Michael HUMPHREY ¹

   Ancestral File Number: 8JQB-D3. User ID: 2312.

   General Notes:

NOTES
Lucy Mayberry BARBER Cole, Dictated by her father Capt Levi BARBER, and copied by her great grand daughter Linda Jean ENGLE Lackore Summer 2000:
"The first settlers of Simsbury Connecticut came from Windsor Connecticut. A very large proportion of the inhabitants as late as 1845 can trace their ancestry to that small flock who under the pastoral charge of the Rev Mr Warham left England in 1630 and after remaining a short time in Dorchester Massachusetts near Boston removed in the fall of 1635 and spring of 1636 to Windsor Connecticut."

BOOKS
Directory of Descendants of Founders of Windsor CT, 350th Anniv Comm, Stephen E Simon, Kent CL Avery, 24 Sep 1983
pv: "Humphrey, Michael (D = Dorchester MA)."
p87: "Earliest date mentioned in Windsor records 1647. Mar 14 Oct 1647 to Priscilla Grant. Died 1695/1696. See 'The Humphreys Family in America' Frederick Humphreys M.D. New York Humphreys Print 1883."

17th Century Colonial Ancestors of Members of the National Society of Dames of the XVII Century 1915-1975, Mary Louise Marshall Hutton, Baltimore Genealogical Publishing Co Inc,1987, p134:
"Michael Humphrey (1620-1695) CT, m. Priscilla Grant, Landowner."

Reminiscences, Sylvester Barbour, Hartford, The Case Lockwood and Brainard Co, 1908, vi 177p 23.5cm, 8-23893, F104.C2B2, Fifty years a lawyer and appendix containing a list of the officers and members and a copy of the by-laws of Phoebe Humphrey Chapter DAR Collinsville Connecticut:
"My father, Henry Barbour, was fifth in descent from Thomas Barber, who came to Windsor, CT in 1635, and he was theson of Jonathan and Abi (Merrill) Barber, of Canton, where he was born March 12, 1793. On April 2, 1817, he was married to Naomi, daughter of Solomon and Hannah (Brown) Humphrey, of Barkhamsted CT...Naomi was born in Burlington CT where the family then resided, September 28, 1794. In the paternal line she was fifth in descent from Michael Humphrey, who came from England, and afterward to Windsor CT about 1640..."

The Story of the Thirteen Colonies, Clifford Lindsey Alderman, RandomHouse, 1966, New York, Chap 6, The Connecticut Colony, p69-73:
"A broad and beautiful river rises far to the north near Canada, flows down the middle of what is now the state of Connecticut and empties into Long Island Sound. The Indiansappropriately called it the Connecticut, meaning `Long River.' For many years, however, the settlers along its banks called it the Great River.
"The soil of its valley, deposited by spring floods in bygone centuries, was so rich that almost any crops would grow in it. Its dense forests provided a limitless store of timber, and teemed with fur-bearing animals. Vast schools of shad and salmon swam up the river to spawn. Vessels of good size could sail a distance of fifty miles before reaching the first of its falls.
"Thomas Hooker, pastor of the Puritan church of Newtown, now Cambridge, just outside Boston, had heard of the fertile valley to the west. Because of his Puritan preachings in England, he had been hounded by the head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and had fled to America. Instead of finding a haven where he could live in peace, Hooker found only disappointment in Newtown.
"The austere ministers of Massachusetts Bay believed in strict enforcement of the rigid Puritan doctrines. Hooker did not agree. He began to think of taking his followers to a place where their lives would not be so harshly dominated by the church.
"Others in Newtown were ready togo with him. In the summer of 1636, Hooker and about a hundred of these dissatisfied people set out. It was a difficult and hazardous journey. No roads led through the forested hilly wilderness- not even a good trail. Yet the group set off, trudging patiently along and driving before them 160 head of lowing cattle and bawling calves, as well as squealing pigs and bleating goats. It was two weeks before they reached their goal.
"They settled on the west bank of the Great River,a few miles below the first falls, calling the place Newtown. Later they renamed it Hartford. It was not the first settlement in Connecticut. In 1633 the Dutch of New Netherland had established a fur trading post a short distance above Hartford. That same year Englishmen from the Plymouth colony founded Windsor, at the falls. In 1635 three groups from Massachusetts settled along the river. One of the expeditions founded Wethersfield, a little below Hartford. Another settled close toWindsor. The third took possession of the river's mouth and started Saybrook.
"Hartford became the most important settlement, however, because of Thomas Hooker. He united Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield into the Connecticut colony andguided it wisely through its early years of hardship and of peril from the Indians.
"However, there was friction between the Puritans and the settlers from Plymouth at Windsor. The Puritan group had settled almost next door to the Plymouthpeople without an invitation. Another source of trouble was the little Dutch trading post close to Hartford. Like two hostile dogs, these two settlements glowered at each other, though neither went so far as to start a fight. Finally, when theEnglish seized New Netherland in 1664, they removed the threat from the Dutch settlers on the Great River.
"The quarrels among the colonists, however, were nothing like the fights waged with certain Indians. The Mohegans, who lived in thesettled region of Connecticut, were friendly, but the Pequots to the east were a fierce and bloodthirsty tribe. They were determined to kill all the white settlers of Connecticut.
"Time after time, the Pequots tried in vain to seize the fort at Saybrook. Then in 1637 they raided Wethersfield, killed nine people and carried off two women. With that, Connecticut declared war.
"The Pequot War was one of the smallest and shortest Indian battles fought in the American colonies.But it also proved to be a very bloody one. Captain John Mason, with a tiny army of 89 soldiers and about 80 Mohegan allies, sailed down the Great River to Long Island Sound. Then the party turned their three small ships east to Narragansett Bay, where they landed and obtained the help of about 500 Narragansett warriors. The Narragansetts were the enemies of the Pequots.
"Mason's reinforced army then marched by land approximately 25 miles westward to the Pequots' stonghold. TheIndian fort covered an acre or so of ground. It was surrounded by a stout stockdale of tree trunks twelve feet high, set close together. Inside, in about 70 wigwams, were all the Peqot warriors. They probably numbered close to 600.
"In the darkness, Mason's force crept stealthily to a well-concealed position near the fort. The Pequots, unaware that an enemy was near, were having a war dance. Until late at night the English sentries could hear them howling and screeching.
"At dawn, Mason's army struck through two entrances on opposite sides of the fort. They took the sleeping warriors by surprise in the wigwams. Many fell before the attackers' musket balls and sword strokes as they tried to flee. The rest were burned to death when Mason's men set fire to the wigwams. In less than an hour the Pequots' power was utterly destroyed."

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia, Vol VI, p674, Massachusetts Bay Colony:
"One of the original English settlements in present Massachusetts, settled in 1630 by a group of about 1,000 Puritan refugees from England under Gov. Johna Winthrop. The Massachusetts Bay Company had obtained, from Charles I in 1629, a charter empowering the company to trade and colonize in New England between the Charles and Merrimack rivers. Omitted from the charter was the usual clause requiring the company to hold its business meetings in England, a circumstance that the Puritan stockholders used to transfer control of the colony to America. The Puritans established a theocratic government with the franchise limited to church members..."

Annals of America, Vol, 1493-1754, Discovering a New World, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1976, p157, Fundamental Orders of Connecticut:
"The Connecticut settlement at Hartford was established in 1636 by settlers from the New Towne (now Cambridge), Massachusetts, congregation of the Reverend Thomas Hooker. This group had been preceded by others which had located at Windsor and Wethersfield. In January 1639, the freemen of these three townships assembled and drew up the so-called Fundamental Orders of Connecticut often hailed as the first written American constitution...It contained a preamble that is essentially a compact, the remainder being a body of laws. Hooker's move was prompted primarily by political considerations. He opposed the dominant figures at Boston, who looked down on democracy- believing it to be `no fit government either for church or commonwealth...'"

The Story of the `Old Colony' of New Plymouth, Samuel Eliot Morison, 1956, Alfred A Knopf, New York, Ch XIII, Fishing and Fur-Trading, p136-137:
"...In 1633 the Undertakers had an opportunity to get in first, or almost first, on the Connecticut.
"The Dutch, who claimed that part of New England, invited the Pilgrims to go in with them on a fifty-fifty basis, fearing they were too weak to face the Indians alone. The Undertakers accepted. The Dutch then baked out and said: `Go it alone'; then changed their minds and founded Fort Good Hope, on the site of Hartford. It had just been set up when the Plymouth pinnace sailed up the river, carrying a sort of prefabricated tradinghouse. The Good Hope garrison threatened to shoot, but hadn't the nerve; and the Pilgrims passed them and put up their house at a place called Matianuck ( the site of Windsor, Connecticut), on a tract that they bought from the Indians. New Netherland `sent a band of about seventy men in warlike manner, with colours displayed, to assault them, seeing them strengthened and that it would cost blood...returned in peace.'
"That was in 1633. Two years later some of the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts Bay began an overland trek to the Connecticut. Springfield wasfounded as a trading post; Hartford and Windsor as farming settlements. These newcomers allowed the Pilgrims to keep their trading post and a small part of the land they had bought from the Indians. But with farmers all about and Springfield getting the best of the beaver, the Matianuck post ceased to pay and was abandoned..."

Encyclopaedia Britannica Micropaedia, Vol VI, p674, Massachusetts Bay Colony:
"One of the original English settlements in present Massachusetts, settled in 1630 by a group of about 1,000 Puritan refugees from England under Gov. Johna Winthrop. The Massachusetts Bay Company had obtained, from Charles I in 1629, a charter empowering the company to trade and colonize in New England between the Charles and Merrimack rivers. Omitted from the charter was the usual clause requiring the company to hold its business meetings in England, a circumstance that the Puritan stockholders used to transfer control of the colony to America. The Puritans established a theocratic government with the franchise limited to church members..."

The Annals of America, Vol I, 1493-1754, Discovering a New World, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1976, p157, Fundamental Orders of Connecticut:
"The Connecticut settlement at Hartford was established in 1636 by settlers from the New Towne (now Cambridge), Massachusetts, congregation of the Reverend Thomas Hooker. This group had been preceded by others which had located at Windsor and Wethersfield. In January 1639, the freemen of these three townships assembled and drew up the so-called Fundamental Orders of Connecticut often hailed as the first written American constitution...It contained a preamble that is essentially a compact, the remainder being a body of laws. Hooker's move was prompted primarily by political considerations. He opposed the dominant figures at Boston, who looked downon democracy- believing it to be `no fit government either for church or commonwealth...'"

Digest of Early Connecticut Probate Records, C W Manwaring, Vol I, p566-567: "Michael Humphrey, Windsor. Court Record, 14 Apr 1697: John Humphrys, Samuel Humphrys, Richard Burnham & Sarah his wife, Joseph Bull & Hannah his wife, John Lewis & Mary his wife, Plantfs, all of them the heirs of Michael Humphrey of Windsor Decd...In an Action of the Case for that you do unjustly withold and keep the above named heirs, Children of the above named Michael Humphrey, out of possession of their Lands lying within the Township of Windsor on the East side of the Connecticut River, containing by Estimation 60 acres and being 10 rods in Breadth be it more or less, bounded west on the River and runs 3 miles from the River, and North on the Land of Samuel Grant, and South on Land of Samuel Rockwell, which was the proper Estate of the aforesd Michael Humphrys, formerly of Windsor, late ofSimsbury Decd."

INTERNET
http://www.holcombegenealogy.com/
Holcombe Family Genealogy
James and Randal Holcombe
Descendants of Michael Humphrey
1. Michael1 Humphrey married Priscilla Grant, daughter of Matthew Grant and Priscilla (--?--), on 14 Oct 1647 at Windsor, Hartford Co., CT. He died in 1695.
Michael Humphrey was the son of Samuel and Susanna Humphrey of Lyme Regis, Co. Dorset, England. Michael was a partner with his brother Samuel in mercantile transactions in St. Malo, France.
from THE HUMPHREYS FAMILY IN AMERICA by Frederick Humphreys, M. D.:
The first known appearance on American soil, of this emigrant ancestor of one, and the largest, branch of the Humphreys Family, is at Ancient Windsor, Connecticut.
He does not appear in lists of emigrants from Dorchester, Mass.; who, attracted by the better land and climate of Connecticut, removed there in numbers sufficient to protect themselves from the Indians en route. We first know of him, in 1643, as engaged in the manufacture of tar and turpentine, with one John Griffin, at Massaco (now Simsbury), then a wilderness a few miles west of the Windsor settlement. These articles being in much demand for the use of the British Navy and Marine, generally commanded a ready sale at high prices; and, with furs, were almost the only articles at that time allowed to be exported by the colonies.
Michael's marriage to Priscilla was no mean testimony to the social position and consideration enjoyed by the young trader in the new community. She was the daughter of Matthew Grant, who was one of the original company that came over in the ship , to Dorchester, in 1630; and removed thence among the very earliest to Windsor, in 1635. Matthew Grant was a man of position and influence in the Town and Church, was the second Town-Clerk, and the compiler of the Old Church Record.
The residence of Michael Humphrey was on a "home-lot," purchased by him from Jeffry Baker; situated n the north end of a parallelogram of land called "Pound-Close," just outside of the north line of the Palisado, or fortification, which had been set up, on the north side of the Little rivulet, as a defence against surprisal by the Indians during the Pequot War, in 1637.
And, on the 21st of May 1657, Mr. Humphrey took another--and what, in those days, was an important--step in social advancement; for with others, before "The Generall Court of Elections" he was duly admitted to the rights and privileges of a Freeman, in the Colony of Connecticut.
Michael Humphrey, although so long a resident of Windsor, had not up to 1664, united with the church there; but styled himself "a member of the Church of England." It will be remembered that he was not of the company who had removed thither from Dorchester with their pastor and were in close sympathy with him and with each other; nor do his motives for emigration seem to have been of a religious nature; but rather for mercantile purposes. Many years, twenty-one at least, had now passed, since his arrival, and in civil, business and social matters he had evidently affiliated and become identified with the community and its interests. During this long period as a prosperous citizen, he had been rated for the support of the parish; though not being a church communicant, by its rules, he had no vote nor voice, nor the full privileges of its ordinances. Having now been married seventeen years, and having five children requiring Christian nurture, most of all his eldest child John, now nearly fourteen years of age, he doubtless felt that the time had come to take steps towards securing, what seemed to him from his standpoint, his rights and those of his family. While he took this view of the case, the position assumed by the Puritan communion was that every person coming into their fellowship must conform to their rules of admission, in respect to examination in faith and experience; and having, as one of these grounds of dissent, been accustomed to question the genuineness of Episcopal piety, membership in that church was an invalid qualification. We do not know precisely what course was pursued by Michael Humphrey; but it is possible, if not probable, that he objected to increased church taxes consequent on th election of a ministerial colleague to the now aged Rev. Mr. Warham. In whatever was the difficulty originated, we find the following:
At a Session of the Gen'll Assembly at Hartford, March 10th, 1663-4:
The Church of Christ at Windsor complaynes of James Enoe and Michaell Humphrey, for seuerall things contayned in a paper presented to the Court. Mr. Clarke, in behalf of the Church complaynes of James Enoe and Michaell Humphrey for a misdameanor in offering violence to an establisht law of this Colony. Mr Clarke withdrawes this charge.
"Although the complaint was withdrawn by the church", says Dr. Stiles, "yet the court saw fit to pass, at the same session, its censure upon the agitators of public peace":
This court hauing seriously considered the case respecting James Ennoe and Michaell Humphrey, doe declare such practises to be offensiue, and may proue prejudiciall to the wellfare of this Collony, and this Court expects they will readily come to the acknowledgment of their error in the paper by them presented to the Church, whereupon the Court respitts and rremitts the sensure due for their offence, prouided answerable reformation doth followe, expecting that their lenity therein will winne upon the spiritts of those concerned in this case. And this Court doth approue of the pious and prudent care of Windsor, in seeking ou tfor a supply and help in the ministry, Mr. Warham growing ancient; and do order all persons in the sayd plantation to allow their proportion towards the competent maintenance of such a supply in the ministry. And the Court desires a friendly correspondency may be maintayend at Windsor, as if this trouble had never been; this Court declaring their readyness to mayuntayne all the just priuiledges of all the members of this Corporation
But Michael Humphey and his party did not rest here. A petition was drawn up "by the skillful hand of William Pitkin, Esq., of Hartford, and was signed by seven persons four of whom were Windsor men. Indeed, it is probable, from the evidence before us, that Eno and Humphrey were the chief movers in the affair, and that the letter was aimed at the Windsor Church."
To the Hon'l the Gen'll Assembley of the Corporation of Connecticott in New England.
The Humble Address and Petition of sundry persons of and belonging to the Same Corporation Sheweth that whereas wee whose names are subscribed Beeing Proffessors of the Protestant Christian Relidgion, members of the Church of England, And Subjects to our Soueraigne Lord Charles the Second by God's Grace Kin of England Etc.: and Vnder those sacred tyes mentioned and conteined in our Couenant Sealed with our Baptism. Haveing seriously pondered our past and present want of those Ordinances wh to us and our Children as members of Christs vissible Church oufht to bee administered. Which wee Apprehend to bee to the Dishonour of God and the obstruction of our owne and our Childrens good, (Contrary to the Pious will of our Lord the King, in his maine purpose in Settling these Plantations, As by the Charter and his ma'ties Letter to the Bay June 20th 1662 and otherwayes is most euidently manifest) to our great griefe. The Sence of our Duty towards God, the relation wee stand in to our Mother the Church, our gratefull acceptance of his ma'ties Royall fauor, the edification of our owne and our Childrens Soules and many other good Christian and profitable ends, (as allso at a Late Session of this Hon'le Assembley, haueing receiued a fauorable incoruagement from teh Wor'll Dep. Go'r:) Hereunto moueing us. We are bold by this our address to declare our Agreuieance, and to Petition for a redress of the Same.
Our aggreiueance is that wee an dours are not under the Due care of an orthodox Ministry that will in a due manner administer to us those ordinances that we stand capable of, as the Baptizeing of our Children, our beeing admitted (as wee according to Christs order may bee found meete) to the Lord's table. Ana a carefull watch ouer us in our wayes and suteable dealing with us as wee do well or ill, Withall whatsoeuer benefitt and Aduantages belong to us as members of Christs uissible Chruch, which ought to be dispenced by the officers of the same, of wh : wee beeing Destituete.
Wee humbly Request that this Ho''le Court would take into Seriouis Consideration ouir present state in this respect that wee are thus as sheep scattered haueing so Shepherd, and compare it with what we conceiue you can not but know both God and our King would haue it different from what it now is And take some Speedy and effectuall Course for redress herein. And put us in a full and free capacity of injoying those forementioned Aduantages which to us as members of Christs uissible Church doe of right bellong. By Establishing som wholesome Law in this Corporation, by uertue whereof wee may both claime and receiue of such officers as are or shall bee by Law set ouer us in the Church or Churches where wee haue our abode or residence those fore mentioned priuileges and advantages.
ffurthermore wee humbly request that for the future no Law in this Corporation may be of any force to make us pay or contribute to the maintaineance of any Minister or officer in the Church that will neglect or refuse to Baptise our Children, and to take care of us as such members of the Church as are under hi sor their Charge and care.
Thus in hopes that yo'r care full and speedy consideraion and Ishue here of will bee answerable to the weight of the matter and our necesity, and that matters of less moment may be Omitted till this be Ishued wee waite for a good answer.
October 17th: 1665
Wm. Pitkin
Michaell Humphrey
John Stedman
James Enno
Robert Reeue
John Mosess
Jonas Westover
.
Children of Michael1 Humphrey and Priscilla Grant all born at Windsor, Hartford Co., CT, were as follows:
2. i. Sergeant John2, born 7 Jun 1650; married Hannah Griffin.
3. ii. Mary, born 24 Oct 1653; married John Lewis.
4. iii. Lt. Samuel, born 15 May 1656; married Mary Mills.
iv. Sarah; born 6 Mar 1658/59; married Richard Burnham 11 Jun 1680.
v. Martha; born 5 Oct 1663; married John Shipman.
vi. Abigail; born 3 Mar 1665/66; married Lieut. Benjamin Graham 12 Feb 1684; died 27 Jun 1697 at age 31.
vii. Hannah; born 21 Oct 1669;1 married Capt. Joseph Bull.

ANCESTRY.COM 30 Jul 2000
Database: Connecticut Puritan Settlers, 1633-1845
First Sttlers of the Colony. Humphrey, Michael, 1645, in the land record, Windsor. Married P. Grant, 1647. Children, John, Mary, Samuel, Martha, Sarah, Abigail and Hannah. As he was the only person of the name who came early into the colony, he was probably the ancestor of those of the name in Simsbury, Granby and other parts of Connecticut, and of the Hon. Friend Humphrey, of Albany.

Appendix, Containing Additions and Corrections. Humphrey, Michael, married Priscilla Grant, in 1647, and had children, John, Mary, Samuel, Martha, Sarah, Abigail, and Hannah, (born in '69.)

ANCESTRAL FILE
8JQB-D3 Born Lyme Devonshire England, LDS FR Michael HUMPHREY Born Abt 1622 ?Lynn<Lyme Regis ?Dermet<Dorset England, IGI Marriage A184633-184633 Mar 14 Oct 1647 Windsor Hartford Connecticut, IGI Marriage A170709-170709 Mar 14 Oct 1647 Devon England, Ancestral File Ver 4.10 8JQB-D3 Born Lyme-Regis Dorsetshire England, Chr 10 Sep 1620 Lyme Regis Dorset England, Died Mar 1695/1696 Windsor Hartford Connecticut.

INTERNATIONAL GENEALOGICAL INDEX
IGI Marriage A184633-184633 Michael HUMPHREY Mar Priscilla GRANT 14 Oct 1647Windsor Hartford Connecticut, A170709-170709 Michael HUMPHREY Spouse Priscilla GRANT 14 Oct 1647 Devon England.

LATTER DAY SAINTS
LDS Submission: Mrs. Jennie L Bibb c/o Mrs Hermina Spaulding Suffield Conn. LDS Heir: Jennie Louise Kent 6th Great GrandDaughter SH/MrsSH. Michael HUMPHREY Chr 10 Sep 1620 Lyme Devon. Eng. Mar Priscilla GRANT 14 Oct 1647.

LDS Submission: Mernie A Gallagher Bunce 1161 Santa Fe Ave Martinez California. LDS Heir: Mernie A Gallagher Bunce 5th Great Granddaughter LtSH/MBM. Michael HUMPHREY Mar Pirscilla GRANT Father of (Lt) SamuelHUMPHREY.

LDS Submission: Rebecca Stout 3448 So West Temple Salt Lake City Utah. LDS Heir: Nathaniel Worden 4th Great GrandSon MH/PG. Michael HUMPHREY Born Abt 1622 Lynn Regis Dermet (Devonshire) Eng. Mar Priscilla GRANT 14 Oct 1647.

   Marriage Information:

Michael married Priscilla GRANT, daughter of Matthew GRANT, Sr and Priscilla GREY, on 14 Oct 1647 in Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. (Priscilla GRANT was born on 14 Sep 1626 in , Devonshire, England, christened in Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA and died on 21 Oct 1669 in Windsor, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.)