Mr. and Mrs. Farrington was bapt. Sept. 1786. Nov. 1800, Mr. Farrington d. aet. 55 Helen Lucretia dau. of James Farrington d. Oct. 16, 1850 aet. 3: Geo. son of the late James Farrington d. May 12, 1854 aet. 15. On the Society records I find Jeremiah Farrington of this Society joined the Baptist Society Nov. 1805. Joseph Farrington of this Society joined the Episcopal Society, Nov. 4, 1816. [Albert H. Wilcox, Meriden, Ct.]

23. (b) Wm. Southwell m. Feb. 24, 1687 Sarah Stebbins; had eight children, the third being Sarah b. Nov. 19, 1690. Mr. Wm. L. Loomis of Suffield, Ct., writes that she m. July 26, 1749 Joseph Harmon : he d. Feb. 15, 1762 and she m. Sept. 1765 John Hate of Suffield.

QUERIES.

36. Murray.-Joseph b. about 1699. Ten dollars will be paid for 1. date of birth 2. place of birth, and 3. parents' names. On Fairfield, Ct., Probate Records Jan. 5, 1715, he chose Thomas Bennett of Stratford, Ct., to be his guardian. On New Milford, Ct., Land Records Nov. 8, 1723 he is spoken of as "resident in the town of Stratford." On April 16, 1724 he m. Hannah Patterson of Stratford Ct., and moved to Newtown, Ct., where the following children were born; Elizabeth Jan. 24, 1725, m. John Henry Nearing; James, May 19, 1727 m. Patience Hawley; John, July 2, 1729 m. Martha Howard; Mary, Oct. 2, 1731 m. Amos Northrup. About 1733 he moved to New Milford, Ct., where the following children were born: Elisha Mch. 19, 1734: Hannah, July 27, 1736 : Ruby, Mch. 12, 1739 m. Ezra Dunning : Parthena, June 7, 1741 m. Lemuel Hotchkiss of New Haven; Joseph, Feb. 27, 1744 m. Isabell Burritt; Philemon Aug. 2, 1746; Eunice, July 16, 1749. I have visited and searched the records

37.

of New Milford, Newtown, Stratford, Milford, Bethlehem, Woodbury, Branford, Litchfield, Kent, Wallingford, Meriden, Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, New Haven, East Haven, Derby, Brookfield, Guilford and Lyme-Hamburg, all in Ct.; also wrote to Killingworth, Ct. Town Clerk. Archibald Murray, M. D., 120 Joralemon St., Brooklyn, N. Y.

Holmes.-James born in Stanford (or Amenia) N. Y. d. near Smithfield, N. Y. mar. Amy Thompson and had 1. Caleb Thompson b. Mch. 8, 1798 Amenia d. Apr. 15, 1874 Washington, N. Y., m. Mch. 13, 1818 Stanford, to Elizabeth dau. of Caleb Morey. 2. Morris b. July 27, 1790 d. Feb. 23, 1865. m. Maria Dyer. 3. Philetus. 4. Son. 5. Maria b. Oct. 6, 1812 Cayuga, N. Y. d. Jan. 12, 1869. m. Jan. 1836 James Shourds. 6. Phebe m. James Mayhew. 7. Girl. 8. Cynthia. Caleb T. and Elizabeth Holmes had 1. Charlotte 2. Henry Stewart 3. John 4. Caleb Thompson 5. Robert Armstrong 6. William 7. Lewis. Who were parents of the above James Holmes? Did he have any brothers and sisters? Mrs. Phebe Mayhew is said to have had the Holmes family bible at one time she lived either at Seneca Falls, N. Y., or Savannah, N. Y. Letters addressed to each place have been returned. Desired her address or descendants. C. B. S. 38. (a) Perry.-Michael m. Dec. 8, 1742 Grace Sturges and had David bp. Oct. 4, 1747 lived in Ridgfield Ct.: had a son Nehemiah Sr., M. D., of Ridgfield had Nehemiah Jr. M. D., of Ridgfield m. Emily Jennings, [from Sellick's Norwalk History.] Who was father of Michael? Whom did David marry? What were names of all his children? There was another David Perry in Ridgfield at the same time; he was born about 1740 and was son of

:

39.

40.

Elisha and Anna Perry. Whom did this David marry and what children did he have?

(b) Penfield, Jeremiah m. Elizabeth
Williams and had Charlotte, Charles,
Henry, Owen and Asa. Who were
parents of Jeremiah and Elizabeth.
They are supposed to have lived in
Portland, Conn., perhaps near Penfield
Hill.
W. P. P.
Wanser.-Priscilla m. Jan. 28, 1754
Abram. Vancoit: Thomas Wanser m.
Dec. 8, 1763 wid. Hannah Purdy (South
Salem, N. Y., Pres. Ch. Rec.) Who
were parents of Thomas and Priscilla ?
And what children did they have?
Were they related to the Wanzer's of
New Fairfield, Conn.? Is this the
Thomas named on p. 120? W. C. P.

(a) Mun.-Jedediah of Woodbury, Ct., m. about 1750 Ruth b. about 1729. Who were his parents and what children had he?

(b) Briggs, Zebedee of Ridgfield, Ct., or Southeast, N. Y., m. abt. 1760 Mary or Maria b. about 1740. They had children, James, Joshua, Phebe, Elizabeth, Ruth (m. a Wildman), Zebedee, John, Benjamin and Thankful. Who were parents of Zebedee? What became of these children? Who were parents of Mr. Wildman and what children had he?

(c) Cozier (or Couzier), Thomas deceased by Mch. 12, 1776 and Benjamin Cozier was appointed administrator. He lived near Danbury, Conn. Did he m. about 1765 Hannah b. about 1742; and what children did he have? There was a Thomas Cozier late of New Fairfield who d. about 1800 leaving wid. Tabitha sons Benjamin (dead by Jan. 7, 1828: wife Sarah), Thomas, and Abel; daus. Ann (m. Mr. Hodgh), Sarah (m. a Sharp), Lydia (m. Feb. 6, 1759 Aaron Knapp jr.), Thankful (m.

Elisha Morehouse) and Mercy wife of Henry Woster. Abel marriedand had I. Thomas (m. Margaret Spencer and had David Scribner Cosier sometime of Danbury, Ct.) 2. John 3. Margaret? m. Dr. Wm. Daly. I would like to have these Coziers straightened out.

(d) Sherwood, Abel enlisted Apr. 12, 1758 aet. 33: b. in Conn.; Carpenter --brown complexion-5 ft. 8-Duchess Co., N. Y. Company commanded by Joseph Crane Esq. Who were parents of Abel? He was not son of David3 Isaac2 Thomas1 Sherwood for that Abel was b. Dec. 20, 1720.

J. W. E. 41. Barber.-John m. Sept. 16, 1756 Carmel N. Y., Thankful Hamblin. What children did they have. Who were parents of John and Thankful.

Mch. 19. Sessions aet. 29.

May 18. The wife of Capt. Richard Goodell aet. 51 yrs.

June 5. Miss Esther Goodell in the 49th yr. of her age.

June 11. Capt. Peter Ingals aet. 56 yrs. June. 19. Widow Elizabeth Rickard aet. 80.

July 31. A daughter of the Widow Higginbotham.

Sept. 2. John a child of Mr. John Maguire in the 3rd yr. of its age.

Oct. An infant child of Mr. John Maguire."

Nov. II. A child of Mr. Amasa Copland.

Dec. 30. The wife of Mr. James Trowbridge.

CONNECTICUT FARMING. F agriculture in Connecticut, at the end of this wonderful century, is not so far advanced as other industries, it is owing in part to the nature of the case. There is a limit to all natural processes, a limit beyond which advancement must halt in obedience to the decree, "Thus far shalt thou come and no farther." While theoretically and experimentally the outposts of agriculture have been pushed forward close to this limit, practically there is yet much room for improvement.

Agriculture is retarded in Connecticut by many obstacles. In the first place the fertility of the soil, except in a few favored localities, is wanting. Then the climatic conditions are unfavorable. The generous deposit of bowlders of all dimensions all over Connecticut, is another obstacle that has driven many farmers from the hill towns to the great prairies of the West. Manufactures and trade have drawn some of their best material from the country, and many once productive farms have been abandoned, or turned over to the Swede or the Polander.

Notwithstanding all these drawbacks nowhere in the country is farming more thoroughly understood, or more scientifically conducted. To place impediments in the way of the Anglo-Saxon is to stir up the indomitable energy and will power of

his being, that knows no such thing as failure. The Anglo-Saxon farmers of Connecticut have set for themselves the task of overcoming the obstacles of climate, infertile soil and cumbering bowlders, and they are succeeding grandly, encouragingly. They have learned that brains can as successfully be employed in solving the problems of agriculture, as in any other pursuit. To this end the Agricultural College has been established, turning out graduates skilled in the scientific application of fertilizers to the soil, practical drainage and irrigation, as well as improved methods of cultivation and propagation.

The tendency of agriculture in this State is toward special rather than general farming. Specialists in dairying, stockraising, fruit-growing, or poultry breeding are becoming more frequent, while general farming is being relegated to the methods of the past. The old way was to produce everything needed as much as possible on the farm wool for the farmer's clothing, the linen for his underwear, the hides for his shoes, and every article of food for his table that could be produced in the temperate zone. But all this has been changed. The dairyman and stock-raiser depend upon their western brothers for grain and feed. They grow corn to be sure, but that goes into the silo. The spinning wheel now adorns the attic, and the

farmer's daughter now spins with another sort of wheel.

In farming to-day the horse has almost superseded the slow ox, as the modern steel plow has superseded the wooden mold-board affair of the past. The mower replaces a dozen men with their scythes in the field. The reaper and binder, the loader and unloader, the engine and horsepower, now do duty in progressive farms. In dairying, co-operative creameries, or private creameries purchasing the farmers' milk or cream, have replaced to a great extent the butter-making of the past, as the cheese factories have replaced the home manufacture of this product. All to the advantage of the Connecticut farmer.

What now engages the attention of agriculturists perhaps more than anything else, is the subject of irrigation. Sometimes nature is very profuse with her rain fall, and sometimes she is not. Very frequently lack of rain is the cause of scanty crops and a shortage in the farmer's profits. How best to supply this deficiency of water is the greatest agricultural question of the day. Cities are supplying themselves, but the farms, located as they are upon elevations distant from water supply, and lacking the necessary capital to establish extensive water works, have to suffer; and just how to remedy the defect is a problem indeed.

When it can be done, the establishment of irrigating plants by joint-stock corporations or the State, will undoubtedly be accomplished, as has been done in the arid regions of the West; but until then every possible means of irrigation will have to be privately employed, to make up for the deficiency and uncertainty of the natural supply. Drainage, too, should

receive more attention than it has hitherto received, and the reclamation of swamps

will increase largely the area of valuable farm lands now productive of nothing but frogs and malaria.

With the intelligence and scholarship now being brought to bear upon agriculture, coupled with the constant improvement in farm implements and methods, not the least among which is the silage system in dairying, and the spraying of orchards for the destruction of injurious insects and fungi, the prospect for successful agriculture in Connecticut in the coming century is an exceedingly bright one. The uncertainty of employment or success in commercial and manufacturing undertakings is drawing the attention of thinking men more and more to the soil, and this is a good sign. There is a feeling that trade. and manufactures have been overdone, and that agriculture has been neglected, and there is now a prospect that there will be an evening up, a more equitable adjustment of these great industries by more extensive and intensive methods of farming.

THE BICYCLE LANTERN LAW.

It is to be hoped that the Bicycle Lantern Law now before the State Legislature will not fail of passing. In several places throughout the State, wheelmen have held indignation meetings and passed "whereases" and "resolves" reciting the "unjust discrimination" in seeking to compel the bicycle to carry a lamp while carriages and other vehicles are suffered to pass unlighted.

Whenever wheelmen exist in any numbers, they have raised a cry for cycle. paths-special roadways for the exclusive use of cyclists and off which horses and carriages are warned. But has any one heard the carriage owners cry aloud against the deep injustice" or the "moral wrong"? We think not.

66