MICHAEL's occupation was 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..
- Occupation Notes
- 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.
MICHAEL HUMPHREY 
Click here for details of MICHAEL's family with PRISCILLA GRANT
