USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Newton > History of Newton, Massachusetts : town and city, from its earliest settlement to the present time, 1630-1880 > Part 6
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 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84
The petition to the town finding no favor, the people of Cam- bridge Village next determined to try what virtue there might be in an appeal to the Great and General Court, and in 1656, "John Jackson and Thomas Wiswall, in behalf of the inhabitants of the Village, petitioned the General Court to be released from paying rates for the support of the ministry at Cambridge church."
The town of Cambridge remonstrated against this petition, and the petitioners had leave to withdraw. They were silenced, for the time, but not satisfied. But the object they had in view was too important, and they were men of too much perseverance to sit down quietly and submit. The fire smouldered for a season, but soon broke forth anew. They had tested the townsmen and the Court in vain ; but they were not discouraged.
Having waited till, in their judgment, a better spirit prevailed, and new circumstances had come into existence more favorable to their plea, again in 1661 they presented a petition to the General Court, asking to be released from paying church rates to Cambridge. Meetings for public worship had been held in the place for four or five years. As there was a hall suitable for such a purpose in Edward Jackson's house, near the present dividing line between Newton and Brighton, it is conjectured, in the ab- sence of records, that the meetings were held there. In 1660 the first meeting-house in Cambridge Village was erected, which greatly strengthened their case; and accordingly, in 1661, the Court "granted them freedom from all church rates for the support of the ministry in Cambridge, and for all lands and estates which were more than four miles from Cambridge meeting-house, -- the measure to be in the usual paths that may be ordinarily passed,"- so long as "the south side of the river shall maintain an able ministry."
The inhabitants of the Village, however, were not satisfied with the dividing line, and the next year they petitioned the Court for a new line. The action of the Court on this petition was as follows :
61
ACTION OF THE COURT.
1662.
October .- In answer to the petition of John Jackson and Thomas Wis- wall, in behalf of the inhabitants of Cambridge Village, as a full and final issue of all things in controversy between the town of Cambridge and the petitioners, the Court judge it meet to order, appoint and fully empower Maj. William Hawthorne, of Salem, Capt. Francis Norton, of Charlestown, and Capt. Hugh Mason, of Watertown, as a committee to give the petitioners, or some in their behalf, with some invited in behalf of the town of Cambridge, opportunity to make their desires known, and Major Hawthorne to appoint the time and place for the hearing of what all parties can say, so it be some time before the next Court of election. And on the hearing thereof, to issue fully and absolutely conclude and determine what they shall judge necessary and just to be done, as to the determining the four-mile bounds, that so this Court may no more be troubled thereabouts.
And so in 1662 the committee above named ran the line and settled the bounds between Cambridge and Cambridge Village, so far as related to the matter of ministerial support. This line be- came the town line on the separation of Cambridge Village from Cambridge, and is substantially the same line that now divides Newton and Brighton [Boston].
The organization of the First Church in July, 1664, and the ordi- nation of the first minister, Rev. John Eliot, jr., consummated the ecclesiastical, though not the civil, separation of Cambridge Village from Cambridge.
But the inhabitants were not yet contented. Their territory was large and they were ambitious to be recognized as in all respects an independent town. A formal movement in this direction was first made in 1672, when Edward Jackson and John Jackson, in behalf of the inhabitants of Cambridge Village, petitioned the Court to be set off from Cambridge, and made an independent town by themselves.
In answer to this petition, we find under date of May 7, 1673, this record :
This Court doth judge meet to grant to the inhabitants of said Village an- nually to elect one Constable and three Selectmen, dwelling among them- selves, to order the prudential affairs of the inhabitants there, according to law; only continuing a part of Cambridge in paying county and country rates, as also town rates, so far as refers to the Grammar school, bridge over Charles River, and their proportion of the charges of the Deputies of Cam- bridge; and this to be an issue to the controversy between Cambridge and them,
62
HISTORY OF NEWTON.
The Village was not satisfied by this action of the Court, and the inhabitants declined to accept it or act under it.
" Further action was had," says Mr. Jackson, under date of 1677, "relative to the dividing line between Cambridge and the Village, both parties agreeing to submit to referees, mutually chosen."
The Village chose Capt. Thomas Prentice, James Trowbridge, Noah Wis- wall and Jonathan Hyde, a committee to settle the line by reference ; two referees to be chosen by the Village, two by Cambridge, and they four to choose a fifth. The referees thus chosen were Richard Calicot, William Symes, William Johnson, William Bond and Richard Louden. The result of this reference was a line described as follows : "Corner near the widow Jackson's orchard and a chestnut tree in Mr. Edward Jackson's pasture, and to continue until it comes to the river ; then, southerly, by a heap of stones, four miles from Cambridge meeting-house ; thence to continue until it comes at Boston [Brookline] bounds." This award was dated July 27, 1677.
At the session of the General Court commencing May 8, 1678, the following petition was presented, signed by nearly all the free- men of the Village. Mr. Jackson says it was, "no doubt, drawn up by Mr. Edward Jackson, sr."
To the Honored Governor, Deputy Governor, together with the Honorable Magistrates and Deputies of the General Court, now sitting in Boston :
The humble petition of us, the inhabitants of Cambridge Village, on the south side of Charles River, showeth, that the late war, as it has been a great charge to the whole colony, so to us in particular, both in our estates and persons, by loss of life to some, and others wounded and disabled for their live- lihood, besides all our other great charges, in building of our meeting-house, and of late, enlargement to it, as also our charge to the minister's house ; and as you know the Lord took that worthy person from us in a little time, and now in great mercy hath raised up another in the place, who hath a house in building for him, which requires assistance. As also we are now, by the great mercy of God, so many families, that a school is required for the education of our children, according to law, besides our public charge of the place; yet, notwithstanding, this last year the townsmen of Cambridge have imposed a tax upon us, amounting to the sum of three country rates, without our knowledge or consent, which we humbly conceive is a very harsh proceeding for any townsmen, of their own will and power, to impose upon the inhabitants what taxes they please, and to what end, without ever calling the inhabitants to consider about such charge. Nevertheless, for peace' sake, the inhabitants of our place did meet together, and jointly consent to give the town of Cambridge the sum of one hundred pounds, and to pay it in three years, without desiring any profit or benefit from them, of wood, tim- ber, or common lands, but only our own freedom, being content with our proprieties, which some of us had before Cambridge had any right there,
-
63
PETITION FOR FREEDOM.
which tender of ours they having rejected, as also to grant to us our free- dom from them,-
We do most humbly commend our distressed condition to the justice and mercy of this honored Court, that you will please to grant us our free- dom from Cambridge, and that we may be a township for ourselves, without any more dependence upon Cambridge, which hath been a great charge and burthen to us ; and also, that you would please to give the place a name; and if there should be any objection against us, that the honored Court will ad- mit our reply and defence. So, hoping the Almighty will assist you, in all your concerns, we rest your humble petitioners,
Mr. Edward Jackson, Captain Thomas Prentice, John Fuller, senior, John Kenrick, senior, Isaac Williams, John Ward, Joseph Miller, Thomas Prentice, jr., John Kenrick, jr., John Mason, William Robinson, Thomas Greenwood, John Parker, (south,) Humphrey Osland, Joseph Bartlett, Isaac Bacon, Jacob Bacon, Samuel Trusedale, Simon Onge, Jonathan Fuller, Jolın Parker, (east,) Job Hyde, Widow Jackson, Edward Jackson, jr., Daniel Ray, Thomas Prentice, jr., Fifty-two in all.
Jonathan Hyde, senior, Thomas Park, senior, James Trowbridge, Noah Wiswall, Thomas Hammond,
Jonathan Hyde, jr., James Prentice, senior, David Meade, Vincent Druce, Jolın Hyde,
Ebenezer Wiswall, Elijah Kenrick, Sebas Jackson, Samuel Hyde, jr., Neal McDaniel,
John Fuller, jr., Joshua Fuller, John Alexander, John Prentice,
Nathaniel Hammond,
Abraham Jackson, Stephen Cook, Richard Park, Joseph Fuller, Isaac Beach, Peter Stanchet.
FREEMEN IN THE VILLAGE WHO DID NOT SIGN THE PETITION.
Rev. Nehemiah Hobart, Elder Thomas Wiswall, Dea. Samuel Hyde, Daniel Bacon, John Spring, Daniel McCoy,
John Woodward, Henry Seger, Thomas Park, jr., John Park, Samuel Hyde, son of Jona., James Prentice, jr.
64
HISTORY OF NEWTON.
In answer to the petition of the inhabitants of Cambridge Village, on the south side of the river, the Court judgeth it meet to grant them a hearing of the case mentioned on the first Tuesday of the next session in October, and all parties concerned are ordered to have timely notice.
At the time appointed the Selectmen of Cambridge presented a long protest. On account of its historical statements, and the general view it furnishes of the state of affairs at that period, we present it without abbreviation.
The answer of the Seleetmen of Cambridge to the petition exhibited against them by their brethren and neighbors of the village on the south side of Charles River.
To omit what they express by way of narration, deelaring the loss of lives and estates to them sustained by the late war, the death of their former min- ister, and their having now got another for whom a house is building, ete., the impertineney and absurdity of their argument therein being obvious to all intelligent minds,-we shall only coneern ourselves with what they make the main of their petition, which may be divided into these two parts :
I. The cause on our part, viz., the hard usage by the townsmen of Cam- bridge, i. e. imposing upon them a tax, of their own will and power, and what they please, and to what end they please.
For answer hereunto, the Cambridge townsmen have imposed a tax (as they call it), if they intend no more than the making of a rate for the paying of the charges of the whole town, and putting upon them their just proportion of the charge of those things properly belonging to them to bear their part of, according to the order of the General Court with referenee to them, made May 7, 1673, and then deelared to be the issue of the controversy between the town and the petitioners. Thus far we own to be a truth. But whereas they charge us that we have thus done; 1, of our own will; 2, of our own power ; 3, what we please; 4, to what end we please,-these are high and sad accusations, which we eannot own to be true. For, 1. It was not by our will that any taxes have been imposed on them or any other of the inhabitants, but their own will, so deelared in orderly town meetings, legally warned, whereat themselves either were or might have been present, and had their votes. 2. Nor was it of our own power, but by the authority of the General Court, committing to us by the law, as we are Seleetmen of the town, power for the ordering of the prudentials of the town, and levying what is necessary for the payment of the annual disbursements regularly made for the town's oceasions. 3. Nor have we imposed upon the town in general, or the peti- tioners, what we please. The rule that we have observed in raising our rates being to make them no greater than is of absolute necessity for the payment of the town's debts, which must in the end fall considerably short by reason of the town's poverty ; and upon each inhabitant in particular according to a list of their persons and rateable estates. 4. Nor have we improved the moneys raised to what end we please, but have faithfully disposed of the same for the end for which we raised it, namely, the payment of the town's just debts. If
65
PROTEST OF CAMBRIDGE.
herein we have transgressed the line of our power, we beg pardon (and direc- tion for the future) of this honored Court. If our accusers shall deny the truth of what we assert, either in general or any one article, we crave liberty to put in our further defence and evidence.
II. That which is the main of their petition they thus express, viz., "that we may be a township of ourselves, without any more dependence on Cam- bridge." And this their petition they strengthen with two arguments; the first is prefatory to their petition, wherein they say "they plead only for their freedom, being content with their own propriety;" the second is subsequent, "because their dependence on Cambridge hath been a great charge and bur- then to them."
We shall begin with their arguments why they would be free from Cam- bridge. To the first, whereas they say that " they plead only for their freedom, being contented with their own proprieties." We answer 1. That the inhabitants of Cambridge, now dwelling on the north side of Charles River, have well nigh three thousand acres of land that is laid out into several lots, some ten, some twenty, some forty acres, more or less, that they are at this time seized of, and by them kept for herbage, timber, wood and planting lands, as they shall have occasion for to use the same, all which is by the petitioners included within the line of division between the town and them; and therefore, they do not say words of truth when they say they are content with their own pro- prieties. 2. Nor is it true that they plead only for freedom; for they, having obtained these our lands and proprieties to be within the line of that division and payable to the ministry, they would become our masters and charge us for our lands and cattle that we shall put thereon to all their common charges, if they may obtain to be a distinct township.
To their second argument, viz., that their dependence on Cambridge hath been a great charge and burden to them. For answer hereto, first, we shall say something that liath reference to them more generally, and, second- ly, we shall distinguish between the persons that are petitioners, and speak something more particularly. 1. More generally. They well know, be- fore their settlement in that place, that all those lands that they now petition for did belong to Cambridge, and were the grant of the General Court to them, for their enabling to maintain the ordinances of God among them, and all other common charges inevitably arising in a township; so that what they call a burden will appear to be no more than their duty which they owe to the town; and if, in that sense, charge and burden may be admitted as a just plea, may not the servant as well petition the Court to be freed from his master, the tenant from his landlord, or any single town, petition his Majesty to have their freedom, and be a distinct colony, and plead that the annual charges for maintenance of government and the peace of the Common- wealth is to them a great charge and burden? 2. Their charge and burden hath not been greater than their brethren and neighbors; for we have not, by burdening or charging them, eased ourselves of our just dues and pro- portion in any kind; and although their accommodations for enabling them to bear and discharge their dues are far better than those of the town, yet it seems that what they call great (and we may, without wronging our case
5
66
HISTORY OF NEWTON.
freely concede to the truth thereof, that when all our shoulders bear, and hands and hearts join together, we find it so by daily experience), they are content that we should bear it alone, not pitying us, though we should sink and break under it; for they know full well that their withdrawing will not abate the weight of our burden : for the Bridge must be maintained; the school must be kept up; the Deputies must be sent to the General Court ; and they have no other charge or burden imposed upon them by us than their just proportion of that which these do ordinarily require. 3. They know full well that such hath been the tenderness of the town towards them at all times, that they have evermore chosen a Constable that hath been resident among them; and for the Selectmen also they have desired that they might constant- ly have some of them joined with those of the town, partly for their help, and partly that they might more easily have help from them, and be satisfied in the equity and justice of their proceedings in all respects. So that we know they cannot and dare not to plead that we have at any time been un- willing to execute the power of the Selectmen for gathering the rates due to their minister or otherwise more properly belonging to them, nor that we have carried crossly, proudly or perversely towards them. If we have, let us be accused to our faces, and not back-bitten and slandered as we have been in the other particulars whereof they accuse us.
Thus far in answer to the petitioners' second argument in general. We shall now make answer thereto more particularly. And here we must divide the petitioners into two sorts ; first, those that were dwellers in the town be- fore they went to inhabit on the other side; second, another sort are those that came from other towns.
1. Those that proceeded from the town, who, knowing the straightness and want of accommodations to be had among their brethren there, and the lands on that side of the water being then of small value, procured to them- selves large and comfortable accommodation for a small matter. We have confidence that these dare not to say that their being in Cambridge hath been any charge or burthen to them. They must and will own that God hath there greatly blessed them ; that whereas we on the town side, of £1,000 that we or our parents brought to this place, and laid out in the town for the pur- chasing, at dear rates, what we now enjoy, cannot, divers of us, show £100; they may speak just contrary or in proportion. We could, if need were, instance some whose parents lived and died here, who, when they came to this town, had no estate, and some were lielped by the charity of the church ; and others, yet living, that well know they may say truly, with good Jacob, " Over this Jordan came I with this staff; " and so may they say, over this river went I, with this spade, hoe or other tool, and now through God's bless- ing am greatly increased. Yet here we would not be understood to include every particular person; for we acknowledge that Mr. [Edward] Jackson brought a good estate to the town, as some others did, and hath not been wanting to the ministry or any good work among us ; and therefore we would not reflect upon him in the least.
2. There are another sort of persons that did not proceed from the town, but came from other towns, where there had been much division and conten-
67
PROTEST OF CAMBRIDGE.
tion among them, who, though they knew the distance of the place from the public meeting-house, the dependency thereof on Cambridge, which they now call a great charge and burden, yet this they then did choose, and we are assured will own, generally at least, that they have there increased their estates far beyond what those of the town have, or are capable to do. We might instance also in the inventories of some of them, whose purchase at the first cost them a very small matter, and their stock and household stuff we judge to be proportionable; and yet, when they deceased, an inventory amounting to more than £1,100 is given into the Court. (Witness John Jack- son's inventory, £1,230; Richard Park's £972; and old Hammond's £1,139.) And others, that are yet living have advanced in some measure suitable. But poor Cambridge quickly felt the sad effects of their coming among us ; for though some of them came from their dwellings very near the meeting-houses in other towns, and these beforehand knew the distance of their new dwell- ings from Cambridge ; yet this did not obstruct them in their settlement there ; but before they were well warm in their nests, they must divide from the town. And though such was the endeared love of our brethren and neighbors that went from us to this church and the ministry thereof, that it was long before they could get them (at least with any considerable unanimity) to join with them, yet they would petition, some few of them in the name of the rest, to the honored General Court for their release from the town.
And when the Court, being tired out with their eager pursuit and more private fawnings and insinuations, granted them committee upon committee, to hear and examine the ground of their so great complaints, at last all issued in a declaration of the unreasonableness of their desire, with reference to the town, and unreasonableness on their part, as may appear by the return of the committee made to the General Court, October 14, 1657; the worshipful Richard Russell, Esq., Major Lusher and Mr. Ephraim Child subscribing the same; and was accepted by the Court.
Yet here they rested not, but, in the year 1661, petitioned the Court, and then obtained freedom from rates to the ministry, for all lands and estates more than four miles from Cambridge meeting-house; and this being all that they desired, although we were not at that time advantaged with an opportunity to send any one to speak in the town's behalf, yet considering the impetuousness of their spirits and their good words, pretending only the spiritual good of their families that could not travel (women and children) to the meeting-house at Cambridge, we rested therein, hoping now they would be at rest.
But all this did not satisfy them; but the very next year, October, 1662, they petition the Court again. And then, as a full and final issue of all things in controversy between Cambridge town and the petitioners, there is another committee appointed, to come upon the place and determine the bounds or dividing line between the town and them. The result whereof was such that whereas their grant was for all the lands that were above four miles from the town, they now obtain the stating of a line tliat for the generalty is (by exact measure) tried and proved to be very little above three miles from Cambridge meeting-house. Yet did not Cambridge (thus pilled and bereaved of more than half the lands, accommodable to their town, at once) resist, or so much
68
HISTORY OF NEWTON.
as complain, but rested therein,-the Court having declared their pleasure and given them their sanction, that this, as above said, should be a final issue of all things between the town and the petitioners.
All this notwithstanding, these long-breathed petitioners, finding that they had such good success that they could never cast their lines into the sea but something was catched, they resolve to bait their hook again, and as they had becn wont, some of them for twenty years together, to attend constantly the meetings of the town and Selectmen, whilst there was any lands, wood or timber that they could get by begging, so now they pursuc the Court for obtaining what they would from them, not sparing timc or cost to insinuate their matters, with reproaches and clamors against poor Cambridge ; and liave the confidence in the year 1672 again to petition the Court for the same thing, and in the same words that they now do, viz., "that they may be a township of themselves, distinct from Cambridge. And then the Court grants them further liberty than before they had, viz., to choose their own Constable and three Selectmen amongst themselves, to order the prudential affairs of the inhabitants there, only continuing a part of Cambridge in paying Country and County rates, as also town rates so far as refers to the Grammar school, bridge, and Deputy's charges, they to pay still their proportion with the town. And this the Court declares once more to be a final issue to the controversy between Cambridge and them.
Cambridge no sooner understands the pleasure of this honored Court, but they quietly submitted thereunto ; and we hope our brethren neither can nor dare in the least to accuse us (first or last) of refusing to acquiesce in the Court's issuc, although we may and must truly say we have been not a little grieved when by the more private intimations and reproachful backbitings of our neighbors, we have, in the minds and lips of those whom we honor and love, been rendered either too strait-laced to our own interest, or unequally minded towards our brethren. And did not this honored Court, as well as we, conclude that the petitioners, having exercised the patience of the Court by their so often petitioning, as well as giving trouble to the town by causing them to dance after their pipes from time to time for twenty-four years, as will appear by the Court Records, in which time they have petitioned the Court near, if not altogether, ten times, putting the town to great charges in meeting together to consider and provide their answers, and to appoint men to attend the Court, and the committees that have been from time to time appointed by the Court, as also the charges of entertaining them all, which hath been no small disturbance to their more necessary employments for their livelihood, and expense of their time and estates, -yet, all this notwithstand- ing, we are summoned now again to appear before this honored Court to answer their petition exhibited for the very same thing, nothing being added save only sundry falsehoods and clamorous accusations of us ;* so that now it is not so much Cambridge, as the arbitrary and irregular acting of them and their townsmen that they plcad to be delivered from, as being their bondage and burden.
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.