is well known, and though resting entirely upon tradition, is deserving of confidence.

The plan was evidently a premeditated one and, as his past record shows, Governor Treat was not unaware of it. The story relates that, upon taking his seat in the Governor's chair, Andros demanded the charter. After various delays and objections, as the afternoon began to wear away, the assembly at last was compelled to produce it, and the clerk bringing it in, laid it upon the table. Robert Treat then arose and rehearsed to the unwilling ears of Andros, the time and toil, the expense of treasure and life, that it had taken to build up the colony, the hardships and dangers of their Indian warsand their conflicts with neighbor colonies; how it was because their privileges were guaranteed by the charter that they had thus spent and been spent for them; how he himself had fought and suffered to maintain those rights, and how to him and all, the charter seemed dearer than life itself, beseeching him not to deprive them of this guarantee of liberty. The afternoon wore away; the evening came, but still the governor continued, and Andros, however anxious, could not stop the dignified old gentleman to whom he had been especially charged to show "particular regard and favor." Then the lights were lit as it grew dark, when by a sudden rush from without the lights were extinguished, and the charter quietly taken to its resting place in the famous oak. And the object of the governor's harangue was accomplished, probably in the way he expected it would be. The charter was saved.⁵ The colony was a quiet sufferer under Andros, and Robert Treat had little to do. He was a colonel of the troops of New Haven county,⁶ and was also on the council of fifty that Andros associated with himself for the government,⁷ but it was as a father to the people, who felt for them, in their distressed circumstances,"⁸ and to ameliorate the hardships of the nefarious schemes which Andros carried on, that he took the post. As soon as the news of the Revolution of 1688, which deposed King James could reach

³ lb., 386-7.
⁴ Trumbull, 1:390.
⁵ lb., 391.
⁶ C. C. R., 3:390-2.
⁷ Trumbull, 1:391.
⁸ lb., 394.

Andros was suddenly deposed. In Connecticut, with no disturbance, the charter government was resumed, and the old officers rechosen, — Robert Treat again taking the office of governor, to which the people annually reelected him for ten years, and administering it with the same prudence as before. He immediately caused William and Mary to be proclaimed their rightful sovereign,¹ and also sent a petition to them in the name of the Governor and General Court, reciting their oppressions, the tenor of their charter, their uniform adherence to it, and loyalty to the king, the writs and their illegality in the time for appearance, and want of service, the fact that judgment had never been entered against them in the English courts, and that they had never surrendered it, and praying for the decision thereto.² So ably did he state the case, that he obtained a decision in favor of the validity of their charter from various eminent persons, and finally by help of Winthrop, from the king himself,³ so that the wisdom of the Governor's delay, and evasive replies to the repeated demands for the charter became apparent. Had he been bolder in resisting, probably more active measures would have given to the proceedings, at least a semblance of legality, and judgment would have been actually entered against the colony; had he surrendered the charter in hopes of gaining easier and better treatment and better terms, not only would he have failed to secure them from Andros, but King William would never have granted another charter equally liberal.

Indian wars now troubled the colony, but younger men than Governor Treat took the active part, and he only appears in one more important scene. In 1692, Benjamin Fletcher arrived at New York with a commission from the king as commander-in-chief of all the militia in New England and New York. As by their charter this power was expressly vested in the General Assembly of Connecticut, in regard to their own forces, they determined to make an earnest appeal to the king to sustain them and remove Fletcher. To this end they chose Fitz John Winthrop, son of Governor Winthrop, and a personal friend of Governor Treat, as their agent to England. IIn the meanwhile Fletcher finding storming and threatening of no avail with the governor, next tried to bribe him with the offer of a commission as second only to himself, but failing here he tried force. He came to Connecticut, and attempted to take command of the militia, but could not even obtain silence enough to read his commission, Winthrop, in accordance with the Governor's instructions, having observed what was most grateful and pleasant at court and cast his application with prudence gained the favorable decision before spoken of,⁴ and returned home to announce to the people of Connecticut that their warfare was ended and henceforth their charter was to be regarded.

The great services which Winthrop had rendered the colony justly entitled him to a high reward, and at the next election the people chose him as governor.⁵ To show that this was no slight to Mr. Treat, they gave him the post of Deputy Governor, where still his prudence and ability would avail the state and where the duties of office would be lighter. At the age of seventy-six when most would consider themselves excused from public service, he took the second time this post, and held it for ten years more, when at the age of eighty-six, he declined reelection, and retired from public life. "Few men," says Trumbull, "have sustained a fairer character, or rendered the public more important services. He was an excellent military officer; a man of singular courage and resolution, tempered with caution and prudence. His administration of government was with wisdom, firmness and integrity. He was esteemed courageous, wise and pious. He was exceedingly beloved and venerated by the people in general, and especially by his neighbors of Milford where he resided,¹ and this encomium is fully justified by the account of him just given.

¹ Trumbull, 1:307.
² lb., 572-574.
³ lb., 407.
⁴ lb., 415 417.
⁵ lb., 420.
¹ Trumbull, 1:455, 450, c. 18, note.

Thus ended his public life. A deputy from Milford for at least six years; from Newark to the Assembly of New Jersey five more; a magistrate in the New Haven General Court and assistant in that of Connecticut for eight years. He added to these twenty years in the halls of legislation, seventeen years in the chair of deputy governor and thirteen in that of governor, not including the two years under Andros.

His incumbency in the two offices for over thirty years has not been equalled by any other in the history of this state, nor any other, so far as I am aware, where the office was elective.

His public life at an end, he remained at Milford till his death. He had seen his children grow up around him and rise to positions of honor in this and neighboring colonies. One of his sons, Samuel, was the honored minister of Eastham, Mass.; another, John, was one of the first settlers and a leading citizen of Newark, N. J., where a daughter Mary, and a sister, wives of distinguished citizens and settlers of that place resided. Two of his sons, Robert and Joseph, remained at Milford, honored by their fellow citizens, and fathers of promising families, whose descendants are well known to-day in this city of New Haven and surrounding towns. Two of his daughters married ministers, the one, Hannah, Rev. Samuel Mather of Windsor, the other, Abigail, Rev. Samuel Andrew, the minister of Milford for the last twenty-five years of the governor's life. This one was the mother of one of Governor Law's wives. Robert Treat Paine, signer of the Declaration of Independence, was the grandson of Governor Treat's son Samuel.

Goodwin gives him two children, Jane and Anna. not upon the Milford records, who are not mentioned in the will and probably, if they ever existed, died young. His first wife died in 1703. He subsequently married Mrs. Elizabeth Bryan, the widow of Richard Bryan of Milford.

He was for those times a wealthy man. Some of the varioas grants of land, from time to time given him by the town of Milford and the colony, have been noticed. Others he purchased, and thus became an extensive landholder. To his son Samuel he gave three hundred acres at once, and as stated in his will he had given to another of his children such as he found himself well able to part with. When in Newark, his estate was valued at £660,² and was the largest belonging to those colonists. His inventory from probate records amounts to about £620 of which £220 are real estate. This at the rate of two shillings the acre would give over 2000 acres, and some sales of land were made at that time at five acres the shilling. He seems to have been liberal with his wealth, and to have used all his powers for the benefit of his fellow citizens. Says Hollister of him: "His quick sensibilities, his playful humor, his political wisdom, his firmness in the midst of dangers, and his deep piety have still a traditionary fame in the neighborhood."³

On the 12th day of July 1710, this great and good man died. His remains were laid to rest in the cemetery of Milford, where his tomb still stands.

² Stearns' Newark, 29.
³ Hist., 1:371.

INCIDENTS IN THE LIFE OF GOV. ROBERT TREAT.

CHURCH MATTERS.

At the first meeting of the settlers of Milford, held Nov. 20, 1639, it was voted that "The power is Settled in the Church to Chuse persons out of thernselves To Divide the lands into Lotts, as they shall have Light from the word of God, and to take order for the timber." (Milford Records.) Mr. Treat does not appear to have belonged to the church at this time, though he may have been a member, being only about fifteen or sixteen years old; but, be that as it may, according to these same records, he was chosen one of the nine who were to lay out the lands, perhaps because he was better qualified than anyone else for such undertakings, so that his services were indispensible. At the baptism of his son Samuel, Sept. 3, 1648, he is said to belong to the church at Wethersfield. He and his wife Jane were admitted to the church in Milford, April 19, 1649. Upon leaving Milford for Newark, he was admitted to the church there, and again dismissed to the church in Milford April 5, 1675.

Aug. 22, 1660, Rev, Robert Newton was ordained over the First church at Milford "with prayer and laying on of hands of Zach. Whitman elder, John Fletcher deacon, and Robert Treat magistrate, though not as magistrate and deacon, but as appointed by the church to join with ruling elder in laying on of hands in name of the church." (First Church Records.)

Among the Puritans of New England marriage was regarded rather as a civil than an ecclesiastical ordinance, perhaps because in the church of England, from which they had separated, the clergy alone solemnized marriages. Therefore the rite of marriage was often performed by the magistrate. Robert Treat as "Magistrate," married seven couples; as "Majour," two couples; as "Deputy Governor," seven couples; the first in 1662, the last in 1700. Doubtless he performed many other marriages which are not on record.

UNION OF THE COLONIES.

March 14, 1660-1, the General Court of Connecticut made a formal avowal of allegiance to the crown, and applied to Charles II for a charter. (C. C. R., 1 : 361, 2.) On the seventh of June the report of the committee, to whom the matter had been intrusted, was accepted, and Governor Winthrop was sent to England as the colony's agent, and sailed in August. [Ib., 1: 868.) April 23, 1662, a charter of a very liberal character was granted. The colonists had power to govern themselves, and were independent in all but name. (Ib., 2 : 3-11.) Richard Treat, father of Robert Treat, as well as two brothers-in-law, were patentees. The territory embraced in the charter included the New Haven colony. Upon the reception of the charter, a commission was sent to New Haven to treat with that government. (Ib., 1 : 388.) Nov. 4, 1662, the freemen of New Haven were convened to consult about the matter. (N. H. C. R., 2 : 467-8.) They had been robbed of their independence and colonial existence without their knowledge or consent. In the new charter their colony was not so much as named, nor did any of the patentees belong to New Haven. They naturally felt very indignant over what they regarded as an insult, as well as the loss of their liberties. Nothing was effected at this meeting.

March 11, 1602-3, a new commission was appointed by Connecticut to confer with New Haven about the advantages of a union. (C. C. R., 1 : 396.) Meanwhile the latter colony had sent an agent to England to defend their canse. On the 19th of August, the general court of Connecticut again appointed a committee to confer with New Haven, but her conduct had been so arbitrary that nothing could be done with the latter. (C. C. R., 1 : 407.) Jan. 7, 1663-4, the general court of New Haven drew up a remonstrance against the conduct of Connecticut, which, however, seems to have had no influence upon the policy of that colony.

In May, 1664, the freemen of New Haven met as usual and held their election. Leete was chosen Governor, and Mr. Treat one of the assistants or magistrates, but he declined the office as he probably foresaw that the downfall of the colony was at hand. (N. H. C. R., 2 : 542.) The New England congress met at Hartford Sept. 1, 1664, and though not approving of the course of Connecticut, urged a speedy and friendly union of the two colonies, which was effected Dec. 13, 1664. (Ib., 2 : 551-551).) The New Haven colony was too weak, and becoming weaker every day, to continue the struggle longer, while the existence of both was threatened by the patent granted to the Duke of York, March 12, 1664.

The union proved a beneficial move for both parties. Mr. Treat exerted himself strenuously, and effectuatly at last, to bring about this result. The fact that his father and other relatives were patentees may have influenced his conduct to some extent. His course must have made him enemies, for when nominated as assistant from Milford in 1666, at the next election afler the union he was not chosen, though it is more than probable that he declined to be a candidate, as he was about to remove to New Jersey, and therefore could not have served had he been elected.

SETTLEMENT OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.

The union of the Connecticut and New Haven colonies was very offensive to many of the latter, and was the priuci|ial cause of the foujuUng of a new colony in New Jersey. Though some of the emigrants favored the union on general grounds, as did Robert Treat, yet they were opposed to it for many reasons, especially as it was brought about without any knowledge and consent on their part, and they had fears, which proved to be utterly groundless, that they might lose some uf their civil and religious liberties. As early as 1661, attempts were made to induce discontented Puritans and other Englishmen to settle in the New Netherlands. The "Concessions," put forth by the proprietors, inviting new settlers, and giving a most glowing account of the wonderful fertility and resources of the country, besides guaranteeing the largest liberty of conscience in religious matters, caused attention to be directed to a settlement in a new land. (N. J. Archives, 1 : 28-43.) Nov. 8, 1661, Benjamin Fenn, Mr. Robert Treat, Mr. Lawes, and Deacon Gun were sent as delegates to negotiate with the Dutch Governor Stuyvesant for a settlement at Achter Call in New Jersey. They were hospitably entertained by the Governor at his house, and taken in his barge to examine Newark Bay where they made extensive explorations. But circumstances prevented any settlement at this time, though a correspondence was
kept up as late as July 20, 1663. (N. Y. Col. Hist., 13: 210, 218, 221, 222, 266, 267, 281, 282.)

The union of the colonies in 1664 again directed attention to New Jersey. During this year a few residents at the west end of Long Island, who had originally come from Connecticut, effected a settlement in that colony.

Very early in 1666, and perhaps still earlier, Robert Treat and others were appointed commissioners to select a site for a settlement on the Passaic river, and before the end of May of that year, thirty families from the towns of Guilford, Brandford, Milford and New Haven, Conn., emigrated to New Jersey. It was supposed that Governor Carteret had cleared the land of all lndian claims, but it seems, be was not authorized to do this, and consequently the emigrants were warned off by the Hackensack Indians, and obliged to reload their goods into their vessels, till an agreement conld be made.

Oct 30, 1666, the emigrants from Brandford adopted this agreement:
"1st. That none shall be admitted freemen or free Burgesses within our Town, upon Passaic River, in the province of New Jersey, but such planters as are members of some or other of the Congregational churches; nor shall any but such be chosen to Magistracy, or to carry on any part of Civil Judicature, or as Deputies or Assistants to have power to Vote in establishing Laws, and making or Repealing them, or to any Chief Military Trust or office. Nor shall any But such church members have any Vote in such elections : Tho' all others admitted to Be planters have Rights to their proper Inheritances, and do and shall enjoy all other Civil Liberties and Privileges, According to Laws, Orders, Grants, which are, or hereafter shall Be Made for this Town.
"2d. We shall with Care and Diligence provide for the maintenance of the purity of Religion professed in the Congregational Churches," (Stearns' Newark, pp. 14-15.)

These articles were signed by twenty-three heads of families, among whom was Jasper Crane. On June 24, 1667, the other inhabitants of Newark, to the number of forty, signed the some agreement. The name of Robert Treat heads the list. Among the number were Obadiah Bruen, Matthew Campfield, and Azariah Crane. (Ib., p. 15.) July 11, 1667, a tract of land was purchased of the Indians, and the settlement commenced in earnest. The first town meeting, of which there is any record, was held May 21, 1666. The name of the settlement was at first called Milford, bat was soon changed to Newark, in honor, as supposed, of its first minister, who preached awhile in Newark, England.

Mr. Treat was the first town clerk, or recorder, of Newark, holding the office from 1669 to 1672. At the first Provincial Assembly ever held in New Jersey, May 26, 1668, Capt. Robert Treat was one of the burgesses or deputies, and held that office till 1672. May 1, 1671, he was present at a special court held at Elizabethtown, as one of the Governor's commissioners.

Upon the division of the lands, Mr. Treat had the choice of a home lot of eight acres, two more than allowed to others. He selected the lot now bounded by Market, Mulberry, and Broad streets, where some of his descendants resided up to the commencement of the present century. On this home lot now stands the First Presbyterian church. His son John, daughter Mary, who married Deacon Crane, and sister Sarah, who married Matthew Campfield, resided in Newark.

The proceedings at the adjustment of the boundary between Newark and Elizabethtown, exhibits well the peace-loving character of Mr. Treat. In this controversy, Jasper Crane, Robert Treat, Matthew Campfield, Samuel Swaine and Thomas Johnson were appointed to represent Newark, and John Ogden and four others attended on the part of Elizabethtown. The parties met on a little hill, afterward called Divident Hill, and subsequently Dividend Hill. Mr. Treat led in prayer "that there might be a good agreement between them." Then John Ogden prayed and gave thanks for their "loving agreement." It was agreed that the boundary should be on this hill. But long afterwards this boundary settled in "so loving and solemn a manner" was made a subject of altercation. (See Coll. N. J. Hist. Soc. Vol. VI, and Supplement; Stearns' Hist. Disc, relating to the First Presb. Church in Newark.)

In the documents relating to the settlement of Newark. Robert Treat and only a few others had the title of "Mr." ln 1672. be returned to Milford, and in 1675, was dismissed from the church in Newark to the church in that town.

"To the good judgment of these individuals," say Barber and Howe, in their Historical Collections of the state of New Jersey. p. 173, "who were Robert Treat, John Curtis, Jasper Crane, and John Treat, we are indebted for the plan of our town — our wide main streets (the only ones then laid out), and the beauty and extent of our public squares."

The Rev. Mr. Stearns, in his Hist. Disc., p. 32, thus speaks of Mr. Treat:
"Next comes Robert Treat — the flower and pride of the whole company — who came to the colony of New Haven when a young man, and was early advanced to posts of influence and trust. To his wise energy Newark owed much of its early order and good management."

MILITARY RECORD.

In 1654, the town of Milford chose Robert Treat lieutenant of the Train Band. May 31, 1654, the general court confirmed the nomination and allowed him to be ''the chiefe military officer there for the present to order y^e millitary affaires of that town." (N. H. C. R,, 2: 99,)

In 1661, he was elected captain, and the choice was confirmed by the court, May 29th. (Ib.,2: 410.)

July 6, 1665, the court declared that Mr. Treat was ''established Captain of the Train Band at Milford." (C. C. R., 2 : 21.)

Aug, 7, 1673, Captain Treat was commissioned as major. (Ib., 2: 206.)

Nov. 26, 1673, Major Treat was nominated and appointed the commander-in-chief of such forces as shall be raised in the colony and sent against New York. (Ib., 2:218.)

The origin of King Philip's war was owing to the gradual encroachments of the English, the increasing areas of settled land, which caused a scarcity of game and fish, and the ill treatment which the Indians frequently received at the hands of the whites. They plainly saw that their only hope was in driving out and exterminating the invader. To bring about this state of affairs, Philip sent agents far and wide among the neighboring tribes to incite them to take united action against the English. In most cases he was successful.

Aug. 25, 1675, the council chose Major Treat commander-in-chief of the forces next to be sent against the Indians, and on the 30th be received his instructions. (Ib., 2 : 356-7.) He was ordered to march first to Westfield, Mass., then to Northampton, and further if necessary. He was also to advise and consult with the "Bay Commanders." Sept, 1, at a meeting of the council, he was ordered to return with his troops to Hartford owing to reports of Indian outrages at home. (Ib., 2 : 359.) Next day the council reconsidered their action, and Major Treat was ordered to proceed according to his original instructions. (Ib., 2:360.)

Sept. 2, the Indians surprised the people and garrison of Northfield, Mass., while at work in the fields, killed some, burned many houses, and destroyed the crops.

The next day Capt. Richard Beers, ignorant of the assault, set out from Hadley, thirty miles distant, with thirty-six mounted men and an ox team to remove the garrison and people from Northfield to Hadley. That night he encamped within four miles of the town. Next morning he started for the place still ignorant of the situation. While on his way, he was attacked by the Indians, and all but thirteen of his men were slain.

Sept. 5, Major Treat marched from Hadley with 100 men for Northfield. On the morning of the sixth, he came upon the battlefield with the dead still unburied. Delaying only long enough to bury them, he hurried on to the town, where he found the garrison safe.

On the same evening he set out on his return for Hadlley with the people, receiving a slight wound in the thigh from straggling Indians.

Sept. 9, Major Treat was present at a meeting of the council at Hartford, having returned from the front. (C. C. R., 2 : 364.) On the 11th of Sept. he was present at another meeting and ordered to march with dragoons for Hadley or Northampton to consult with Major Pynchon and others in regard to prosecuting the war against the Indians and to take charge of all troops doing garrison duty. (Ib., 2: 365.)

Sept. 18, Captain Lathrop with eighty-five men, was employed in conveying stores from Deerfield to Hadley. After proceeding about five miles they fell into an ambuscade of about 700 Indians, and seventy-six of his men were slaughtered. The conflict took place at Muddy Brook, which afterwards received the name of Bloody Brook. Captain Mosely came upon the scene and afterwards Major Treat with one hundred soldiers, and seventy friendly Mohegan Indians, thereby turning a disastrous defeat into a victory.

After the destruction of Northfield and Deerfield, Philip decided also to burn Springfield. Oct. 4, a large number of Indians were reported to be near Hadley. Therefore the soldiers were withdrawn from the former place to the latter. That very night a friendly Indian reported that the Springfield Indians, who were supposed to be friendly, intended to destroy that town. The next day Major Pynchon and a force started for Springfield, but arrived to find the town already in flames and the enemy gone. Major Treat had arrived some hours earlier on the west side of the river, from Westfield, but was unable to cross, there being no boats. Three men and one woman were killed, and thirty houses and twenty-five barns were burnt.

Oct. 12, Captain Appleton of the Massachusetts troops complains of the long absence of Major Treat at Hartford. He speaks of him very highly as "a worthy Gentleman and discrete and incouraging Commander." The Connecticut troops were often called away from the Massachusetts towns to defend their own territory from threatened attacks. This must have caused much trouble and annoyance to the Massachusetts commanders, but their action was unavoidable.

On the 14th of October, Major Treat appeared before the assembly and desired to throw up the commission which he had received on the 25th of August last. Perhaps his action was owing to the complaints made above. But they refused to grant his request, and declared that "they have taken so good satisfaction in the major's good conduct that they doe desire and order major Rob^t Tieal to continue his regiment over the forces of the Colony raysed for the prosecution of the enemy and doe order the continuance of his commission granted as before by the Councill." (lb., 2 : 266.) He was also ordered to send immediately forty men under some suitable commander to the assistance of Norwich, then threatened by the Indians. (Ib., 2; 265.) These orders were soon countermanded, and he was sent to the relief of Northampton. While there Philip with 800 warriors attacked Hadley on the 19th of October. The garrison made a stubborn resistance till the arrival of Major Treat with his troops, who fell upon the savages with such vigor that they soon fled. The Indians were now so disheartened with their losses that many of them abandoned Philip.

The eastern townships of Connecticut were now so threatened by the enemy that they made strenuous efforts to protect themselves. Every county was ordered to raise and equip sixty dragoons. A company of 120 dragoons was placed under Major Treat. Nov.
19, he and the Connecticut troops were dismissed at Westfield and allowed to march home.

A winter campaign was next decided upon as being the only season when a serious blow could be inflicted upon the Indians. If left alone, when summer came, they could easily take care of themselves, and sally forth suddenly from their lurking places in the forestsupon unprotected settlements, while it would be very difficult or impossible to discover and punish them. War was declared against the Narragansetts on the second of Nov., 1675. 1000 men were raised to attack them in their principal fort, situated in whal is now the town of South Kingston, Rhode Island. Massachusetts furnished 527 soldiers under Maj. Samuel Appleton; the Plymonth quota under Maj. Wm. Bradford and Capt. John Gorham numbered 158; Connecticut sent 300 men besides 150 Mohegan and Pequot Indians under Major Treat, in five companies, whose captains were Seeley, Gallop, Mason, Watts and Marshall. The whole expedition was placed under Gov. Josiah Winslow of
the Plymouth Colony. The fort to be attacked was built on a hill in the centre of a vast swamp, making an island of about five or six acres, surrounded by high palisades, strengthened by fallen trees. The only entrance was by a large log about five feet from the ground which formed a bridge across the water surrounding the fort, and this was guarded by a block house. The second of December was observed as a day of fasting and prayer for the success of the expedition. Dec. 10, Major Treat set out from New London with his force, and on the 17th arrived at Pettisquamscot. As the enemy had just burnt the buildings, he was obliged to pass the night in Ihe open air. On the 18th all the forces
united, camping in the open field, in the midst of a very severe snow storm. The next day, being Sunday, they started before daybreak for the fort, some fifteen miles distant, the Massachusetts troops leading the van, while the Connecticut forces drew up in the rear. It was about one o'clock at noon, when the fort was reached. The soldiers were hungry and weary with their march through the deep snow. But no time was to be lost, for should night overtake them as they were, they would be at the mercy of the foe. Without any delay the men began to cross the tree in single file exosed to a raking fire from the enemy. As fast as one fell another took his place. The loss was very severe here. What would have been the result can only be conjectured, had not Captain Mosely at this critical moment forced an entrance over the hedge in the rear and opened a hot fire. The Indlians taken by surprise now fled to their wigwams, some 600 in number, but they were followed up by their assailants, who set fire to them, and they were consumed with their contents, including their stores, many old men and women, as well as the wounded. About 100 Indians were slain, and many wounded crawled off into the swamp where they perished with cold and wet. The prisoners numlvered 350, besides an equal number of women and children were taken, making the total loss to the Indians not far from 1000.

The colonists lost severely, having seven captains and 172 men killed and wounded. Connecticut lost three of her five captains, and a fourth, Captain Mason, was mortally wounded, and seventy-one of her soldiers were killed or wounded. Major Treat had a bullet through the rim of his hat, and is said to have been the last man to leave the fort being in command of the rear guard. There being no shelter now that the wigwams were burnt, the weary soldiers, who had already marched fifteen miles that morning, besides fighting for three hours, started back about sunset, with the dead and wounded, for their headquarters, which they reached in a terrible condition. Major Treat now ordered his troops home to recruit. (See the Hist. and Geneal. Reg., Vol. XL, 74-90, for an account of this flght, and a view of the battle ground as it now appears.)

Jan. 10, 1675-6, the council issued a very strict order to prevent "profaneness" and to insure order among the soldiers, which was to be published to the army under Major Treat. (C. C. R., 2 : 392-4.)

Jan. 25, 1675-6, Major Treat, in connection with the Massachusetts troops, left New London on a second expedition to the woods, with 300 white men, and pursued the enemy into the Nipmuck country. He returned to New London on the fifth of February.

March 25, 1676, Major Treat was dispatched by the council to Norwich, with 100 men. (C. C. R., 2: 422.)

At the next election, May 11, 1676, Major Treat was chosen deputy governor, and Maj. John Talcott was appointed to command the Connecticut forces, (Ib., 2: 279.)

Nov. 7, 1687, Major Treat was commissioned as colonel of the militia of New Haven Co., by Governor Andros. (lb., 3 : 391.)

Oct. 28, 1693, Col. Benj. Fletcher, captain-general and governor-in-chief of New York, tendered a commission to Col. Robert Treat as commander of all the militia in the colony of Connecticut, but the colony refused to acknowledge that Fletcher had any jurisdiction over them. (Ib., 4 : 116.)

THE BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK.

In 1683, a dispute arose between the colonies of Connecticut and New York in regard to the boundary line. It was claimed on the part of New York, that by some mistake the line between the two colonies had been run by the commissioners only ten instead of twenty miles east of the Hudson river, and that the towns of Rye, Greenwich and Stamford really belonged to its jurisdiction, and not to Connecticut. (Ib., 3: 330.) Nov. 5, 1683, Governor Dongan, of New York, wrote Governor Treat that unless the boundary line was changed to what was originally intended, he should lay claim to all territory west of the Connecticut river, as far as the Duke's Patent allowed. (Ib., 3: 329-30.)

The general court, Nov. 14, 1683, authorized Gov. Robert Treat, Maj. Nathan Gold, Capt. John Allyn, Esq., and William Pitkin to proceed to New York to confer with Governor Dongan about the boundary. (Ib., 3: 134-5.) They were instructed not to ''exceed his demand of twenty miles eastward from Hudson's river, but get him to take as little as may be," etc. (Ib.)

The committee accordingly visited New York and had an interview with the Governor. The matter was settled by a compromise, and the agreement ratified Feb. 23, 1683-4. The line was drawn where it now is between Rye and Greenwich. They were obliged to cede Rye to the jurisdiction of New York, but wrote a very kind letter Nov. 28, to the selectmen of that town, informing them of the fact and giving them the reasons for their action. (Ib., 3 : 330-3.) Greenwich and Stamford remained in Connecticut. In 1697, the town of Rye revolted to Connecticut, but the matter was referred to the King, and March 28, 1700, the agreement of 1683 was confirmed. The shape of the boundary is a very irregular one, as can be seen by reference to a map. It is said to be very doubtful whether the boundary between Connecticut and New York is really settled to this day.

USURPATION OF ANDROS.

James II came to the throne Feb. 6, 1684-5. He determined to withdraw the charters previously granted to the colonies, and place them under a governor appointed by the crown.

Accordingly a writ of Quo Warranto, dated July 8, 1685, was issued, twenty-three years after the granting of the charter, requiring the governor and company of the English colony in Connecticut to appear in England by Nov. 8, 1685, and show by what warrant or authority they claimed certain privileges in the colony. A second Quo Warranto, requiring the parties to appear by April 19, 1686, was received at the same time, on the 20th of July, 1686, at about twelve or one o'clock in the morning. The time when these writs were returnable had long since expired, (Ib., 3 : 356-8.)

July 28, 1686, a special session of the court was held. Mr. Whiting was appointed an agent to proceed to England and plead the cause of colony before the king. His instructions are dated Aug. 24, and are in the handwriting of Governor Treat. He was instructed to present the humble address of the colony, using great wisdom and prudence in order to produce a favorable effect. And since the two writs of Quo Warranto had not been delivered till after the lapse of more than a year from the time when they were issued, he was to ascertain whether the parties were obliged to appear till after new writs should be issued. A copy of the charter was to be exhibited if necessary. The instructions say further:
"ln case nothing will doe, but notwithstanding our addresses and all pleas made in our behalf, our Charter should be condemned as forfeit, you are to consider and advise whether by petition or some other way, a suspension of entering judgement may not, by his Majestie's favour, or favour of his Judges, be obtained, untill we may have notice thereof and opportunity given us either to speak for ourselves or make our further Address to his Majestie."

If he was unsuccessful in obtaining a suspension, he was to ascertain whether Connecticut was likely to be assigned to the Bay or Massachusetts colony, or to New York; or whether it was to be divided between these two colonies, the river being the dividing line. He was to do the best he could that the colony might remain intact and under such government as it should please his Majesty to appoint. (C. C. R., 3 : 211-3, 368-73.)

A draft of an address to the king, in case of a judgment against the charter, is written on the same sheet with Mr. Whiting's instructions. (Ib., 3: 374-5.)

Aug. 5, Governor Treat wrote to Governor Dongan of New York in regard to the writs of Quo Warranto, asking his advice as to "the best way to manage our affaires, soe as to obtain his Majesties favour and the continuance of o^r privileges to us as formerly." ( Ib., 3 : 365-6.)

Aug. 13, Governor Dongan replied, advising "a downright humble submission, the most effectual means to secure w^t is most advantageous, liberty, prosperity, and what is of all things the most tender and dearest, Religion." (Ib., 3 : 366-7.)

He also advised that Connecticut be annexed to New York, believing, as did Andros, that this union was necessary to the welfare of New York. Massachusetts was at the same time very desirous that Connecticut should be annexed to her. The fertile intervales of the Connecticut were the sources from which large supplies of grain were obtained.

Dec. 20, Sir Edmund Andros arrived in Boston. On the 22d, he directed a letter to Governor Treat, informing him that he had been appointed Governor of New England, and that he was authorized to receive the "surrender of your charter (if tendered by you)." This letter was received by Governor Treat, Dec. 28, 1686, at eleven o'clock at night, together with a third Quo Warranto dated Oct. 23, 1686, and returnable by Feb. 9, 1686-7. The expense of the messenger from Boston was £4. 15s. 0d. (Ib., 3: 376-7.)

Dec. 23, Edward Randolph also wrote a sharp letter to Governor Treal from Boston, advising him to submit, and thereby merit the favors of the king, and informing him that New Plymouth and Rhode Island had already yielded. (Ib., 3: 375.)

Jan. 26, 1686-7, there was a special meeting of the assembly to decide what was best to be done. The whole matter was left lo the discretion of the governor and council. (Ib., 3: 226.) Thereupon an address was drawn up, dated Jan. 26, 1636-7, and directed to the Earl of Sunderland, Secretary of State, complaining that no notice had been taken of the previous adresses, and apologizing for not observing the writs of Quo Warranto, by reason of the distance, and the rigor of the winter, and at the same time stating that in case his Majesty should see fit to unite them with another colony they preferred to be placed under Governor Andros. (Ib., 3 : 377-8.)

Feb. 25, Andros sent another letter to Governor Treat and council, complaining of their delay in surrendering the charter, though expressing loyalty to the king. Feb. 28, he addressed a similar letter to Governor Treat. (C. C R., 3 : 379.)

March 30, 1687, the governor and council inform Andros in a letter that they "cannot vary from what we informed your excellency in our letters of Jan. 26." The following passage was crossed out in the original draft, "and then when we are commanded by his Ma^tie to surrender o^rselves to your excellences government, and to be united w^th o^r neighbo^rs in yt government, we shall be as Ioyall and dutiful as any, we hope, and as
readily submit o^rselves to your excellency." (Ib., 3 : 380-1.)

June 13, Andros advises Governor Treat and council to delay no longer, till an execution be served upon them. (lb., 3: 381-2.)

June 18, the governor and council sent a letter to Andros, saying that they were resolved to continue as they were for the present till his Majesty's pleasure for a change was made known to them, and therefore they could not ''make a surrender of our Charter at present. (lb., 3: 383.)

Oct. 4, Governor Dongan in a letter to the court, expresses great surprise that Connecticut should desire to be annexed to Boston instead of New York. "As for your Gov^rn^r," he remarks, "he is an easy good natured gentleman and I believe has bin imposed uppon." He could not forgive Governor Treat and Secretary Allyn for preferring Massachusetts to New York. In a letter to the Earl of Sunderland, Feb., 1688, Governor Dongan com- plains that this had been done "by ye fraud of ye Governo^r and ye Clerk unknowne to ye rest of the General Court." (lb., 3 : 386-7.)

Oct. 22, Andros informed Governor Treat in a letter, that the king had annexed Connecticut lo Massachusetts, and that he should be at Hartford about the end of next week, or should send some one in his place. (Ib., 3 : 387-8.)

Thereupon Governor Treat summoned the general court to meet at Hartford at that time, (Ib., 3: 248.) Monday, Oct. 31, 1687, Governor Andros, attended by many members of his council, and a body guard of "regular troops," entered Hartford, where he was hospitably received with great ceremony. The court was in session, and Governor Andros entered the assembly leaning on the arm of Governor Treat. He explained the reason for placing all the colonies under a single head. According to tradition, Governor Treat remonstrated against the surrender of the charter, and such arbitrary proceedings as had just taken place, but to no avail. The conference was protracted till after dark; lighted candles were brought in, and the charter was laid upon the table in the midst of the assembly. Suddenly the candles were extinguished, and quickly re-lighted. But meanwhile the charter had quietly disappeared. There was no noise or confusion. The room was carefully searched, yet no trace of the missing document could be found. It bad been carried from the assembly by Captain Wadsworth, and hidden in the hollow trunk of a venerable oak, afterwards called the Charter oak. The tree was blown down Aug. 21, 1856. It was computed to be 1000 years old, and was thirty-three feet in circumference seven feet above the ground, where it broke off. It stood on what is now Lot number 29, Charter Oak avenue, in the city of Hartford. A marble stone marks the place where it once stood. The charter was concealed somewhere from Oct. 31, 1687 to May 9, 1689. (See Memorial History of Hartford Co., pp. 63-73, vol. 2.)

It is commonly supposed that Andros did not obtain the charter. But this is a mistake, I think. He doubtless did obtain it or a copy of it, or could have done so if he had been so disposed. There is no record that he ever demanded it of the assembly. He was simply a usurper, and did not make way with the charter, for this he could not do legally, for the colonists had not forfeited it, but he overrode it. He had gained possession of the government, as he desired and was loyally received by the people, according to all accounts, who very wisely made the best of the situation, and cheerfully acquiesced in what they were utterly powerless to prevent. The wisdom of their course was afterwards apparent. Nor is there any mention whatever in the records or by contemporary writers, of the hiding of the charter from Andros. This act of disloyalty would certainly have been mentioned had it occurred, and would have caused great trouble. The proceedings of the very next morning prove that Andros knew nothing of this transaction. Jeremiah Dummer, in his "Defence of the New-England Charters," says: ''At the same time [1687] Sir Edmund Andros, then the King's governor of New-England, did by order from court repair to Hartford, the capital of Connecticut, with arm'd attendants, and forcibly seized their charter for the king, Rhode Island finding there was no remedy to be had, made a virtue of necessity, and peacefully resign'd theirs." (Page 7, Lond. Ed., 1766.)

This account was first published in 1721, only thirty-four years after the event, and is proof that Andros gained his point, whatever that was. As to this difficult matter we know this for certainty that the colony had no trouble with Andros, and that if he did receive the charter, he restored it again, for it is in existence at this day.

COLONIAL RECORDS.

From the colonial records we learn this much in regard to the charter. At the session of June 15, 1687, in accordance with the desire of sundry persons, the charter was sent for and exhibited by the secretary, and then "the Governor bid him put it into the box again and lay it on the table and leave the key in the box, which he did forthwith." And there the record leaves it on the table. (C. C. R., 3: 238.)

But at the same time the story of the hiding of a charter may be strictly tnie. It was first published by Trumbull, in his History of Connecticut, in 1797, and it is supposed that he received his information from George Wyllys, Secretary of the colony and state from 1735 to 1796, who assisted him in his History, and who was the grandson of Samuel Wyllys, upon whose estate the charter oak stood.

I am indebted to the notes of Mr. Hoadley upon the Connecticut Colonial Records for the earlier versions of the story of the concealment of the charters. Roger Wolcott wrote for President Clap a Memoir relating to Connecticut, dated July 12, 1759, seventy-two years after the usurpation of Andros. The original was some years since in the possession of George Brinley of Hartford. He says: ''In Oct., 1687, Sir Edmund Andros came to Hartford. The Assembly met and sat late at night. They ordered the Charters to be set on the table, and unhappily, or happily, all the candles were snuffed out at once, and when they were lighted, the Charters were gone. And now Sir Edmund being in town
and the Charters gone, the Secretary closed the Colony records with the word Finis, and all departed."

In 1764, Roger Wolcott gave President Stiles this story, as the latter records it in his Itinerary, 11, 105, now in Yale College Library, ''Nath. Stanly father of late Col. Stanly took one of the Connecticut Charters, and Mr. Talcott, late Gov. Talcott's father, took the other, from Sir Edmund Andross in Hartford meeting house, — the lights blown out." (Vol. 5: 507.)

It will be seen that these stories vary widely from that told by Trumbull.

The following order throws some light on the subject. At a meeting of the governor and council, May 25, 1698, "the duplicate of the Pattent by order from the Govern^r and Councill being brought by Captⁿ Joseph Wadsworth, and he affirming that he had order from the Gen^rel Assembly to be the keeper of it, the Govern^r and Councill concluded that it should remain in his custodie till the Generall assembly or the Councill shall see cause to order otherwise, and the s^d duplicate was delivered to him by order of the CouncilI." (C. C. R.,4: 263.)

In May 1715, the general court passcd this resolve:
"Upon consideration of the faithful and good service of Capt. Joseph Wadsworth, of Hartford, especially in securing the Duplicate Charter of this Colony in a very troublesome season when our Constitution was struck at, and in safely keeping and preserving the same ever since to this day. This Assembly do as a token of their greatful resentment of such his faithful and good service grant him out of the Colony treasury the sum of twenty shillings." (Ib., 5 : 507.)

This bill originated in the Lower House and as passed there gave Captain Wadsworth four pounds. The Upper House negatived it and twenty shillings were agreed upon as and compromise. From this testimony it is evident that it was not the original charter, but the duplicate one, or copy, that Captain Wadsworth had charge of. Nor did the assembly seemingly regard his services of any very great value, as he was awarded only twenty shillings or one pound.

It may seem very strange that we should know nothing for certainty in regard to such an important matter as the charter, but neither have the names of the actors who threw overboard the tea in Boston harbor in 1773, ever been known except in a few cases by tradition, and it is now, and was soon after the event, a question as to who commanded at Bunker Hill, Prescott or Putnam.

The original charter, engrossed on three skins, now hangs in the secretary's office at Hartford. The duplicate, that preserved by Captain Wadsworth, was on two skins, and about three-fourths of it, all that now remains, is at the present time in possession of the Connecticut Historical Society, to which it was presented by Hon. John Boyd, who accidentally became possessed of it. In Oct., 1760, the general court ordered the charter to be printed. (Ib., 4 : 332.)

Tuesday morning, Nov. 1, 1687, Mr. Treat and Capt. John Allyn, late secretary of the colony, were made members of Andros' council, and took their oaths. They were also made Judges of the Pleas in their respective counties. (Ib., 3 : 390.) November 7, Major Treat was commissioned by Andros as colonel of the militia in New Haven Co., and other officers were appointed throughout the colony. (Ib., 3 : 391-2.)

The wonderful statesmanship of Governor Treat is best illustrated by his shrewd management during the proceedings in regard to the forfeiture of the charter. In his mind the loss of the liberties of the colony seems to have been a foregone conclusion from the very beginning, and he determined to make the best of the situation, and delay the calamity as long as possible. This is plain from the "Instructions" which he drew up for Mr. Whiting, the colony's agent, whose duty was first, to prevent if possible, the loss of the colony's charter; secondly, failing in this, to plead that the colony might not be divided and united to others, but allowed to remain intact. Subsequently the hope was expressed that if Connecticut was to be united with some other colony, she might be annexed to Massachusetts, rather than to New York. Many corporations in England had already lost their charters; Massachusetts and Rhode Island surrendered theirs, and how could it be expected that Connecticut would be allowed to retain hers, which was so liberal that the colony was almost a free state in all but name? No attention was paid to the writs of Quo Warranto, except by addresses to the king, and apologies for not observing them by reason of stress of weather, or the great distance, and yet the colony did not suffer from this disobedience. When Governor Andros demanded the surrender of the charter, the governor and council replied that they could not comply with the request till they had heard from the king. And finally Andros was obliged to come to Hartford in person to take charge of the government. Yet the very next day Governor Treat and Secretary Allyn were appointed members of his council, and within a week the former was commissioned a colonel. It was doubtless owing to the influence of these men that Connecticut suffered less from the tyrannical acts of Andros than the other colonies.

The conduct of Andros in the colonics was generally very tyrannical, and was a great blow to their prosperity. Nov. 5, 1688, William, Prince of Orange, landed in England. As soon as the news reached Boston, on the 18th of April, 1689, the people rose in rebellion, seized Andros and put him in confinement. The following February he was released and sent to England for trial.

May 9, 1689, Governor Treat and the old magistrates under the charter, resumed the offices from which they had been deposed by Andros in 1687. (C. C. R., 3 : 250-1.) The following characteristic remark of Governor Treat has been preserved. At a trial before the court of assistants in October, 1690, the defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction and challenged the authority of the courts and the existing government under which it was constituted. To this the governor replied "that the People had put him in, and he had ventured all he had above his shouldiers on this account,— and therefore he would maintain it." (Ib., 3:460.)

GRANTS AND PURCHASES OF LANDS.

May 17, 1673, the general court granted Capt. Robert Treat three hundred acres of land, which was confirmed by patent May 24, 1687 (Col. Rec. of Lands, 2 : 194), "across the west branch of New Haven East river upon the road that lyes from New Haven to Farmington," bounded south by the Wallingford line. (C. C. R., 2 : 200.)

Oct. 10, 1678, the court granted the Honour^d Dept. Gov. Maj. Robert Treat, Mr. Bryant, sr., or jr., John Bird, and Lt. Samuel Eales "liberty to view and buy convenient land for a plantation in the adjacent places about Pototuck, Weantenuck or thereabouts." (Ib., 3 : 20.) But no purchase was made at that time. In May of 1702, the court gave the Milford people permission to purchase, and an Indian deed was obtained Feb. 8, 1702-3, (Ib., 4 : 389.) This tract was made a town by Letters Patent from the governor and council Oct. 22, 1703, and called New Milford, (Ib., 4: 446), as most of the settlers came from Milford, and annexed to New Haven Co. The number of the proprietors was 109. This tract is called "the Oweantinoque or Oweantinnck purchase" in Mr. Treat's will.

May 8, 1684, the court appointed Mr. Hawley and Captain Miner to lay out Governor Treat's grant of land. (Ib., 3: 145.)

May 14, 1687, the court granted the "Honour^d Governo^r, so far as it lyeth in their power, all that land of the north of Milford bounds, stated by their patent, to the extent of twelve mile from the sea, or so far up as New Haven bounds to the northward paralel with their bounds." (Ib., 3 : 233.) Also the same day, ''200 acres of land to be taken up where they see fit." (Ib., 3: 234-5.)

Oct. 8, 1696, the court granted Mr. Treat three hundred acres of land In Aspinock, or Ashpennuck, now Killingly, in the "Whetstone country" (Ib., 4 : 185.) This grant was in Windham Co., and laid out March 29, 1705-6, at the request of his son, and patented in 1708. Mr. Treat was one of the forty-four proprietors. His son-in-law, Rev. Samuel Andrew, had two hundred acres laid out here in 1692. Oct. 15, 1709, on payraent of £40, a patent of the remaining lands was granted to Robert Treat and others.

Oct. 9, 1701, liberty was granted by the court to Deputy Governor Treat and others to take up their land grants in the "countrey lands adjoyning to Stratford north bounds." (Ib., 4 : 170.)

OFFICES AND POSITIONS OF TRUST HELD BY MR. TREAT.

Under the New Haven Colony.

In 1653, he was elected deputy for Milford, and served for six years, till 1659. The records from 1644 to 1653, are lost, and he may have held the office for a longer period. (New Haven Colony Records, 2: 2.)

In 1659, he was chosen assistant or magistrate (lb., 2: 297), and served till 1664, when he was again elected, but declined to serve. (lb., 2: 543). These officers then constituted the upper house of the assembly, or general court, and in early times were the Supreme Court of the slate, and the leading men of the times.

In 1661, and again in 1662, he was chosen as a substitute (or the commissioners to the United Colonies. (lb., 2 : 402, 451.)

May 3, 1664, he was appointed commissioner to Hartford. (Ib., 2 : 542.)

While residing in Newark, N. J.

Mr. Treat removed to Newark in 1666. He was a burgess, or deputy, at the first provincial assembly, and held that office till 1672, five years, when he returned to Connecticut. He was also the first town clerk. In 1671, he was one of the governor's commissioners. He occupied various other positions of trust in the town. See Stearns' Newark.

Under the Connecticut Colony.

In May, 1665, he was chosen deputy for Milford. (Conn. Col. Records, 2: 23.)

July 6, 1665, he was chosen a member of the committee for defence against the "common adversary.'" (Ib., 2: 21.)

In May, 1666, after the union of the colonies, Mr. Treat was nominated as assistant, which office he had previously held under the New Haven colony from 1659 to 1664, but was defeated, perhaps owing to enmity incurred in favoring the union of the colonies, or, what is more likely, being about to remove to New Jersey, he declined the ofllce. (lb., 2: 31.)

In 1673, Captain Treate was chosen assistant, or magistrate, which office he held for three years. (Ib., 2:191.)

Aug. 7, 1673, when it was found that the Dutch were about to make war on the colony, the court appointed a committee, among whom was Captain Treat, then one of the assistants, (Ib., 2: 204.)

May 19, 1674, the court appointed Major Treat, with others to hear the complaints of the Indians. (lb., 2 : 225.)

In 1676, he was elected deputy governor, and held the office till 1683, when he was elected governor. He resigned that position in 1698, at the age of seventy-four, but again accepted that of deputy governor, as being less onerous, and retained it till 1708, when at the age of eighty-four, he retired, being too old any longer to attend to official duties (Ib., 2 : 273), having served in that capacity seventeen years.

May 13, 1678, Major Treat was chosen a reserve commissioner for the United Colonies. He often held the office of commissioner, and in 1684, was president of the board. (Ib., 3 : 2.)

May 17, 1678, he was appointed to keep court at New London, and to settle matters with the Indians. (N. H. C. R., 3 : 15.) May 9, 1679, he received a similar appointment. (Ib., 3: 27.)

Oct. 17, 1679, he was appointed by the court one of a committee to go to Norwalk to settle the dispute about the building of a meeting house, (lb., 3 : 45 )

May 15, 1680, the court appointed Major Treat and others a committee to settle the difficulties between the Indians. (Ib., 3: 51, 52.)

Aug. 17, 1680, Robert Treat, sr., and Wm. Fowler, were appointed a committee to lay out one hundred acres of land at Milford for the Indians. (Ib., 3: 68, 78.) May 18, 1681, the court ordered Major Treat, Capt. Wm. Fowler, and John Burr to view the land laid out at Coram Hill last year for the Indians, and if it is so full of stones that it is unfit for cultivation, that it be laid out again. (Ib., 3 : 81.)

May 18, 1082, the court appointed Deputy Governor Treat, with others to settle the differences between the Indians of Potatuck and the men of Woodbury, (Ib., 3 : 102.)

The same day the court appointed Mr. Treat and Major Talcott to settle the dispute between Uncas and the Indians. (Ib., 3: 103.) They made their report May 13, 1684. (Ib., 3: 148-150.)

In 1683, he was elected governor of Connecticut, and held the oflice till 1698, for thirteen years, not including the two under Andros, when he refused to serve any longer in that capacity, though consenting to occupy the office of deputy governor, to which he was elected for the next ten years. (Ib., 3: 114.)

May 10, 1683, Governor Treat was appointed by the court one of the committee to settle the bounds between Uncas and the plantations adjoining; and also between Lyme and Uncas. (Ib., 3: 117.)

Sept. 19, 1692, at a special court of Oyer and Terminer, held at Fairfield, Governor Treat being present, Mercy Disborough, wife of Thomas Disborough of Compo, or Westport, charged with witchcraft, was convicted by the jury, who adhered to their verdict after being sent out once, and sentenced to death by the governor, but probably pardoned, as a person by that name was living in Fairfield in 1707, and was one of the executors of the estate of her husband Thomas Disborough. This was the last trial for witchcraft in the state. (Ib., 4: 76, 77.)

Oct. 12, 1699, Deputy Governor Treat was appointed by the court one of a committee to settle the boundary between Rhode Island and Connecticut. (Ib., 4 : 299.)

DEATH OF GOV. ROBERT TREAT.
On the 12th of July, 1710, Robert Treat died at the ripe old age of eighty-six or eighty-eight years, as stated on his gravestone. His had been a very active life. We first become acquainted with him in 1639, in Milford, when a youth of about sixteen, he assisted the settlers in laying out their lots. From that time till within a few years of his death he was most actively engaged in the affairs of State as well as attending successfully to his own. The numerous high positions to which he was elected, as well as the various services of a more humble and private nature which he rendered during his long life, show plainly in what estimation he was held by his fellow citizens. He was called "Mr." — which was no meaningless title in those days, — in both Connecticut and New Jersey. As late as 1706, out of the 109 Proprietors of New Milford, only six besides Robert Treat had that title prefixed to their names. He was early recognized by the authorities as no ordinary man. In 1656, Lieutenant Treat was called upon by the town of Milford to watch as other men against the threatened inroads of Indians. But they were reprimanded by the General Court, May 28, 1656, which declared "that he ought to be free for his person, estate, and one house lot." (N. H. C. R. 2 : 177).

In May, 1710, the General Court passed this resolution :
"This assembly remembering the great and good services done for this Colony by the antient and honorable Coll. Robert Treat, late Governor, do give and grant unto him out of the public treasury of the Colony, the sum of twenty pounds, as money to be paid to him by the treasurer." (C C. R. 6 : 153, 4.)

The testimony of the historian Trumbull has been given on pages 145, 6. Hollister, in his History of Connecticut, remarks:

"Governor Treat was not only a man of high courage, but he was one of the most cautious military leaders and possessed a quick sagacity united with a breadth of understanding that enabled him to see at a glance the most complex relations that surrounded the field of battle. Nor did he excell only as a hero; his moral courage and inherent force of character shone with the brightest lustre in the executive chair or legislative chamber, when stimulated by the opposition and malevolence of such men as Andros. In private life he was no less esteemed. He was a planter of that hospitable order that adorned New England in an age when hospitality was accounted a virtue, and when the term gentleman was something more than an empty title. His house was always open to the poor and friendless, and whenever he gave his hand, he gave his heart. Hence, whether marching to the relief of Springfield, or extending his charities to Whalley or Goffe, while he drowned a tear of sympathy in the lively sparkle of fun and of anecdote, he was always welcome, always beloved. His quick sensibilities, his playful humor, his political wisdom, his firmness in the midst of dangers, and his deep piety, have still a traditionary fame in the neighborhood where he spent the brief portion of his time that he was allowed to devote to the culture of the domestic and social virtues." (Chap. 17, p. 371, Vol. 1.)

The seal of Robert Treat may be seen in Lambert's History of the Colony of New Haven, page 138.

There are several letters from him of the date of 1684 and 1697, to the authorities in Massachusetts, preserved in the Mass. Archives, 2 : 253, 255. Copies of the autographs have been made.

The old house in which Mr. Treat lived has long since passed away. Lambert (page 138) has preserved a southwest view of it, as it appeared (see page 166).

In the summer of 1889, I visited Milford. The house of Mr. Baldwin is built on the site once occupied by the Governor's house. In digging for the cellar he discovered the drain to the old house, which now does duty in the new. A well of excellent water, on the premises, is the identical well from which the Governor drew water. The street at the side of the house is called the Governor's Avenue.

Governor Treat's tombstone, in the old burying ground at Milford, consists of a large oblong slab of sandstone, raised above the ground, not resting on legs, but closed in, and is still in good repair. The inscription is as follows :

HERE LYETH INTERRED THE
BODY OF COLL. ROBERT
TREAT ESQ, WHO FAITHFULLY
SERVED THIS COLONY IN THE
POST OF GOVERNOVR AND
DEPVTY GOVERNOR NEAR
Y^E SPACE OF THIRTY YEARS
AND ATT Y^E AGE OF FOVR
SCORE AND EIGHT YEARS
EXCHANGED THIS LIFE
FOR A BETTER, JVLY 12^TH
ANNO DOM : 1710

COPY OF ROBERT TREAT'S WILL.
I the said Robert Treat being aged in years and not knowing how suddenly the Lord may by death call me home from out of this life, but being at present of sound understanding and memory, do make this my last will and testament as followeth, hereby making null and void all former wills whatsoever made by me.
Imprimis.
I commit my soul to God through the alone merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and my body to a decent burial as my executors shall see meet. And as for my worldly goods which God of his bounty has bestowed upon me being not already disposed of by me, having already given to all my children such portions of my estate as I found myself then well able to part with & hopefully to their content.
As for ye rest of my estate undisposed of hitherto, my debts, legacies, funeral charges being defrayed:
I do give and bequeath all my right and interest in a farm of two hundred acres of land given and granted to me by ye general Court of this Colony, not being yet taken up, I do give ye same to my loving Sonn-in-law Mr. Samuel Andrew and to my daughter Abigail his wife of Milford and their heirs forever according to deed: or one share of my purchase of Oweantinuck.
Item.
My son Samuel Treat having received a double portion as may appear by deed of gift to him bearing date August 6^th, 1707. The contents of s^d deed I do further hereby confirm to ye above s^d Samuel Treat and his heirs forever.
Item.
As a pledge of my Fatherly love and farewell kindness to all my dear and loving children, viz. Samuel, John, Mary, Robert, Hanah, Joseph, and Abigail, I do give and bequeath four pounds to each of them in pay, payable within one year after my decease.
Item.
I do give to my sonn Joseph Treat one quarter part of my saw mill down stream and one quarter part of all the rights & privileges and appurtenances that do belong to it.
Item.
I do give to my sons Mr. Samuel Andrew and Robert Treat ye remainder of my right to all the privileges thereto belonging to mills, sawing or fulling mill.
I do give to my son Robert Treat my Gold Ring and one half of my plate, buttons, and the other half of my plate, buttons, I give to my sonn Joseph.
Item.
I do give to Samuel Andrew my grandson my three acre lott on the eastern end of Calves pen hill to him & his heirs forever.
Item.
I do give to Mr. Samuel Mather junior of Windsor one of my shares in Oweantinoque purchase to him & his heirs forever.
Item.
I do give to my sons Robert and Joseph Treat and their heirs forever all the land they have tilled and sown with wheat on grassie hill until August 6th 1707 together with the land they have inclosed in for a yard and a Barne.
Item.
My will is that all the remainder of my estate both real & personall undisposed of by myself shell be equally divided in value among all my dear children or their heirs if any of them shall be deceased. Viz:
My lands to my naturall sons, shares, unless they refuse lands or there be not movables enough without lands to give each of them their equall shares in that case my will is tha my sons shall have liberty to buy the lands, giving so much for the lands as the said lands shall be prized by indifferent men in the Inventory of my estate.
Item.
I do give to my children an equall share of my common and undivided lands in Milford Towne viz: to my son Andrew, Robert, Joseph Treat and alsoe to my son Samuel Treat.
Item.
I do nominate and appoint my loving sonn Sam^ll Andrew and my two sons, Joseph Treat and Robert or any two of them to be the sole Executors of this my last will and testament and my will is that as many of them that shall survive to be Execut^rs of this my will and testament to have four pounds apiece for their pains.
And for confirmation of the above written instrument to be my last will and testament, I have hereto set my hand and seal this fifth of January 1707.
Robert Treat senr & Seale. {seal}

The inventory of his property is “given at country pay prices.” Among the items—chiefly personal property—are two slaves valued at £85; land at £217 ; and £19. 19s., paper currency.

Pages 485-489:
ELIZABETH TREAT: SECOND GENERATION.
(6) Elizabeth² Treat (Richard¹), born —, 1627; baptized July 25, 1627, in Pitminster, Somerset Co., Eng.; died —, after 1662, in Wethersfield, Conn., probably; married about 1649, George² Wolcott. We learn from Wolcott family tradition that he married a Treat, and from the probate records that her name was Elizabeth. We assume that she was a daughter of Richard¹ Treat, because he had a daughter Elizabeth, and also was one of the two who presented the inventory of the estate of her late husband. He does not mention her in his will, 1668-9 (p. 29, 30), but perhaps she was then dead, though the children were living. George² Wolcott, born —, died early in 1662, was the son of Henry¹ Wolcott of Tolland, England, who was baptized Dec. 6, 1578, died —, married Jan. 19, 1606, Elizabeth Saunders, born 1589, died July 7, 1655. George² Wolcott came to New England with his father in the John and Mary, which sailed March 30, 1630, and arrived at Nantasket on the 30th of May following. He removed from Dorchester, Mass., to Windsor, Conn., where he was in 1640. He went to Wethersfield in 1650, where he was admitted a freeman in 1657. His will is dated Jan. 19, 1662. Mentions wife Elizabeth, sons George and John, daughters Elizabeth and Mercy. The inventory of the estate of George Wolcott was taken Feb. 17, 1662, by Richard Treat and Henry Wolcott. See Wolcott memorial.

Children of George and Elizabeth Wolcott, born in Wethersfield :
1. Elizabeth,³ b. June 20, 1650; d. —; m. —, 1686, Gabriel Cornish.
2. George, b. Sept. 20, 1662; d. —; m. Aug. 30, 1691, Elizabeth Curtis, who d. Aug. 31, 1741. Had 10 children.
3. John, b. Aug. 6, 1656; alive in 1662.
4. Mercy, b. Oct. 4, 1659 ; d. —. She was alive in 1687, but infirm and under a guardian.

SUSANNA TREAT: SECOND GENERATION.
(7) Susanna² Treat (Richard¹), born —, 1629; baptized Oct. 8, 1629, in Pitminster, Somerset Co., England; died —, 1705, in Hartford, Conn.; married about 1652, Robert Webster, of Middletown, Conn., and after 1660, of Hartford. He was the son of John and Agnes (—) Webster the fifth governor of the colony of Connecticut, and died at Hartford in 1677. After the organization of the town of Middletown, in 1651, or 1652, he was chosen recorder, Feb. 26, 1654. In 1672, he received a grant of three hundred acres of land for services in the war, having been made a lieutenant by the General Court in April, 1654. He was a deputy nine times, from 1653-1662. About 1660, he returned to Hartford. Was chosen townsman in 1664; list and rate maker in 1668. Mrs. Webster's will is preserved in the probate office, Hartford. It is sealed with a fine seal, in excellent preservation, displaying a crest composed of a pair of clasped hands and on them a bowman with bow and arrow. The seal is oval in shape and around the device is this motto : "I am sure in good daylight."

Children of Robert and Susanna Webster, the first four born at Middletown, the others probably in Hartford :
1. John,³ b. Nov. 10, 1653; d. Dec. 6, 1695. aged 42; m. —, Sarah Mygatt, dau. of Jacob and Sarah Mygatt, of Hartford, For her second husband she m. Nov. 28, 1698, Lieut. Benj. Graham as his second wife. Noah⁶ Webster, LL.D., the celebrated lexicographer, derives his descent from John³ Webster. He published the Webster genealogy in 1836, the seventeenth in order of time of early printed American Genealogies. The pamphlet consisted of eight pages.

John³ Webster had seven children, four sons and three daughters. His son :
Capt. Daniel⁴ Webster, bapt. Oct. 1, 1693; d. Dec. 21, 1765, aged 72. at Hartford; m., 1st, —, Mrs. Miriam Kellogg; 2d, —, Mrs. Hannah Bird. Had seven children, six sons, and one daughter. His son:
Noah⁵ Webster, b. March 5. 1722: d. Nov. 9, 1813, in his 92d year in Hartford; m. Jan. 12, 1749, Mercy Steel. Had live children, three sons, and two daughters.
His son :
Noah⁶ Webster, b. Oct. 16, 1758; d. May 28. 1843, aged 85; m. Oct. 26, 1789, Rebecca Greenleaf. of Boston. In the Webster genealogy, he is of the seventh generation, instead of the sixth as by the Treat line of descent.

2. Sarah, b. June 30, 1655; d. Feb. —, 1744, in her 89th year; m., 1st, Nov. 15. 1677, Joseph Mygatt, of Hartford who d. March —, 1698; 2d, Dec. 13, 1722, Bevil, or Bird, Waters, who d. Feb. 14, 1729, aged 97, as his second wife. Had nine children, five sons, and four daughters.
3. Jonathan, b. Jun. 9, 1657; d. —, 1735, aged 78: m —, 1st, May 11, 1681, Dorcas Hopkins who d. 1694, and dau. of Stephen Hopkins of Hartford; 2d, Jan. 2, 1696, Mary Judd. Had six children, three sons, and three daughters.
4. Susanna, b. Oct. 26. 1658; d. —, 1688, aged 30; m. May 11, 1681, John Graves, of Hartford, who d. Aug. —, 1702. For his second wife he m., 1690, Hannah Davis. Had two daughters.
5. Samuel, b. —: d. Feb. 1. 1744; m. —, Elizabeth Reeve, of Hartford. He was appointed high sheriff of Hartford Co., Sept. 7, 1708, and resigned Aug. 1, 1721. No issue.
6. Robert, b. —; d. Feb.—, 1744; m., 1st, Sept. 10, 1689, Hannah Beckley, daughter of John Beckley of Wethersfleld, Conn.; 2d, , Mrs. Sarah Colfax, who d. Feb. 15, 1725, aged 53, dau. of Joseph Edwards, and widow of Jonathan Colfax; 3d, July 30, 1731, Susannah Baker, who d. Dec. —, 1746, and dau. of John Baker. Had eight children, five sons and three daughters.
7. Joseph, b. —; d. May —, 1750; m., 1st, Feb. 23, 1696, Mary Judd, dau. of Benj. Judd, of Farmlngton, Conn.; 2d, May 11, 1726, Mrs. Hannah Baker, widow of Basey Baker, of Middletown, and dau. of Nathaniel Willet of Hartford. Had two daughters.
8. William, b. —; d. June —, 1722; m. Nov. 20, 1700, Sarah Nichols, dau. of Cyprian Nichols, of Hartford. For her second husband she m. May 13, 1725, Samuel Catlin of Hartford. Mr. Webster was an ensign in the militia. Had eight children, six sons, and two daughters.
9. Mary, b. —; d. Sept. 27, 1706; m. —, Thomas King, of Hartford, who d. Dec. 26, 1711.
10. Elizabeth, b. —; d. May 15, 1754; m. Dec. 19, 1693, John Seymour, Jr., of Hartford, who d. May 17, 1748, in his 82d year. Had ten children, eight sons, and two daughters. George Dudley⁸ Seymour, of the firm of Earle & Seymour, American and Foreign Patents, New Haven, Conn., is a descendant.

JAMES TREAT: SECOND GENERATION.
(9) Lieut. James² Treat {Richard¹), born —, 1634; baptized July 20, 1634, in Pitminster, Somerset Co., England; died Feb, 12, 1708-9, in his seventy-fifth year, in Wethersfield, Conn.; married Jan. 26, 1664-5, Rebecca Lattimer, died April 2, 1734, aged eighty-eight (gravestone), and daughter of John Lattimer, one of the first settlers of Wethersfield. On her gravestone, almost illegible, Mrs. Treat is spoken of as "That godly woman Rebecca Treat." James Treat was the youngest son of Richard Treat, and received from him by will, in 1668-9, his grist mill, and also his lands on the west side of the river in Wethersfield, including two homesteads on Broad street. He was made a freeman, May 21, 1657. In 1678, be met with a heavy loss from fire, his house having been burnt, so that the General Court, in May of 1670, remitted his county tax, granted him two hundred acres for a farm, and recommended that the town of Wethersfield also remit his town tax and minister's rate. He was listed as a trooper in 1658, and in 1679 was elected lieutenant of the Wethersfield train band, which choice was approved by the General Court on the 14th of Oct. of that year, and again May 20, 1680. He was engaged in the Indian Wars.

Mr. Treat held various town offices; in 1665 and 1682, he was constable; in 1668, fence viewer; in 1660-72, and 1677, townsman; in 1683 and 1686, selectman; in 1692, was on a committee to get a minister; and in 1701, was appointed to audit accounts. He filled various civil offices with great credit, serving as deputy from Wethersfield from 1672-1707; was chosen with others in 1689, on a council of safety with the governor and assembly; was commissioner 1693-7; one of a committee to settle the bounds of Wethersfield, May, 1695; justice of the peace for Hartford Co., 1698-1708; was a member of the governor's council for the years 1696, 1697-8.

In March, 1675, the "Palisado" in the centre of the town, probably on High street, was constructed under the direction of James Treat and others. In 1685, Lieut. James Treat and others received a patent, confirming title to the township of Wethersfield, about fifteen miles from east to west, on both sides of the river, and seven or eight from north to south, signed by Robert Treat, governor. In 1705, Mr. Treat bought of the Indians five hundred acres of land in the wilderness on the east side of the Connecticut river. According to the land records of New London, Conn, (3 : 203), James Treate, of Wethersfield, bought land of Wm. Morton, June 7, 1666.

The inhabitants of the western part of Wethersfield, called Newington parish, held a meeting Dec. 20, 1708, and wished to be made a separate town, as it was a difficult matter for them to attend meeting in the winter season owing to the distance. Lieutenant Treat was appointed one of a committee who were to report at the next meeting, to be held Dec. 14, 1709. Meanwhile Mr. Treat had died. At that meeting the committee were given further time and reported Dec. 18, 1710, granting them permission to meet by themselves during the four worst months of the year, from December to March, and remitting one-third of the minister's tax. Dec. 24, 1712, they were granted permission to form a separate town.

The inventory of Mr. Treat's estate was taken March 3, 1708-9, and amounted to £1235 14s. 2d. His sons James and Samnel received two hundred acres of land and the stone house beyond the bounds of Glastonbury, and his son Salmon, two hundred acres on or near the road leading to Colchester, near the great pond.

Children, born in Wethersfield :
2. James³, b. April 1, or 12, 1666; d. Feb. 18, 1742; m., 1st, Dec. 17, 1691, Prudence Chester ; 2d, —, Mrs. Hannah (Wright) Boardman.
3. Jemima, b. March 16, 1667-8; d. May 25, 1727; m. Dec. 17, 1691, Stephen Chester, Jr.
4. Samuel, b. about 1669; d. March 6, 1732-3; m. Nov, 22, 1716, Sarah Wolcott.
5. Salmon, b. about 1672; d. Jan. 6, 1762; m., 1st, April 28, 1698, Dorothy Noyes; 2d, Nov. 6, 1716, Mrs. Mary Parks.
6. Richard, b. about 1675; d. May 7, 1713; m. Nov. 28, 1704, Catharine Bulkley.
7. Jerusha, b. about 1678; d. Jan. 15, 1754; m., 1st, May 17, 1705, Capt. Thomas Welles; 2d, Dec. 25, 1712, Capt. Ephraim Goodrich.
8. Joseph, b. about 1680; d. Sept. 15, 1756; m. July 16, 1713, Mary Robbins.
9. Rebecca, b. about 1686; d. Dec. 26, 1753; m. Dec. 27, 1704, Ebenezer Deming, Jr.
10. Mabel, b. —; d. —; m. May 4, 1716, Samuel³ Stanton, in Hartford, Conn. No issue. He was b. May 21, 1682, in Stonington, Conn., son of Thomas² and Sarah (Denison) Stanton, and grandson of Thomas¹ and Ann (Lord) Stanton. For his 2d wife, Samuel Stanton m. Jan. 23, 1729, Rebecca Worden of Stonington, and had five children.

Source: Treat, John Harvey, The Treat Family: A Genealogy of Trott, Tratt, and Treat for Fifteen Generations, and Four Hundred and Fifty Years in England and America, Salem, MA: The Salem Press Publishing & Printing Company, 1893.

Stiles's Families of Ancient Wethersfield

Page 711:
Richard Treat in Families of Ancient Wethersfield, part 1 of 2

Richard Treat in Families of Ancient Wethersfield, part 2 of 2

Page 713-4:
James Treat in Families of Ancient Wethersfield, part 1 of 2

James Treat in Families of Ancient Wethersfield, part 2 of 2

Page 272:

John Deming and family in The Families of Ancient Wethersfield

Source: Stiles, Henry R., Families of Ancient Wethersfield Connecticut, Part 1, 1904, (reprinted by Heritage Books, Westminster, MD, 2006).

Starr's Various Ancestral Lines of James Goodwin and Lucy (Morgan) Goodwin

Pages 229-245:

THE FAMILY OF JOHN DEMING

At a session of the General Court of Connecticut, held October 10, 1639, it was enacted that
"The Townes aforesayd shall each of them p^rvide a Ledger Booke, with an Index or alphabett vnto the same: Also shall choose one who shall be a Towne Gierke or Register, who shall before the Generall Court in Aprill next, record every man's house and land already graunted and measured out to him, with the bounds & quantity of the same, and whosoever shall neglect 3 monthes after notice given to bring into the sayd Towne Clerke or Register a note of his house and land, with the bounds and quantity of the same, by the nearest estimacon, shall forfeit
10s. and soe 10s. a month for every month he shall soe neglect"...........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"And the sayd Register shall, every Generall Court, in Aprill and September, deliver into the same a transcript fayrely written of all such graunts, bargaines or ingagements recorded by him in the Towne Booke, and the Secretary of the Court shall record it in a booke fayrely written p^rvided for that purpose, and shall preserue the coppy brought in vnder the hand of the Towne Clerke."¹

The Town of Wethersfield does not seem to have taken action under this law until the "12^th mo 11 day 1640", or February 11, 1640-'41, when the lands of seven persons were entered on the Town Records.²
Just two weeks later, the lands of Richard Crabb were recorded. The first piece was his homestead which was bounded west on the street, east on the Great Meadow, south on the house-lot of Ed. Sherman and north on the house-lot of "Jo: Demion", or John Deming.³
On folio 131 or page 223 of the first volume of the Wethersfield Land Records is entered the homestead of John Deming, as follows:

"The 2^d month & 25^th Daie 1641

the land of Jo : Demion lying in wethersfeild on Conecticutt riuer./"
"One pace wheron his howse & barne standeth con fine acr one halfe more or lesse (for fouer acr he is to paie rates for the rest he haue made a gate into the mea neare the same & like wise to continew & mainteyne it) the ands abutt against hie streete west & great mea : East the sids against the howse lotts of Tho Standish North & Ric: Crabb South./"

He later bought the adjoining property of his brother-in-law, Thomas Standish. The homestead thus enlarged to nine acres is situated in the northerly part of the village, and is now bounded west on High street and north on the highway leading to the landing.
Following the record of his homestead, there were entered to him,
10 acres in the Great Meadow.
5 acres in the Great Meadow.
2 acres in Beaver Meadow.
17 acres in the Wet Swamp.
51 acres in the West Field, and
120 acres on the east side of the Connecticut River.

Among the early entries of homesteads on the Wethersfield Records, there are a few instances where it is stated that the persons to whom the lands were recorded, had bought them of previous owners.
In the case of most of the early residents, there is nothing to indicate that they purchased their homesteads, and the inference is that they received them by grant directly from the town.
In this latter class were Richard Crabb and John Deming as shown by the record of their homesteads just cited.
The Colonial Records show that Crabb was a member of the General Court of April 11, 1639,⁴ and at that time he is believed to have been residing on his homestead before referred to, with John Deming as his neighbor on the north, which was certainly the case when Crabb's lands were recorded in February 1640-'41.

The earliest record of John Deming's service in a public capacity is as a juror of the Particular Court on March 2, 1642-'43. He also served at the sessions of June 15 and November 9, 1643; June 6 and December "first Thursday", 1644; June 5, 1645 ; June "the last", 1646; May 21 and 24, 1647; an undated session about March 1647-'48; October 17 and December 7, 1648; June 2, 1653; September 5, 1661 ; May 13, 1662; December 1, 1664, and October 9, 1666.
He was one of the Grand Jury, March 7, 1649-'50; May 15, 1650, and May 17, 1660, and was on the jury of the Court of Assistants, September 4, 1673.⁵
It is unfortunate that there are no records extant of the proceedings of the town of Wethersfield for the first ten years of its existence, the earliest entry on the first volume of Town Votes being March 16, 1646.
Among the records of a town meeting held one month later or April 22, 1647, John Deming is referred to as one of the Townsmen.⁶
He was re-elected to this office in January 1647 and 1648. He was also a member of the board in March 1651-'52, and again chosen in February 1654, 1663 ; April 1667 ; February 1668-'69 and February 1669-'70⁷
He represented the town of Wethersfield in the General Court at the following sessions:
December 1, 1645; October 30, 1646; January 28, 1646-'47; September 13, October 10, November 7 and December 5, 1649; February 6 and March 20, 1649-'50; May 16 and 21, and June 26, 1650; May 15, September 11, October 6 and December 3, 1651; March 2, 1651-'52; May 20, June 30, September 9 and October 6, 1652; April 14, October 21 and 29, November 23 and 30, 1653; March 1, and 6, 1653-'54; April 6, 1654; May 17, 1655; October 2, 1656; February 26, 1656-'57; April 9 and May 21, 1657; May 20, August 18 and October 7, 1658; March 9, 1658-'59; May 19, June 15 and October 6, 1659; February 23, 1659-'6o; April 11, May 17 and October 4, 1660; March 14, 1660-'61 ; May 16, June 7, August 17 and 28 and October 3, 1661 ; October 10, 1667; May 14 and October 8, 1668; May 13, 1669 and October 10, 1672.⁸
The title to the territory comprised within the borders of the Colonies of Connecticut and New Haven in 1660 was largely if not wholly obtained from the Indians by purchase.
The Connecticut colonists realized that they needed a more secure title to their property and took measures to obtain a document which should give them absolute ownership of the lands and power to make laws for the inhabitants.
John Winthrop, Governor of the Connecticut Colony, was appointed its agent in May 1661 to proceed to England to accomplish the above purpose.⁹
By his skillful management and with the aid of powerful friends in court, he secured from the King, Charles II., on the 23rd of April 1662, a Patent or Charter, confirming to the colonists the territory in question, and granting them exceedingly liberal powers of government.¹⁰
Of the nineteen persons named in the Patent to whom the grant was made in behalf of the colony, sixteen including the Governor and Deputy Governor, were members of the General Court of May 1661.¹¹
John Deming was one of this number and his selection as a Patentee proves that he had become a man of consequence in the colony.
Some years earlier or March 2, 1653-'54, John Deming Senior and Samuel Smith Senior were sworn into the then very important office of Constable for Wethersfield.¹²
From February 1643-'44 to May 1655, John Deming was either plaintiff or defendant in a number of cases in the Particular
Court.¹³

Captain John Cullick, formerly of Hartford, then of Boston, assigned to the Connecticut Colony a debt due him from John Deming Senior, Thomas Ford Senior and others, and the General Court at a session held October 9, 1662, appointed William Pitkin attorney for the colony to bring suit against the parties.
The case was tried at the Particular Court of October 15 of that year and judgment rendered against Deming for £ 28-06-09.¹⁴
In the twenty years the whites had lived in this part of the country, the problem of living in peace and safety with the Indians was one requiring constant attention and thought.
Various laws had been passed prohibiting the sale of liquors and fire arms to the Indians.
In September 1654 the General Court voted to employ an interpreter who should aid the ministers or others duly appointed, instructing "those poore, lost, naked sonnes of Adam".¹⁵
At a session of the court held February 26, 1656, there were appointed
"Mr. Steele, Mr. Allin, Mr. Dan: Clarke, Mr. Lord, William Wadsworth, Mr. Hollist^r, John Deming, Robert Webster, w^th the Magistrates, to bee Committee, to giue the best safe advice they can to the Indians, if they agree to meete & being mett shall craue the same of them."¹⁶

By appointment from the County Court, John Deming had charge of settling various estates.
April 11, 1660, he and William Wadsworth of Hartford were appointed administrators with the will annexed of Governor Thomas Welles.¹⁷
In March 1664-'65, he was named as one of the overseers of the estate of John Stoddard, his nephew by marriage.¹⁸
February 13, 1668, he was selected by his father-in-law Richard Treat, as one of the three overseers of the latter's will.¹⁹
He served in the same capacity on the estates of his brother-in-law Lieutenant John Hollister and Captain Samuel Welles.²⁰

The troubles in the Hartford church between Mr. Stone the pastor and Elder William Goodwin representing the opposite party, were long and bitter, and involved a large number of the churches of the colony.
On the "Lord's Day", November 29, 1657, John Russell Junior, pastor of the Wethersfield church, read a paper, which it was claimed, was defamatory to Mr. Stone and the Hartford church, and
"tendeth to the disturbance of the peace of the Churches and Commonwealth."²¹

It is evident that Mr. Russell was in sympathy with the seceding element in Hartford which removed to Hadley, Massachusetts.
At a town meeting held in Wethersfield, April 16, 1658, it
"was uoated that sixe men should be chousen to tret with M^r Russel to nowe wether he doth intend to remoue from us, or taray with us, Mr. Trat, M^r Hollester, John Demon, Tho : Curtis, Tho : Standish Sam. Boreman and so to re turne ansuer to the toune."²²

Of the six men chosen on this committee, four were evidently related.
John Hollister and John Deming were the sons-in-law of Richard Trat or Treat, and Thomas Standish was a brother-in-law of John Deming.
Matters came to a climax when John Hollister, one of the most prominent men of the plantation, was excommunicated through the influence of Mr. Russell, without being given a chance to know beforehand what the charges against him were.²³
As a natural result of this arbitrary proceeding, the following petition was presented to the General Court:
"To the right Wor the Govorn,and Deputy Gov, the Wor Magistrates, and Deputies, assembled at Hartford in this Honoured Court, your humble petitioners wish increase of all felicity. August 17^th (58)"
"Wee Inhabitants of Wethersfield, are necessitated to implore, the aid and assistance of this Honoured Court: and the rather by reason of an order made last March : ffor M^r Russel as wee conceve, is not our setled nor approved minister, ffirst hee havinge sent vs a wrightinge (in the springe) to provide for our selves lest wee bee destitute, and wee havinge proflfessed wee looke vpon our selves as free by the answer of our Committee, nor can wee closse with him, and are afrayed to venture our soules vnder his ministry: hee havinge given soe greate a scandall to the Gospell of our Lord Jesus Christ, by such a grievous oath, acknowledged by himselfe, to bee ambiguous, rash, and sinfull, and what more may bee made evident,
"Therefore wee your humble petitioners, humbly crave, that wee may not bee held in bondage, but may vse our liberty, in procuringe a minister, who may bee faithful! in the administrations of the Gospell, and inofifencive in his conversation, otherwise wee your humble petitioners shall [bee] forced to vndergoe whatever inconvenience or damage may come vpon us or ours, for wee thinke him altogether vnfit for our comfort And wee your humble petitioners, humbly crave your helpe for wee professe it lyes as a heavy burden vpon our consciences, and wee know noe rule, that hee should compell vs to it. And if your humble petitioners find acceptance and releife, you will more ingage vs to all loyall subiection to you, soe humbly wee take our leaves of you, and rest yours to bee commaunded."
These of the Church
                                                         Thomas Curtis                                   Thomas Gilbert
"John Holister                                  John Chester                                    Thomas Williams
Thomas wright se:                         Sammuell Boreman                          John Sadler
John Demminge se:                      Thomas Standish                              John Belden
John Edwards se:    John killburne    Emanuell Bucke
Richard Smith se:     Richard Treate    Hugh Wells
                                                        John Nott                                           John Harison
Alc Treate                                       Thomas Lord                                     Robert ffrancis
Joane Holister                                Thomas Wright Ju :                           Beniamin Crane
Mary Robins                                   John Ryly                                           Mathias Treate
Margaret Wright                            Richard Smith Ju :                            William Colefax
Rebeckah Smith                            James Wright                                   Phillip Goffe
Dorothy Edwards                           James Wakely                                 James Treate
                                                         Joseph Smith                                   Samuell Wright
                                                         Michael Griswold Jonathan Smith
                                                         George Woolcut    John Curtis
                                                         Thomas Wickam James Boswell
                                                         Nathanel Graves                            Henery Crane
                                                         John Woddams    Lewes Jones
                                                         John Demminge Ju :²⁴

The result of all this was, that Reverend John Russell and about twenty other residents of Wethersfield, removed to Hadley in 1659.
At a town meeting held in Wethersfield, March 24, 1658-'59, John Deming and four others were appointed "to procure a setled and an aproved minister". He was chosen on similar committees in October 1676, November 1678 and July 1692.²⁵
In the vote passed on the last given date, he is called "Mr. John Deming Senior".
He and five of his associates under the appointment of July 1692, were re-appointed for the same purpose December 25, 1693, and in the record of this vote he is described as "Deacon : John Demming",²⁶ indicating that prior to this last date he had been chosen to the office of Deacon.
Immediately following the vote of December 25, 1693, there is entered in a different hand the following:

"Att a town metting October y^e 15^th 1694"

"It was Voated & agreed that y^e foresd Comitte or y^e Major part of them shod have full power to proced in procuring & settling of a Minister"²⁶

This vote may indicate that some of the committee were at that time incapacitated from serving.
A few pages further on in the book are entered the regular proceedings of the meeting of October 15, 1694.
One of the votes authorized the committee to secure the Reverend Stephen Mix as the town's pastor.
For a number of years from 1660, Wethersfield seems to have been obliged to provide a house for its minister.
John Deming was appointed on committees for securing a house for Mr. Russell's successor in July 1660, February 1660-'61 and October 1663.²⁷

Wethersfield like the early New England towns, appointed committees to assign seats for the inhabitants in the meeting house.
March 7, 1670-'71, the Townsmen and five others including John Deming Senior were chosen such a committee.²⁸
In March 1717, the town instructed the committee to seat the inhabitants according to the following "Grounds of Advancement":
"Age;
Dignity of Descent :
Place of publick Trust;
Pious Disposition & Behaviour:
Estate :
Peculiar Serviceableness in Any kind.'"'

Mention has been made of the homestead and other lands which were recorded to Deming April 25, 1641.
Jeffrey Ferris, one of the settlers of Wethersfield, removed to Stamford in 1641, and April 26 of that year, his Wethersfield homestead of four acres and seven other pieces belonging to him, were entered on the Wethersfield Records.³⁰
This homestead and five of the other parcels were recorded on the 4th month, (June), 20th day, 1645, to John Deming as having been bought of Jeffrey Ferris.³¹
Subsequently Deming sold this homestead to Thomas Standish.³¹
January 26, 1659, there was recorded to John Deming, as purchased of Richard Belding, a homestead of four acres with house and barn thereon, situated on the easterly side of High street, bounded north on the home-lot of Thomas Bunce and south on land of Samuel Boreman.³²
This was the original homestead of John Gibbs who removed to New Haven.
The day following the record of this Belding homestead to John Deming, there is an entry showing that the latter had given it to his son John Deming Junior, with four other pieces,³³ three of which were bought of Jeffrey Ferris.
December 18, 1685, John Deming Senior deeded to his son Ebenezer four acres in the West Field with house and barn thereon, also ten acres in the Wet Swamp.³⁴
May 15, 1690, he gave to his son David, six acres in the Great West Field, with the house and barn thereon, also eight acres in the West Field or West Swamp and seven acres in the Wet Swamp.³⁵

There is no known record of the marriage of John Deming.
Richard Treat of Wethersfield in his will dated February 13, 1668, made bequests to "my sonn John Demon" and "my Daughter Honour Demon", and appointed "my son in law John Demon", one of the overseers of his will.³⁶
These facts prove that John Deming married Honour, daughter of Richard Treat of Wethersfield, and writers have inferred that she was his only wife and mother of all his children.
The Treat Genealogy gives the baptism of Honour Treat, daughter of Richard, at Pitminster, Somersetshire, England, on March 19, 1615-'16.³⁷
August 25, 1682, John, eldest known child of John Deming the emigrant, made an affidavit in which he gave his age as "about 50 yeares",³⁸ therefore making him born about 1632.
Jonathan the next known child was born about 1639, as indicated in an affidavit made probably in December 1695.³⁹
At the birth of John the eldest son. Honour Treat could only have been sixteen years old, and in order to have been his mother, she must have married at the age of fifteen, which was not common even for those days.
Sarah, John Deming's eldest known daughter, was supposedly born about 1640.
There is a gap of six years before the birth of Samuel the next child to Sarah and he is the oldest one of the children to have a daughter Honor.⁴⁰
It is apparent that Honour Treat, wife of John Deming, was the mother of Samuel and the other younger children.
Whether she was the mother of the three older ones, is a question yet to be determined.
It has been shown in this sketch that Deacon John Deming was one of the committee appointed by the town of Wethersfield, December 25, 1693, to secure a minister.
He is supposed to have been living when the committee was further instructed October 15, 1694.
On the Wethersfield Town Records is an entry showing the division by lot among the inhabitants on April 25, 1695, of a tract of land in the westerly part of the town.
This territory was divided into one hundred and sixty-five lots and was drawn by as many persons. The names of these persons are entered in full on the records and are believed to be those of all the heads of families living at that time.
Seven males by the name of Deming participated in the drawing, the first mentioned being "Serg^t Jn^o Demming",⁴¹ referring to John, the eldest son of the emigrant.
As John Deming the emigrant is not mentioned in this allotment, he must have died prior to April 25, 1695.
Further, Jonathan Deming, son of the first John, made his will March 27, 1696, the witnesses to which were John Wells and "John Deming se^r".⁴² This autograph of John Deming Senior is written in a firm hand and is wholly unlike that of John Deming the emigrant, as signed to the latter's will June 26, 1690, and his codicil February 3, 1692.
It is therefore evident that the witness to the will of Jonathan Deming was his brother Serjeant John Deming, son of the settler.
John Deming Senior, the settler and head of the Wethersfield family, died between December 25, 1693, and April 25, 1695, and probably between October 15, 1694, and April 25, 1695. As he made no mention of his wife Honour in his will which is here given in full from the original on file, it is conclusive that she predeceased him.

"I John Deming Sen'' of weathersfeild being of Good Understanding & sound Memory doe see it my duty to set my house in order, & to setle my estate so that peace may be continued in my famaly when I shall be gathered to my fathers. & I doe therefore make & declare this to be my last will & Testament hereby renowncing & makeing voyd all former wills & Testaments, by me made, & establishing this onely to be my last will & Testament.
"first I commend my spirit to God expecting Saluation onely by Jesus Christ & my body to a comely christian Buriall expecting a glorious resurection & reunion of soule & body In the last day.
"l       for my worldly Goods I haueing allready done well for my son John. I now giue him my Great Bible Geneua print & my feather bed & boulster & my Great ketle. to be to him & his heires. for euer.
"2      I giue to my son Jonathan my fifty acre lott, at the west side of the Bownds, to be to him & his heires for euer
"3      I giue to my son Samuel my house & Home lott. w^th all the buildings upon it. containing Nine acres be it more or less & is Bownded as In the records as allso my meadow adjoyning. containing about seuenteen acres be it more or less & a butts on m^r willys Sowth Tho Standige his land east the High way North & my home lott west, & Twelue acres in the west swamp at the reare of my son dauids lott, allso I giue unto him my flock of sheep & my neat cattell & all my horses & horss kind. & all my Swine, & all my moueables with in dores, & all my Moueables with out dores (not other wise dissposed by this my last will) & all my husbandry tooles & Implements all to be to him & his heires for euer he payeing my Just debts & funerall charges & such legacies as I doe hereby appoynt him to pay.
"4 I giue to my son dauid all my Materialls & tooles in my Shop & my booke debts he payeing those debts I owe about my Trade.
"I giue to my Sonn Ebenezer my best coat & my best Hatt.
"I giue to my daughter Morgan my daughter Beckly my daughter Hurlbut my daughter wright fine pownds a peice to be payd by my executo^r with in fiue yeares after my deceasse.
"I giue to my Couzen vnis : Standidg & to my Couzin Sarah wyer wife of John Wyer⁴³ Twenty pownds a peice to be payd by my executo^r within Two yeares after my decease
"I giue to my daughter Moody as a token of my loue to her Ten shillings, I haueing all ready giuen her a Good portion.
"I giue to my Grand Child Ann Beckly fiue pownds to be payd her by my executo' at her day of Mariage.
"I doe hereby constitute & appoynt my Son Samuell to be my whole & Sole executo"^ of this my last will & Testament & desire my Hono^rd freind Capt Sam^ll Tallcott & my Son Ebenezer Deming to be overseers whoe I desire to Assist my executo^r w^th their best aduice in all his occassion & to see this my will be duely attended.
"finally I doe desire and command all my children to know fear & serue the God of their father with all their hearts might & strength, & to live in loue & unity one with another that God euen my God may be with them & blesse them
"for confirmation here of I haue set to my hand & seall June 26. 1690.
"signed sealed & declared              Signature of John Deming

In presence of vs.
John: Allyn
George Graue"
"February 3^d 1692. whereas I gaue to my son John my great Bible my feather bed & Boulster & my great ketle I doe now with draw that Guift & I giue unto my sayd son John all my materiall & tooles in my shop & my book debts he paying those debts I ow about my Trade & whereas in my will aboue I gaue my Grand child Ann Beckly fiue pownds she hauing miscarryd I with draw my guift from her & that fiue pownds. I giue to my sonn Dauid.
"for the confirmation hereof & of all the aboue writen I doe here unto set my hand the day & yeare aboue written
"signed sealed & declared
in presence of vs                                                 John Deming" seal
John Allyn.
Zacharihah Sandford"

For some reason, not now altogether apparent, the will was not presented to the County Court until November 21, 1705, or more than ten years after the death of the testator.
It will be noticed that the son Ebenezer, who died May 2, 1705, was, in this will, given only some articles of clothing. Is it possible, that he knowing of the will and being dissatisfied with the bequest to himself, concealed the document and therefore its existence was unknown to the other heirs until after his death?
On the same day that the will was presented to the court, the son Samuel qualified as executor, but he did not file any inventory of the property nor did the court take further action regarding the settlement of the estate.
Samuel Deming, the executor of the will, died April 6, 1709⁴⁴ and administration on his estate was granted September 5 following, when an inventory of the estate was presented to the court.⁴⁵

On the original inventory appears this entry:
"An acompt of Whatt Debts is Dew from the Estate of
mr Samli Deming Deesest to these under written"
"To the Legatees Hannah Beckly - - - - 3 — 00 — 00
To brother morgin -------- — 10 — 00
To sister Hurlbutt -------- 2— 6—00
To sister Wright --------- 5—00—00".⁴⁶

This significant memorandum throws light on the identity of John Deming's daughters
"daughter Beckly" was evidently named Hannah, and "daugter Morgan" was apparently dead at this time, as part of the legacy to her from her father was now due to "brother morgin" her husband.
"sister Hurlbutt" and "sister Wright", other daughters of John Deming, were living at this date.

Children of John Demina
John⁴⁷             b. about 1632 ;⁵³         mar. Sept. 12, 1657,
                                                                        Sept. 20, 1657, Mary Mygatt,⁵⁷ and lived in Wethersfield, Conn.
Jonathan⁴⁷     "   about 1639;⁵⁴           "       1, Nov. 21, 1660, Sarah Graves.⁵⁸
                                                                        2, Dec. 25, 1673, Elizabeth Gilbert,⁵⁹ and lived in Wethersfield, Conn.
Sarah⁴⁸            "                                      "       about 1659, Samuel Moody⁴⁸ of Hadley, Mass.
Samuel⁴⁷         "   1646;⁵⁵                       "       Mar. 29, 1694, Sarah Buck,⁶⁰ and lived in Wethersfield, Conn.
Rachel⁴⁹         b.                                    mar. supposedly Nov. 16, 1665, John Morgan⁴⁹ of New London, Conn.
Hannah⁵⁰        "                                      "        before Feb., 1670-71, John Beckley⁵⁰ of Wethersfield, Conn.
David⁴⁷            " about 1652⁵⁶              "       Aug. 14, 1678, Mary             ,⁶¹ and lived in Wethersfield, Conn., Cambridge and Boston, Mass.
Ebenezer⁴⁷      "                                      "        July 16, 1677, Sarah            ,⁶² and lived in Wethersfield, Conn.
Mary⁵¹             "                                     "        Dec. 15, 1670, John Hurlbut⁵¹ of Middletown, Conn.
Mercy⁵²            "                                     "        1, Feb. 8, 1674, Joseph Curtis⁵² of Wethersfield, Conn.
                                                                          2, Mar. 10, 1685, Joseph Wright⁵² of Wethersfield, Conn.

John Stoddard also had a son, Joshua, who married Bethia ------, and died prior to September 12, 1725, when his will was presented to the Probate Court.
As the will was disallowed by the court the estate was ordered distributed to the heirs of his two brothers and two sisters, John Stoddard, Nathaniel Stoddard, Elizabeth Wright and Mary Wright.
Hartford, Conn., Probate Records, vol. 10, pp. 100, 121, 133, reverse end, pp. 228-229, and Probate Files, Joshua Stoddard estate.
As no children of Mercy Stoddard were recognized in the decree of the court, she could not have been the Mercy who married Joseph Wright for his second wife, because at this time there were two children of this marriage living, Benjamin and Nathaniel Wright. Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, pp. 2, 63.
John Deming, in his will made June 26, 1690, gave a legacy to "my daughter wright".
Among the debts due September 5, 1709, from the estate of Samuel Deming, who was executor of the will of his father, John Deming, was one of £5 to "sister Wright", indicating that she was living at this last date.
As Joseph Wright married his wife Mercy more than four years prior to the date of John Deming's will, and as she was living in February, 1711-'12, when Wright made his will, at least two years and five months after the date of the inventory of Samuel Deming's estate, she might easily have been the daughter of John Deming, and Joseph Wright was the only member of the Wright family who could have married a daughter of John Deming.
Therefore, Joseph Wright's wife Mercy must have been the daughter of John Deming and widow of Joseph Curtis.

¹Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 35, 37-38.
²Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. I, pp. 256-264.
³Ibid., vol. I, p. 266.
⁴Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. i, p. 27.
⁵Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 81, 88, 95, 106, 114, 126, 141, 148, 149, 162, 167, 170, and Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 2, pp. 42, 160, 169; vol. 3, pp. 24, 55; vol. 2, pp. I, 6; Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. i, pp. 347, 349, and Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 3, p. 132.
⁶Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 25.
⁷Ibid., vol. I, pp. 28, 32, 39, 44, 80, 101, 105, 106.
⁸Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 133, I4S, 146, I95, I99, 200, 201, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209-10, 218, 224, 225, 229, 229-30, 230-31, 234, 234-5, 235, 238, 247-8, 248, 249, 250, 250, 251, 252, 273-4, 282, 288, 293, 297, 314-IS, 317-18, 323, 330, 334, 337, 340, 343-4. 346, 347, 353-4, 358-9, 364-5, 369, 370-1, 371, 372: vol. 2, pp. 69, 82, 93-4 104-S, 183.
⁹Ibid., vol. I, pp. 364, 368.
¹⁰Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 3-1 1.
¹¹Ibid., vol. I, pp. 364-365.
¹²Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 2, p. 48.
¹³Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 102, 109, 133, 164, and Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 2, p. 66.
¹⁴Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 384, 388, and Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 2, p. 180.
¹⁵Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, p. 265.
¹⁶Ibid., vol. I, p. 288.
¹⁷Ibid., vol. I, p. 346.
¹⁸Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 3, p. 27.
¹⁹Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 3, reverse end, p. 72.
²⁰Hartford, Conn., County Court Records, vol. 4, p. 122, and Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 3, p. 157.
²¹Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 2, p. 108.
²²Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. i, p. 53.
²³Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. i, pp. 330-331.
²⁴"Eccleciastical", vol. I, document I, Conn. State Library.
²⁵Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, pp. 58, 148, I55, 221.
²⁶Ibid., vol. I, p. 224.
²⁷Ibid., vol. I, pp. 66, 69, 77.
²⁸Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, pp. 115, 116.
²⁹Ibid., vol. I, p. 329.
³⁰Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. I, p. 189.
³¹Ibid., vol. I, p. 95.
³²Ibid., vol. I, p. 224.
³³Ibid., vol. I, p. 137.
³⁴Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. 3, folio 229.
³⁵Ibid., vol. 3. folio 238.
³⁶Hartford, Conn., Probate Files, will of Richard Treat.
³⁷Treat Family, by John Harvey Treat, 1893, pp. 9, 31.
³⁸"Private Controversies", vol. 2, document 163, Conn. State Library.
³⁹"Towns and Lands", vol. 2, document 37, Conn. State Library.
⁴⁰Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, folio 60.
⁴¹Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 235.
⁴²Hartford, Conn., Probate Files, Jonathan Deming estate.
⁴³Eunice Standish and Sarah Standish wife of John Wyer "couzens" i.e. nieces of John Deming, were the daughters of Thomas Standish of Wethersfield, an adjoining land owner and neighbor of Mr. Deming.
⁴⁴Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. i, folio 60.
⁴⁵Hartford, Conn., County Court Records, vol. 7, pp. 132, 133.
⁴⁶Hartford, Conn., Probate Files, Samuel Deming estate.
⁴⁷Ibid., John Deming will.
⁴⁸A study of the records shows that John Moody was the head of the only Moody family in early Connecticut. He had one son, Samuel, who removed to Hadley, Mass., with the other settlers of that town, and could have been the only one of the name who married John Deming's daughter.
The Hadley and Northampton Records prove that Samuel's wife was named Sarah.
It is unlikely that they were married later than 1659, because their second child, John, was born July 24, 1661. See Hadley, Mass., "Births, Burials and Marriages, by Families", folio 7, and Hampshire County, Mass., Probate Records, vol. I, folio 270.
⁴⁹Among the entries of Births, Marriages and Deaths, on page 204 in volume 4 of New London, Conn., Land Records, is the marriage on November 16, 1665, of John Morgan and Rachel Dyman. Of their children were John, Samuel, Mercy and Sarah, all names borne by John Deming's children. See New London, Conn., Land Records, vol. 4, pp. 203, 202, 196, 193.
Is it not probable that Rachel, wife of John Morgan of New London, was the daughter of John Deming of Wethersfield?
⁵⁰Hannah Beckley was one of the children of John Deming whose legacy had not been fully paid at the death of the executor, Samuel Deming, the inventory of whose estate was taken September 5, 1709.
The Beckley sketch shows that the granddaughter mentioned in John Deming's will, Ann or Hannah Beckley, later wife of Robert Webster of Hartford, was the daughter of John Beckley of Wethersfield. Therefore, John Beckley's wife, daughter of John Deming, was named Hannah.
The marriage of John Beckley and Hannah Deming must have taken place before February 1670-'71, as at that time John Beckley was one of the house-holders in Wethersfield, among whom the Mile-in-Breadth was divided. Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 113.
⁵¹Hartford, Conn., Probate Files, John Deming will, and p. 43 of Births, Marriages and Deaths in vol. i, of Middletown, Conn., Land Records.
⁵²Hartford, Conn., Probate Files, John Deming will ; Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 3, pp. 126, 133 ; Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages, and Deaths, vol. i, p. 28, family record of Joseph and Mercy Curtis; in this record the date of death of Joseph Curtis is given as December 31, 1683, the same date being entered on the inventory of his estate, which was sworn to by his widow Mercy.
Hartford, Conn., County Court Records, vol. 4, pp. 85, 86, reverse end, pp. 173-174, and Probate Files, Joseph Curtis estate; Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. i, p. 63, marriage of Joseph Wright and Mercy -----.
Nathaniel Goodwin in his Genealogy of the Foote Family, p. 270, states that John Stoddard had two daughters, Mary and Mercy, who became the first and second wives respectively of Joseph Wright of Wethersfield.
⁵³Document 163 in volume 2 of "Private Controversies", in the Conn. State Library, is an affidavit dated August 25, 1682, wherein John Deming gives his age as "about 50 yeares".
Nathaniel Goodwin in his Genealogical Notes, page 233, gives the birth of this John as September 9, 1638. There is no such date of birth on record. It should read September 9, 1658, being the date of birth of John Deming, son of this John and grandson of John the settler. See Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. I, p. 36.
⁵⁴In an affidavit made October 13, 1696, Jonathan Deming gave his age as "about 56 years".
In another affidavit, made presumably the previous December, he gave the same age.
"Towns and Lands", vol. 2, documents 54 and 37, Conn. State Library.
The Wethersfield Town Records give his death as January 8, 1699-1700, aged about 61.
Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, folio 26.
He was possibly born as early as June, 1637, as he was made a freeman in May, 1658.
Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 314, 315.
The seventh of the Fundamental Orders adopted January 14, 1638-'39, prescribed that in the election of Deputies, they should "be chosen by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the seu^rall Townes and haue taken the oath of fidellity".
Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, p. 23.
In February, 1656-7, the General Court passed an act defining admitted inhabitants to mean "only housholders that are one & twenty yeares of age, or haue bore office, or haue 30 1. estate."
Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 288, 293.
This interpretation would seem to indicate that persons had been admitted inhabitants under twenty-one years of age.
It is therefore uncertain whether or not Jonathan Deming was twenty- one years old when he was admitted a freeman.
⁵⁵Samuel Deming died April 6, 1709, "aged nearly 63". Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, folio 60.
⁵⁶His gravestone in the Granary burying ground, Boston, Mass., gives the date of his death as May 4, 1725, aged 73. Pilgrims of Boston, by Thomas Bridgman, 1856, p. 62.
⁵⁷Births, Marriages and Deaths, County Court Record, 1655-1689", folio 20, Northampton Marriages, Town Clerk's Office, Hadley, Mass., and Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. I, p. 36.
⁵⁸Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. 2, reverse end, p. 6, and Conn. Particular Court Records, vol. 3, reverse end, p. III, will of George Graves.
⁵⁹Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, folio 26, and Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. 3, folio 154.
⁶⁰Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, folios 60, 36, and Middletown, Conn., Land Records, vol. 5, pp. 464-465.
⁶²Wethersfield, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, folio 21.
⁶³Ibid., vol. I, folio 29.

Pages 247-261:

THE FAMILY OF RICHARD TREAT

In the Treat Genealogy compiled by John Harvey Treat of Lawrence, Massachusetts, and printed in 1893, are extracts from the Parish Register of the church of St. Andrew and St. Mary, Pitminster, Somersetshire, England.
From these extracts, it appears that RICHARD TREAT, son of Robert, was baptized at Pitminster, August 28, 1584, and that he married April 27, 1615, ALICE GAYLORD, daughter of Hugh Gaylord.
The Register also gives the baptisms at that place of their ten children, from March 19, 1615-'16 to June 29, 1637, inclusive.¹
The next known of Richard Treat is at Wethersfield, Connecticut, where on
"The 7^th month (September) & 6^th Daie 1641",
there is recorded to him as having bought of John Whitmore,
"One peece wheron his howse & barne standeth con : twelue acor on halfe more or lesse the ands abutt against the comon or landing place & pte against the house lott of W^m Butler late Ro : Bates his house lott west & the mea : of ffran : Norton east the sids against the lands of W^m Butler Tho : Curtice North & the lands of Tho : Whitwaie ffran : Norton M^r Denton John Jessop & Tho : Colman South./ "

At the same time he also bought of John Whitmore eight other pieces of land in the Beaver Meadow, Wet Swamp, Dry Swamp, West Field, Pennywise and on the east side of the Connecticut River, all in Wethersfield.²
The above home-lot was recorded to Whitmore on the 5th of April 1641,³ five months earlier than when recorded to Richard Treat.
John Whitmore was one of the party that removed from Wethersfield in 1641 and founded the town of Stamford.
The conclusion is that Richard Treat bought the Whitmore property between April 5, 1641, and September 6 of the same year.
It is improbable that Richard Treat, a man of means, and with his large family of wife and nine children, should have been living in Wethersfield for any length of time before owning a home.
The statement has been made he must have emigrated to America as early as 1639, because his son Robert, who was then only fourteen years old, was living in Milford that year and was one of the committee that divided the lands of that town among its inhabitants.
It is an unheard of thing that a minor should have been appointed to any official position, and particularly to one of such importance as that just mentioned.
It is not generally known that the oldest volume of records of the town of Milford is not in existence; the present first volume was made by a committee chosen January 7, 1677,
"to Transcribe out of y^e Old books what is Necessary and of use to be Taken out of them and written in ye New book as Grants of Land &c"⁴

The first entry in this digest reads,
"Nouember 20^th 1639"
"Those persons whose names are here vnder written are allowed To be free planters hauing for the present liberty to act In the Choyce of publique officers for the Carrying on publique Aflfaires in this plantation."

Under this entry are the names of these forty-four men :
"Zachariah Whitman              Henry Stonhill                        Thomas Lawrance
Thomas Welsh     Nathaniel Baldwin Thomas Samford
Thomas Wheeler                     James Prudden Timothy Baldwin
Edmond Tappe Thomas Baker    Georg Clarke Jun^r
Thomas Buckingham              George Clarke Sen^r    John Burwell
Richard Miles George Hubburt    Henry Botsford
Richard Platt    Jasper Gunn    Joseph Baldwin
Thomas Topping    John ffletcher    Philip Hatly
M'' Peter Prudden    Alex: Bryan     Nicholas Camp
William fifowler                         ffrances Bolt                        John Rogers
John Astwood                         Micah Tomkins                     Thomas Vffett
Richard Baldwin                      John Birdsey                         Nathaniel Briscoe
Benjamin ffenn                        Edmond Haruy                     Thomas Tibballs
Samuell Coley                         John Lane                             John Sherman
John Peacocke                      William East"⁵

Immediately following this list of names appears this vote:
"The power is Setled in the Church to Chuse persons out of them [selues] To Diuide the lands into Lotts, as they shall haue light from the [word] of God, and to take order for the timber."⁵

Directly after this entry are these nine names :
"Robert Plum                            John Baldwin                         William Brookess
Roger Terrel                             William Slough                        Robert Treat
Joseph Northrupp                   Andrew Benton                     Henry Lyon"⁵

The New Haven Colony Records make it clear that up to October 23, 1643, except in the case of six persons, the town of Milford had required church membership as a prerequisite to admission as freeman.⁶
An examination of the original records, still extant, of the First Church of Milford shows that on November 20, 1639, the date given at the beginning of the Town Records, there were but eight men who were members of the church.
The names of these eight are not entered in the list of free planters in the order of their admission to the church, as the Church Records prove, nor are those of the thirty-six following.
Thomas Wheeler, the third person named in this list was not admitted to the church until August 9, 1640, and three of the seven organizing members of the church August 22, 1639, are named after one who was not admitted until July 2, 1640.
It is strongly suspected that on the original record considerable space was left after the first entry in the book and before the second entry regarding the qualification of church membership for appointment on town committees.
As the names now appearing in this space were entered either from time to time or as a whole several years later, the allotted space became filled and the nine names following the second vote are believed to be a continuation of this list of free planters.
They could not be the names of church members appointed for committee work at that date, November 20, 1639, as Robert Plum, the first one named, did not become a church member until August 4, 1644, and Joseph Northrupp, the earliest of these nine to become a church member, was not admitted until March 27, 1642.
March 9, 1639-'40 is the date of the entry on the Town Records immediately following this list of nine names and thereafter the entries run in chronological order.
These facts strengthen the suspicion that these two lists of forty-four and nine names respectively, fifty-three in all, should be taken together as the list of the free planters of the town up to April 19, 1649, when Robert Treat, next to the last one named in the list, was admitted to membership in the Milford Church, and has no other significance.
Robert Treat was evidently living in Wethersfield September 26, 1647, for at a town meeting held there on that date
"Nath Dickinson" and "Robert Tratt"' were appointed a committee to make a rate for the raising of £25 to defray the debts owing by that town.⁸
Possibly Robert Treat was living in Milford in 1648 when his son Samuel was baptized there on the 3rd of August or September of that year, as the imperfect date on the Milford Church Records indicates, the father Robert, according to the entry, still being a "memb"" of y^e church of Wethersfield."⁹
There are no lands in Milford recorded to Robert Treat until February 23, 1649-'50¹⁰ although he and his wife Jane were admitted to membership in the Milford Church April 19, 1649, ten months earlier.
Because of all these facts, it is believed that Richard Treat, head of the Connecticut Treat family and father of Robert, did not emigrate to America and certainly did not appear in Wethersfield, much if any before 1641.
Richard Treat added to his Wethersfield holdings of September 1641, by purchasing November 28 of the same year, from Thurston Rayner the latter's homestead of four acres and six other pieces, aggregating four hundred and thirty-nine acres.¹¹
October 27, 1643, he bought the homestead and other lands of Matthew Mitchell, comprising two hundred and thirty acres.¹²
These various parcels amounted in all to more than six hundred and sixty acres, and their purchase discloses real estate transactions of magnitude, very rare for that time and unusual even at a later date.

One year after his first purchase of lands in Wethersfield, he entered upon his notable public life.
Among the records of a session of the General Court of Connecticut, held September 29, 1642, appears this entry:
"That the Country may be better enabled to kill yearely some Beves for supply of Leather,
"It is Ordered, that no Calues shall be killed w^thin these Plantations, w^thout the approbation of two men w^thin ech Towne, by the Court to be
appoynted for that searuice, vppon forfeture of ten shillings to the Country".......................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"for Wethersfield, Leo : Chester, Rich : Trotte."¹³

At another meeting of the Court held December 1, 1642,
"The Gou^r, Mr. Heynes, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Whiting, Capten Mason, Mr. Chester, Mr. Hill and Mr. Trott are desiered to take the accoumpt of what the seuerall Townes will disburse toward the building of a Shippe, (and if they find yt phesable,) they haue power to agree w^th workemen to carry on the worke and to take ingadgements of the Country to p^rforme what they vndertake, and to doe all things requisit for the full accomplisheing of the worke."¹⁴
It is noteworthy that within so short a time after Richard Treat's appearance in Connecticut, he should have been selected to serve on a committee among the leading men of the colony, such as the Governor and four of the Magistrates.
Mr. Treat's ability was already being recognized at this early date.
He served on the jury of the Particular Court in June and September 1643, October 1645, December 1647 and December 1648.¹⁵
On page 27 of volume I of Wethersfield Town Votes is entered an agreement regarding the payment, between April 22 and the last of September 1647, to Nathaniel Dickinson, of a debt owing him by the town. The document is signed by "Richard Tratt" and "Robert Parke", who it is suspected were acting at that time in the capacity of Townsmen.
The records of the town meetings held February 17, 1653-'54 and February 24, 1654-'55, show that Richard Treat was elected a Townsman on those dates.¹⁶
In the agreement with George Fenwick for the purchase of the Saybrook Colony, he was to receive a duty on corn and other produce which should pass out of the Connecticut River. He was also to be paid a tax on cattle and horses owned in each of the river towns, and on swine killed therein.¹⁷
In accordance with this agreement, the General Court in December 1645, appointed one man in each of the three towns to collect the tax due under the agreement.
"Mr. Trotte" was appointed for Wethersfield.¹⁸
Like other early New England towns, the seating or dignifying of the meeting house was done by a committee appointed in town meeting.
December 28, 1649, "Mr Trat Sam: Smith senior & Nath Dickinson" were chosen such a committee.¹⁹
The history of Wethersfield in regard to its early ministers is not pleasant reading.
Bitter quarrels arose between Reverend Henry Smith and some of the inhabitants, and his successor Reverend John Russell had a similar experience.
At a town meeting held April 16, 1658, it
"was uoated that sixe men should be chousen to tret with M^r Russel to nowe wether he doth intend to remoue from us or taray with us, Mr. Trat, M^r Hollester, John Demon, Tho : Curtis, Tho : Standish Sam. Boreman and so to re turne ansuer to the toune."²⁰

In the Deming sketch is given a petition to the General Court, dated August 17, 1658, in which Mr. Russell is accused, among other things, of taking a "sinfull" oath.
The petition was signed by five male and six female members of the church, among the latter of whom was "Alc Treate", and by thirty-nine other residents of the town, among whom was "Richard Treate", husband of Alice.
Lieutenant John Hollister, son-in-law of Richard Treat, had been summarily excommunicated from the Wethersfield Church, probably because of his opposition to Mr. Russell.
The matter was brought before the General Court, March 9, 1658-'59, and the church was ordered to disclose on what grounds Mr. Hollister was expelled.
The record of that date further shows that,
"whereas Mr. Treat, Mr. Hollister, Jo : Demant, are desirous and willing to attend some regular way for the composing their differences, and to y^t end desire some Ch^s: or p^rsons may be thought on, to heare and determine the same; It is desired by the Court, that Wethersfeild Ch:, w^th y^e officer, would consid^r the matter and seasonably, w^thout delay, conclude if it can be, vpon some way that may effect the issueing their sad differences."²¹

The removal of Mr. Russell from Wethersfield left a vacancy in the pastorate, and March 24, 1658-'59, "M^r Tratt" and four others were appointed a committee to procure "a setled and an aproved minister".²² He was chosen on similar committees in September 1663, July 1664 and September 1667.²³
In February 1660-'61 he was on a committee to secure a house for the minister.²⁴
Within four years after his arrival in Wethersfield, Richard Treat was elected a Deputy to the General Court, appearing first at the session of April 1644. He also served at the sessions of September 12, November 15 and December 11, 1644; April 10, July 9, September 11, October 8 and December 1, 1645; April 9 and October 30, 1646; January 28, 1646-'47, May 20, June 2 and September 9, 1647; February 23 and March 9, 1647-'48; May 18, September 14 and December 6, 1648; January 25 and March 14, 1648-'49; May 17, June 6, September 13, October 10, November 7 and December 5, 1649; March 20, 1649-'50; May 16, October 9 and 31, 1650; February 5 and March 19, 1650-'51 ; May 15, September 11 and October 6, 1651 ; May 20, June 30, September 9 and October 6, 1652; February 23, 1652-'53; April 14, May 18, July 28, August 11, September 8, October 21 and 29 and November 23 and 30, 1653; March 1 and 6, 1653-'54; April 6, May 18, July 11, September 14 and October 3, 1654; March 7, 1654-'55 ; May 17 and October 4, 1655 ; March 26 and May 15, 1656; February 26, 1656-'57; April 9, May 21, August 12 and October 1, 1657 and March 11 and 24, 1657-'58, making in all seventy sessions.²⁵
At the session of October 25, 1644, action was taken regarding
"the mayntenaunce of scollers at Cambridge",
and two men were
"appoynted in euery Towne w^thin this Jurisdiction, who shall demaund what euery family will giue, and the same to be gathered and brought into some roome, in March; and this to continue yearely as yt shalbe considered by the comissio^rs.
"The p^rsons to demand what will be giuen are"
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"For Wethersfield, Mr. Trott, Mr. Wells."²⁶

At a session of the General Court held March 11, 1657-'58, nominations for the office of Magistrate or Assistant were made to be voted for at the annual election of that year; one of those nominated was "Mr. Treat Senior of Wethersfeild".²⁷
The nomination of Richard Treat to that office was confirmed by the people and his election declared at the "Court of Election", which opened May 20, 1658.²⁸
He was continued in this office until May 1665,²⁹ serving his last term as Assistant at the advanced age of eighty years.
In October 1660, a committee consisting of a Magistrate and Deputy from each of the three towns, Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, with John Hart of Farmington, was appointed to view and dispose of the lands for a plantation at "30 Miles Island", now Haddam.
"Mr. Treat Sen^r" was the Magistrate appointed from Wethersfield.³⁰
Among the acts of a General Assembly held at Hartford, March 11, 1662-'63, we find one as follows:
"This Court doth order that in y^e vacancy of the sitting of the Generall Court, there shalbe a Councill, consisting of the Assistants here on the Riuer, or such as can convene, to y^e number of fiue at least, to act in emerg^t occasions that concerne y^e welfare of this Colony. And hereby doe authorize the said Councill to act in all necessary concernments, both miletary and civill, according as the p^rsent exegents require
and call for."³¹

From the papers of Governor Jonathan Trumbull preserved in the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society and some of which are printed in the Society's Collections, we learn that at a meeting of the Council held at Hartford, April 2, 1664, at which were present Governor John Winthrop and four of the Assistants, three men were appointed as Commissioners with magisterial powers, for the town of Wickford and "the places adjoining within the Colony of Connecticott".
Richard Treat was one of the Assistants present at this meeting.³²
Among the steps taken to procure a charter for the Connecticut Colony was the action of the General Court held March 14, 1661-'61, when it was declared that
"it is our duty and very necessary to make a speedy address to his Sacred Maiesty, our Soveraigne Lord Charles the Second, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, to acknowledge our loyalty and allegiance to his highnes, hereby declareing and professing ourselues, all the Inhabitants of this Colony, to be his Highnes loyall and faythfull subjects. And doe further conclude it necessary that we should humbly petition his Maiesty for grace and fauour, and for y^e continuance and confirmation of such privilidges and liberties as are necessary for the comfortable and peaceable settlement of this Colony."³³

At the same time an appropriation of I 500 was made to meet the expenses of the transaction, and on the 7th of June following, the Treasurer was authorized to sign a letter of credit for that amount, in behalf of the Governor who was deputed as the colony's agent to proceed to England to obtain a charter from the King.³⁴
Document 330 in the Collections of the Robert C. Winthrop Papers in the Connecticut State Library reads thus:
"Wee whose names are vnder written being Magestrates of this Colony of Conecticut doe hereby declare and Testify to all whom it may concerne that Cap^t John Talcot is y^e Treasurer for the said Colony of Conecticutt and that he had spetiall order from y^e Generall Court of the said Colony to signe and deliuer a Letter of Credit to y^e Right Worship^ll: John Winthrop Esqr and Gouerno^r of the Aforesaid Colony to y^e value of ffiue hundred pounds sterling to be paid in provisions or such vsuall pay of this Countrey for which he shal charg Bills to Y^e Treasurer of this said Colony of Conecticut and that the said Treasurer hath order vpon y^e Receipt of any Bills from y^e Right Wopp^ll: John Winthrop Esqr for y^e said sum or any part thereof to make due and ful payment thereof according to y^e Tenour of y^e said Bills.
                                                                                                                                                                                 Samll Willys
                                                                                                                                                                                 Mathew Allyn
                                                                                                                                                                                 William Phelps.

                                                                                                                      Signature of Richard Treat

With the instructions given to Governor Winthrop for his guidance in securing the Charter was a Hst of the names of those persons to whom it was desired that the Charter should be issued in behalf of the colony.
Among these men was Richard Treat and his name appears eighth in that memorable document.³⁵
It has been shown that Richard Treat, by purchase of John Whitmore, Thurston Rayner and Matthew Mitchell, became the owner of a large landed estate in Wethersfield, part of which lay on the east side of the Connecticut River.
In April 1653, the town granted him as an addition to his farm on the east side of the river a tract of land, the full width of his farm and extending eastward three miles.³⁶
September 17, 1659, he bought of the Reverend John Russell on the latter's removal to Hadley, his homestead in Wethersfield."
On page 120 of the first volume of Wethersfield Land Records is an undated entry showing the transfer from Richard Treat to his son Richard, of lands at "Noyake", now a part of the town of Glastonbury. The tract fronted on the river three hundred and ten rods or nearly one mile.
Prior to February 28, 1656, part of the homesteads of Thurston Rayner and Samuel Hubbard had been transferred to Richard Treat Junior, who sold them to Thomas Colman.³⁸
On folio 112 of volume 2 of the Wethersfield Land Records is entered a deed dated September 28, 1664, whereby Richard Treat Senior,
"in consideration of the fatherly loue and natarall affection which I haue and bare unto my beloued Sonn James Treat of weathersfield",
conveyed to the said James seven pieces of land in Wethersfield. The first was a home-lot of three acres with a dwelling house and barn thereon, and was bounded southeast on Broad street, southwest on the home-lot of John Riley, northwest on Rose Lane and northeast on land of Richard Treat.
The second piece was another home-lot of three and one-fourth acres and was bounded northwest on Broad street and northeast on the way leading into the plain.
The other pieces, aggregating two hundred and fourteen and one-half acres, were located at "Fill Barne" and "Send Home" in the Great Meadow, the Long Row in Dry Swamp, the West Field and Mile Meadow.
The title to these lands was not to take effect until after the deaths of the grantor and his wife. The deed was witnessed by Hugh Welles and "Alce" Treat.
March 3, 1668-'69, he also gave his son James the title to five acres of land at the upper end of Mile Meadow.³⁹

The will of Richard Treat made February 13, 1668-'69, which is herewith given in full, shows that at that date his wife "Alis" was living.
How much longer she lived after the date of this document is now unknown.
He was living as late as October 1669, when he was enrolled among the freemen of Wethersfield.⁴⁰ He must have died within the next three months, for in January 1669-'70 an inventory of his estate was taken. This with the will was presented to the County Court, March 3, 1669-'70.⁴¹
"The last will and Testament of M^r Richard Treatt senior of Wethersfeild in the Collonie of Conecticotte in manno^r and forme as followeth"
"Imprimis I being weak and infirme of body, but of sound vnderstanding and of competent memory, doe resigne my soull to the lord hopeing to be Justified & saued by the merrit of christ and my body to be buried.
"Item I giue and bequeath to my loueing wife Alis Treatt after my decease all the lands of what kinde soeuer, I stand possessed of within y^e bounds of Wethersfeild vid : fine acres of land lyeing in the dry swompe w^ch I haue jmproued and p^rpared for use lyeing next my son James his land. Item one peece of meddow lyeing in the great meddow comonly called by the name of send-home. Item the one halfe or eight acres next home of that peece of meddow comonly cald filbarne Item the home lotte by the plaine lane side Item y^e dwelling house that I formerly liued in with Convenient yeard room and that end of y^e barne on ys side the threshing fioure next the dwelling howse with the one halfe of that lotte belonging to y^e said dwelling howse lyeing next his son Richards howse & lotte except my wife & son James shall agree other wise. Item all my pasture land fenced in beyond my Daughter Hollisters lotte Item the use of two of my best Cowes w^ch shee shall chuse w^ch if they shall continue & stand longer then my loueing wife liueth, they shall be my eldest sone Richard Treatts Item I giue to my loueing wife the standing bed bedding bested w^ch all the furniture thereto belonging with the use of so much of the houshold goods dureing her life time as she shall judge need full for her comforte of what sort soeuer
"Item I giue and bequeath to my eldest son Richard Treat the full possession & confermation of the farme of Nayog w^th all y^e respectiue Priueledges therto belonging with three of my youngest heifers
"Item I giue to my second sonne Robert Treat ten pounds
"Item I giue to my youngest sonne James Treatt besides the lands already made ouer to him my mill & grinding stone fanne timber chaine stilyeards and my little bible
"Item I giue to my sonn in law Mathew Camfeild twentie pounds for that w^ch is remaineing of his portion
"Item I giue to my Daughter Hollister fourtie shillings
"Item to my Daughter Johnson ten shillings
"Item my debts being paid I giue to my loueing sons John Demon and Robert Webster equally all the rest of my goods and chattells whatsoeuer Except m^r Perkins Book w^ch I giue to my sonn John Demon and my great bible to my Daughter Honour Demon and that moeny in my Cousen Samuell Wells his hand vnto my Cousen Dauid Demon son of John Demon senior, and my desire is that my son in law John Demon Robert Webster and Richard Treat would be my ouerseers for their mutuall helpfullness to my loueing wife & endeauoure to see the accomplishm^t this my last will & testam^t:
"And for the Ratification heerof I haue this thirteenth of ffebruary 1668 set to my hand & seall
                                                                                                                                                                           Richard Treat                                seal

"An Inuentory of y^e Estate of M^r Richard Treat Senio^r of (wethersfeild) deceased"
"Imp: Cattell and swine                                                  -                 -                  34¹ -00 — 00
Item Seuerall Goods in y^e house y^e
    perticulars haue been Valued are these
        that follow
In y^e chamber next y^e barne -                                     -                 -                   05 — 06 — 00
In y^e other chamber              -                                     -                 -                   05—15—00
More in y^e same chamber                                          -      -                                02 — 16 — 00
To seueralls in y^e kitchen w^ch haue been
                                                         ualued at                                                      13¹-11 — 02
In y^e parlour    - -    03 — 12 — 06
   oats & indian corn & salt                                          -                   -                   04 — 10 — 00
                                                                                                                               ______________
                                                                                                                                69=10=08"
"Jan : 69. prised by
                                     John Deminge
                                     John Not
                                     Robert webster"⁴²

Richard Treat was unquestionably one of the wealthiest men of Wethersfield of his day.
His will made within twelve months of his death indicates that he owned considerable real estate at that time.
The Wethersfield Records do not show any transfer of this property by him and it is very peculiar that it does not appear in the inventory.
Moreover the amount of personal estate mentioned therein evidently does not include all he possessed.
Beyond accepting and recording his will and inventory, nothing was done by the County Court.
That such was the case still remains a mystery.

CHILDREN OF RICHARD AND ALICE (GAYLORD) TREAT

Honour                bap. Mar. 19, 1615-'16;⁴³    mar.      John Deming⁴⁴ of Wethersfield, Conn.
Joanna               "         May 24, 1618;⁴³          "            John Hollister⁴⁵ of Wethersfield, Conn.
Sarah                  "         Dec 3, 1620;⁴³             "            before Oct. 19, 1645, Matthew Canfield⁴⁶ of New Haven and Norwalk, Conn., and
                                                                                               Newark, N.J.
Richard              bap. Jan. 9, 1622-'23;⁴³       mar.      before Feb. 14, 1661-2, Sarah Colman,⁴⁷ and lived in Wethersfield, now Glastonbury, Conn.
Robert                "        Feb. 25, 1624-'25;⁴³     "            1, before Sept., 1648, Jane Tapp.⁴⁸                                                                                        2, Oct. 24, 170S, Elizabeth ( ) Hollingsworth Bryan,⁴⁹ and lived in Milford, Conn., Newark, N. J.,
                                                                                            and again in Milford, Conn.
Elizabeth            "        July 25, 1627;⁴³            "            before June 20, 1650, George Wolcott⁵⁰ of Wethersfield, Conn.
Alice                   "        Feb. 16, 1631-2;⁴³      bur.        Aug. 2, 1633.⁴³
James                "        July 30, 1634;⁴³           mar.      Jan. 26, 1664-5, Rebecca Latimer,⁵¹ and lived in Wethersfield, Conn.
Katharine          "         June 29, 1637;⁴³         "             Nov. 19, 165s, Rev. William Thomson⁵² of Springfield, Mass., New London, Conn., and
        , Virginia.

¹The Treat Family, by John Harvey Treat, Salem, Mass., 1893, pp. 9, 26.
²Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. I, p. 118.
³Ibid., vol. I, p. 213.
⁴Milford, Conn., Land Records, vol. 9, reverse end, p. 14.
⁵Milford, Conn., Land Records, "vols, I & 2", p. I.
⁶New Haven Colonial Records, vol. I, pp. no, in.
⁷The family name has undergone various changes. On the early records the surname was written sometimes Tratt and again Trotte.
In 1647 Richard the founder of the American family signed his name on the Wethersfield Records as Richard Tratt.
Eight years later or September 23, 1655, as an appraiser of the estate of Nathaniel Foote of Wethersfield, he subscribed his name Richard Treat and thereafter, or for the last fifteen years of his life, he appears to have adhered to this form of the name.
⁸Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 27.
⁹Milford, Conn., First Church Records, unpaged.
¹⁰Milford, Conn., Land Records, "vols, I & 2", p. 118.
¹¹Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. I, p. 119.
¹²Ibid., vol. I, p. 121, and original document preserved in the Henry Whitfield House, Guilford, Conn.
¹³Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, p. 75.
¹⁴Ibid., vol. I, pp. 77, 80.
¹⁵Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 88, 93, 132, 159, 172.
¹⁶Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, pp. 26, 44.
¹⁷Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 266-270.
¹⁸Ibid., vol. I, pp. 134-135.
¹⁹Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 35.
²⁰Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 53.
²¹Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 330-331.
²²Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 58.
²³Ibid., vol. I, pp. 77, 81, 101.
²⁴Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. i, p. 69.
²⁵Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. i, pp. 103, 111, 114, 116, 124, 128, 130, 132, 133, 137-138, 145, 146, 149, 155, 157, 159, 160-161, 163, 166, 169, 174, 178, iSs, 188, 195, 199, 200, 201, 205, 207, 212, 212, 213-214, 216, 218, 224, 225, 230-231, 234 234-235, 235, 237, 238, 240, 245, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 250, 251, 252, 256, 261, 264, 261, 272, 273-274, 278, 279, 280-281, 288, 293, 297, 300, 306, 308, 313.
²⁶Ibid., vol. I, pp. Ill, 112.
²⁷Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. i, pp. 308, 310.
²⁸Ibid., vol. I, p. 314.
²⁹Ibid., vol. I, pp. 334, 347, 364-365, 378, 398, 425-
³⁰Ibid., vol. I, pp. 353, 354.
³¹Ibid., vol. I, pp. 392, 397.
³²Mass. Historical Society's Collections, fifth series, vol. 9, pp. 59-61.
³³Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 358, 361-362.
³⁴Ibid., vol. I, pp. 358, 362, 369, 370.
³⁵Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. I, pp. 579-581, and vol. 2. pp. 3-1 1.
³⁶Wethersfield, Conn., Town Votes, vol. I, p. 41.
³⁷Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. 2, folio 18.
³⁸Ibid., vol. I, p. 163.
³⁹Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. 2, folio 113.
⁴⁰Colonial Records of Connecticut, vol. 2, p. 520.
⁴¹Hartford, Conn., County Court Records, vol. 3, p. 97, and reverse end, pp. 72-73.
⁴²Hartford, Conn., Probate Files, Richard Treat estate.
⁴³The Treat Family, by John Harvey Treat, Salem, Mass., 1893, p. 9.
⁴⁴Hartford, Conn., Probate Files, will of Richard Treat.
⁴⁵Hartford, Conn., County Court Records, vol. 3, reverse end, pp. 72-73, will of Richard Treat, and reverse end, p. 13, will of John HoUister.
⁴⁶New Haven, Conn., First Church Records, unpaged, baptism of Samuel, son of Matthew Camfield.
⁴⁷Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. 2, p. 29, birth of Richard, son of Richard and Sarah Treat, and vol. 3, p. 60, receipt from Richard Treat of a legacy from the estate of "his father Thomas Colman deceased".
⁴⁸Milford, Conn., First Church Records, unpaged, baptism of Samuel, son of Robert Treat, and Milford, Conn., Land Records, vols, 1 & 2, p. 118.
⁴⁹Milford, Conn., Births, Marriages and Deaths, vol. I, unpaged; New Haven, Conn., County Court Records, vol. I, pp. 171, 141, 258, and New Haven, Conn., Probate Records, vol. 3, pp. 86, 296.
⁵⁰Wolcott Ledgers & Genealogy, 1647-1691, unpaged, family of Henry Wolcott, Conn., Historical Society, and Wethersfield, Conn., Land Records, vol. I, p. 17, birth of Elizabeth, daughter of George and Elizabeth Wolcott.
⁵¹This date of marriage is given on page 230 of Nathaniel Goodwin's Genealogical Notes. Perhaps it was taken from some private record, but the original authority for it is now unknown.
⁵²Boston Record Commissioners' Report, vol. 9, p. 53.

Source: Starr, Frank Farnsworth, Various Ancestral Lines of James Goodwin and Lucy (Morgan) Goodwin of Hartford, Connecticut, Vol. II (Morgan Lines), Hartford, CT: The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Press, 1915, pgs. 223-261.

Genealogy of the Descendants of John Deming

JOHN DEMING, the immigrant ancestor of most of the persons bearing his family name, was one of the early settlers of Wethersfield, Connecticut, where he recorded his homestead in 1641, as a house, a bam, and five acres of land, bounded by High Street, west, the Great Meadow, east, Thomas Standishe's homestead, north, and Richard Crabbe's homestead, south. The dates of his birth, marriage and death, have never been discovered. His wife was Honor Treat, daughter of Richard Treat, whose second wife Alice Gaylord, may have been her mother. It has not been proven that Honor was his first and only wife, nor that she was the mother of all of his children, although it is probable. In his will of 13 Feb. 1668, Richard Treat makes the following bequest: "Item: My debts being paid, I give to my loving sons John Demon, and Robert Webster, equally, all the rest of my goods and chattels whatsoever, except Mr. Perkins book, which I give to my son John Demon, and my great bible to my daughter Honor Demon, And that money in my cousin Samuel Welles, his band, unto my cousin David Deming, son of John Demon senior."* This obscure clause seems to indicate that there was a John Demon senior, as well as John Demon the son-in-law, and suggests the possibility that the father of John Deming of Wethersfield was also named John. This is stated as a fact by Hinman, with- out giving authority, and the theory is farther supported by the statements of the compiler of the Welles Genealogy, and other genealogists. Treat refers to David Deming as his cousin, and indicates the same relationship With Samuel Welles, who is presumably the son of Gov. Thomas Welles, who married Elizabeth Deming, said to have been a sister of John Deming. It would thus appear that the Treats, Welles, and Demings were connected in some way, perhaps before their removal to America. This is the only clew to the parentage of John Deming, and may ultimately lead to its final discovery.

It has been stated by some genealogists that John Deming was among the very first settlers of Wethersfield in 1635, and such is probably the case, but the proof is lacking. His first appearance upon the public records of the colony, after recording his homestead, was in 1642, March 2nd, when he was one of the jury of the "particular court." In 1645, Dec. 1st, he appears among the deputies as Jo. Demon, and in 1656 as John Dement, when as a deputy, he is appointed one of a committee, "to give the best safe advice they can to the Indians." In 1657, May 21st, he appears as a deputy to the General Court, as John Deming, and the following year as John Dement. He was a deputy at various courts until 1667, under various names, the name Deming prevailing at the last. He was also a litigant in several lawsuits. He is one of those named in the famous charter of Connecticut, in which King Charles granted to them and to those who should afterwards become associated with them, the lands of Connecticut, "in free and common socage," and established a colonial government with unusual privileges.

Across the river from Wethersfield, and within its boundaries, lay the "Naubuc Farms," afterwards incorporated into the town of Glastonbury. Here among the first to obtain a lot, was John Deming in the year 1640, his name appearing as John Demion.^t It is not at all likely that he ever lived here, for he had a house in Wethersfield the following year, and he sold the land on the east side of the river to Samnel Wyllis before 1668. He also owned land in Eastbury, for which he was taxed in 1673. In 1669 he is listed among the freemen of Wethersfield, as John Deming Senior, together with John Deming Junior, and Jonathan Deming. He bought considerable land in Wethersfield at various times, some of which he gave to his sons before he died.^‡ The actual date of his death has never been discovered. He signed a codicil to his will Feb. 3, 1692, and this is the last recorded act of his life. When the public lands were allotted to the inhabitants in 1695, he did not draw a portion.^‡ It is probable that he died soon after 1692, although his will was not proved until 21 Nov. 1705, and Savage, and other genealogists have assumed that he lived until that year.

*Goodwin's Conn. Families p. 227.
t Chapin't History of Glastenbury p. 162.
‡ Mss. of Judge Adams of Wethersfield.

No public record has been found of the births of the children of John Deming, but their names, as far as known, have been taken from his will, which is preserved in the Probate Court of Hartford, and is given herein, in full:

The Will of John Deming Senior of Wethersfield Conn.

I, John Deming Sen'r, of Wethersfield, being of Good understanding & sound Memory, doe see it my duty to set my house in order, & to setle my estate so that peace may be continued in my famaly, when I shall be gathered to my fathers; & I doe therefore Make & declare this to be my last win & Testament/hereby renowncing & making voyd all former wills & Testaments by me made, & establishing this onely to be my last will & Testament, first I commend my spirit to God expecting Salvation onely by Jesus Christ, & my body to a comely Christian Buriall expecting a glorious resurrection & reunion of soule & body In the last day. for my worldly Goods I haveing allready done well for my son John, I now give him my Great Bible Genera print, & my feather bed & boulster & my Great Ketle, To be to him & his hetres forever. I give to my son Samuel my house & Home lott, wth all the buildings upon it, containing Nine acres be it more or less & is Bownded as In the records as allso my meadow adjoyning, containing about seventeen acres be it more or less & abutts on mr willys South, Tho Standige his Land east the Highway North & my home Lott west, & Twelve acres in the west swamp at the reare of my son davids Lott, allso I give unto him my flock of Sheep & my neat cattell & all my horses & Horse kind, & all my swine, & all my moveables within dores, & all my Moveables with out dores (not otherwise dissposed by this my Last will) & all my husbandry, tooles & Implements all to be to him & his heires forever, he payeing my Just debts & funerall charges, & such Legacies as I doe hereby appoynt him to pay. I give to my son david all my Materialls & tooles in my Shop & my booke debts he payeing those debts I owe about my Trade. I give to my sonn Ebenezer my best coat & my best Hatt. I give to my daughter Morgan my daughter Beckly my daughter Hurlbut my daughter Wright five pownds apeice to be payd by my executor with in five yeares after my deccasse. I give to my couzen Unis Standidg & to my cousin Sarah wyer wife of John Wyer Twenty pownds apeice to be payd by my executor within Two yeares after my decease I give to my daughter Moody as a token of my love to her Ten shillings, I haveing allready given her a Good portion. I give to my Grand Child Ann Beckley five pownds to be payd her by my executor at her day of Mariage. I doe hereby constitute & appoynt my son Samuell to be my whole & sole executor of this mv Last will and Testament & desire my Hono'rd friend capt Sam'll Talcott & my son Ebenezer Deming to be overseers whoe I desire to Assist my executor wth their best advice in all his occassion & to see this my will be duely attended, finally I doe desire and commend all my children to know fear & serve the God of their father with all their hearts might & strength, & to Live in Love & unity one with another that God even my God may be with them & blesse them for confirmation here of I have Set to my hand & seall June 26 1690
signed sealed & declared                                                    John Deming         _______
                                                                                                                                 )   red (
in presence of us                                                                     Sener                     ) wax (
John: Allyn                                                                                                               ) seal   (
                                                                                                                                  _______
George Grave                                                                                                                        February 3d 1692, whereas I gave my son John my great Bible my feather bed & Boulster, & my great Ketle I doe now with draw that Guift & I give unto my sayd son John all my materiall & tooles in my shop & my book debts he paying those debts I ow about my Trade & whereas in my will above I gave my Grand Child Ann Beckley five pownds she having miscarryd I withdraw my guift hrom her and that five pownds I give to my sonn David for the confirmation hereof & of all the above writen I doe hereunto set my hand the day & yeare above written.                                (red)
signed sealed & declared in presence of us                                                                John Deming    (seal)

John Allyn
Zacharihah Sandford

(On the reverse side of the will appears the following:)
Att a Court of Probates holden at Hartford, November 21st 1705 Zachariah Sandford one of the Witnesses of the within written Last Will of Mr. John Deming dec'd appeared in this Court and made Sollemn Oath, that he was present & saw the Sd John Deming Subscribe & Seal the Addition or Codicill to the Sd within written Will, and did hear the Sd John Deming declare the Same, with what else is Contained in this Sheet, to be his last Will & Testament, and that then John Allyn Esq, the other of the Sd Witnesses was present also, and With him Signed as Witnesses thereunto, & that the Sd John Deming was at the Same time (according to his Judgement) of Sound and disposeing mind and Understanding.
                                                                                                                                                                   Test Caleb Stanly Clerk.

This old will is the one glimpse we have of the character of John Deming. It reveals a spirit of piety, of love for his family and his friends, and the companionship of some of the best men in the colony. It shows that he was a man of substance, well supplied with lands, and cattle; that he was equipped to work at some trade, which no doubt proved of service in the little colony when they first settled so far from the older towns on the coast. We would like to know what that trade was, but the records are silent on that point. Under the first will, David was to have the tools of the shop, and David, we know, was a rope-maker; but under the codicil to the will, these tools went to John Deming Junior, and whether he continued in his father's trade or not, we are not informed. At the time this will was written, John Deming must have been over seventy years old, and we may picture him in his last days among his children and grandchildren, reading from his old Geneva bible, or talking with his old friends and neighbors of the trials and hardships of the early days of the settlement. As his wife is not mentioned in his will, it is probable that she died first. The church records of Wethersfield show among the members in 1694 "Jon. Deming Jr's. widow." It is hard to tell to whom this refers, unless to the widow of John Deming the first settler, but it is more probable that some other person is meant. Eunice Standish and her sister Sarah mentioned in the will as cousins, were daughters of Thos. Standish, whose land adjoined Deming's. The connection of this family with Capt. Miles Standish of the Plymouth colony, has not been discovered. It would be interesting to learn how close was the relationship between the Deming and Standish families.

That John Deming was a prominent man in the affairs of the Connecticut Colony, cannot be doubted, and his apparent association by kinship and friendship with those whom we look upon as among the founders of New England, indicates that he was a man of more than ordinary intelligence, and possessed of some education. It is to be hoped that future investigation may bring to light more information than we now have regarding his life in America, and the history of his birth and ancestry in his mother country.

Trumbull speaks of John Deming as one of the fathers of Connecticut,^§ and Hinman says of him, that in 1654 he held the office of Constable of Wethersfield, an office which proved that he was in the full confidence of the Governor.^t His name frequently appears upon the records of the colony with the prefix "Mr.," a courtesy paid only to men of some prominence. The same authority^t states that he was a representative at fifty sessions of the General Court, while in Hollister's roll of deputies, he is credited with nineteen sessions.^‡ It is certain that he bore his full share in the upbuilding of the colony, serving his country as the opportunity presented itself, and setting an example of good citizenship, which has born fruit in the loyalty and patriotism of many of his descendants during many generations.

§ Trumbull's History of Conn. Vol. 1 p. 46.
t Hinman Mss.
‡ Hollister's History of Conn. Vol. 1 p. 501.

CHILDREN OF JOHN DEMING:
2. John, b. 9 Sep. 1638.
3. Jonathan, b. about 1639.
    A daughter^t, b. about 1643, m. a Beckley of Wethersfield.
    Rachel, b. about 1644, m. 16 Nov. 1665, John Morgan of Wethersfield,
4. Samuel, b. about 1646.
   Mary, b. about 1648, m. about 1670, John Hurlburt of Wethersfield.
   Mercy^§, b. about 1651, m. Thos. (or Jos.) Wright of Wethersfield, and d. 17 Dec. 1714, s. p.
5. David, b. about 1652.
   Sarah, b. about 1654, m. Samuel Moody of Hartford, and d. 29 Sep., 1717, in Hadley, Mass.
6. Ebenezer, b. about 1659.

Source: Deming, Judson Keith, Genealogy of the Descendants of John Deming of Wethersfield, Connecticut, Dubuque, IA: Press of Mathis-Mets Company, 1904, pgs. 3-9.

Whittemore's Genealogical Guide to the Early Settlers of America

CANFIELD (Sometimes written CAMPFIELD). Matthew Canfield, of New Haven, 1644, married Sarah, daughter of Richard Treat, (father of Gov. Treat), of Wethersfield, and had Samuel 1645, Sarah, Ebenezer 1649, Matthew 1650, Hannah 1651, Rachel 1652. He removed to Norwalk and there had Jonathan and Mary. He was a representative at the General Court in 1654, until the union of the Connecticut and New Haven colonies in the Royal Charter, where this name is inserted and after that union 1665-6, he removed to Newark, N. J., and died there 1673.

Source: Whittemore, Henry, Genealogical Guide to the Early Settlers of America, Baltimore, MD: Clearfield, 1967 (reprinted from The Spirit of '76, vol. V-XII, Sep 1898-May 1906), p. 76.

Ham's A Genealogy of the Descendants of Nicholas Harris

Matthew Canfield, (or Campfield), our first American ancestor, was b. at Harleston, Newbottle Hundred, Co. Northampton, England, baptized in St. Andrew's church, Feb. 27, 1604, and was son of Gregorie Calmfeilde, whose will was proved in 1635. It is probable that Matthew came to America soon after this. He was first heard of in New Haven Colony in 1639; became a member of the Congregational church in 1642; signed oath of fidelity July 1, 1644 and was one of the first settlers to become a free planter and possess property. He held various positions in the Colony: Collector of College, 1644; Appraiser 1646, etc. In 1652, he conveyed home lot in New Haven and moved to Norwalk, Conn. In Norwalk Colony he was again prominent, holding office of Juryman, Arbitrator, Magistrate, Representative, Surrogate, Collector of Customs and Inspector of Troops. He and three others signed petition to Charles II. in 1664 for Charter of Conneticut, and he is named in the Charter granted in 1665 — historically known as hidden in the Charter Oak at Hartford. He held much land in Norwalk, and conspicuously a pasturage called to this day "Camfield Island." In 1666, becoming dissatisfied with this Colony in its desire to consolidate with New Haven Colony, Matthew Campfield (or Canfield), moved to Newark, N. J., with thirty-nine others and founded that city. At Newark, he was one of the few honored with the prefix "Mr." and at once became prominent in the affairs of the town, being Deputy, then Magistrate, etc.

He m. in New Haven, Conn., before 1643, Sarah Treat, dau. of Richard Treat and sister of Robert Treat, afterward Governor of Conneticut. His original will, dated March 19, 1673, is on file at Trenton, N. J., and was proved June 11, 1673. He had nine children : Samuel², bap. Oct. 19, 1645, Sarah², bap. May 24, 1647, Ebenezer², b. . . . 1649, Matthew², b. . .1650, Hannah², b. June 21, 1651, Rachel², b. July 29, 1652, Mary², Ruth² and Jonathan². His children went to Newark, N. J., with him, but his eldest son, Samuel, returned to Norwalk, Conn., in 1668. (See Canfield Genealogy, by Frederick A. Canfield, for descent of sons who remained in Newark, N. J.)

Source: Ham, Caroline I. Fowler, A Genealogy of the Descendants of Nicholas Harris, M.D., Fifth in Descent from Thomas Harris of Providence, R.I., Albany, NY, 1904, p. 75.

A History of Thomas Canfield and of Matthew Camfield

Matthew Camfield¹, b. in England, d. about June 1673, in Newark, N. J. m. Sarah Treat before 1643. ch. Samuel². Sarah². Mary². Ebenezer². Matthew². Hannah². Rachel². Jonathan². Ruth². He was in New Haven, Conn.as early as 1639. He was a member of the Congregational Church in that place in 1642.

Signature to the Oath of Fidelity, i July 1644. New Haven Records.
Signature to an order of a committee on fences, i Jan. 1656. Norwalk Records, page 28.
Signature to an agreement with Jonathan Marshe " to erect and sett up a good suficient cornemill," 27 August 1657. Norwalk Records, page 30.

The first settlers at New Haven bound themselves and all persons who wished to join the colony, by the following agreement, which is known as the "Oath of Fidelity."

"Whereas there was a foundanientall agreem^t made in a general meeting of all the Free Planters of this towne on the 4th of the fowerth moneth called June namely that church members be free burgesses and they only shall chuse among themselves magistrates and officers to have the power of transacting all publique civill affayrs of this plantatⁿ, of making and repealing lawes, deviding inheritances decideing of differences thatt may arise, and doeing all things and businesses of like nature. Itt was therefore ordered by all the said Free Planters thatt all those thatt hereafter should be received as planters into this Plantation should allso submitt to the said foundamentall agreem^t and testifie the same by subscribing their names under the names of the aforesaid planters as aforesaid."

Below the names of the many signers that are copied in the record is a long list of autographs of the planters who signed the agreement later. The last signature is that of Mathew Camfield. This signature is given above in fac simile. It will be noticed that the surname is spelled Camfeld. In the original writing it is easy to see, that the final "d," has been added at a later date, as it is written in an ink, that is very different from that used in the other part of the autograph. He signed this agreement July 1st, 1644.

The following extracts are taken verbatim from the records of the New Haven Colony now in the office of the Town Clerk of New Haven. A few of the unimportant entries have been omitted.

"April the 20th i1---"

"The Comittee appointed to dispose of the absent Lotts mett and upon the request of Mathew Camfield granted to him the home lott w^ch was laide out and reserved for Mrs. Eldred upon the conditions following, Viz. That he plant it all wh fruit Trees except aboutt one Ac^r next the front and that he p^rsently paye for the fence belonging to it as it is now worth being vallewed by indifferent men & to maintayne and keepe it, and if in y^e terme of five yeeres the towne shall see cause to dispose it to any man w^ch may be of publique use and benefit to the towne, it is to be at the townes dispose payeing him for his trees and his fence aboute y^e lott as they shall be then worth, being equally vallewed by indifferent men, but if the towne shall not dispose of it to some such man w^thin the terme of 5 yeeres, that then the said Mathew Camfield shall have the lott paying the towne for y^e ground as it is worth being vallewed by indifferent men and that then he shall build a dwelling house upon it comely and fitt for habitation, that so it may not lye as a vacant lott."

"Att a Court held the 6th of Novemb 1644,"
"Mathew Camfield for neglect of his watch was fined 10 s." This appears to have been a common offense among the men who took turns in guarding their property from attacks by the Indians.

"At a Generall Court held at Newhaven the 16^th March 1645 "
"Brother Abraham Bell & Brother Mathew Camfield were chosen Collect^rs for this present yeare, for the gift of Corne to the Colledge, and Wompum was allowed to be paid by those that had not corne to pay in, each pecke of Corne being valued 12^d & 2 o^r 3 months time was allowed for men to bring it in to the Collect^rs in"

"At a Gen" Court held the 4th January 1646 "
"It was appoynted that Bro. Anthony Thomson & Bro. Camfield & the 2 deacons speake with Brother Lampson & see what his estate is, & to consider what proportion he is able to beare of the chardge of maynteyning his wife."

At a General Court held the 10th of March 1646 the seating of the congregation in the "Meeting house " was ordered to be recorded. " W^ch was as followeth " "First for the mens seats." "Bro. Camfield" and five others occupied the seat No 7 "Secondly for the weomens seates" " G [Goodwife] Camfield " and five others had seat No 8.

On the 17th of May 1647 "viewers for the severall quart^rs for this year enseweing" were chosen. "For the Suburbs onn both sides the Creeks Mathew Camfield & Wm. Thompson."

"At a Court held at Newhaven the forth of June 1647."
Richard Osborne having been brought before the Court for saying that certain men had slept on their watches &c., "Rich Osborne added that in a perticuler his witnesse is absent whereby he should have proved a M^r [Watch Master] to have slept & in answer to a question put to him, he said hee did know of this case before he spake in Court w^ch was Mathew Camfield who being watchm^r finding fault w^th some one of his watchmen said he would not burdin his conscience for any of them. But himselfe after the watch was sett forthwith fell asleep, and then one of the watchmen said to him doe yo^u not burdin yo^r conscience w^th that, Viz. Sleepinge." Richard Osborne was fined 40s for his "slanderous reproach."

At a General Court held 5th July 1647 " Bro. Camfield" and eight others were appointed a committee "unto whom all questions concerninge the sheep buisinesse is refferred."

"Richard Osborne who had formerly given publique offence by chardgeing the watchm^rs generally w^th disorderly sleepeing neglect of their dutie in their trust committed to them now made acknowledgement of his sinne in so chardgeing them. Whereas he is not able to prove any such miscarriadge & perticulerly to justifie himselfe had called Antho : Thompson into court & had chardged Mathew Camfield & Mr. Tuttle w^th neglects o^r sleepeing dureing the time they should have bin wakeing & attending their trust, w^ch he was not able to prove against any of them w^ch did satisfie."

"A Generall Courte held the 14 February 1647 "
"Mathew Camfield declared himselfe sorye that he had the last Courte presented the names of sundrye men to be behinde in payement of theire College Corne : before he had spoken againe w^th them."

"At a Generall Court held the 22"' Maye 1648 "
Matthew Camfield and two others "were appointed to prise and valew the Estate of Anthony Tompson deceased."

"A Generall Court held the 9^th of October 1648 "
"The governor appointed a committee to examine the damage done by swine &c., & to examine the fences & report to the next Court. The Committee chosen are the Court," and nineteen others, among whom was Mathew Camfield.

"A General Court the 20th of November 1648."
"Mathew Camfield came late but the Court passed it by because he was forced to goe looke after some catle.'

On March 10th 1648 the Court appointed "Mathew Camfeild" and nine others a Committee on rates (taxes).

"A Generall Court the 25^th June 1649 "
Mathew Camfeild was appointed on a committee "for y^e subrerbs on y^e other side of y^e Creeke" to ascertain "what quantity of Corne every man hath sowen or planted this yeere : that he is to be p^d for : "

"At a Court held at Newhaven the 2^th of October 1649
"Mathew Camfield was fined for want of some powder last viewing day 12^d. And for not bringing his arms to meeting one Lecture day 2^s 6^d."

"At a Court held at New Haven May 7 1650."
"Matthew Camfield was complained of for absence at a General Court, he said he had lost a beast, and fearing least it should be swamped went to seek it the Court blaimed him for not asking leave, but passed it without a Fine."

"At a Court held at New Haven July 2 1650."
"William Basset was complained of for neglecting his watch one night, he said the former Master of the Watch did not warn him. Mathew Camfield said it was his turn to give him warning, and he did give order to his Boy to warn him, himself being to go out of Town to Connecticut but the Boy forgot it yet William Basset knew that it was his night " &c. "The Sentence of the Court is that Mathew Camfield pay a Fine to the Town 2^s. 6^d. and William Basset 5^s."

At a General Court held at New Haven the 10^th of March 1650/51
"Mathew Camfield informed the Court that he desired to leave the Town the Lot he had of them which was Mrs. Eldreds and he shall allow the Town what shall be judged meet for the time he hath had it, and desired to leave it after next harvest" &c.

"At a General Court for New Haven held 17 November 1651."
"It was propounded that there might be some men chosen to consider and carry on the Town Affairs that these meetings which spends the Town much time may not be so often, the Court approved the motion and chose one out of each quarter to this work Viz,"
nine men were appointed, among whom was Mathew Camfield.

"At a Court held at New Haven the first of February 1652." Mathew Camfield conveyed his house, home lot and real estate to Roottern Thompson. This is probably about the time he left the New Haven Colony, and went to Norwalk, as at the General Court for New Haven held the 10th of May 1652 "Samuel Whitehead was chosen Townsman in the room of Mathew Camfield."

He removed to Norwalk in 1652, and remained there fourteen years, during which period he was a man of great prominence in that town and in the Colony of Connecticut. His name appears many times in Vol. 1. of the Town Proceedings, which are preserved as early as 9 May 1653. Only the more important entries will be given here. The earliest reference to him is as follows,
"Agreed and voted allso at the aforesaied meeitinge ["desesember the 29th 1653"] that their shall be a good and sufficient pound or pinnefold erected and sett up " &c., " Memorandum : that in regard their is a convenience to have the saied pound made and that with expedition Nath Eli Math Camfeild Nath Richards and Tho Fitch have undertaken to have the said pound made according to the agreement."

In April 1654 the property of "Math Campheild" was valued at £283 10s. which was nearly equal to the richest estate in the town of Norwalk.

On 24 April 1654 Math Camfield Nath Eli and Tho Fitche were appointed a committee on "dreenes " (ditches).

In the register of ear marks for cattle, dated 30 May 1655 it reads
"Math Campheild a cropp of the oft eare and twoe notches cutt of the under side of the neere eare"

"A list of the names of those inhabitants that are to appeare at Towne Meeitinges" dated 20 March 1656 includes "Math Campheild " and 30 others.

On the 6 of December 1657 "Math Camfild " was one of " thes men" who were "chousen to acte thous ocations of the towen that the Courtte hath injoned in Jury."

"At a meeitinge Aprill the 22^th 1658"
Math Campheild and six others were "authorized and impowered by these psents to weigh well and seriously to consider about the Land in diferance betweene faierfeild and the Towne " &c.

On Jan. 1st 1656 Math Camfeld, Samuel Hall and Richard Olmsted, a committee on fences, signed an order requiring certain fences to be built. The signatures in the record are autographs: that of our subject is given above.

" At a Towne Meetinge August the 27th 1657 the saied meeitinge being Vollontary mett." action was taken towards the erection of "a good sufficient corne mill" &c., Math Campheild and three others " have payed their ption in the mill stones and are freed from their workings."

A lot of rules were laid down to govern the tolls. The minutes were signed on the record by 27 citizens. A fac simile of the autograph of our subject is given above.

On Dec. 4th 1657, "it was voted and agreede that Mathewe Campheild " and four others "are chosen the five Townesmen to act and agitate all such affaiers and occasions as the orders of the Courte authoriseth unto and that for the yeeire ensuinge " &c.

On June 14th 1668, Math Campheild and Tho Fitch were ordered to settle with the Indians for "dammages done by the hogges."

On the 16th of Jan. 1659 Mr. Fitch, Goodman Camfield and Goodman Olmstead were chosen to place each inhabitant
"In the Melting house ether higher or Lower acording to his estate rattable to the contrye "

"Mathe Canfell " sat on the fifth bench from the front in the middle tier

On the 16th Jan. 1659 " Mathew Canfeeld " and four others were chosen "for the ordring of fenses and trying of aktions allowed by the" [Court?]

"Voted at a meting the 7 of January 61 that Mathew Canfeld & Richard Omsted are to seat men acording to the contrye rate & so to continew tell providenc alter mens estate foortye pounds more or less."

"At a Towns meetinge heild the 3rd of July 66" " concerninge the Townes agitations respectinge the boandes in diference with Stamford " &c.,
it was voted that Mstr Campheild, Leutennant Olmested and Tho. Fitch Sen, should carry a letter to the Town of Stamford. This is the last entry in the "Town Proceedings" about Matthew Camfield. His name appears many times in the Land Records of Norwalk. In Vol. I page 68 is
"A true coppie of a deeide of sale made by Mathewe Campheild Late of Nor-
walke unto Samuell Campheild his Sonne of Norwalke."

He conveyed all his real estate in Norwalk in consideration of
"£80 and three barrells of good cider made of winter fruite to be payed at Norwake" &c.
Dated "1 April 1669 at Neworke "

The records of the Colony of Connecticut* furnish the following additional facts.

*See The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut prior to the union with the New Haven Colony May 1665. Transcribed by J. Hammond Trumbull, 1850.

On May 18 1654 "Mathu Camphile" of "Norwack" was made free at Hartford by the General Court, which was the legislature of the colony. He represented the town of Norwalk in the General Court almost continuously from 1654 till 1666, during which period the Court assigned many important duties to him. In each of the years 1654-55-56 and 57 he was appointed Assistant Magistrate. In 1658, he was appointed by the General Court to act with others, to prove wills, make inventories, and to distribute estates intestate, and to appoint administrators, in Stratford, Fairfield and Norwalk. On March 9 1658/9 he was made a collector of Customs on all wines and liquors landed at the port of Norwalk, "except those for transportation." In 1659, he was desired by the General Court to assist Messrs. Wyllis and Allyn to hold court in Fairfield. In 1660, he was chosen and sworn an Assistant Magistrate, and was also appointed with two others to inspect and approve of troopers raised by Fairfield, Stratford, and Norwalk. In 1661, he and three others were appointed to try a special case. In 1664, he was selected for a petitioner to Charles II for the charter of Connecticut. He is named in the charter (1665) that was granted, as one of petitioners and grantees. This connection with that celebrated instrument has given rise to the tradition that he helped to hide the document in the "Charter Oak," a transaction which took place fourteen years after his death. In 1665, he and five others were appointed a committee by the General Court "to discover the approach of the enemy" — the Dutch.

Being dissatisfied with the union of the New Haven and Connecticut colonies, Matthew Camfield with about forty other men with their families formed the first colony that moved from Connecticut to the site of the city of Newark, N. J. in 1666. Here he maintained the respect and esteem of his associates, being constantly chosen to fill positions of responsibility and honor. His is one of the few names found in the early history of Newark, which is honored with the title of " Mr." During the year 1667 he and six others were appointed a committee to adjust values of land in Newark. On 6 Feb. 1667, at a drawing of lots he drew Lot 59, and at a later drawing of meadow lands, he drew Lot 6, and at a subsequent drawing of salt meadow lands, he drew Lot 55. He signed the Branford Agreement 24 June 1667. On 20 May 1668 as one of the agents for Newark, he signed the agreement that settled the location of the division line between Newark and Elizabethtown. On 1 Jan. he was chosen deputy to assist the Magistrate in the Town Courts, and was also appointed on a committee to examine the accounts of the Town Treasurer. On 24 May 1669 he and four others were chosen Townsmen, and 1 Jan. he and two others were chosen Magistrates. On 2 Jan. 1670, he was chosen deputy to assist the Magistrates. His home lot in Newark was on the north west corner of Washington and Market Streets, extending fifteen chains along Washington Street and four chains along Market Street. His will dated 19 March 1672/3 and proven 11 June 1673 is on file in the office of the Secretary of State in Trenton, N. J. Unfortunately the latter part of his surname is worn off, but the ancient official copy in the records gives the signature " Mathew Camfeild." The following is the will as deciphered from the original.

The last Will and Testiment of mee Mathew Canffeild.
I being sik and wayk but in pfect understandinge. This my last wil and testament whereas I give my body to the dust and my soule to the Ld Jesus Christ.
Imp : My eldest son Samuel hath received his portion alredy at Norwauk and shal have nothinge here.
2 To Ebinezer my second Son I give the second division of upland that pertend to Samuels Lott. I give him four akers of my medow land next Sarjant Wards to run thurah out the lott & three akers of meddow in my second division on the lower side.
3 I give to my Daughter Mary 18^lb that is in my son Samuels hands.
4 I give to my Daughter Hannah 10^lb in Samuels hands.
5 I give to my Son Mathew 4 akers of that end of the lott next Goodman Waters his hows I give to Ebinezer 3 Akers of upland in Roberdses nek next M^r. Piersons land & 3 akers of my first division upon y^e hill next the Cove and all the bogges in the great nek. so far as the land goes. Memorandum Mathew is to mentayn the cros fence betwixt the remaynder of the lott and his own I give to my son Mathew the remaynder of the upland and bogges in Robards quarter and 3 akers of upland on y^e great nek next to my son Ebinezer & half the medow and upland at Wheelers poynt on the lower side next M^r. Piersons & two akers of my first division of medow quite throughout by Ebinezer, 3 Akers of medow in my second division of salt medow next Ebinezer as it was layd out.
6 I give to my Daughter Ruth the remaynder of the home lot wher of Mathew had 4 akers with the hows and the half of my second division upon the hill : and the other half to Mathew lyinge next the hyway.
7 I give to my Daughter Sarah my two oxen Colle and broad in part of her twentie pounds to be made out of the estate.
8 I give my youngest son this Hows and home lott with the remaynder of the medows and uplands undisposed of upon the deseas of my wife. If wif live til Jonathan com to age shee shal lett him have half the Home lot and half of the other lands whether medows or uplands.
9 I mak my wife the executrix of my hole estate My wil is that if my wife shal mary shee shal have the house and half hom lot & half the upland and half the meddows and half the movable estate and the other half of the movable goods to be divided amongst the other children that bee here.
If she continew my widdow then my wil is the estate shall remayne intire and Jonathan shal live with her til he be of age Yet if she die my widdow Jonathan shal have the hole accomodation and the movable estate shal be equally divided amongst the survivors Samuel being excepted.
My wife shal never sell any lands nor medow to pay any debts I make choyse of Brother Deken Tomkins brother Henry Lion and my son Mathew for overseers.
Item :        At the deseas of my wife I would have her leave y^e great chest to Jonathan and the sealed chest to Mathew I add to y^r portion.
                  Witnesses John Brown Sen                                                                                Mathew Camfeild
                                    Tho : Pierson Sen
March : 19 72 or 73

The widow was granted letters of administration 30 June 1673.

The following copy of the inventory of his estate is taken from the record in Book 3 of Deeds, page 89 in the office of the Secretary of State, in Trenton, N. J.

A trew Inventory of all the goods & estate of the Late deceased Mr. Mathew Camfeild of Newarke in y^e province of New Jersey apprised by John Brown & John Ward.

                                                                                                         lb    s   d

Item his howes & homestead w^th other Lands                         120:00:00
All his wearing cloths                                                                   004:12:-9
One Bed & bedsted w^th all y^e furniture                                      008:10: —
two beds w"" their covering & oth^r blanquetts                          006:00: —
Several sorts of linnin finer ww^th courser                                     004:15: —
all y^e pewter & plate                                                                    003:-8:-6
Brass & Iron Kettles & potts w^th y^e hangers                                003:10: —
Some Iron tooles w^th some old Iron                                            003:11: —
two Guns 2 Swords some books : two cards yarne                  008: — : —
some beef Bacon Sugar Salt hunny spice & wooll                  005:-8: —
two skips of bees cart plow chaines yokes sleads                   005:-8: —
fiveteen acres of corne upon y^e ground                                  015: — : —
twenty eight swine one horse heens a rope a howe              020:13: —
a grindstone lime shoot moulds nayles Baskitts wooll              001:19: —
Sives baggs cushins scyths sickles peashooks                           002:00: —
Corn in the chamber a fan a table old barrells tubs               006:-2:00
wooden Vessells payles tunnell churne a barrell some sider 000:l8:-6
three wheels for spining                                                               000:12: —
one yoke of oxen five cows fower stears sheep calves          046:10: —
Earthen vessells old chests truncke box chairs slates               001:12: —
A yoke of oxen wylled to Sarah Camfeild                                 011:10: —
By a Debt from Samuel Camfeild                                               028: — : —
By several Debts owing to y^e Estate                                           016:-4:-6
                                                                                                        ____________
                                                                                                        324:-4:-3
Funerall Charges w^th several cred^s to y^e estate 128:06:00

11^th June 1673 y^e above named John Brown & John Ward have this day made oath that this is a trew Inventory of y^e Estate of Mathew Camfeild as was shown to them & y^t they have apprised the same to the best of their knowledge & judgement.
                                                                                                                                                                                               John Berry.

He was probably buried in the Old Burying Ground on the westerly side of Broad Street, Newark, see page 14. Chart 14.

Source: Canfield, Frederick Alexander, A History of Thomas Canfield and of Matthew Camfield, New Haven, CT: The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Press, 1897, pgs. 86-94.

Atkinson's History of Newark

Pages 8-12:
At the period under immediate consideration, Connecticut was divided into two Colonies — Connecticut and New Haven. Within the limits of the latter, the less prosperous of the two, were New Haven (proper), Milford, Branford, Guilford and Stamford. The restoration of kingly rule in the mother country, together with the unification of the two Colonies under royal charter, caused a most disturbing effect on the Colonists, at least on a considerable portion, especially as the charter was obtained without their knowledge and in opposition to their wishes. With reluctance they brought themselves to formally acknowledge the sovereignty of Charles II., but still there were grave fears that his rule would be productive of bitterly distasteful fruits. Although Charles was formally acknowledged King by the Colonists, the fact is beyond controversy that republican ideas, but above all sentiments of uncontrolled liberty of conscience, were strongly rooted amongst them. Some, however, thought it more prudent to bear the ills they had than fly to others they knew not of, but a minority considered it probable that existing ills would be increased rather than diminished as the reign of Charles progressed, and that the better and surer plan would be to find, if possible, some place more congenial to the enjoyment of the fullest liberty of act and conscience.

Therefore it was that scarcely before the ink was dry, certifying the allegiance of the Colonists to the English King, the leading spirits of the New Haven Colony began to think of looking for some new abiding place, where they would not be ruled in their civil and religious functions contrary to their customs, desires and aspirations. No inconsiderable spur was given to such thoughts by the domineering and arbitrary attitude assumed by the reconciled royal charterists towards the outspoken New Haven unreconciled minority. This gave quickening and shape to the transplanting idea; may be said, indeed, to have decided the question of establishing elsewhere a new settlement.

It is on record that, as early as November, 1661, the initial step was taken in this direction. Despite the strong feeling of antipathy, the outgrowth of commercial jealousy, which existed between the English and Dutch at that period, it appears the first thoughts of the New Haven leaders were directed to the seeking of a more agreeable and liberal haven under the tri-color of Holland, within the borders of the country occupied by the Dutch. This initial step was the approach by letter of Deputy-Governor Matthew Gilbert, of New Haven, to Governor Petrus Stuyvesant, of New Amsterdam, which letter set forth that " a Companie of Considerable that came into N. E. that they might serve God w^th a pure conscience and enjoy such liberties and privileges both Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall as misrht best advantage unto and strengthen them" were, with their "posterities," of whom the Lord had blessed them with great numbers, "desirous to p^rvide" for "their outward comfortable subsistence and their souls' welfare," and announcing that they had appointed a committee of four of their trustiest men to proceed to New Amsterdam and confer with Governor Stuyvesant relative to terms upon which they might "begin to plant." At the head of this committee was ROBERT TREAT, a forefather of Newark, whose memory richly deserves to be forever kept green in the loving and grateful recollection of Newark citizens. This committee, which was officially endorsed as a quartette of "true men and noe spies," visited Governor Stuyvesant in due time and received his answer to certain propositions forwarded by the New Havenites, embracing the principles upon which they expected to achieve success in the proposed new settlement, the same providing most fully for the enjoyment of "liberties and priviledges both Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall " — the latter " in the Congregational way." It may be here added that the propositions provided for a nearly complete self-government, an embryo republic in fact, though not in name. The answer treated the propositions in the main most favorably. The negotiation with Governor Stuyvesant was continued for several years at long intervals, but never came to a head, at least under his New Amsterdam rule.

While the New Haven people were procrastinating with Stuyvesant, and getting more and more out of favor with the Connecticut majority, measures were planned in England, and carried out in the New World, which brought things to a climax among the Colonists of Milford and adjacent places.

In March, 1664, Charles, of England, granted to his brother James, Duke of York and Albany, a royal charter for certain lands, now embracing New York and New Jersey. The next month a small fleet was dispatched to dispossess the Dutch at New Amsterdam. In the latter part of August, the same year, this fleet, commanded by Colonel Richard Nicolls, who had already been appointed Governor of the province by the Duke, arrived at New Amsterdam. The Dutch surrendered without any serious resistance, being totally unprepared to stand a siege, and New Amsterdam became New York. Meanwhile, some months prior to the Dutch surrender, the Duke of York transferred to Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, two English courtiers, that portion of land which now constitutes the goodly State of New Jersey. Immediately upon their acquisition of title, these " Lords Proprietors " signed a constitution, which they made public under the title of "The Concessions and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of Nova C-esarea or New Jersey, to and with all and every of the adventurers and all such as shall settle and plant there." In this document the courtier-owners of New Jersey builded better than they knew or dreamt of; for, as the author of " East Jersey under the Proprietors" remarks most justly, it contains "the germ of those republican principles for which the State has ever been distinguished and of many of the institutions which exist at the present time."

"The Concessions" formed a guarantee of liberal encouragement to those disposed to become settlers. They guaranteed the fullest liberty of conscience, provided this liberty was not used " to licentiousness, to the civil injury, or outward disturbance of others;" also the right to choose an assembly of twelve representatives, and, through that assembly, to secure regular taxation, laws for the government of the province, the creation of ports, building of forts, raising of militia, suppression of rebellion, making of war, naturalization of strangers, and the apportionment of land to settlers. In the event of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Governor or Council the right was vested in the freemen to complain directly to the Lords Proprietors through the assembly. The Lords were authorized to appoint as many clergymen as seemed fitting to them and to provide for their maintenance; the privilege being guaranteed at the same time to any person or persons to maintain themselves such clergymen as they might prefer. The Concessions included many other liberal offers and guarantees, the whole covering a roll of parchment some nine feet long, now in possession of the New Jersey Historical Society.

On the very day this document was signed by Berkeley and Carteret, a cousin of the latter, Philip Carteret, was commissioned in England the Governor of New Jersey. Hither he sailed in the good ship "Philip," accompanied by some thirty persons, and arrived off Elizabethport in August. There he landed and named the place of his settlement Elizabeth, after Sir George's wife, not after "good Queen Bess" as has been erroneously supposed. He found there already settled some four families, holding authority from Colonel Nicolls, the agent of the Duke of York — the transfer of New Jersey having been made subsequent to Nicolls' departure from England, he being therefore ignorant of such transfer. As will subsequently appear, this matter, trivial in itself, proved afterwards a veritable mustard seed of dissension and tedious litigation.

Here we resume the narrative proper of Newark. Without delay upon his arrival, Governor Carteret dispatched messengers to New England to publish the Concessions and induce planters to come and settle in New Jersey. These messengers found, as might be expected, willing ears among the men of Milford. The salubrity of the climate, fertility of the soil and excellence generally of the country were duly advertised after the fashion of the time, and the result was the appointment by the Milford men of a committee to visit New Jersey, verify the representations and report thereon. This committee, at the head of which was Robert Treat, proceeded to spy out the land. They first, it seems, turned their footsteps towards a point which is now occupied by the lovely town of Burlington; but were not pleased, and so they returned and conferred with Governor Carteret at Elizabeth. He urged upon them the selection of a site on the Passaic river. They so agreed, and, after a personal examination, returned to Connecticut and reported favorably on a forward movement.

Page 13-14:
The Indians appeared and warned them off, declaring that they had not yet renounced their ownership of the soil. This caused some delay, but an interview with Governor Carteret, and a conference with Perro, the representative of Oraton, the aged chief of the Hackensack Indians, removed the difficulty, and the settlement was fully effected. It seems that in the original agreement with the Governor a clear title was to be given the settlers to the land; that the Indian claim was to be satisfied by the Governor. Through Treat's omission to present a letter from the Governor to the Indian Chief, this was not secured; hence the temporary interference.

To the high credit of the forefathers of Newark, and as strong proof of their innate love of honor, justice and fair dealing, be it said that they of their own resources fully satisfied the demands of the Indians. They purchased a title to the land direct from the aboriginal owners. The negotiators for the settlers were, in the first stages of the negotiations, Captain Treat and Samuel Edsal, and, in the final settlement, Obadiah Bruen, Michah Tompkins, John Brown and Robert Denison; those for the Indians being, Wapamuck, Harish, Captamin, Sessom, Mamustome, Peter, Wamesane, Weckaprokikan, Cacknakque and Parawae. John Capteen, a Hollander, acted as interpreter. The witnesses to the bill of sale, which bears date of July nth, 1667, were Samuel Edsal, Edward Burrowes, Richard Fletcher (whites), and Classe and Pierwine (Indians). The reader who realizes how valuable every inch of ground within the city limits is in our day will, doubtless, be surprised to learn that all this vast extent of city territory and most of what is now the county of Essex cost the settlers goods valued at, as Gordon estimates, about £130 or, say, $750 in United States money. The territory extended to the top of Watchung Mountain, "about seven or eight miles from Pesayak Towne." The consideration given the Indians was "fifty double hands of powder, one hundred bars of lead, twenty axes, twenty coates, ten guns, twenty pistols, ten swords, ten kettles, four blankets, four barrels of beer, two pair of breeathes, fifty knives, twenty hoes, eight hundred and fifty fathoms of wampum, two ankers of liquor (say 32 gallons), or something equivalent, and three troopers' coates."

In this connection the following transcripts from the oft quoted Long Bill in Chancery (No. 9, page 177), are interesting and suggestive:

ROBERT TREAT'S TESTIMONY.
The testimony of Mr. Robert Treat, of Milford, in New England, aged about sixty-four years; being one of the company that first settled at Newark; upon discourse and treatise with the Governor, Capt. Philip Carteret, Esq. I expected that the said Governor would have cleared the plantation from all claims and incumbrances, and given quiet possession which he promised that he would do. But no sooner was the company present, got on the place and landed some of their goods, I with others was by some Hackensack Indians warned off the ground, and seem'd troubled and angry that we landed [any] of our goods there, tho' first we told them we had the Governor's order; but they replied, the land was theirs, and it was unpurchased ; and thereupon we put our goods on board the vessels again, and acquainted the Governor with the matter, and he could not say it was bought of them Indians, and I with most of the company were minded to depart; but the said Governor with other gentlemen were loih to let us go, and advised and encouraged us to go to the Indians, and directed us to one John Capteen, as I think he called him, a Dutch Man, that was a good Indian interpreter, to go with us ; and I with some others and said John Capteen, went up to Hackensack to treat with the Saga .... and other Indian proprietors of the land lying on the west of Pasaick river, about purchasing of said lands, and one Perro laid Claim to the said Pasaick lands, which is now called Newark; and the result of our Treaty was that we obtained of a Body of said Indians to give us a Meeting at Pasaick; and soon after they came all the Proprietors, viz; Perro, and his kindred, with the Sagamores that were able to travel; Oraton being very old, but approved of Perro's acting; and then we acted by the Advice, Order and Approbation of the said Governor, (who was troubled for our sakes), and also of our interpreter, (viz : Mr. Edsal), the said Governor approving of them, and was willing and approved that we should purchase a Tract of Land for a Township. And at that Meeting with the Indian Proprietors, we did agree and bargain with the said Indians for a Tract of the said Land on the west of Pasaick River to a place called the Head of the Cove, by the said Governor's Order and Allowance, and upon information thereof seemed glad of it; and I with others solicited the Governor to pay for our purchase to the Indians; which he refused and would not disburse anyThing unless I would Reimburse him again; and a Bill of Sale was made, wherein the purchase of said Land will at large appear. And I can and do testify, that the said Indians were duly paid for it, according to Bill wherein we became debtors to the Indians, and not the Governor as I judge; and if any Deed or former Purchase could have been found or made to appear to us in the Day of it, we should not have given ourselves that Trouble and charge; and Perro affirmed that he had not sold his Land to any before this time ; and not long after, by a Committee from each Town, the Bounds was first settled between the two Towns at the Head of the Cove.

Col. Robert Treat personally appeared before me and gave in his testimony upon oath to the Truths of the above said Testimony.
March 13, '87, '88. Ric. Bryan.

Pages 21-23:
While it is not to be denied that Abraham Pierson was the Abraham, indeed, of the brave little band of "exiles for conscience sake," the evidence is conclusive that the leader of the leaders, the captain of the heroic company, was ROBERT TREAT. Although Rev. Dr. Stearns, with natural love and reverence for his own holy profession, gives priority of consideration to Pastor Pierson, he nevertheless speaks of Treat as " the flower and pride of the whole company." This Treat was, beyond doubt. He was born in England. As early as 1640 he was at Milford, Connecticut, filling the position of town clerk. Early in life he developed decided capacity for leadership, both in civil and military matters. As we have already seen, he was the avant-courier of the emigrants; the leading selector of Newark as a place of settlement, and the guide hither of the Milford people. In establishing and laying out the town he was among the most active and energetic. More than any other settler he is justly entitled to be remembered as THE FOUNDER OF NEWARK. During its first years he served the town as clerk and magistrate, likewise as its deputy in the early New Jersey Assembly. To none more than to Treat is the Newark of to-day indebted for the natural beauty of its location, the order of its original plan, and the width and attractiveness of its leading thoroughfares, more especially Broad street. He remained in Newark after its settlement only some six years, returning to Connecticut in 1672. It seems likely that his old New England associates induced his return on the ground of his ability to fill a larger field of usefulness in the mother colony. Be that as it may, we find that upon his return he was chosen to the magistracy of the Province, and that in 1675 "Major Treat was dismissed from the church of Christ at Newark," and commended to the church at Milford. In evidence of the esteem in which he was held by his fellow settlers of Newark, the town records tell that when the town was parcelled into lots, he was given first choice by universal consent, and, besides, two extra acres or lots in recognition of his services in negotiating for the settlement. In Connecticut he became more than ever a man of mark. Besides taking a commanding military position in early colonial Indian warfare, Treat served the Colony for thirty-two years as Deputy Governor and Governor. It is traditionally related that at the " Battle of Bloody Brook," between the Indians and the Colonists, Major Treat commanded the latter, and behaved heroically. It is said that in the action : "He that commanded our forces then and now us, (the Colonial Legislature,) made no less than seventeen fair shots at the enemy, and was thereby as oft a mark for them." It is added, on the same authority, that he received a ball through his hat-brim, and was the last man to leave the fort at dusk the evening of the day of battle. When Sir Edmund Andros attempted to wrest from Connecticut her original charter, and the people suddenly extinguished the lights in the Assembly Chamber, so that Captain Wadsworth might be enabled to slip out and secrete the almost sacred document— as he did in the Charter Oak — Governor Treat was in the chair. As Governor he was elected annually from 1683 until 1698. He died July 12, 1710, full of years and honors, he was in his 85th year. Trumbull, the Connecticut historian, justly says of this remarkable man: "Few men have sustained a fairer character or rendered the public more important services. He was an excellent military officer ; a man of singular courage and resolution, tempered with caution and prudence. His administration of government was with wisdom, firmness and integrity. He was esteemed, courageous, wise and pious. He was exceedingly beloved and venerated by the people in general, and especially by his neighbors at Milford where he resided." He was twice married, his first wife being Jane Tapp, a daughter of one of the "seven pillars " of the Milford church. Like brave men genererally, Treat appears to have been exceedingly timid and backward in the presence of the fair sex. That is to say, he was extremely backward in coming to the main point — a proposal of marriage. There is good authority for saying that once, while familiarly dancing his future wife ,on his knee, as was permissable by their disparity of age and long intimacy, the damsel brought her lover to a prompt decision by the suggestive expostulation: "Robert, be still that; I had rather be Treattcd than trotted."

Gov. Treat left Newark a rich legacy in the persons of several estimable children. His son John, who married Sarah Tichenor, was a Justice of the Peace under Cornbury ; represented Essex County in the Assembly when it was necessary that members should, along with other requirements, own 1,000 acres of land or £500 in personal estate; was, in 1712, Presiding Judge of the local Court; and, in 1731, held the military title of major, like his distinguished father. The Governor's daughter Mary became the wife of Deacon Azariah Crane, who left his "silver bole' to be used by "the church in Newark forever," and who appears to have outlived all the original settlers. Governor Treat's " home-lott " was occupied by his daughter's descendants until the beginning of the present century. On a portion of it now stands a noble monument not only to Robert Treat but to all the original settlers — the First Presbyterian Church of Newark. Though the name of Treat is extinct in Newark, and almost entirely so in the State of New Jersey, the Governor's descendants are numerous and representative of the best citizenship and highest reputation. In New England and the West the Treats number not a few distinguished men in public as well as in private life.

Page 27:
It was Tompkins who secreted, sheltered and succored Major-Generals Goffe and Whalley, the regicide judges, upon their flight from England, after the beheading of Charles I. At first they found lodgment in the wilderness, but subsequently took up quarters in the house of Mr. Tompkins, right in the heart of Milford. Here, in absolute concealment, remained for two years the men who had dared to consign to the block the head of Charles, the tyrant. They did not so much as enter the orchard adjoining the house. Mr. Treat is said to have been in the secret.

Page 34:
Nothing, perhaps, could more fully illustrate the character of the first settlers, and of their neighbors in the sister settlement Elizabethtown, than the circumstances attending the fixing of the boundary line between the two settlements. The commissioners from Newark were: Jasper Crane, Robert Treat, Mathew Camfield, Samuel Swaine and Thomas Johnson; from Elizabethtown, John Ogden, Luke Watson, Robert Bond and Jeffrey Jones. On the 20th of May, 1668, these worthies met in the open air on an elevated point of land, named then and long after known as Divident Hill. The line agreed upon ran from "the top of a little round hill named Divident Hill ; and from thence to run upon a Northwest line into the country," until it reached Watchung Mountain. What took place in connection with the agreement is described in an affidavit made in 1743, by an eye-witness, an old man who was called upon to give evidence in the famous legal dispute between the Elizabethtown people and the Proprietors. This venerable witness stated upon oath: "That he heard Governor Treat tell after what manner the line was settled between the two towns; and that it was done in so loving and solemn a manner, that he thought it ought never to be removed , for he (the Governor) himself being among them at that Time prayed with them on Dividend Hill (so called) that there might be a good agreement between them ; * * * * and the Governor said that, after the agreement, Mr. John Ogden (being one of the first purchasers) prayed among the people, and returned thanks for their loving agreement, and the Governor also said that, if the Newark people differed with the Elizabethtown people concerning that line, that he believed they would never prosper."

Page 37:
On April 7th, 1668, Governor Carteret issued a proclamation for the election of a General Assembly, two representatives from each town. "Newark upon the Peshawack River" chose Robert Treat and Samuel Swaine. The Assembly met May 26th, and sat till the 30th, when it adjourned till November 3d. That day having arrived, it reassembled, but owing to serious and growing dissensions with the Governor's Council, it sat only four days and then adjourned sine die.

Source: Atkinson, Joseph, The History of Newark, New Jersey, Newark, NJ: William B. Guild, 1878.

Appletons' Cyclopedia of American Biography, 1600-1889

TREAT, Robert, governor of Connecticut, b. in England in 1622; d. in Milford. Conn., 12 July, 1710. Early in the 17th century he came to Wethersfield, Conn., with his father, "Richard, who died there in 1669. The latter was a deputy from 1644 till 1658, assistant or magistrate from 1658 till 1665, and a patentee of the charter that was granted to Connecticut by Charles II. in 1662. His estate of about 900 acres in what is now Glastonbury was long known as the Treat farm. The son removed to Milford in 1639, and, although only eighteen years of age, was appointed one of nine men to survey and lay out the land, lie was a deputy in 1653-'9 and again in 1665, and was assistant from 1659 till 1664. Mr. Treat was active in opposing the movement for consolidation of Connecticut and New Haven. The dissatisfied faction of the New Haven colony determined to seek another settlement, and the result was the founding of Newark, N. J. Robert Treat went with them, and was the first town-clerk of the new settlement as well as a deputy to the 1st assembly from 1667 till 1672. He was also granted a home lot of eight acres there. In 1672 he returned to Milford, where he had been made lieutenant in the train-band in 1654, and promoted captain in 1661. He became major in 1673. In 1675 he was chosen commander-in-chief of the forces for the war with King Philip, and drove the Indians from Northfield and Springfield. In their assault upon Hadley he put them to flight, and he took an active part in the destruction of the fort of the Narragansetts, 19 Dec. 1675. Maj. Treat is said to have been the last to leave the fort. He was elected deputy governor of Connecticut in 1676, and served till 1683, when he was elected governor. He was chosen again to the former post in 1698 and served till 1708. In 1683 he was elected governor and served till 1698, not including the two years under Sir Edmund Andros. In 1683 a dispute arose with the governor of New York, who claimed that Rye, Greenwich, and Stamford belonged to his jurisdiction. Gov. Treat was chosen one of the commissioners to settle the controversy, and a compromise was made by giving up Rye and retaining the two other towns. When King James II. determined to withdraw their charters from the colonies and place them under a governor appointed by the crown, the loss of the liberties of the colony seems to have been a foregone conclusion from the very beginning to Mr. Treat's mind, and he determined to delay the calamity as long as possible. According to the " instructions" that he drew up for the colony's agent, his duty was first to prevent if possible the loss of the charter, and secondly, failing in this, to plead that the colony might not be divided and united to others, but allowed to remain intact. Subsequently the hope was expressed that if Connecticut was to be united with some other colony, she might be annexed to Massachusetts rather than to New York. When Gov. Andros demanded the surrender of the charter, the governor and council replied that thev could not comply with the request till they had heard from the king. Finally Andros went to 'Hartford on 31 Oct., 1687, to take charge of the government, and, according to Dummer, an almost contemporary writer, he "seized their charter for the king." It is commonly supposed that he did not obtain the charter. (See Andros.) There is no record that he ever demanded it of the assembly. He had gained posession of the government, was loyally received by the people, and, moreover, the proceedings of the next day prove that Andros could have known nothing of the hiding of the charter from him. This act of disloyalty would certainly have caused trouble: but the hiding of a charter may have been strictly true, though there is no mention of it in the records or by contemporary writers. On 1 Nov., Gov. Treat, though on various pretexts he had refused to surrender the charter for about two years, was made one of Gov. Andros's council, and within a week colonel of militia in New Haven county. Connecticut suffered less from the tyrannical acts of Andros than any other of the colonies, doubtless owing to the guidance of Mr. Treat. On 9 May, 1689, after the rebellion against Andros, Gov. Treat and the old magistrates under the charter resumed the offices from which they had been deposed in 1687.

Source: Wilson, James Grant and Fiske, John (eds.), Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, vol. 6, New York: D. Appleton & Sons, 1889, p. 156.

History and Genealogy of the Gov. John Webster Family

3. Lieut. Robert Webster of Middletown, Conn., a son of Gov. John and Agnes Webster, said by Joel Munsell and Sons to have been born in 1627, m. in 1652, Susannah Treat, b. 1629, dau. of Richard Treat, Esq., and Joanna, his wife, of Wethersfield, Conn. Richard Treat and Joanna his wife came to America in an early day, and brought part of their family with them. They were among the first settlers of Wethersfield, and their son, Hon. Robert Treat, was the eighth Governor of Connecticut, serving fifteen years, beginning, 1683.

A writer in the Hartford Times of March 13, 1913, declares that Susannah Treat who m. Lieut. Robert Webster, was bap. in Pitminster, England, October 8, 1629, and was the daughter of Richard Treat and Alice Gaylord. The name was earlier spelled, Trett, Trot, etc. Goodwin recites the Will of Richard Treat in which a bequest is made to "my loving wife Alis Treat," showing that Mr. Goodwin was aware of a wife Alice, but the eight children are given as belonging to the first wife, Joan, or Joanna. Stiles and Gaylord however agree that Richard m. in England, April 27, 1615, Alice dau. of Hugh Gaylord, and that Susannah who m. Lieut. Robert Webster was the daughter of Alice Gaylord Treat.

Lieut. Robert Webster was a man of ability and served the community in many ways. He settled in Middletown and upon the organization of the town in September, 1651, was chosen Recorder. Coincident with this was his marriage in 1652 and his settlement in Middletown Upper Houses where four of his children were born. He represented Middletown in the General Court from September 1653 to May 1655; from May to October, 1656; in October 1657, and October 1658, at which time he returned to Hartford. Some of his activities will be seen in the following excerpts from various public records.

1654: "At a General Court of Elections held 18th May, 1654, Robert Webster was confirmed as a Leiftenant in Middletown for the ensuing year, according to the motyon of the Towne."

1654: "At a session of the General Court held in Hartford, Oct. 3, 1654, appeared among the Deputies, Robert Webster, who was appointed as one of the Committee for Middletown to press men and necessaries for the Narragansett expedition."

1656: "At a General Court called by the Governor and Magistrety, February 26, 1656, Robert Webster was present as a Deputy, and was appointed on a committee to give advice to the Indians, and was confirmed as Recorder of the Towne of Middletown, according to their desire."

During his Hartford residence his name appears in the following important relations.

1662-3: January 25, Robert Webster was one of a jury who tried and convicted Nathaniel and Rebecca Greensmith, and they were executed.

1669: February 12, the Second Church of Hartford was set off as a distinct organization from the original First Church, and in a list of fifteen brethren in full communion appears the name of Robert Webster.

1669: In a list of freemen "on ye South side of Hartford," dated October, 1669, appears the name of Mr. Robert Webster.

1672: May 9. The Court of Elections of Hartford granted to "Leiftenant" Robert Webster 300 acres of land, provided he took it up where it would not prejudice any former grant.

1673: In October the General Court sitting in Hartford ordered a survey of lands at Mattatock on the Mallatock (Naugatuck) River, and appointed as a Committee, Lieut. Thomas Bull, Lieut. Robert Webster, and Daniel Pratt.

1674: April 6, 7, 8, 9, was the date of a report from the above Committee on the result of their survey, and among other things stated that the place "may accomodate thirty families." The Court afterwards appointed Maj. John Talcott, Lieut. Robert Webster, Lieut. Nicholas Olmstead, Ensign Samuel Steele, Ensign John Wadsworth, a Committee to regulate and order setting off a plantation at Mattatuck. "This Committee," says a local historian (Waterbury, by Bronson, 1858) "was composed of men of note, who bore honorable names well known in the history of the Colony." Of Lieut. Webster he says, "He was a respectable man though not distinguished like his father. * * * His son Jonathan m. a sister of John Hopkins, an early settler of Mattatuck." (Waterbury.)

1675: October 11, at a meeting of the Council "Leiftenant" Robert Webster was appointed on a Committee to arrange certain defences of the Towne.

The last-named date suggests King Philip's war. June 20 of that year the Indians had attacked Swanzey; Aug. 2, Brookfield; Aug. 25, Hatfield; Sep. 1, Deerfield and Hadley; Sep. 2, Northfield; Sep. 4, Capt. Beers at Bloody Brook; Oct. 5, Springfield. Clearly the savages were drawing near to Hartford, and Oct. 11, as shown in the above paragraph, Lieut. Robert Webster and others were appointed a Committee of Safety.

How far he was drawn into the conflict is not easily determined now, but Savage says he was "on service in the war of 1675." This is further shown by the fact that on the 22d of May, 1712, at a meeting of the Governor and Council at Hartford, the payment of certain sums to soldiers whose accounts had not previously been settled on account of uncertainty as to length of service, was ordered, and among them, "To Robert Webster of Hartford, 2 pounds, 13 shillings, and 6 pence."

Lieut. Robert Webster died about May 31, 1676. He was buried June 2, 1676. His Will, dated May 20, 1676, was made about ten days before his death. His estate was valued at 670 pounds. The Will is as follows:

Whereas, I, Robert Webster of Hartford, am at present under the holy hand of God and brought very weake by sickness, yet not, through mercy, destitute of my understanding, doe see cause to sett my house in order, and doe declare this to be my will and testament as followeth — first I commend my soule to God in Jesus Christ, hoping for the pardon of all my sins through the meritts of Jesus Christ my Saviour, and my Body to the earth, hoping for a glorious resurrection. And for that estate which God hath blessed me with all I give and bequeath it as followeth; after my just debts are honestly pay'd out of my estate. The remainder of my estate I give unto my dear and well beloved wife, Susannah Webster during her widowhood, not doubting but she will have a tender care of our children and will help them as she is able. But if my wife change her name then I give her but one third part of my aforesay'd estate. The remainder being to bee equally divided amongst my children excepting my eldest a double portion and if any of my children dye before they come at age, that is to say my sonns at the age of twenty-one years and my daughters eighteen years of age, my will is that it be equally divided amongst those that shall survive, also I desire my wife to be careful in bringing up our children in the knowledge and feare of the Lord and I do heare charge and command my children that they carry it dutiful to their mother, and that they labour to know and feare the God of their fathers, and that they serve him with willing heart and minde, that he may bee with them and bless them, when I am gathered to my fathers. I do also appoynt my loving wife to be sole executrix to this my last will and that she may have some refuge to repayre unto for councill as any occasion may call for either about my estate or dispose of my children: I doe desire my loving Friend John Coale Sen'r and Andrew Benton Sen'r and John Blackleach of Hartford to be overseers of this my will and testament and for confirmation of the same I hereunto set my hand and Seale.
Robert Webster and a Seale.

This 20th day of May 1676.

Testes Thomas Steadman.

Phineas Wilson.

As seen by the foregoing Will, Susannah Treat Webster, the widow, was given sole charge of the estate, and care of the family. Eight well did she perform her task. She outlived her husband twenty-nine years. A clause in her own will shows that the estate which she received was not unencumbered, and in recognition of the co-operation of her children in relieving the situation, special bequests were made, "which legacy or devise I make to them especially in consideration of their prudence, industry and help in paying the debts of my husband, Robert Webster, their father abovenamed, and saving the Estate."

May 8, 1684, she was permitted by the Court of Elections, as Executrix of "Lieftenant" Robert Webster's Will to sell certain lands, provided she took advice of her two eldest sons and Stephen Hosmore.

The following is of interest and should be preserved in connection with the history of Robert Webster's estate.

1706, John Prents, surveyor of a tract of land for the heirs of Robert Webster, April 25, 1706, says: "By virtue of a grant of land of 300 acres unto Robert Webster, of Hartford, by the General Assembly, May the 9, 1672, I have laid out the same in the Nipmug country on the E. side of Quenabaug river. Southeast from Woodstock, as follows: About live miles and adjoining to Richard Evan's farm, I began it on the East side of a barren hill in sight of Richard Evan's house, at a heap of stones and ran nor-nor-west. * * * There is a highway allowed between said Evan's land and Webster of two rods wide."

Susannah Webster died in 1705, probably late in the summer, or early in the autumn, as an inventory of her estate made by John Marsh, and John Marsh, Jr., was dated Nov. 19, 1705. It showed a value of 33 pounds, 3 shillings, 3 pence. Seven years before her death she made the following Will :

"In the Name of God, Amen, the three and twentieth day of January in the year of Our Lord One Thousand, Six Hundred Ninety and eighth, in the tenth Year of the Reigne of our Souverigne Lord William the third, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the faith, &c.
"I, Susannah Webster, of the town of Hartford, widow (sole executrix to the last will and testament of my honored husband, Robert Webster, deceased,) doe now make and ordain this to be my last will and testament: And touching the dist. of both that estate of my deceased husband, Robert Webster, and of those temporal goods and estate which God hath blessed me withal, my will is that the same be dist. and disposed of as follows :
"I give to my five sons, Jonathan, Samuel, Robert, Joseph, and William Webster, and to the now surviving children of my eldest son, John Webster, deceased (to-wit: John, Ebenezer, Jacob, Daniel, Sarah, Ann and Abigail) the full sum of £ 100 in current silver money of New England (being so much as was given me by my good friend John Hull of Boston, decd.) their several parts of which sum is and shall be reckoned as included in the lands hereinafter to them respectively assigned, which legacy or devise I make to them especially in consideration of their prudence, industry and help in paying the debts of my husband Robert Webster, their father above-named, and saving the estate.
"I give to my above-named grandchildren, John, Ebenezer, Jacob, Daniel, Sarah, Ann and Abigail Webster, in right of their father, my deceased son John Webster, all that capitol, messuage, tenement, barn, outhouses and 8 acres of land (being part of the homelot of my deceased husband).
"I give to Jonathan Webster 8 acres of my home lot with his dwelling house, barn, outhouses and appurtenances.
"I give to Samuel Webster, my son, 8 acres of my home lot with his dwelling house and out houses and appurtenances thereto belonging.
"I give to my son Robert Webster, my lands situated below Rocky Hill, about 40 acres, on which his dwelling house now standeth, with his house, outhouses and all their appurtenances.
"I give to my son Joseph Webster, 15 acres of my lot on land called the Plaine.
"I give to my son William Webster, 15 acres of my lott or land called the Plaine.
"I give to my daughter Sarah Mygatt (she having already received her portion of her father's estate) 12 pence.
"I give to my two granddaughters, Mabel and Elizabeth Grave, daughters of my deceased daughter Susannah Grave, late wife of John Grave, to make the full sum of £32.
"I give to my daughter Mary King, the wife of Thomas King, with what she has already received, £32.
"I give to my daughter, Elizabeth Seamore, the wife of John Seamore, besides what I have already given her, £32.
"I appoint my five sons to be joint executors.

Susannah Webster.

Her X Mark.

Witnesses: Caleb Stanley.
Samuel Richards."

Nov. 7, 1705, an agreement was signed by the heirs of Mrs. Susannah Webster, confirming and approving the division and settlement of the said deceased, made by her last will and testament, which agreement was signed by the following, (all Websters except the last name which is William Whiting), namely, Sarah, John, Ann, Abigail, Jonathan, Samuel, Robert, Joseph, William. Minors: Daniel, Jacob, Ebenezer, By their Guardians, John Webster, William Whiting.

It is to be observed that Susannah Webster, in the foregoing Will, gave three parcels of land of eight acres each, to her sons Jonathan and Samuel, and the heirs of her deceased son John, the eldest. All three parcels are now wholly within the present limits of the city of Hartford, bounded on the south by Retreat Avenue and on the west by Washington Street. Two of these tracts have attained some historic and sentimental interest from the fact that one was the home lot of Lieut. Robert Webster, on which he built his residence when he returned from Middletown in 1658. This residence was a part of the bequest to the heirs of her eldest son John, deceased, and is described as '''all that capitol, messuage, tenement, barn, outhouses, and 8 acres of land." This house, or at least some of the original, was still standing in 1900, and was "known as the Dorus Barnard house, so-called because it was owned and occupied by Dorus Barnard, eldest son of Capt. John Barnard, who deeded it to his son, Dorus, in 1804."* (See page 5 in this book.)

* See "Early Connecticut Houses," an Historical and Architectural Study by Norman M. Isham, A.M., Architect; Albert F. Brown, Architect, Providence, R. I., The Preston and Rounds Co., 1900. Appendix II, "The Webster Houses," by Dr. Henry Barnard of Hartford.

This house was of greater interest to descendant of Lieut. Robert Webster, than the others, because here stood his residence for many years. The entire front of this lot is now (1915) occiipied by apartment houses, and the one bearing the name "The Barnard," 1915 Retreat Avenue, is probably upon, or near, the spot where the "mansion house" of Lieut. Robert Webster stood.

On the eight acre lot which was first deeded to Jonathan Webster, by his mother, Susannah Webster, and also confirmed to him in her Will, and which is described as a part of her home lot, "as he now hath it fenced in and improved, with his dwelling house, barn, outhouses;" bounded northerly by James Steele, Sr., easterly by Samuel Webster, southerly by heirs of her son John, deceased, and westerly on a highway," stood, in 1900, a house "known as the Grove Barnard house, — so named because owned and occupied by Grove Barnard, second son of Capt. John Barnard by whom it was deeded in 1804.

The third eight-acre tract was given by the above Will to Samuel Webster, another son. On it stood an ancient house known as the Capt. John Barnard house, who came into its possession in 1765, in the following manner: Samuel Webster, having no children, by Will left his dwelling house and homestead to Matthew and Medad, the two oldest sons of his nephew, Ebenezer Webster, deceased, after the decease of Samuel Webster's wife. For £60, Medad Webster quit claimed his title to one-half acre of this land to his brother Matthew, which included "part of the messuage or home lot lately belonging to Samuel Webster, deceased, with mansion house, barn, and other buildings thereon erected."

October 8, 1762, Matthew Webster sold to Jonathan Bigelow, an acre and three rods which included the above, and October 29, 1765, Jonathan Bigelow sold the same to John Barnard, Jr., who was Capt. John Barnard of Indian and Eevolutionary war service. Capt. Barnard occupied this property until 1813, when it passed by his bequest to his son John, who was born in the house Oct 1, 1775, and later from his son John to Cecelia and Lavinia Barnard, daughters of John, and then by their Joint Will to the children of their sister, Mrs. Delia Cone, the children being Mrs. Ella B. Pratt and John Barnard Cone, the latter holding the part on which stands the house of Capt. John Barnard. (See picture.)

Thus in the case of the Samuel Webster messuage the title for more than two centuries and a half has been in two families only, namely, descendants of Lieut. Robert Webster until October 8, 1762, and the Barnard family until 1898, when the lot was sold, the old house removed, and "The Church Home," 123 Retreat Avenue was built upon the spot. We have inserted a picture of the old house. It was said to contain lumber from the old First Church. The willow tree in front was raised from a slip brought from Napoleon's grave at St. Helena. Possibly some of the original house of Samuel Webster was also a part of the structure.

Children: — (First four born in Middletown; remaining seven in Hartford) John, b. Nov. 10, 1653; Sarah, b. June 30, 1655; Jonathan, Jan. 9, 1657; Susannah, b. October 26, 1658; Samuel, b......; Robert, b......; Joseph, b......; Benjamin, bap. May 1, 1670; William, bap. July 2, 1671; Mary; Elizabeth, bap. Feb. 8, 1673-4. Resumed in Chapter III.

Source: Webster, William H., History and Genealogy of the Gov. John Webster Family of Connecticut, Rochester, NY: E. R. Andrews Printing Company, 1915, pgs. 20-29.

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register

Lt. James Treat was of Wethersfield, and represented the town in the general court in 1672 and following years. He was the youngest son of Richard Treat of the same town, made a freeman in 1657, and married, Jan. 26, 1664-5, Rebecca, daughter of John Lattimer.
For many years he was a justice for the county of Hartford, and commissioner for Wethersfield. In May, 1695, he was appointed one of a committee to settle the bounds of Wethersfield and Glastenbury, "on the east side of the great river at Nabuck;" and in 1696 and '97 was a member of the governor's council. He died Feb. 12, 1708-9, leaving an estate of £1235.

Source: Edes, Harry H., "Documents Relating to the Colonial History of Connecticut - with Notes," The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 23 (Jul 1869), p. 346.

Torrey's New England Marriages Prior to 1700

TREAT, Richard (1584-1669/70) & Alice GAYLORD (1594-1670+); Pitminster, Eng, 17 Apr 1615; Watertown/Wethersfield, CT
DEMING, John (?1615-1705?, ca 1694?) & 2/wf? Honor [TREAT] (1616-); b 1632, b 1637; Wethersfield, CT
HOLLISTER, John¹ (?1612-1665) & ?Joanna TREAT (1618-1694); say 1639, b 1640?, Apr 1641?; Wethersfield, CT
CANFIELD, Matthew¹ (-1673) & Sarah [TREAT] (1625, 1620-); ca 1643; New Haven/Norwalk, CT
TREAT, Richard (1623-1693±) & Sarah [COLEMAN] (? 1639, ?1642-1734); ca 1661; Wethersfield, CT
TREAT, Robert (1625, 1621?-1710) & 1/wf Jane TAPP (1628-1703); aft 19 Apr 1649?, ca 1647; Milford, CT
BRYAN, Richard (-1689) & 3/wf Elizabeth (POWELL?) [HOLLINGWORTH] (1646-1698), w Richard, m/3 Robert TREAT 1705; aft 29 Nov 1685; Milford, CT
WOLCOTT, George (-1662) & Elizabeth [TREAT]? (prob correct) (1627-) (did she m/2 ? JOHNSON?); ca 1649, b 20 Jun 1650; Wethersfield, CT
WEBSTER, Robert (1627-1676, 1677?) & Susannah [TREAT] (1629-1705); ca 1652; Hartford/Middletown, CT
TREAT, James (1634-1709) & Rebecca LATIMER (1646-1734); 26 Jan 1664/5; Wethersfield, CT
THOMPSON, William (-1664+) & Catharine TREAT (1637-), ?m/2 ? JOHNSON; 19 Nov 1655; Boston/Wethersfield/New London

Source: Torrey, Clarence A., New England Marriages Prior to 1700, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2004.

Cutter's New England Families

(I) John Deming, the emigrant ancestor, was early of Wethersfield, probably among the first settlers in 1635, where his homestead is recorded as a house, a barn and five acres of land. He was a deputy to the general court in 1657 as John Deming, and in the following year as John Dement, his name appearing variously spelled. He continued as deputy until 1667, under various names, Deming prevailing at the last. He was one of the nineteen named in the famous charter of Connecticut, granted by King Charles to them and to those who should afterward be associated with them. That John Deming was a prominent man in the affairs of the Connecticut colony cannot be doubted, and his apparent association by kinship and friendship with those regarded as the founders of New England indicate him to have been a man of more than ordinary intelligence as well as of some education. He married Honor, daughter of Richard Treat, and their children were: John, of whom further; Jonathan, born about 1639; Rachel, born about 1644; Samuel, born about 1646; Mary, born about 1648; Daniel, born about 1652; Sarah, born about 1654; Ebenezer, born about 1659.

Source: Cutter, William Richard, New England Families, Genealogical and Memorial, vol. III, New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1914, p. 1195.

Gravestones

Tomb of Robert Treat, Milford Cemetery, Milford, New Haven, Connecticut (Photo credit: Patrick Haggerty, findagrave.com (full view of tomb); Diane Gravlee, findagrave.com (close-up of inscription)):
Tomb of Robert Treat

Close-up of inscription on Robert Treat's tomb

Inscription: "HERE LYETH INTERRED THE BODY OF COLL ROBERT TREAT ESQ. WHO FAITHFULLY SERVD THIS COLONY IN THE POST OF GOVERNOUR AND DEPUTY GOVERNOUR NEAR Ye SPACE OF THIRTY YEARS AND ATT. Ye AGE OF FOUR SCORE AND EIGHT YEARS EXCHANGED THIS LIFE FOR A BETTER JULY 12 ANNO DOM: 1710"

Gravestone of Jane (Tapp) Treat, Milford Cemetery, Milford, New Haven, Connecticut (Photo credit: Diane Gravlee, findagrave.com):

Gravestone of Elizabeth (Powell) (Hollingworth) (Bryan) Treat, Milford Cemetery, Milford, New Haven, Connecticut (Photo credit: Nareen, et al, findagrave.com):
Gravestone of Elizabeth (Powell) Treat

Gravestone of Rebecca (Lattimer) Treat, Wethersfield Village Cemetery, Wethersfield, Hartford, Connecticut (Photo credit: Marie Bonafonte, findagrave.com):
Gravestone of Rebecca (Lattimer) Treat