USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Watertown > Historical sketch of Watertown, in Massachusetts, from the first settlement of the town to the close of its second century > Part 2
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13
* Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, Vol. I. p. 28.
+ It is not a little amusing at the present day to read the following statement, so gravely made by Wood ; - "Concerning Lions, I will not say that I ever saw any myself; but some affirm that they have seen a Lion at Cape Ann, which is not above ten leagues from Boston : some likewise being lost in the woods have heard such terrible roarings as have made them much agast, which must be either Devils or Lions ; there being no other creatures which use to roar, saving Bears, which have not such a terrible kind of roaring."- New England's Prospect, p. 22.
-
15
29th of March, 1631, in company with his two daugh- ters and one of his younger sons, he went to Boston ; and after spending the night there with the Governor, he proceeded the next day to Salem, sailed thence on the 1st of April, and arrived in London on the 29th of the same month. In the same vessel Thomas Sharp and Mr. Coddington, men of distinction, whose names are found among the earliest members of the Court of Assistants, returned to their native land .* Dudley in his letter to the Countess of Lincoln, having mentioned that these and others were about to take passage for England, adds, "the most whereof purpose to return to us again, if God will."+ With regard to Sir Richard Sal- tonstall, this pupose, if ever entertained, was not accomplished. He never returned to New Eng- land, though he left his two oldest sons to carry on the good work which he had begun. The interests of the colony, however, were always uppermost in his thoughts and affections. He lost no opportunity of rendering them all the service in his power, in the mother country. On several occasions he interposed his efforts and influence against the misrepresenta- tions and false charges of their enemies. When Gardiner, Morton, and Ratcliffe, instigated by per- sonal resentment, endeavoured to injure the Massa- chusetts plantation by laying complaints against them before the king and council, in which they were accused of disloyal and rebellious intentions, Sir Richard Saltonstall in connexion with others was actively engaged in opposing their malicious attempts, and gave ample answers to all their allegations.t His interest in New England extended beyond the Massachusetts plantation. He was engaged in the settlement of the Connecticut colony, as a patentee, in company with Lord Say and Seal, Lord Brook,
* Winthrop's New England, Savage's ed. Vol. I. p. 49.
+ Massachusetts Historical Collections, Ist Series, VIII. p. 45. # Hubbard. p. 145.
-
16
and others. Winthrop informs us, that in 1635 "a bark of forty tons arrived, set forth with twenty ser- vants, by Sir Richard Saltonstall, to go plant at Con- necticut." * This vessel on her return was cast away on the Isle Sable, a disaster which Sir Richard ascribed to her having been detained at Boston and at Connecticut River by persons unfriendly to his enterprise, and for which he claimed satisfaction, in a very interesting letter addressed to Winthrop, Gov- ernor of the Connecticut colony.t In the political convulsions, which agitated England after his return thither, he espoused the cause of the Parliament with sufficient zeal to secure their confidence; for when a new high court of justice was instituted for the trial of the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Holland, the Earl of Norwich, Lord Capel, and Sir John Owen, he was commissioned with others to sit for . that purpose.} Among his services to the colony, it may be mentioned that he was one of the early bene- factors of Harvard College, and left in his will a legacy to that institution, then in its infancy. He died about the year 1658.
The family of Sir Richard Saltonstall was an an- cient and highly respectable one in Yorkshire. He was the son of Samuel Saltonstall, whose brother had been Lord Mayor of London in 1597. With an hon- orable zeal and disinterestedness, he gave whatever of influence or wealth he possessed to the Puritan cause. When, at the petition of the Massachusetts company, Charles the First confirmed their patent by charter, Sir Richard was named as the first associate to the six original patentees; and when the govern- ment was organized before their departure for New- England, he was chosen first assistant, in which office he continued while he remained with the col- ony. He was a gentleman of noble qualities of mind
* Vol. I. p. 161. + Hist. Coll. 2d Series, VIII. p. 42.
An animated account of this trial and the executions is given by Clarendon, Book XI. p. 2413.
17
and heart, and has always been deservedly regarded as one of the venerated fathers of the Massachusetts settlement. His liberal and tolerant spirit in relig- ious matters was truly remarkable for the times in which he lived, and presents to the eye of the his- torical inquirer a trait of character as honorable and attractive as it was uncommon. When our ances- tors, who came hither to find a sanctuary from per- secution, were guilty of the melancholy inconsistency of persecuting others, the indignation of Sir Richard was justly moved, and he wrote an admirable letter of expostulation and rebuke to Mr. Cotton and Mr. Wilson, ministers of Boston .* This letter is a no- ble testimony to his charitable and Christian feelings, and seems to me scarcely less to deserve the praise of being beyond the age, than the celebrated farewell address of John Robinson at Leyden.+
The congregation at Watertown, soon after its es- tablishment, was troubled by an altercation, of which notice is taken by most of the early historians. Mr. Richard Brown, a ruling elder of the congregation, and a man of zealous temperament, had the boldness to avow and defend the opinion, that " the churches of Rome were true churches." In this sentiment, as it would seem from the expressions used by Win- throp, the Rev. Mr. Phillips concurred. Brown probably maintained that the Papal church was not so fundamentally erroneous as to render salvation impossible within her communion. This concession, which we should now regard only as an ordinary exercise of charity or justice, must have been ex- ceedingly offensive in those times of bigotry, espe- cially as it was then -made only by the high church
* See Appendix C.
t An interesting account of Sir Richard Saltonstall is given in an article on Haverhill, Hist. Coll. 2d Series, Vol. IV. p. 155 ; where are likewise notices of his descendants. See also Prince, p. 333; Hutchin- son, Vol. I. p. 21 ; Eliot's Biographical Dictionary ; and Winthrop, in va- rious places.
3
18
party in England .* The open avowal of the opinion reflects no little honor on the liberality of the elder. Hubbard, however, is disposed to give Mr. Brown - no credit for good motives in defending this senti- ment ; it could not have come, he thinks, from his "charity to the Romish Christians," but from his love of disputation ; " the violence of some men's tempers," he observes, " makes them raise debates when they do not justly offer themselves, and like millstones grind one another, when they want other grist." + But we are not bound to receive the his- torian's interpretation of motives in this case ; and he himself states, that " the reformed churches did not use to rebaptize those that renounce the religion of Rome and embrace that of the Reformation," - a circumstance, which might have suggested to Brown considerations in favor of his view of the subject. Whatever may have been the grounds of the opinion in the mind of the elder, as we may readily suppose, it was not suffered to pass without notice and repre- hension. On the 21st of July, 1631, the governor, deputy-governor, and Mr. Nowell (elder of the Bos- ton congregation), went to Watertown to confer with Mr. Phillips and Mr. Brown on the subject. An as- sembly, consisting of members from Boston and Watertown, was called; and thinking, as many in other times have thought, that truth is to be decided by vote, they all, except three, declared the arraigned opinion to be an error. But the matter did not rest here. Brown was neither convinced nor silenced, notwithstanding the power of numbers was against him. He still maintained the ground he had taken ; and in consequence of this, and other complaints against him, on the 23d, of November 1631, the Court address- ed a letter to the pastor and brethren of the Water- town congregation, advising them to consider whether
*, It was a part of one of the articles of impeachment in the trial of Archbishop Laud, that he held the church of Rome to be a true church. + Page 143.
19
it were proper to continue Mr. Brown in the office of elder. To this they replied, that if the Court would examine the matter and prove the allegations against Brown, they would do all in their power to redress the evil. Much division appears to have prevailed among the people at Watertown, on account of this and other alleged errors of their elder ; and on the 8th of December both parties went with their complaints to the governor. Accordingly the governor, the dep- uty-governor, and Mr. Nowell again repaired to Wa- tertown, and having called the people together, told them they would proceed to act either as magistrates, or as members of a neighbouring congregation, or as having received a reply to their letter which did not satisfy them. Of these three modes Mr. Phillips, the pastor, selected the second, requesting them to sit merely as members of a neighbouring congregation, a choice suggested, perhaps, by jealousy of encroach- ment on the liberties of the church. To this propo- sal the governor and his associates consented, and the subject in question was then discussed. After much debate and much complaint on both sides, a reconciliation for the present was effected ; they agreed to observe a day of humiliation and prayer ; the pas- tor gave thanks ; and the assembly was dismissed .*
-
-
The excitement, however, continued, if it did not increase, till it could be quieted only by displacing Brown from his station in the church; and conse- quently, towards the end of the year 1632, he was re- moved from his office of ruling elder. He is described as a man of violent spirit, impetuous in his feelings, and impatient of rebuke. But it is no more than jus- tice to him to remember, that during the dispute in which he was involved, he was doubtless exasperated by reproach and severe treatment, and might perhaps
* For these particulars, see Winthrop, p. 67, 95, and Hubbard, p .143. There is likewise a notice of Brown's case in the valuable " Ecclesias- tical History of Massachusetts," Hist. Coll. 1st Series. Vol. IX. p. 21.
20
have retorted on his opponents the charge of acrimonious deportment. He was a man of respectability and importance in the town, and was the representative of Watertown in the first and in several successive courts of deputies. It appears by the Colony Rec- ords, that he was "allowed by the court to keep a ferry over Charles River against his house. " Before he came to this country, he had been an officer in one of the churches of the Separatists (as they were called) in London, and was much attached to the discipline of that party. This circumstance renders it the more remarkable, that he should have entertained and declared the opinion concerning the Romish church, which awakened so much indignation among his breth- ren here. He rendered a praiseworthy service in protecting Dr. William Ames and Mr. Robert Parker, two of the most eminent Puritan divines at that time - in England,t by carefully secreting them and convey- ing them on board their vessel, so that they were en- abled to escape from their pursuers.
The name of Brown stands among the foremost in connexion with another excitement, which happened in 1634. Mr. Endicott at Salem, in the earnestness of his zeal against Popery, caused the red cross to be cut out of the king's colors, with no warrant but his own authority. This was done, says Winthrop, " up- on the opinion, that the red cross was given to the king of England by the Pope as an ensign of victory, and so a superstitious thing and a relique of antichrist." On this occasion, Richard Brown, in the name of the other freemen, complained to the Court of Assistants against the rash proceeding at Salem. He argued that it would be regarded in England as an act of re- bellion, and would draw upon the colony the displeas- ure of the king and the government. After some consultation, the court agreed to send a letter to Mr.
+ For an account of these men, see Neal's History of the Puritans, Vol. II. pp. 69, 96, 280, &c.
21
Emanuel Downing, a friend of the colony in England, expressing their entire disapprobation of the disrespect- ful transaction, and their determination to inflict ade- quate punishment. This letter was to be shown, in or- der to obviate any unfavorable impressions in the mother country. But their expressions were studiously wary ; for it was only the impropriety or imprudence of the act, not the principle on which it was done, that they were disposed to censure.
In February of 1631-32,* an altercation of a po- litical nature occurred, which, for the spirit indicated by it, is well worthy of notice. It was the intention of the leading men in the colony to have made New- town, now Cambridge, the metropolis of the Massa- chusetts plantation. The project was in a short time abandoned ; for among other reasons, it was soon ev- ident that Boston must be the chief place of com- merce. But while this plan was in prospect, the Court determined to erect a fortification at Cambridge, and accordingly passed an order " that sixty pounds be levied out of the several plantations, towards making a palisado."t The portion of this sum, which the people of Watertown were required to contribute, was eight pounds. When the warrant for levying their part was sent, their pastor, elder, and others, taking alarm at what they supposed to be an unjustifiable ex- ercise of power, " assembled the people, and delivered their opinions that it was not safe to pay moneys after that sort, for fear of bringing themselves and posterity into bondage." For this resistance they were sum-
* Before' the year 1752, when the new style took place, there was sometimes a confusion in dates, owing to the practice of beginning the year in March, so that in some cases a doubt arose whether January, February, and part of March closed the old year, or began the new one. This introduced the mode of double dating as above. After the 25th of March both modes of calculation agree as to the year. In trans- actions before the 25th of March in any year, it will be most proper to give the dates as if the year began in January. In this way, the date above stated should be February, 1632.
+ Prince, p. 390, where the respective parts of the several towns in this tax are given.
22
moned to answer before the Governor and Assistants. They defended their opposition to the assessment by stating, that they considered the government of the plantation, as it then stood, simply as a mayor and aldermen, who had no power to make laws or levy taxes, without the consent of the people. They were informed, that they had misunderstood the subject, that the government, as it was constituted, partook of the character of a parliament, and might therefore raise money for the public expenditures in the mode which
had been adopted. The pastor and his associates were either satisfied with the explanation, or deemed further resistance fruitless and imprudent. They ac- knowledged their opinion to be an error, and signed a recantation. In order, I suppose, to make their sub- mission the more complete, and to prevent any injuri- ous influence which their weight of character might have given to their opinion, they were required to read this confession in the assembly at Watertown the next Sabbath. But whether their retraction was the result of a change of conviction or not, the view of the subject, on which they grounded their objection to the tax, was doubtless theoretically correct. The charter gave the Governor and Assistants no power to raise money by taxation. This power, however, was as- sumed for reasons of convenience, perhaps by a sort of necessity ; and the people, finding it exercised just- lv and mildly, silently acquiesced in the assumption .* It is worthy of remark, that in this occurrence we find the earliest manifestation of that watchful jealousy of unauthorized taxation, which was afterwards devel- oped so strongly, and with such serious consequences, in the disputes between the colonies and the mother country. The grievance complained of in this case, like that of the duty on tea at a subsequent period
* For an interesting and satisfactory elucidation of this point, see Mr. Savage's note on the subject, Winthrop, Vol. I. p. 70.
23
was in itself inconsiderable. In both cases, the opposition was aimed at the principle, which was thought to be full of danger, - not at the effects of it in an individual instance, which might be trifling .*
.
In 1632 occurs the first notice of a fishery, which not many years ago was a profitable branch of business in the town, and is of considerable importance at the present day. We are informed, that in April of that year, " a wear was erected by Watertown men upon Charles - River three miles above the town, where they took great store of shads." The permission to do this furnished Dudley, the disaffected deputy-governor, with an oc- casion of accusation against the governor, to whom at that time he bore no good will. When required to specify his charges, among other complaints of an abuse of power, he demanded to be satisfied by what authority the governor "had given them of Water- - town leave to erect a wear upon Charles River." The governor replied, that when the people of Watertown asked for permission to build this wear, he told them, as it was not within his official power to grant it, they must petition the Court on the subject ; but since the fishing season would be over before the Court should be assembled, he advised them to proceed to their object without delay, assuring them that the Court would doubtless sanction an act so manifestly for the public benefit, and that he himself would use all his influence to secure their approbation of it. He further remarked, as a justification of the proceeding, that the people of Roxbury had built a wear without asking permission of the Court.t The occasion of the appli- cation from the inhabitants of Watertown on this sub- ject is worthy of remark. Their crop of corn had failed the preceding summer ; and this failure they as-
* Hubbard, regarding only the amount of the tax' required, implies, with an air of petulance, that, as their share was but eight pounds, the Watertown people needed not to have "stood so much upon their lib- erty, as to refuse payment." p. 144.
t Winthrop, Vol. I. p. 84.
1
24
cribed to the want of fish, which they used for manure. In order to secure a more plentiful supply of this kind of compost for their fields, they petitioned for the abovementioned privilege. The use of fish for ma- nure was common among our fathers, and they are supposed to have learned it from the Indians. This prac- tice, it is thought, impoverished the soil ; and instances are mentioned, in which it is said to have rendered the land nearly useless. Whether the opinion be well founded, I must leave to others to determine.
In the difficulties, which grew out of the intercourse between the Massachusetts settlers and the Indians by whom they were surrounded, the inhabitants of Watertown had no very conspicuous share. A few instances are related of wrongs or grievances on both sides. In March, 1631, Sagamore John made com- plaint to the Court, then in session at Watertown, of two wigwams being burnt by the carelessness of Sir Richard Saltonstall's servant. The court voted that Sir Richard should compensate the Indians for their loss. This he did by giving them seven yards of cloth, for which his servant was required, at the expiration of his service, to pay him fifty shillings sterling .* As the injury appears to have been undesigned, this trans- action indicates a solicitude to do justice to the In- dians, and to maintain good neighbourhood with them. On another occasion, one Hopkins was convicted of selling fire-arms, powder, and shot to an Indian, and was sentenced to be whipped and branded in the cheek. Of the danger of such a traffic with the na- tives, the first settlers were, with good reason, ex- ceedingly apprehensive ; but all their regulations to prevent it soon proved inefficacious.
The only remarkable instance of Indian vengeance, belonging to this narrative, was in the melancholy fate of John Oldham. Before the settlement at Massa- chusetts Bay, this man had resided in Plymouth.
* Prince, p. 345.
25
The violent and disgraceful conduct, of which he in connexion with Lyford was guilty at that place, is well known .* He was banished from Plymouth, after being obliged to pass between two files of armed men, each of whom gave him a blow with a musket, and bade him " go and mend his manners." He first went to Nantasket, but soon after settled at Watertown, and was a member of the congregation there at the time of his death. He had either learned wisdom from experience, and become a reformed man, or, as has been thought by some, his faults were greatly exaggerated by the Plymouth people ; for after his removal to Watertown, he was highly respected, and was a deputy from the town in the first General Court in 1632. He became a distinguished trader among the Indians, and in 1636 was sent to traffic with them at Block Island. The Indians got possession of Old- ham's vessel, and murdered him in the most barba- rous manner. The fact was discovered by one John Gallop, who on his passage from Connecticut was obliged by change of wind to bear up for Block Island. He recognised Oldham's vessel, and, seeing the deck full of Indians, suspected there had been foul play. After much exertion and management, he boarded her, and found the body of Oldham cut and mangled, and the head cleft asunder. Two boys, and two Narraganset Indians, who were with Oldham, the murderers had spared. This atrocious deed excited great indignation in the Massachusetts settlements, and was one of the immediate causes of the celebrated Pequot war, in which that brave and fierce tribe was entirely extinguished.+
-
Instances of superstition, sufficiently amusing at the present day, are of course to be found in the annals
* See the particulars in Morton's New England's Memorial, p. 112, &c., and in Baylies' Memoirs of Plymouth Colony, Vol. I. Chap. 8. t Winthrop, Vol. I. p. 189, and Hutchinson, Voi. I. pp. 59, 75, &c. Of the combined forces for the Pequot war the Massachusetts colony sup- plied 160 men, and of this number Watertown furnished fourteen.
4
26
of this period. Winthrop tells us, that at Watertown there was (in the view of divers witnesses) a great combat between a mouse and a snake; and, after a long fight, the mouse prevailed and killed the snake. The pastor of Boston, Mr. Wilson, a very sincere, holy man, hearing of it, gave this interpretation ; " that the snake was the devil ; the mouse was a poor contempt- ible people, which God had brought hither, which should overcome Satan here, and dispossess him of his kingdom." Such pious interpretations were the fash- ion of the age, and by no means peculiar to New England. We shall be induced to forbear from a smile of contempt at our Puritan fathers on this occasion, when we find Archbishop Usher, one of the most pro- found scholars of his own or of any times, and Dr. Samuel Ward, president of Sidney College and Marga- ret reader of divinity lectures, gravely intimating to each other in their correspondence, that there must be some portentous meaning in the circumstance of a book, entitled " A Preparation to the Cross," being found in the maw of a cod-fish, which was sold in the market at Cambridge .*
It seems a very remarkable complaint, so early as 1635, that " all the towns in the bay began to be much straitened by their own nearness to one another, and their cattle being so much increased." This is said to be accounted for by the government having at first required every man to live within half a mile from the meeting-house in his town.t The want of room appears, from some cause, to have been pecu- liarly felt in Watertown; and on several occasions the inhabitants emigrated and formed new settlements. The first of these was in 1635, at the place afterward called Weathersfield in Connecticut, where, as we are told, some people of Watertown, before they had obtained leave to go beyond the jurisdiction of the
* See Aikin's Lives of John Selden, Esq., and Abp. Usher, p. 317. + See Mr. Savage's note, Winthrop, Vol. II. p. 152.
1
27
Massachusetts government, " took the opportunity of seizing a brave piece of meadow." This brave piece of meadow, it seems, was coveted likewise by their neighbours of Cambridge, some of whom, being about to remove, had fixed their eyes upon this attractive spot, and were vexed at having been anticipated in the possession of it. The consequence was not a little contention and ill-will. Indeed the Watertown plan- tation at Weathersfield was a scene of dissension, both within and without. In the course of three or four years, the church at that place, which consisted of but seven members, fell into such a state of discord, that the parent church at Watertown thought it necessary to send two of their members to confer with them. Mr. Davenport and others of New Haven were also called in to effect a reconciliation ; but in vain ; the dissension was not quelled for many years .*
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.