Matthew GRANT, Sr 1 2
- Born: 27 Oct 1601, , Devonshire, England
- Married (1): 16 Nov 1625, , Devonshire, England
- Married (2): 29 May 1645, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
- Died: 16 Dec 1681, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Ancestral File Number: 9J3R-88. User ID: 4626.
Genealogies of Connecticut Families, From the New England Historical and Genealogical Register Vol II Geer-Owen, Gary B Roberts, Genealogical Publishing Co, pp 77-81. GGGGGGrdFthr of Gen Ulysses S Grant (see 8JQR-3B Samuel GRANT):
"Matthew Grant was one of the original company who came in the Mary and John to Dorchester in 1630; was a freeman there in 1631; removed to Windsor among the very earliest; was second town clerk there, also the first and for many years the principal surveyor; was a prominent man in the church..."
A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of New England, John Farmer, Genealogical Publishing Co, Lancaster MA 1829, p127: MATTHEW GRANT, Dorchester, came over in 1630, with Maverick and Warham, and was admitted freeman in 1631.
Directory of Descendants of Founders of WindsorCT, 350th Anniv Comm, Stephen E Simon, Kent CL Avery, 24 Sep 1983
pv: "Grant, Matthew (D = Dorchester MA) * Arrived in 1630 on the 'Mary and John'."
p21: "Earliest date mentioned in Windsor records 1635. Came with the Dorchester Group in 1635, Died 16 Dec 1681 Windsor. see 'The Grant Family A Genealogic History of the Descendants of Matthew Grant of Windsor CT' Arthur H Grant Poughkeepsie NY AV Haight Press 1898."
The Mary and John The Story of the Founding of Dorchester Massachusetts 1630, Maude Pinney Kuhns, Charles E Tuttle Co, Rutland VT, 1943, (CT Historical Society) p1:
"On the twentieth of March, 1630, a group of men and women, one hundred and forty in number, set sail from Plymouth, England, in the good ship, the 'Mary and John'. The company had been selected and assembled largely through the efforts of the Reverend John White, of Dorchester, England; with whom they spent the day before sailing, 'fasting, preaching, and praying.' These people had come from the western counties of England, mostly from Devonshire, Dorsetshire, and Somerset. They had chosen two ministers to accompany them: 'men who were interested in the idea of bringing the Indians to the knowledge of the gospel.' The Reverend John Maverick was an elderly man from Devon, a minister of the Established church. Reverend John Warham was also an ordained minister of the Church of England, in Exeter, eminent as a preacher. There is some evidence that both of these men were in some difficulties with the church on account of their sympathies with the Puritans.
"Edward Rossiter and Roger Ludlow, two men who were members of the government in England, were also chosen; and several gentlemen, middleaged, with adultfamilies were next joined to the association. Among these were Henry Wolcott, Thomas Ford, George Dyer, William Gaylord, William Rockwell, and William Phelps. But a large portion of the company were young men, eager for adventure, such as Israel Stoughton, Roger Clapp, George Minot, Richard Collicott, and Nathaniel Duncan.
"So we came, writes Roger Clapp in his Memoirs, by the good hand of the Lord, through the deep comfortably; having preaching or expounding of the word of Godevery day for ten weeks together by our ministers. When we came to Nantasket, Capt. Squeb, who was Captain of that great ship of four hundred tons, put us on shore and our goods on Nantasket Point, and left us to shift for ourselves in a forelorn place in this wilderness.
"It had been their original intent to land in the Charles River, but a dispute with Captain Squeb, the commander of the vessel, caused the whole company, on May 30, 1630, to be put ashore at Nantasket. The 'Mary and John' was the first of the Fleet of 1630 to arrive in the bay. At that time there could not have been pilots, or charts of the channel, and it does not seem unreasonable that the captain refused to undertake the passage, but Roger Clap has sent Captain Squeb down to posterity as a merciless man.
"According to tradition they landed upon the south side of Dorchester Neck, or South Boston, in Old Harbor. Ten of the men, under the command of Captain Southcote, found a small boat, and went up the river to Charlestown Neck, where they found an old planter, probably Thomas Walfourd, who fed them 'a dinner of fish without bread.' Later they continued their journey up the Charles River, as far as what is now Watertown,returning several days later to the company who had found pasture for their cattle at Mattapan. The settlement was later called Dorchester, in honor of the Reverend John White, of Dorchester, England.
"Roger Clap tells of the hardships that followed. They had little food, and were forced to live on clams and fish. The men built small boats, and the Indians came later with baskets of corn. 'The place was a wilderness,' writes Roger Clap. 'Fish was a good help to me and to others.Bread was so scarce that I thought the very crusts from my father's table would have been sweet; and when I could have meal and salt and water boiled together, I asked, 'who could ask for better?'
"Here they lived for five or six years. Other boats arrived and other towns were settled. But the life at Dorchester was not entirely congenial to the lovers of liberty of the 'Mary and John'. The group of settlements around Massachusetts Bay was dominated by clergymen and officials of aristocratic tendencies. Their Governor, John Winthrop, had little sympathy with the common people. 'The best part (of the people),' he declared, 'is always the least, and of that best part, the wiser is always is always the lesser.' And theReverend John Cotton put it more bluntly when he said, 'Never did God ordain democracy for the government of the church or the people.'
"These principles were repugnant to the people of the 'Mary and John', who had come to America to escape such restraint. They had no wish to interfere with the methods of worship of others, and they did not wish others to interfere with them. Too, they were land-hungry, after centuries of vassalage to the lords of the manors, leading hopeless lives without chance of independence. Perhaps they were influenced also, by the fact that a great smallpox epidemic had raged among the Indians, killing off so many that they wre not the menace that they had been at first. The settlers turned their attention toward the fertile meadows of the Connecticut Valley.
"A group under Roger Ludlow set out and reached the Plymouth Trading house that had been erected by William Holmes near the junction of the Connecticut and the Farmington Rivers, early in the summer of 1635. A little later sixty men, women and children, with their 'cows, heifers and swine', came overland from Dorchester. The winter was severe and the food scarce, and many returned to Massachusetts, but in the spring they came back to Connecticut with their friends, and by April, 1636, most of the members of the Dorchester Church were settled near the Farmington River, along the brow of the hill that overlooks the 'Great Meadow'. This in spite of the fact that the Plymouth people disputed their claim to the land. They built rude shelters, dug out of the rising ground along the edge of the river bank. The rear end and the two sides were simply the earth itself, with a front and a roof of beams. The town was later named Windsor.
"In the following year, 1637, danger from the Pequot Indians forced them to abandon their dugouts and to come together around the area known as the Palisado Green. Their new homes were at once enclosed with a strong palisado.
"In 1639 they began the construction of their first real meeting house. It stood in the center of the palisado, and was topped with a cupola and platform, where the sexton beat a drum to summon the people to attend services or public meetings. About the same time there was built and presented to the pastor, the Reverend John Warham, a corn mill, which is supposed to have been the first grist mill built in Connecticut. For many years it served all the settlements in the river valley, as far south as Middletown..."
p5: "The Passanger List (Compiled from various sources, and not official)
...67. Mathew Grant
68. Priscilla Grant
p37: "...Mathew Grant was born in England 27 Oct 1601 and died in Windsor CT 16 Dec 1681. He was made a freeman at Dorchester MA 18 May 1631.
"He was a carpenter by trade, and was the first, and for many years, the principal surveyor of his section. He held the office of Deacon of the First Church for a number of years; was town clerk from 1652 until 1677; was select- man for several years and held other important offices. In 1654 he compiled a 'Book or Records of Town Ways in Windsor.' He was also the compiler of the 'Old Church Records,' which has furnished the basis for the history of most of the families of ancient Windsor.
"He married first 16 Nov 1625 Priscilla Grey (1602-27 Apr 1644); married second 29 May 1645 Susanna (Capen) Rockwell (5 Apr 1602-14 Nov 1666), widow of William Rockwell, and daughter of Bernard Capen.
"Children: 1. Priscilla, b 14 Sep 1626, m 1647 Michael Humphrey.
2. Mathew, d 1639..."
17th Century Colonial Ancestors of Members of the National Society of Colonial Dames XVII Century 1915-1975, Mary Louise Marshall Hutton, Baltimore Genealogi- cal Publishing Co Inc, 1987, p107:
"Matthew Grant (1601-1681) CT, m. Priscilla Grey, Town Clerk, Surveyor."
Report of the First Reunion of the Grant Family Association at Windsor and Hartford CT, on Oct 27, 1899, The 298th Anniversary of the Birth of Matthew Grant, ed Arthur Hastings Grant Recorder, Poughkeepsie NY, AV Haight Press, 1899
p9: "Deacon Jabez H Hayden, of Windsor Locks, the antiquarian of the town, was then introduced. Although in his eighty-eighth year, his memory is unimpaired, and his assistance was invaluable in fixing the old landmarks. As he did not feel equalto the exertion, he requested Mrs Edith E Kibbe to read for him the
"When the white man came to Connecticut on a voyage of discovery he found open river meadows where the natives raised maize, Indian corn. These meadows had been stripped of their forests by the Indians, who had neither axes nor saws, but had applied fire to the trees at the ground, removing the charcoal with their stone axes to facilitate the burning, then burning them down and burningthem up. They had neither plows nor teams to draw them, neither hoes nor spades of metal, but these were of wood, formed by fire, and the stone axes which are still to be found. With such rude implements the squaws cultivated Indian corn, pumpkins and beans, while their braves ranged the forests in pursuit of game, or chase Indians of other tribes to secure their scalps.
"But before the white man came the small-pox came, either through the French in Canada, or some trading vessel on the coast, against which the medicine man with his bag of charms had no power, `but almost all died,' and the Great Meadow, about 600 acres, and Plymouth Meadow, about 100 acres, were `void of inhabitants,' the few survivors having fled totheir friends who had survived at Poquonock, and to Wilson Station, at the head of Hartford meadow.
"Two years before the Plymouth people had commenced their settlement on Plymouth Meadow, the River Indians had been to the Bay and to Plymouth, and invited the white man to come up and occupy these open meadows. The crafty Indians had heard of the white man's guns, and hoped to find protection in them from their enemies, the Pequots, who `usurped upon them.'
"Two years afterthe Plymouth settlement began, Jonathan Brewster, who appears to have been chief man among them, writes home to Plymouth, under date of July 5, 1635, `The Massachusetts men are coming almost daily, some by water, and some by land, who are notyet determined where to settle, though some have a great mind to the place we are upon, which was last bought. I shall do what I can to withstand them. I hope they will hear to reason, as we were here first and had secured the Indian title before the arrival of the Dorchester men.' It was the Dorchester men, Ludlow and Matthew Grant and their company who had `a great mind' to occupy the Great Meadow, and at that time had men out `seeking above the falls' for some unoccupied meadow tosettle upon.
"But at this stage of the proceedings another party of pioneers appears on the scene, the pioneers of the Lords and Gentlemen in England, who come armed with the patent of Connecticut, in charge of Mr. Francis Stiles with 20men, and a commission from Sir Richard Saltonstal `to prepare a house against my coming, and inclose grounds for my cattle. Notwithstanding their patent, Brewster protested against their taking up the Great Meadow, as he had protested against Dorchester, but without avail; and when the Dorchester men saw that the Great Meadow was to be wrested from Plymouth, they claimed a better right to it than their Lordships had, and, being the stronger party of the two, were able to maintain it.They set apart ground for the two Stiles families at the Chief Justice Ellsworth place at the upper end of the meadow, where their vessel discharged her cargo of supplies, and returned to England with Mr. Stiles' report of the proceedings. "Now Ludlow and Grant bestir themselves to make preparation for the coming of their people (whom they had planned to bring on the next summer), to come on at once, to be in actual possession before their Lordships got Stiles' report and tookmeasures to eject them. Grant at once began `setting out lots,' the quota to which each family was entitled in meadow `suitable for cultivation' and upland adjoining, to build upon.
"In place of framed houses, there being no lumber yards or sawmills, they set about preparing `cellars,' dugouts, on the brow of the meadow hill, their sides of clove boards, the roof of thatch grass, and `on the 15th of October sixty men, women and children, with their horses, cattle and swine' setforth from Dorchester through the wilderness to occupy the places the pioneers had been able to provide for them.
"When they reached the Connecticut River on the 25th of November it was closed with ice, and their vessel sent round with their supplies had not arrived, but was supposed to be frozen in below. But I cannot here follow the greater part of that forlorn company, as they took their way down the river to meet their vessel with their supplies, a vessel which had been wrecked before it reached the river, of which they knew nothing, but fortunately found a vessel at its mouth, which took them on board, and they reached Boston `in five days, which was a great mercy of God, or they would have all died, as some did.'
"Those families which had remained here in the dwellings prepared for them had meager fare that winter, a part of their rations being acorns, which proves that winter which set in so early was yet an open one, or it would not have been possible to have found acorns. `Many of their cattle died.'
"Sir Henry Vane, in behalf of the Lords and Gentlemen, said that one of the three towns gone to Connecticut `must give away or another place must be found for their Lordships.' They had already built a fort and garrisoned it at the mouth of the river, and sent out the younger Winthrop `to be our governor there;' and Saltonstal, after receiving Stiles' report, sends a letter of instruction to `our Governor' how to proceedin the premises containing this clause, `the rest of the company [the Patentees], being sensible of the affront to me, would have signified their minds in a general [official] letter unto you. I told them, since it concern myself inparticularit might breed some healocies in the people and so distaste them with our government,' a government which the Patentees proposed to have cover all Connecticut.
"But neither Sir Henry's threat nor `our Governor's ' instructions persuaded the Windsor settlers to `give way' and go back to Massachusetts or to any other place. Before Stiles `gave way' and left the meadow `where he proposed to begin' Saltonstal says, `They resisted him, slighting me with many unbeseeming words.' Whatreply Stiles made in behalf of his Lordship we are not told, but we hear nothing farther of the controversy between the parties. The Stiles families are supposed to have been the first families of men, women and children, to arrive in Connecticut, though they had like families of Windsor for neighbors the winter following; and when the Lords had abandoned their design, the Stiles families became enrolled with the first settlers of Windsor and became accepted citizens of this commonwealth, with no `unbeseeming words' from either party.
"But Plymouth was much aggrieved at the loss of the Great Meadow, to which they had intended to bring their own people and occupy it. This led to a long correspondence. Ludlow in behalfof Windsor says, `Now albeit we at first judged the place so free that we might with God's good leave take it without just offence to any, it being the Lord's waste and for the present altogether void of inhabitants,' and reminds them that thePatentees would have taken it if `we' had not. Plymouth replies, `That if it was the Lord's waste it was ourselves that found it so, and not you, and have since bought it of the right owners, and why should you (because more ready and able at present) go and deprive us of that which we had with charge and hazzard prepared and intended to remove to, as soon as we could and were able; but they finally `fell to treaty' and we will let Matthew Grant tell us what the terms were. The agreement was not entered on the town records at the time, but thirty-six years after, when Matthew Grant was Town Clerk and an old man, he procured a certified copy from the colonial records, and recorded it. Then, as was his habit, to make the matter clear he adds from his own personal knowledge the following:
"`This bargain as it is above exprest and was written and assigned I can certainly testify does not mention or speak of every particular of the bargain as it was issued withMr. Prince, before it was put in writing. This should have been the frame of it. Dorchester men that came from the Massachusetts Bay up here to Connecticut to settle in the place now called Windsor. Plymouth men challenged propriety here, by apurchase of the land from the Indians, whereupon, in the latter end of the 35th year, some of our principal men, meeting with some of Plymouth men in Dorchester, [Mass.], labored to drive a bargain with them to buy out their claim which they challenged by purchase, and came to terms, and then May 37, as it avobe exprest, our company geing generally together (that intended to settle here) Mr. Prince being come up here in the behald of the Plymouth men that were partners in their purchase, issued the bargain with us. We were to pay them 36L 10s for their whole purchase, which Mr. Prince presented to us in writing, only they reserved the 16th part off for themselves, and their 16th part in meadowland came by measure of the meadows to forty-three acres, three-quarters, which was bounded out to Mr.Prince, he being present, by myself being appointed by our company, in Plymouth Meadow, so called by that account. Their sixteenth part in upland they took up near the bounds of Hartford, seventy rods in breath by the river, and so to continue to the end of the bounds. They were also to have one acre to build on upon the hill [island] against their meadow [It was on that `acre against their meadow' that the Abigail Wolcott Ellsworth Chapter of the DAR recently laid a boulder to mark the place of the `first English Settlement in Connecticut'...
"`This I testify, Matthew Grant'
"In 1638 Plymouth sold out all her right, title and interest in Connecticut to Matthew Allen of Hartford...entitles Windsor to the distinction of being `the first English settlement in Connecticut.'
"Roger Ludlow and Matthew Grant were, as already said , here with that company of Dorchester pioneers in the summer of 1635, and are the only individuals whose names we know. Grant was the land surveyor, and...Matthew Grant became `the Model Town Clerk.' Also, forty years after `our first beginning here,' he, in giving his testimony concerning a land claim, tells us how (in his own estimation) he had performed his official duties.
"`If any question my uprightness and legal acting about our town affairs that I have been employed in, as measuringout land, and setting out of lots to men, which has been done by me from our first beginning here, come next September is forty years, I never set out land to any man util I knew he had a grant to it from the Townsmen and town approbation, or about recording after the Book [Land Record] was turned to me, which is near twenty-three years since, I can say with a clear conscience, I have been careful to do nothing on one man's desire.'
"Two years after his appointment as Town Clerk, in making up a record of the highways which had been opened to 1654, he adds, in reference to the place where you are assembled today, one of his unique footnotes, which could not have been improved had he known he was writing it for the information of his descendants this reunion, two hundred and forty-five years after:
"`And seeing I am entered into to Palizado, I will speak a little of the original of it. About 1637, when the English had war with the Pequot Indians, our inhabitants on Sandy Brow gathered themselves nearer together from their remote dwellings to provide for their safety, set upon fortifying and with palizo, which (house lots) some particular men [of whom Matthew Grant was one] resigned up out of their properties for that end, and was laid out in small parcels to build upon, some in four rods in breadth, some five, six, seven, and eight. It was set out after this manner. These building places were at first laid out of one length but differ in breadth as aforesaid. Also on all sides within the outmost fence there was left two rods in breadth for a common way to go round within side the Palizado. [ In rear of the building lots; this left anopen space in the center, on which themeeting-house stood, about twenty by thirty rods...
"`Note, that in the west corner of the aforesaid plat there is reserved for a common Burying Ground one particular parcel that is six rods in breadth, all the length on one side, and oneend, take it together it is eight rods in breadth, and eighteen rods in length.'
"To show the perilous condition of those who occupied the Palizado during the time of the Pequot War, we quote from their `chief man,' Roger Lodlow's lettersto his `honored friend, the worshipful William Pynchon, at Agawan, be these delivered':
"`Sir, I have received your letters wherein you express that you are well fortified, but few hands. I would desire you to be careful and watchful that you be not betrayed by friendships. For my part my spirit is really many times even ready to sink within me when upon alarms which are daily I think of your condition, that if the case be ever so dangerous we can neither help you nor you us. [They were nearly twenty miles apart]...Whereas you say we were not willing to send you any hands, I pray you be not so uncharitable, for I can assure you it is great grief that we cannot, for our plantations are so gleaned by that small fleet wesent out that those who remain are not able to supply our watches, which are day and night, that our people are scarce able to stand upon their legs. And for planting we are in like condition with you, what we plant is before our own doors, little any where else...Our fleet went away tomorrow will be seven night...There went ninety Indians armed with them...For sending you word before [taking his vessel for a transport] we could not, the time was so sudden, and your men were there so soon as it was intended, and you may conceive to send out so many men so suddenly, and provide for them as you may conceive our case stands, is sure no little trouble and labor. Besides, for sending to you, I could wish you could invent a waywe might constantly do it, each to the other, for you scarce think how we are grieved to think of you many times. You think much to give a coat, I cannot get any to go on any terms. [The Indians had invited the whites to come here because `ThePequots usurped upon them,' and ninety of them had gone with Captain Mason to be avenged on their old enemies, and an Indian runner and mail carrier to Springfield would be in the same danger from some marauding band of Pequots as a white man.]
"`It way be that your Indians have often recouse hither. If you could take order with them to call on me, you shall have constant intelligence of things, and agree with them yourself. I could wish your women, children and cattle were with us awhile, which if you will send we will take the best care we can of.
"Windsor, May 17th, 1637. Roger Ludlo.'"
p14: "In 1565 the Recorder, Matthew Grant, enters an order of the town respecting the burying ground `in the west corner' of the palizado. `Oct 26th the town met and agreed to have the burying place made commodious. David Wilton doth hereby engage himself and his forever to maintain whatsoever fence belongs to the burying place of Windsor, now joining to his land, and also to make and maintain a commodious gate for passing to it. Also, to clear it of all stubs and boughs that grow upon it between this and next spring, and to sow it down with English grass, that it may be decent and comely and he andhis heirs are to have the benefit of the pasture forever.'
"This cemetery, made `decent and comely' two hundred and forty five years ago, now much enlarged, is today `better kept tan any cemetery in this vicinity' and will well repay the visit of any one whose ancestors sleep there. They will there find the oldest gravestone in New England. It is `chest form.' In my boyhood days it had fallen down, the parts laid together, the tablet with its inscription which had formed one side of the `chest' was laid face up, on the top, where it could be read. The support for the other side was missing, but fifty-seven years ago this church appointed a committee to put the monument of their Reverend Teacher into its original position, and procure a stone for `the other side' to commemorate Pastor Warham, who died twenty-six years after Mr. Huit. Under the inscription for Mr. Warham some fail to read, `Erected by his church 1842.'
"`HERE LYETH EPHRAIM HUIT SOMETIMESTEACHER TO YE CHURCH OF WINDSOR
WHO DIED SEPTEMBER 4, 1644
Who When hee Lived wee drew our vitall Breath
Who When hee Dyed his dying was our death
Who was ye Stay of State ye Churches Staff
Alas the time Forbidan EPITAPH.'
"There were few graves marked of that first generation; only eight have grave stones set at or about the time of their deaths...Of the name of Grant there is but one of any date. That is a small, low slab to
"`Mary Granttwife of I.G. [Joseph Grant, Tahan, Matthew]
Dyed Jan'y ye 2, 1718.19 aged about 37.
And Rachel dyed and Jacob set a Pillar on her grave.
Blessed are they who die in the Lord.'
"There is a plat of the Palizado with Matthew Grant's description of it, giving the location and names of the twelve residents, seventeen years after the Pequot War. Matthew Grant's house stands on the east side, with only the town house between him and the north line ofthe palizades...
"But I must hasten on to speak of the `Old Church Record' of Matthew Grant. Your secretary suggested that I tell what I have learned of the origin and preservation of that invaluable record. Matthew Grant was, as alreadysaid, Town Clerk and REgistrar, and kept a full and careful record of everything. He was also familiar with all church proceedings of this oldest Congregational church in America [The First Church of Plymouth is the oldest Congregational Churchin America; the First Church of Windsor in the oldest Trinitarian Congregational Church], having been a worthy member of it from its orgaization in 1630 to the day of his death, fifty-one years, and was well calculated to tell the story, whenan old man, from personal recollection and access to both town and church records.
"About sixty years ago there was a vague rumor of an old manuscript book which told all about old times in Windsor. The first tangible clew I got in my inquiries was from Mr. John Gaylord, an old man who had seen it and said that it told of a great flood. Then Mr Herlehigh Haskell told me that when the old Molly Birge house was pulled down, about 1800, Oliver Ellsworth, Jr., found among the debrisa somewhat mutilated manuscript book which he took to his father, the Chief Justice, who gave it to his pastor, Rev. Mr. Rowland; that Esq. Sargeant (a brother-in-law of Mr. Rowland) had it in his possession at the time the late Hon. John M. Niles was studying law with him; that Niles made an alphabet by which he could read it.
"Esq. Sargeant and Mr. Rowland were both dead, but I learned from Mr. Rowland's son-in-law, Dr. Theodore Sill, that it came into his possession, that heloaned it to Colonel Loomis, who claimed that it had never belonged to the church, and now belonged to himself as well as to anybody else, and declined to return it to the doctor. When I found it with the Colonel I offered, if he would give itto me, to make from it a copy for himself, shich offer he declined, but finally lent it to me to make a copy for myself, which includes every word, letter or part of a letter which could then be deciphered. When I returned the original to him,he borrowed my copy and had that copied by one of his clerks, and gave the original to the Connecticut Historical Society, where his copy also has recently been deposite, and where it can now be consulted. Several years ago I accidentally metwith evidence that Lieut. Wilton was living at northanpton, after my copy said `he was buried here in Windsor.' Asking at the Historical Rooms to see the original, I was told `Mr. Trumbull will not let any one take it into their hands, but willopen it to find the item they want, but I think he would make an exception in your case.' The original is in safe hands now.
"But where was this Record from the death of Matthew Grant in 1681 to its rescue from the rubbish about 1800? Thefirst clue we find is on what were once blank leaves of the Rocord itself. `The year 1717 I set down all that have died in Ellington to the year 1740.' Then follows a list of names, without dates, a majority of them children; eight are Grant children. The Record was evidently in Ellington in 1740, presumably in a Grant family.
"In 1767 Peletiah Birge married Mary Grant of Ellington (daughter of John, [Deacon Hayden here follows the erroneous statement of `Ancient Windsor'; the Mary Grant who married Peletiah Birge was the eldest daughter of Jonathan; this Jonathan had no sons, and all his Grant nephews were out of reach at Lyme NH, so this heirloom naturally passed out of the Family.] John, Samuel, Matthew) and brought his bride to the Birge home in Windsor a mile north of the Palizado and Matthew Grant's. There they lived a few years and then removed to the extreme northwest corner of Pinemeadow, Windsor Locks, with no neighbor nearer than half a mile, and less than a dozen houses within the present town limits. Assuming that Mary Grant Birge brought the Record to the Birge house in Windsor, what more probable, whether she appreciated its great value, or esteemed it not, than that it should have been left behind, and that it had little care from the sister, Molly Birge, and was at last found among the rubbish when the old house was pulled down?
"At the time when Matthew Grant made that Record there was an unfortunate division inhis church which continued several years and much of the valuable information he gives us concerning church affairs was given to show who with himself remained loyal to the original organization.
Mary and John Passenger Lists
The Mary & John left England in March of 1630 and arrived seventy days later, on May 30, 1630, at the mouth of what is now Boston harbor. The ship's captain refused to sail up the Charles river as planned, because he feared running the ship aground in waters that he had no charts for. He instead left the passengers in a desolate locale miles from their intended destination. The settlors were forced to transport 150,000 pounds of livestock, provisions and equipment 20 miles overland to their final destination.
These are two suggested passenger lists for the ship Mary & John that Bygod Eggleston and his sons probably traveled on to reach the New World in 1630. These lists were compiled by the authors from a variety of sources. No actual recorded passenger list from the Mary & John has come to light and there remain many questions as to who actually sailed on this ship and who came on subsequent ships. Some of the people on these lists have later been proven not to have traveled on the Mary & John. For more information see "Search for the Passengers of the Mary & John 1630" Vols. 1 - 26, published by The Mary & John Clearing House and available in many library genealogy collections.
Born Banks Kuhns Other Key
Mathew Grant 1602* NL Yes
Priscilla ______ (w) 1604* NL Yes
Priscilla Grant (d) 1626 NL Yes
Holcombe Family Genealogy
James and Randal Holcombe
Descendants of Matthew Grant
1. Matthew1 Grant was born on 27 Oct 1601 at England. He married Priscilla (--?--) on 16 Nov 1625. He died on 16 Dec 1681 at Windsor, Hartford Co., CT, at age 80.
Matthew was one of the original company who came, in 1630, to Dorchester, Mass., in the Mary and John, with Maverick and Warham.
He was admitted a freeman 18 May, 1631, and continued in Dorchester till the removal of the company which settled Windsor, of which he was a prominent member. His name appears on the Dorchester records as late as 2 Nov., 1635, and though he was, without doubt, among those who went, in 1635, to prepare their new homes at Matianuck, now Windsor, it is not likely that his wife and children left Dorchester before 18 April 1636.
He was the second town clerk in Windsor, also the first and for man years the principal surveyor; was a prominent man in the church; evidently was just and exceedingly conscientious in all his public and private transactions and duties, and, as recorded, he often added notes, explanatory or in correction, to the records which have considerable value to present day investigators; if he had only used women's maiden names more often.
Children of Matthew1 Grant and Priscilla (--?--) were as follows:
2. i. Priscilla2, born 14 Sep 1626 at England; married Michael Humphrey.
ii. Matthew; born at England; died 10 Sep 1639.
3. iii. Samuel, born 12 Nov 1631 at Dorchester, MA; married Mary Porter.
4. iv. Tahan, born 3 Feb 1633/34; married Hannah Palmer.
5. v. John, born 30 Sep 1642 at Windsor, Hartford Co., CT; married Mary Hull.
ANCESTRY.COM 1 Aug 2000
A DIGEST OF THE EARLY CONNECTICUT PROBATE RECORDS.
1677 to 1687.
Page 88 Name: Matthew Grant Location: Windsor
Invt. œ118-18-06. Taken 10 January, 1681-2, by Thomas Dible sen., John Loomis. Will dated 9 December, 1681.
I Matthew Grant of Windsor, beinge aged and under present weakness, yet of Competency of understandinge, doe by this declare my Last Will concerning the dispose of my Estate as followeth: 1st, I doe declare that my son Samuel, my eldest son, is already satisfied with the portion I made over to him in Lands already recorded to him, and that is my will concerning him. 2dly, Concerninge my son Tahan, my will is that he shall have as a legassy, payd to hime in Country paye by my son John, the full some of five pounds, and this to bee payd two yeers after my decease. Alsoe I doe appoynt hime to gather upp all the debts oweinge to me in this towne or elsewhere, and my will is hee my son Tahan shall have them for his owne. 3dly, my will is that my son John, with whome I have lived some time, I doe give to hime all my meadow land in the great meadow; also I give to hime my pasture land lyeinge belowe the hill agaynst Thomas Dibles home lott and my owne. Alsoe, I doe give hime, the sayd John, my home lott and orchard with the ould houseinge which I built before hee came to dwell in itt. Alsoe I doe give to hime my wood lott lyeing in the quarter lotts. Alsoe I give to my son John all the rest of my estate exceptinge my wearinge cloathes. My son John shall paye to my son Tahan five pounds as is already expressed in my will concerninge hime, at the time and manner afforesayd, and alsoe unto my Daughter Humphreys five pounds in Country pay, two yeers after my decease. Alsoe my will is and I doe give my Daughter Humphrey as a Legassy five pownds, to bee payde in country paye two yeers after my decease. Alsoe I doe make my son John sole Executor of this my last Will & Testament. As Witness my Hand:
Witness: John Loomys senr, Thomas X Dibble.
Matthew Grant. Ls.
Court Record, Page 51--2 March, 1681-2: Will proven.
ANCESTRY.COM 12 Aug 2000
Database: The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England, 1620-33
FIRST RESIDENCE: Dorchester
REMOVES: Windsor 1635
CHURCH MEMBERSHIP: Matthew Grant included himself in his list of those who had been members of the church at Dorchester and remained members of the church after the remove to Windsor [Grant 10].
FREEMAN: 18 May 1631 [MBCR 1:366]. Connecticut freeman at Windsor, 11 October 1669 [CCCR 2:519].
EDUCATION: His inventory included "books and other small things" valued at £1 1s. He kept the Windsor land records from 11 January 1659[/60] (or earlier) [WiLR 1:13], and left behind a number of manuscripts recording Windsor events.
OFFICES: Fenceviewer for West Field in Dorchester, 24 May 1634 [DTR 6]; committee to lay out Great Lots, 17 April 1635 [DTR 10]; committee to lay out lot to Israel Stoughton, 2 November 1635 [DTR 12].
Connecticut grand jury, 7 December 1654 [RPCC 132]. Juryman, 5 March 1644[/5], 2 March 1647[/8], December 1651, 7 September 1652, 2 June 1653, May 1656 [CCCR 1:122; RPCC 31, 50, 106, 111, 118, 173]. Petit jury, 7 March 1649/50 [RPCC 77]. Coroner's jury, 7 June 1655 [RPCC 143]. Committee to view a sow's ear, 4 March 1657[/8] [RPCC 188].
ESTATE: Ordered to build 40 rods of fence in Dorchester, for two cows, 3 April 1633 [DTR 1]. In a 1643 exchange of land between Christopher Gibson and Nicholas Upsall, one of the parcels transferred to Upsall was "that great lot that was granted Mathew Grant" [DTR 52].
At Windsor, upon being given the responsibility of keeping the town land records, he discovered that the page containing his grants had been "rent out and lost by the former register" and on 11 January 1659[/60?] he set about relisting his holdings "adding some more expressions then is to be seen in the country book, yet not to vary from the true quality and quantity": a home lot of six acres "but in time of danger by the Pequet War neighbors desired to join nearer together so as to be capable to make some fortification then he resigned up his home lot for to be divided into small parcels to build upon only reserved a parcel for himself where he had begun building," leaving him one acre. He also was granted three acres swamp or meadow adjoining to the homelot; five acres in the Great Meadow; on the east side of the Great River twenty-three rods in breadth by three miles in length; twenty-three acres for a woodlot in the Norwest Field; and fifty acres of land [WiLR 1:13].
On 15 May 1673 Connecticut court granted "unto Mathew Grant, of Windsor, one hundred acres of land, with the same limitations as land is granted to other persons" [CCCR 2:198, 225].
In his will, dated 9 December 1681 and proved 2 March 1681/2, Mathew Grant of Windsor "being aged and under present weakness" indicated that "my son Sammuell my eldest son is already satisfied with the portion I made over to him in land already recorded"; to "my son Tehan" to be paid by "my son John" £5 and any debts "owing to me" that he collects; to "my son John with whom I have lived some time ... all my meadow land in the great meadow, also ... my pasture land lying below the hill against Thomas Dible's home lot and my own, also ... my home lot and orchard with the old housing which I built before he came to dwell on it ... also my wood lot ... in the quarter lots ... also all the rest of my estate, excepting my wearing cloths, my son John shall pay to my son Tehan £5 as is already expressed in my will"; to "my daughter Humferryes as a legacy £5 ... also I give her all my wearing clothes"; "my son John" sole executor [Hartford PD Case #2357].
The inventory of the estate of Mathew Grant, taken 10 January 1681/2, totalled £118 18s. 6d., of which £96 was real estate: "an old house and homestead with a small orchard," £25; "5 acres of meadow and 3 acres of pasture at £6 per acre," £48; and "23 acres of woodland in the norwest field," £23 [Hartford PD Case #2357].
BIRTH: 27 October 1601 [Goodwin Anc 106].
DEATH: Windsor 16 December 1681 [CTVR 55].
MARRIAGE: (1) 16 November 1625 Priscilla _____ [Goodwin Anc 106]; she died at Windsor 27 April 1644, aged 43 years 2 months [Goodwin Anc 106].
(2) Windsor 29 May 1645 Susanna (Capen) Rockwell, daughter of BERNARD CAPEN and widow of WILLIAM ROCKWELL [Goodwin Anc 106]. She was born 5 April 1602 [Goodwin Anc 106] and died at Windsor 13 November 1666 [CTVR 22].
With first wife
i PRISCILLA, b. 14 September 1626 [Goodwin Anc 106]; m. Windsor 14 October 1647 Michael Humphrey [Grant 47; Goodwin Anc 106].
ii SAMUEL, b. Dorchester 12 November 1631 [CTVR 23; Grant 37; Goodwin Anc 106]; m. Windsor 27 May 1658 Mary Porter [Grant 37].
iii TAHAN, b. Dorchester 3 February 1633[/4] [CTVR 23; Grant 38; Goodwin Anc 106]; m. Windsor 22 January 1662[/3] Anna Palmer [CTVR 9; Grant 38].
iv MATHEW, d. Windsor 10 September 1639 [Grant 78].
v JOHN, b. Windsor 30 April 1642 [CTVR 23; Grant 38; Goodwin Anc 106]; m. Windsor 2 August 1666 Mary Hull [Grant 38].
COMMENTS: On 29 May 1640 "mother Mathew Grant died" at Windsor [Grant 79]. This is all we know for certain of the ancestry of Matthew Grant. One possible origin which has been proposed in the past for both Matthew Grant and his wife Priscilla was seriously questioned by J. Gardner Bartlett [Gen Mag 3:63-64], and in 1948 Marie Tylee McHugh thoroughly disproved the ancestry claimed for Priscilla [NEHGR 102:153]. In 1975 George E. McCracken discussed the matter further, summarizing the efforts of others who had also rejected the Grant ancestry [TAG 51:236, 239].
BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTE: The best treatment of Matthew Grant was prepared by Frank Farnsworth Starr, and includes a transcript of a personal record of vital events, which has been used frequently above [Goodwin Anc 99-110]. (This personal record was also published by Stiles [Windsor Hist 2:303-04].) Mary Walton Ferris also treated Matthew Grant [Dawes-Gates 2:370-79].
ANCESTRY.COM 13 Aug 2000
THE PIONEERS OF MASSACHUSETTS
Matthew, b. in England, Oct. 27, 1601, came to Dorchester, probably one of the original church-colony that came in the Mary and John in 1629-30; frm. May 18, 1631. He rem. to Windsor, Conn., in 1635-6; was clerk of the chh. there. Ancestor of President Ulysses S. Grant. He m. 1, Priscilla--, Nov. 16, 1625; she d. April 27, 1644, ae. 43 yrs. 2 mos.; he m. 2, May 29, 1645, Susanna, dau. of Bernard Capon, and widow of William Rockwell, who was b. April 5, 1602; she d. Nov. 14, 1664. Ch. Priscilla b. Sept. 14, 1626, Samuel b. Nor. 12, 1631, Tahan b. Feb. 3, 1633, John b. April 30, 1642. [From his own rec.. See Stiles' Windsor.]
He d. 16 Dec. 1681.
Ancestral File Ver 4.12 9J3R-88 Matthew GRANT Born 27 Oct 1601 Devonshire England Mar 16 Nov 1625 Priscilla GREY 8JQR-0S ?Windsor CT Died 16 Dec 1681 Windsor Hartford CT.
INTERNATIONAL GENEALOGICAL INSTITUTE
IGI Birth 8613431-98-1396194 Matthew GRANT Father John GRANT Mother Alice TUBERVILLE 27 Oct 1601 Dorset England.
LATTER DAY SAINTS
LDS Submission: Rebecca Stout 3448 So West Temple Salt Lake City Utah. LDS Heir: Nathaniel Worden 4th Great Grandson MH/PG. Matthew GRANT Mar Priscilla GREY Father of Priscilla GRANT.
1. Immigration; 1630, Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, USA. 3 "Mary and John", from England.
2. Freeman; 18 May 1631, Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, USA. 4
3. Removed; 1635, Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.
Matthew married Priscilla GREY, daughter of Anthony GREY and Magdalen PUREFOY, on 16 Nov 1625 in , Devonshire, England. (Priscilla GREY was born on 27 Feb 1601/02 in , Devonshire, England, christened on 14 Mar 1608/09 in Burbage, Leicestershire, England and died on 27 Apr 1644 in Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.)
Matthew also married Susanna CAPEN on 29 May 1645 in Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. (Susanna CAPEN was born on 11 Apr 1602 in Dorchester, Dorsetshire, England, christened on 11 Apr 1602 in Dorchester, Dorsetshire, England, died on 13 Nov 1666 in Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA and was buried on 14 Nov 1666 in Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.)