In July of that year were mariners and he himself evidently of a roving disposition, it is quite probable that young Redfield may have gratified the restlessness of youth by an occasional coasting voyage, or may have even sailed as far as Barbadoes, with which island a large trade was then carried on. This, however, is but conjecture; nor do we meet the name again tili 1676. a James Redfield was living at Saybrook with wife and children, and also a servant man (perhaps a journeyman or apprentice) and was exercising the vocation of weaver. At this time the troubles with the Indians (known as King Philip's war) rendered Saybrook of some importance as a military post, and the fort and garrison buildings near the mouth of the Connecticut had been rebuilt or repaired. The successes of the colonists against the Narragansetts, during the summer of 1676, were such as to show that no large garrison would be needed at Saybrook, and hence Capt. Robert Chapman, under whose command the fort had been placed, wrote to the Council at Hartford to inform them that "the fort-house, together with the fortification, was near finished," and to ask their will and pleasure whether to put it under charge of a small garrison, or to place only a family to live there. Should the latter be thought advisable, he recommends James Redfield as a suitable person.* Whether the Council acted on this recommendation is not known, but it is probable they did. At any rate, Red field afterwards appears as still residing at Saybrook, for in Dec. 1683, the town granted him an acre of land on Pipe Staves Point, to which another acre was granted in 1686.† This location was very near the fort, and was upon the same point of land and Trumbull's Colonial Records of Connecticut, II, 468. See Capt Chapman's letter at full length in Appendix C. †See Appendix D. The origin of this name, "Pipe Staves Point," is explained by the following orders passed by the General Court of Connecticut, in 1641: After ordaining the standard size for pipe staves, and providing for the appointment of an probably very near the now lonely field where the monument to Lady Alice Butler still stands solitary. How long he resided at Saybrook we can not tell. The Saybrook records of births and deaths are silent respecting his family, and yet it is probable that in addition to "the children" above mentioned, at least one other was born to him in this town, to wit, his son Theophilus in 1682, and we may presume that his wife Elizabeth died before he removed elsewhere. However this may be, it is certain that he removed to Fairfield, Conn., as early as 1693, and probably earlier. There he married a second time. His wife was DEBORAH, daughter of JOHN STURGES OF STURGIS, who was a freeman of Fairfield as early as 1660, and a prominent man in the community. His residence was near Hyde's Pond, which is near the main road through Fairfield, not far from the present rail road station. In 1713, James Redfield visited his son THEOPHILUS (who, as we shall see, had established himself at Killingworth) and made over to him the little plot of ground at Saybrook, which we have already mentioned.* On the 10th Feb, 171f, James and his wife Deborah conveyed their property at Fairfield to their son JAMES, for his encouragement to continue with and help them in their old age. In the following month James's son-in-law, John Seeley, quit-claimed his interest, and in January, 172, his daughter Sarah and her husband Daniel Frost, likewise released their interest in the same property. We can not assign the date of the death of James Redfield or of his wife Deborah. The former probably occurred before 1723.‡ inspector of staves in each town, the order proceeds "and al! such parcels so approved and sealed, shall pass to the merchant at £5 the thousand, to be delivered at the river's mouth, at which place the Country ha'h undertook to provide for Mr. Hopkins, by the beginning of June next, 70.000, viz: Wethersfeld, 30,000; Windsor, 20,000; Hartford, 20,000; if Mr. Hopkins can provide shipping and afford to give that price "-Trumbull's Colonial Records of Conn., I. 68. * See Appendix E. For these several instruments see Appendix F. In the above statement it is assumed that the scattering allusions to James Redfeld which can be gleaned from the old records, all relate to one and the same person, This view of the subject is more consistent with probabilities than any other, since with perhaps one exception, i harmonizes every fact which has been brought to light. The chain of connective evidence from 1676 downward is beyond question, and the only difficulty which arises is to explain how the tanner's apprentice of 1662, should appear as a weaver in 1676. We think this difficulty disappears on examination. It is certain that the tanner boy's apprenticeship was not completed, owing to the change of residence of Hugh Roberts, to whom he had been bound, and there is no evidence of his afterwards working at his early avocation. That a young man, without the capital necessary to carry on what usually became a lucrative trade, and brought up in a community where a large portion of the youth sought their fortune upon the seas, ,should quit the occupation he had first embraced, should enter upon a roving life and finally settle down in the practice of a calling which (as then carried on) required little capital or skill, is not at all strange. If, on the other hand, we assume the James Redfield of Saybrook to be a different person from the New London James Redfield, then we have the remarkable coincidence of a family name so rare that it is now almost or quite unknown in Great Britain, yet borne at the same early period of our colonial history Children. By first wife 6. 1. ELIZABETH REDFIELD, born at New Haven May 31, 1670. Nothing more known of her; perhaps died young. 7. 2. SARAH REDFIELD, born (as conjectured) about 1673.* 8. 3. THEOPHILUS REDFIELD, born By second wife. -,'1682. 9. 4. MARGARET REDFIELD, baptised at Fairfield, Oct. 7, 1694. 10. 5. JAMES REDFIELD, baptised at Fairfield, Oct. 25, 1696. ) ̄7 5. Judith Redfin or REDFIELD, third daughter of William, married at New London, June 17, 1667, ALEXANDER PYGAN of Norwick, Old England. The widowed mother seems not to have looked with favor upon Mr. Pygan's suit, for the records of the County Court of New London, a little previous, show that "Alexander Pygan was complained of by Widow Rebecca Redfin, for enticing away her daughter's affections, contrary to the laws of this corporation." Mr. Pygan had arrived the year previous and was a tanner by trade. On his first arrival in the plantation he was regarded as rather a lawless young man of "passionate and distempered carriage," but under the restraints and influences by which he was surrounded, he became a discreet and useful member of the community. His wife Judith died April 30, 1678. Children. 1. SARAH PYĠAN, b. February 23, 163, m. Nicholas Hallam, July 8, 1686, by whom she had three children: 1. Alexander Hallam, born October 22, 1688; 2. Edward Hallam, born April 25, 1693, married Grace Denison; 3. Sarah Hallam, born March 29, 1695, married Joseph Merrills. 2. JANE PYGAN, born Feb. —, 167, married, in 1694, Jonas Green, ship master, of New London; had son Samuel and perhaps others. by two young men of about the same age, and living in the sea port towns of the same colony, though never both found in the same place at one time a hypothesis which takes far too much for granted. At any rate if the New London James is a different man from him of Saybrook, then there is no further trace of the former or of his family, for all of the name since known, descend, as has already been mentioned, from the latter. Hence if we are wrong in the ground we have taken, it will invalidate none of "the succession" after 1676. *The year of Sarah Redfield's birth is unknown, and it is perhaps doubtful whether she was by the first or second wife. The rank above assigned her is favored by the fact that James Redfield had more than one child living in 1676, and that Sarah is not mentioned on the baptismal record of Fairfield; yet this latter point is not conclusive, since there are no baptismal entries on the ecclesiastical records earlier than 1694. The early town registry of Fairfield is very defective and probably one volume is lost. Except two or three pages found at the end of the 1st Vol. of Deeds, there is nothing of earlier date than 1720. After the death of this wife Mr. Pygan lived a few years at Saybrook, where he had a shop of goods and was licensed by the County Court as inn keeper. He married there his second wife, April 15, 1684, Lydia, widow of Samuel Boyes, and daughter of William and Lydia [Danforth] Beamond of Saybrook, by whom he had a daughter Lydia, who married Rev. Eliphalet Adams of New London.* Third Generation. 7. SARAH REDFIELD, second daughter of James (4), son of William (1), was married to DANIEL FROST, Son of Daniel and Mary Frost of Fairfield, and great grandson of William Frost, one of the first settlers of Fairfield, who died in 1644, and whose will is recorded in Trumbull's Col. Records of Connecticut, I, 465. Daniel Frost died in 1725. On the 8th Dec. of that year, Sarah Frost was appointed administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. 1. Daniel Frost, And perhaps others. Child. Mrs. Frost was probably married a second time, to Abner Fitch of Norwalk, for on the 3d Feb. 1728, Daniel Frost, son of Daniel Frost, deceased, late of Fairfield, made choice of his father-in-law, Abner Fitch of Norwalk, Conn., as his guardian. 8. THEOPHILUS REDFIELD, oldest son of James (4), son of William (1), was a joiner by trade, and probably settled in Killingworth, Conn., soon after becoming of age. The first mention of him on the records of that town is in March, 170, when he bought a small piece of ground for a homestead in what was then Killingworth, but which has since been set off by * Miss Caulkins's History of New London, pp. 142, 250, 341, 359. In the genealogical table, prepared by Manning Redfield in 1819, it is stated that "Theophilus Redfield was born in England and came to America as an adventurer by the way of the West Indies in 1704." This statement was copied into the genealogy of 1839. The details already given of James Redfield's history, sustained as they are by the documentary evidence presented in the Appendix, show that this account can hardly be true. On what it was based can not now be ascertained, but it was probably on family tradition—a most uncertain authority. Theophilus's father may perhaps have made a voyage or two to Barbadoes, though of this we find no positive evidence, or Theophilus himself after attaining to majority may have made a voyage thither, which would be sufficient ground for such a tradition. Where Theophilus was born is not known, though the probabilites are that it was Saybrook. the name of Clinton, and is now one of the most pleasant of those beautiful villages which border Long Island Sound. On the 24th Dec., 1706, he married PRISCILLA Greenel (or GRINNELL), then aged 17, dau. of Daniel and Lydia Greenel who three years before had settled in that part of Saybrook, then called Pochaug, now Westbrook. Daniel Greenel came from Little Compton, R. I. (then called Seaconnet), was a son of Daniel Greenel of that place, and probably a grandson of Matthew Greenel who was in Portsmouth, R. I., in 1638.* For several years after his marriage, THEOPHILUS REDFIELD continued to reside in the southern part of the town, but about 1717 or 1718 he bought a tract of land of about 120 acres on Chestnut Hill in North Killingworth, within that part of the town to which the name of Killingworth is now restricted. Chestnut Hill is an elevated ridge of land, about a mile and a half west of Killingworth church, extending north and south for nearly two miles between the forks of the Hammonassett river, and commanding a beautiful and extensive view both east and west. Thither he removed and resided for the remainder of his life. This property seems for the most part to have been retained among the descendants, and at least four families of the name still reside on Chestnut Hill. Though never called to take a very prominent part in public affairs there is evidence that Mr. Redfield commanded the respect and esteem of the community in which he lived. He was frequently appointed on important committees in the management of town affairs, and at a day when military titles, however humble, had some weight, was known as Sargeant Redfield." He died on the 14th February, 1759, in the 77th year of his age. His wife Priscilla survived him eleven years and died Jan. 12th, 1770, aged 81. *Though Mr. Greenel's ancestor was certainly an early immigrant to the colonies, we find no evidence that he was one of Dr. Robinson's Leyden congregation as stated in the old genealogy. There is a tradition in the family that it is of Huguenot origin, and took refuge in England after the massacre of St. Bartholemew. Seaconnet, where Daniel Greenel's father settled, was not Cape Cod, as stated in the old work, but the point of land on the east of Narragansett Bay, now called Little Compton. †Theophilus Redfield's grave stone is still standing, in good preservation, in the old yard about a mile and a half south of Chestnut Hill. The inscription reads In memory of MR. THEOPHILUS REDFIELD in the 77th year of his age. His wife Priscilla is buried in the yard in Clinton, near the Congregational Church. The stone is inscribed In memory of MRS. PRISCILla Redfield, wife of Mr. Theophilus Redfield who died Jan. 12th, 1770, in her 81st year. For Theophilus Redfield's will and Inventory of his estate, see Appendix G. |