History of Newton, Massachusetts : town and city, from its earliest settlement to the present time, 1630-1880, Part 3

Author: Smith, S. F. (Samuel Francis), 1808-1895. 4n
Publication date: 1880
Publisher: Boston : American Logotype Co.
Number of Pages: 996

USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Newton > History of Newton, Massachusetts : town and city, from its earliest settlement to the present time, 1630-1880 > Part 3

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).

The settlement of the new town (Cambridge) was begun in 1631. The town records commence in November, 1632 ; the pro- prietors' records in 1635. A house in Boston surmounted by a thatched roof having taken fire from the chimney in 1631, Deputy Governor Dudley recorded the remark, "In our new town, intended to be built this summer, we have ordered that no man there shall build his chimney with wood, or cover his house with thatch."

The first considerable accession to the population of the new town (Cambridge) took place in August, 1632. Rev. Mr. Hook- er's company, otherwise called the Braintree company, had begun a settlement at Mount Wollaston, but were ordered by the Court to remove to Newtown. These settlers were forty-seven in num- ber .* But the territory of the new town, with this addition, was not

* In a foot note to Dr. Holmes' History of Cambridge, it is said, "It is highly prob- able that this company came from Braintree, in Essex County, in England, and from its vicinity. Chelmsford, where Mr. Hooker was settled, is but eleven miles from Braintree; and ' Mr. Hooker was so esteemed as a preacher that not only his own people, but others from all parts of the county of Essex flocked to hear him.' "

The names of this company, constituting the first settlers of the town of Cam- bridge, are preserved in the Records of the Proprietors, under date of 1632, and are as follows :

Jeremy Adams, Matthew Allen, John Benjamin, Jonathan Boswell, Mr. Simon Bradstreet,t John Bridge, Richard Butler, John Clarke,

Anthony Couldby or Colby, Daniel Dennison,

Thomas Dudley, Esq., Samuel Dudley,

Edward Elmer,

Richard Goodman,

William Goodwin,

Garrad Hadden,

! Bradstreet settled at Andover, and was afterwards Governor of Massachusetts.

QUESTION OF REMOVAL.

large enough to accommodate the desires of its population. Hence in May, 1634, the people complained to the General Court of their restricted quarters, and desired leave to seek either enlargement or removal. Their request was granted by the Court, and Mr. Hooker and his company sent messengers to explore Ipswich, and the Merrimac and Connecticut Rivers. The report of the messen- gers who went to examine the Connecticut valley was very flatter- ing, and produced a strong influence upon them; and at the session of the Court in September, they asked leave to remove thither. "The question of their removal was a very exciting one," says Mr. Jackson, " and was debated by the Court many days. On taking the vote, it appeared that the Assistants were opposed to their removal, and the Deputies were in favor of it. Upon this grew a great difference between the Governor and Assistants, and the Deputies. 'So when they could proceed no further, the whole Court agreed to keep a day of humiliation in all the congregations.' Mr. Cotton, by desire of the Court, preached a sermon that had great influence in settling the question."

Stephen Hart, John Haynes, Esq.,* Thomas Heate, Rev. Thomas Hooker, Thomas Hosmer, Richard Harlackenden,

William Lewis, Richard Lord, John Masters, Abraham Morrill,

Hester Mussey, Simon Oakes, James Olmstead, Capt. Daniel Patrick, John Prat, William Pentrey,

Joseph Redinge, Nathaniel Richards, William Spencer,

Thomas Spencer,

Edward Stebbins,

John Steele,

Henry Steele,

George Steele,

Samuel Stone,

Jolın Talcott,

William Wadsworth,

Andrew Warner, Richard Webb,

William Westwood,

John White.

The same year, 1632, " they built the first house of worship at Newtowne (Cam- bridge), with a bell upon it." This item, which is drawn from Prince's History, proves that the early settlers were not summoned to worship, at the beginning, if they were later, by the beat of drum. There is no record of the Village of New Cam- bridge (now Newton), which indicates when a bell was first used there. The Indians, however, were assembled by the beat of drum.

The company arrived in Boston September 4, 1633. Mr. Hooker was chosen pastor and Mr. Stone, teacher, and they were installed in their respective offices, after solemn fasting and prayer, October 11, 1633.

* John Haynes received the earliest and largest grant of land in the town in 1634; was chosen Governor of Massachusetts in 1635; removed to Connecticut with Hooker's company in 1636, and was Governor of Connecticut in 1639. He died in 1654, and this tract of land passed to his heirs.

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

The public sentiment at that time appeared to be against their removal. Boston and Watertown had offered them enlargement, , and the congregation of Newtown accepted these offers and con- cluded not to remove.

By the records of the Court in September, 1634, "it is ordered that the ground about Muddy River belonging to Boston and used by the inhabitants thereof shall hereafter belong to Newtown,- the wood and timber thereof growing and to be grown to be reserved to the inhabitants of Boston ; provided, and it is the meaning of this Court, that if Mr. Hooker, and the congregation now settled here, shall remove hence, that then the aforesaid meadow grounds shall return to Watertown, and the grounds at Muddy River to Boston."

After the question touching the enlargement of Newtown was settled, a committee was appointed by the Court, consisting of William Colbron, John Johnson and Abraham Palmer, to deter- mine the bounds between Newtown and Watertown; and Ensign Jennison to set out the bounds between Newtown and Roxbury, about Muddy River. The following records their action :

April, 1635 .- " It is agreed by us whose names are underwritten, that the bounds between Watertown and Newtown shall stand as they are already, from Charles River to the Great Fresh Pond, and from the tree marked by Watertown and Newtown, on the northeast side of the pond and over the pond to a white poplar tree on the northwest side of the pond, and from the tree up into the country, northwest by west, upon a straight line by a meridian compass ; and further, that Watertown shall have one hundred rods in length above the Wear, and one hundred rods beneath the Wear in length and three score rods in breadth from the river on the south side thereof, and all the rest of the ground on that side of the river to lye to Newtown.

WILLIAM COLBRON, JOHN JOHNSON, ABRAHAM PALMER."

April, 1635 .- "The line between Roxbury and Newtown is laid out to run southwest from Muddy River, near that place called ' Nowell's Bridge,' a tree marked on four sides, and from the mouth of the river to that place ; the south side is for Roxbury and the north for Newtown.

WILLIAM JENNISON."

TOWN BOUNDS.

" This line," Mr. Jackson says, " was designed to carry out the gift of Boston to Newtown, by which the whole of Muddy River, more or less, became a part of Newtown, and so remained for .nearly two years. It was nearly, if not exactly, the same line as that which now divides Roxbury from Brookline. Its length is not stated in Jennison's report ; but it is about six miles."

By this enlargement of lands, received from Boston and Water- town, Newtown acquired what is now Brookline, Brighton and Newton, excepting only such special grants as had been previously made to individuals. For Muddy River, now Brookline, by an early grant, had been made a part of Boston. These were the acquisitions of Newtown on the south. On the north and north- west, she obtained what is now Arlington, Lexington, Billerica, part of Bedford and part of Tewksbury, extending to the Mer- rimack River. She began, the smallest township in the colony, and soon became the largest.

The territory, above granted, having reverted to Boston, in con- sequence of the removal of Mr. Hooker and his company to Con- necticut, the Court appointed a committee to settle the boundaries between Newtown and Muddy River. This committee in April, 1636, made the following report :

" We whose names are underwritten, being appointed by the Court to set out the bounds of the New Town upon Charles River, do agree that the bounds of the town shall run from the marked tree by Charles River, on the northwest side of the Roxbury bounds, one and a half miles northeast, and from thence three miles north- west, and so from thence five miles southwest; and on the south- west side of Charles River, from the southeast side of Roxbury bounds to run four miles on a southwest line, reserving the propri- eties to several persons granted by special order of the Court.

WILLIAM SPENCER, NICHOLAS DANFORTH, WILLIAM JENNISON."

Mr. Jackson says, "This description is cloudy, with some errors in the points of the compass, which may have been made in copy- ing the report. It differs from the present bounds of Brookline, but was intended to restore Muddy River to Boston, or as much of it as the committee judged expedient."

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

The following record gives the action of the town in regard to the boundary between Newton and Watertown. It is dated in 1705.

" The subscribers were empowered to settle the line between . Newton and Watertown; and on the 25th September, 1705, did mutually agree, namely, beginning at Charles River, at high water mark, at the northeast corner of the farm formerly Mr. Mayhew's, and run a straight line south-southwest, two degrees west to a walnut stump, forty-one and three-quarter rods ; then turning and running straight northwest, five degrees north, two hundred and sixteen rods, across Stephen Cook's land and Smelt Brook; then turning and running straight, northeast by north, eighty rods to the river.

JOHN SPRING, r EDWARD JACKSON,

Newton. EBENEZER STONE, 7

JONAS BOND, - Watertown."

JOSEPH SHERMAN,

"This settlement shortened the easterly line a few rods," says Mr. Jackson, " and lengthened the southerly and westerly lines a few rods each. The settlement of 1635 gave Watertown seventy- five acres on the south side of the river ; the settlement of 1705 increased it to about eighty-eight acres, so that Newton lost the jurisdiction of about thirteen acres by the settlement of 1705."

The small portion of Watertown at present lying on the south of the river has not the exact dimensions assigned to it in 1635, although about the same quantity of land (150 acres). March 1, 1704-5, a committee (Jonas Bond, Esq., Capt. B. Garfield and Joseph Sherman) was appointed "to find out the line between Watertown and Newton, on the south side of Charles River." The committee reported November 16, 1705, minutely describing the line, as may be seen in the Town Records, and which is nearly the same as that delineated in the latest map of Newton. The line began at high water mark on Charles River at the northeast corner of the farm formerly Mr. Mayhew's, and ran straight southwest, two degrees west, forty-one and three-quarter rods ; then a straight line west-northwest, five degrees north, two hundred and sixteen rods ; then a straight line northeast by north, eighty rods, down to

GRANT TO WATERTOWN.

the river. It was signed by the above committee on the part of Watertown, and by John Spring, Edward Jackson and Ebenezer Stone, on the part of Newton.

A contributor to the Newton Journal, interested in antiquarian investigations and evidently at home in this period of the early history, writes as follows :

" Watertown was settled as early as September 7, 1630, and stands as the fourth oldest town in New England. She originally claimed and received very large tracts of land lying upon the north side of Charles River, also, upon the south side of the river. In 1631 Cambridge, or as it was originally called 'New Town,' was settled, receiving as a grant of land only about one thousand acres. In 1634, the inhabitants of New Town complained to the General Court, of straightness for want of land, and desired leave of the Court to look out either for enlargement or removal. In 1635 they succeeded in obtaining from Watertown large grants of land lying both on the north and south side of Charles River, that grant of land upon the south of the river included all, or nearly all of that which is now Brighton and Newton. This grant of land was first called The south side of Charles River,' and sometimes ' Nonantum,' the Indian name.

" When 'New Town' or 'Cambridge' received her grant of land in 1635, of that portion lying upon the south of Charles River before mentioned, there was reserved and granted to the town of Watertown, 'a strip two hundred rods long and sixty rods wide, enough to protect their fishing privilege, and afterwards called the Wear lands.' This reservation will be found by computation to comprise seventy-five acres.

" These fishing interests were a source of income to Watertown for some two hundred years, and very many of the citizens of both Watertown and Newton can remember the alewive catch that was yearly gathered there ; and, it is apparent to any one who will glance at the map of the territory, that when Watertown relinquished her broad acres on the south side of the river, ' which was then an unex- plored wilderness,' she believed her fishing interests to be more valuable than the territory given up to 'New Town ; ' and, had it not been for this source of income to her town treasury, this reser- vation would never have been made, and the Charles River would have been the boundary line between the two townships.

"In the year 1679, when the town lines were established between

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

Cambridge and 'New Cambridge or Cambridge Village,' it was expressly stipulated that this Watertown reservation on the south side of Charles River, 200 by 60 rods, should be maintained and held by Watertown for the protection of her fish wears.' They did not wish to enter into co-operation with this new colony in the carrying on of the fish business, and were very strenuous to have their rights protected. Indeed, they became dissatisfied and grasping, and in 1705 called for a commission to re-adjust the line for the better pro- tection of their fishing interests. John Spring, Edward Jackson and Ebenezer Stone on the part of 'New Town,' with Jonas Bond. and Joseph Sherman of Watertown, composed that committee. They agreed upon a settlement which shortened the easterly line a. few rods, and lengthened the southerly and westerly lines, a few rods each from the original grant. In this settlement, Watertown had the best end of the bargain, and made a gain to her area of thirteen acres, giving her eighty-eight acres instead of the original. seventy-five granted her. This speaks well for the temper and. consideration of the committee on the part of 'New Town ;' for it. will be seen they were a majority of the committee. Since this time there have been further re-adjustments of these boundaries, and it is evident in each of these, Watertown has been sharp. enough not to 'lose ground ; ' for the total acreage of the territory now held by Watertown on the Newton side of the river, including the public streets and Boyd's and Cook's Ponds, is nearly one hundred and fifty acres, or a gain from what was originally intended. for her fish protection, of nearly seventy-five acres.

"The present (1879) taxable area of this portion of Water- town is 932 acres. Its valuation in 1878, was $861,170. Its. population 575. This territory, especially that part of it known as 'Morse Field,' has increased very rapidly in population and val- uation during the past ten years. In fact in 1869, the 'Morse estate,' then comprising about forty acres, paid a tax to Water- town of only $160. In 1878, probably Watertown received about. $3,000 from this same land. The people living upon the southerly half of these 'Wear Lands,' for several years felt that they ought to be set off from Watertown and annexed to Newton, as all their social, educational, business and religious interests are with Newton, rather than with Watertown. Various attempts have been made in this regard by petitioning the Legislature for an act of annexa- tion ; but thus far they have been unsuccessful. It would seem

ANNEXATION OF MORSE ESTATE.

to be not an act of injustice to Watertown to ask her for a re-con- veyance of a portion of this land which has from time to time been gained from the territorial limits of 'New Town' and 'New- ton,' especially considering the facts that Watertown would never have had a foothold upon the south side of the river, after the grant to Cambridge, except to protect her fishing interests - that for the past forty or fifty years these interests have ceased to exist -that Watertown has nearly seventy-five acres more than she is entitled to by the original grant-that Newton now has interests which she must protect. By the drainage surveys, it has been necessary to run one of her main drains through the territory, a right having been granted them by the Legislature of 1878. By this act the laying of this drain may involve the city of Newton in numerous lawsuits with the citizens or the authorities of the town of Watertown; and it seems but justice that this land should be annexed, that she may not be subject to unnecessary litigation, but be able to run her drain through this territory with the same safety that it can be laid in any of her present limits. Also, that the citizens of this tract are suffering for a supply of pure water, which Newton stands ready to provide. They must also look to Newton for drainage of their lands." [The action of the Legislature of 1879-80 was adverse to the annexation.]

The donations of land which Newtown received from Boston and Watertown were made on the express condition that Mr. Hooker's company should not remove ; and, in case of their removal, these additions were to revert to their original owners. But the settlers of Boston on the one hand, and Mr. Hooker's company on the other, had set their hearts successively on two darling projects ; the first was to make Newtown the metropolis of the colony ; the second, after a brief experiment, to remove to Connecticut. The shoal waters of Charles River, as compared with the deep water and easy access of Boston harbor, made it inexpedient to erect Newtown into a capital.

The lack of rich farming lands, cleared and all ready for culti- vation, made the residence of Hooker's company here unsatisfactory to them. And as their only alternative they renewed their request to be permitted to remove to Connecticut .* Accordingly the

* Mr. Hocker settled in what is now Hartford. Therefore Connecticut and its capi- tal city must be regarded as the daughter of Newton.

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

General Court, in 1635, gave them leave to remove wherever they pleased, "on condition that they should continue under the juris- diction of Massachusetts." Mr. Trumbull thus describes the jour- ney of Mr. and Mrs. Hooker and others in the following year :

"About the beginning of June, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Stone and about one hundred men, women and children, took their departure from Cambridge, and travelled more than a hundred miles, through a hideous and trackless wilderness, to Hartford. They had no guides but their compass, and made their way over mountains, through swamps, thickets and rivers, which were not passable but with great difficulty. They had no cover but the heavens, nor any lodgings but those that simple nature afforded them. They drove with them a hundred and sixty head of cattle, and by the way subsisted on the milk of their cows. Mrs. Hooker was borne through the wilderness upon a litter. The people carried their packs, arms and some utensils. They were nearly a fortnight on their journey. This adventure was the more remarkable, as many of the company were persons of high standing, who had lived in England in honor, affluence and delicacy, and were entire strangers to fatigue and danger."

What would the venerable Hooker think now, were he to re-appear, and entering a car at Boston, to be whirled like lightning, in four hours, to Hartford ! And what a change for Mrs. Hooker would it be, from a litter to the splendidly cushioned vehicles which now traverse the route passed over by her with so much toil, and pain, and delay ! But it was this discipline of hardship and trial that made the fathers of New England the stalwart race they became. Self-denial brings success and victory.

Many of Mr. Hooker's company, on their departure, sold their lands and buildings in Newtown to the Rev. Mr. Shepherd and his company, who thus enjoyed the advantage of finding a settlement already partially cultivated, and affording comfortable accommoda- tions for themselves and their families.

Six years after the settlement of Charlestown, all Massachusetts Bay contained but twelve plantations, or towns. This appears from the records of a Court held at Newtowne, September 3, 1634 : "It was further ordered that the sum of £600 shall be levied out of the several plantations for publique uses, the one half to be paid forthwith, the other half before the setting of the next Court, viz. : Dorchester, 80; Roxbury, 70; Newtowne, 80; Watertown, 60;

THE SHAWSHINE GRANT.

Saugus, 50; Boston, 80; Ipswich, 50; Salem, 45 ; Charlestown, 45; Meadford, 26; Wessagassett (Weymouth), 10; Barecove (Hingham), 4."

From this record it is apparent that Newtowne possessed as much capital as any plantation at that time, and, with two exceptions, more than any other in the colony.

In 1636 the rates levied upon the several towns were as follows :

Newtown,

£26

5 Salem,

£16

Newbury, £7 1C

Dorchester, 26

5 Charlestown,

Hingham, 6

Boston, 25 10

Ipswich,

Weymouth, 4

Watertown,

19 10

Saugus,

Roxbury,

19 5

Medford,

9 15

1136520

Thirteen towns only at that time constituted the State of Massa- chusetts.

The number of those who owned houses in Newtown at this time was eighty-three.

March 3, 1636. " It is agreed that Newtown bounds shall run eight miles into the country from their meeting-house ; and Watertown, 8; Roxbury, 8; Charlestown, 8."

The craving of the settlers for more territory, though abated for a season, and apparently quieted, was by no means extinguished ; and it became necessary once more for the General Court to invent and apply a remedy. The special longing of the farmers was for meadows, that is, land free from wood, and in a condition for mowing fields without the labor of clearing, so that they might avail themselves at once of the grass and hay for the support of their herds. To meet their demands, the Court having extin- guished the Indian title within the boundaries of Cambridge, insti- tuted inquiries concerning other unappropriated territory which could be annexed to Newtowne. A committee was appointed in 1636 to examine the Shawshine country, and to report whether it was fit for a plantation. In 1641 the following order was passed : " Shawshine is granted to Cambridge, provided they make it a village, to have ten families there settled within three years ; other- wise, the Court to dispose of it."

The Shawshine country was vague in extent, and its character little known. A committee was appointed, therefore, to make examination of the territory and bring in their report to the Court. The report, made in 1642, sheds some light on the nature of the

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

land, and defines in some degree the boundaries of Cambridge (Newtown). It is as follows :

" Wee, whose names are underwritten, being appointed to viewe Shawshine, and to take notice of what fitness it was of for a vil- lage, and according to our apprehensions make returne to the Court, - we therefore manifest thus much ; that for quantity, it is suffi- cient ; but for quality, in our apprehensions, no way fit,-the up- land being very barren, and very little meadow thereabouts, nor any good timber almost fit for any use. We went, after we came to Shawshine house, by estimation, some fourteen or sixteen miles at the least by compass. From Shawshine house, wee began to go downe the ryver four or five miles near east; then wee left that point, and went neere upon north, came to the Concord Ryver, a little below the falls, about one mile or near ; then wee went up the ryver some five miles, untill we came to a place called the Two Breth- ren ; and from thence it is about two miles and a half to Shawshine ; and the most part of all the good land is given out already ; more land there is at the north side of the house, between the side of Concord line and the head of Cambridge line ; but littell meadow, and the upland of little worth; and this is [all] that we can say - herein.

SIMON WILLARD, EDWARD CONVERS."

This report being rather unfavorable as to the character of the territory, the Court enlarged their grant to Cambridge, and gave them further time to effect a settlement. The grant ran in these words :

" All the land lying upon the Shawshine River, and between that and Concord River, and between that and the Merrimack River, not formerly granted by this Court, are granted to Cam- bridge, so as they erect a village there within five years, and so as it shall not extend to prejudice Charlestowne village, or the village of Cochitawist, nor farmes formerly granted to the now Governor of 1,200 acres, and to Thomas Dudley, Esq., 1,500 acres, and 3,000 acres to Mrs. Winthrop; and Mr. Flint and Mr. Stephen Winthrop are to set out their heade line toward Concord."

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.

History of Newton, Massachusetts : town and city, from its earliest settlement to the present time, 1630-1880, Part 3

Author: Smith, S. F. (Samuel Francis), 1808-1895. 4n Publication date: 1880 Publisher: Boston : American Logotype Co. Number of Pages: 996

Author: Smith, S. F. (Samuel Francis), 1808-1895. 4n
Publication date: 1880
Publisher: Boston : American Logotype Co.
Number of Pages: 996