History of Newton, Massachusetts : town and city, from its earliest settlement to the present time, 1630-1880, Part 7

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 7

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).

It now remains that we speak something as to the main of their petition, which they thus express, i. e., " that we may be a township of ourselves, with-

* A Machiavellian practice.

PROTEST OF CAMBRIDGE.

out any more dependence on Cambridge." The reasons why we apprehend they may not have this their petition granted them may be taken from -

I. The injustice of this their request, which may thus appear,-

1. If it would be accounted injustice for any neighboring towns, or other persons, to endeavor the compassing so great a part or any part of our town limits from us, it is the same and, in some sense, far worse for those that belong to us so to do. This, we conceive, is plain from God's word, that styles the child that robs his father to be the companion of a destroyer, or, as some render the word, a murderer; although the child may plead interest in his father's estate, yet he is in God's account a murderer, if he takes away that whereby his father's or mother's life should be preserved; and this, we apprehend not to be far unlike the case now before this honored Court.

2. All practices of this nature are condemned by the light of nature (Judges XI : 24). They who had their grants from the heathen idolators did not account it just that they should be dispossessed by others ; and idolatrous Ahab, although he was a king, and a very wicked king also, and wanted not power to effect what he desired, and was so burthened for the want of Naboth's vineyard that he could neither eat nor sleep, and when denied by his own subject tendered a full price for the same, yet lie had so much con- science left that he did not dare to seize the same presently, as the petitioners would so great a part of our possessions as this, were it in their power.

3. The liberty and property of a colony, so likewise, in its degree, of a township, is far more to be insisted upon than the right of any particular person, the concerns thereof being eminently far greater, in all respects, both civil and ecclesiastical.

4. The General Court having, forty-five years since or more, made a grant of the land petitioned for to Cambridge town, the Court's grant being made to each town and person, as his Majesty's royal charter is to this honored Assembly and the whole colony; - we have confidence that such is their wisdom and integrity, that they will not deem it to be in their power * to take away from us, or any other town or person, any part of what they have so orderly granted and confirmed to them.

5. Had we no grant upon record, which is indubitably clear that we have, none in the least questioning the same, yet by the law of possession it is ours, and may not, without the violation of the law and faith of the hon- ored Court, be taken from us.

II. Could the petitioners obtain what they ask, without crossing the law of justice, yet we apprehend it would be very unequal; and that may thus ap- pear,- because Cambridge town is the womb out of which the petitioners have sprung, and therefore ought in the first place to be provided for ; and the question in equity ought to be, not, what do the petitioners crave and might be convenient for them, but, what may Cambridge spare? Now that Cam- bridge cannot spare what they desire, we shall thus prove :

1. From the situation of our town, being planted on a neck of land, hemmed about by neighboring towns, Water Towne coming on the one side

* It was no dishonor to Paul, that had all church power, that he could do nothing against the truth; nor diminutive to the power of God himself, that he is a God that cannot lic.

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

within half a mile of our meeting-house, and Charlestown as near on the other side, so that our bounds is not much above a mile in breadth for near three miles together; and on the south side the river, the petitioners have gained their line (as we before related) to come very near within three miles of our meeting-housc.

2. The most desirable part of the best and most accommodable lands of these near lands to the town, are belonging to Mr. Pelham and others that live not in the town, so that the far greater number of those that live in the town are put to hire grass for their cattle to feed upon in the summer time, which costs them [at] the least twelve shillings and some, fifteen shillings a head in money, for one cow, the summer feed; and corn land, they have not sufficient to find the town with bread.

3. Cambridge is not a town of trade or merchandise, as the seaport towns be; but what they do must be in a way of husbandry, although upon never so hard terms, they having no other way for a supply.

4. By the same reason that the petitioners plead immunity and freedom, our neighbors that live far nearer to Concord than to us may plead the like, and with far greater reason; and should they have a township granted them also, therc would be nothing left for Cambridge, no, not so much commonage as to feed a small flock of sheep.

That our town is thus situated, narrow and long on cach wing, there needs no proof; it is sufficiently known to sundry members of this honored Court. And that we are in other respects circumstanced as we have related, Water- town and Charlestown nipping us up close on each side, so as that we must be no town nor have no church of Christ, nor ministry among us, in case we be clipped and mangled, as the petitioners would have, we conceive there needs not further evidence than our testimony. We know not why we should not be believed. We conceive that the honor of God and of this Court is more concerned in providing against the laying waste an ancient town and church of Christ, settled in this place for more than forty years, than any of us can be to our personal interest; - nothing that we here enjoy, as to our outward accommodation, being so attractive as that we should be forced here to con- tinue, if we are disabled, to maintain God's ordinances. Yet for evidence of the truth of what we thus assert, we might allege the removing of Mr. Hooker and the whole church with him to Hartford, and that for this very reason, because they foresaw the narrowness of the place was such that they could not live here. Also, the endcavor of Mr. Shepard and the church with him, before his death, to remove in like manner; and that for no other reason but this, because they saw, after many years' hard labor and expense of their estates that they brouglit with them from England, that they could not live in this place. Also we may add that the committee, which the honored General Court appointed to inquire into the estate of the town, 14th, Smo, 57, made their return that they found the state of Cambridge to be as we have declared.

We do freely own that as our place is straitencd, so the charges are great for the maintenance of our Great Bridge and schools, etc., besides all other charges common to other places. Shall this be an argument therefore to countenance any to seek to pluck from us our own right, and to pull away

PROTEST OF CAMBRIDGE.

their shoulders, to whom of right it appertains to bear a part with us, and have far the greatest part of the accommodation that should uphold the same? We would not speak passionately ; but let not this honored Court be offend- ed, if we speak a little affectionately. We know not wherein we have offended this honored Court, or why poor Cambridge, above all other towns in the country must be thus hampered from Court to Court, and never can have an end in twenty-four years' time, although the Court have declared and given in their sanction that this and the other determination should be a final issue, never to be troubled more with the petitioners ; yet still their petitions and clamors are received, and we compelled to make answer thereto. If we have transgressed in any kind, and this Court or any [of] the members thereof have a prejudice against us, we humbly entreat that our offence may be de- clared. And if we have been such arbitrary taxmasters as the petitioners render us, that we may either be convicted, or recompense given us for our constant damage by their unjust molestation of us from time to time, for the just vindication of our innocency against the unjust calumnies.

Also, we do humbly cntreat this honored Court that, whereas the petitioners, at the time of their first grant which they obtained from this Court, then pleaded that, for and towards the maintenance of the ministry in that place, they might have the lands and estates on that side the river that were more than four miles from the town, that we might have the linc stated accordingly ; the whole bcing our own, as we have before pleaded and proved; and we having need thereof, wc conceive we cannot in justice be denicd the same. Also, whereas they have not submitted unto nor rested in the Court's last grant made them for the choice of a Constable and three Selectmen among themselves, but liave carried it frowardly one towards another, and in like manner towards the town from whom they proceeded and unto whom they of right belong, we humbly entrcat that the said order may be re- versed, and that we, being all one body politic, may have a joint choice in the Selectmen and Constables of the town, according as the law doth determine the right and privilege of each town.

Finally, we humbly entreat that this our defence may be entered in the Court's register, there to remain, for the vindication of our just right, in perpetuam rei memoriam.

Praying that the God of wisdom and truth may direct and guide this . honored Court in their issuing of this and all other their most weighty con- cerns, we subscribe ourselves, honorable Sirs, your humble and dutiful servants and suppliants.

JOHN COOPER, WILLIAM MANNING, JOHN STONE, WALTER HASTINGS, FRANCIS MOORE, NATHANIEL SPARHAWK, 7

Selectmen of Cambridge.

CAMBRIDGE 23, 8, 1678.

CHAPTER VI.

FIRST SELECTMEN CHOSEN .- DATE OF THE INCORPORATION OF

NEWTON .- AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SELECTMEN OF CAM- BRIDGE AND CAMBRIDGE VILLAGE .- ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT .- OLD AND NEW STYLE .- THE NAME OF NEWTON .- DIMENSIONS AND CONTENTS OF THE TOWN .- THE POPULA- TION .- FREEMAN'S OATH.

IT is no wonder that this pungent and earnest remonstrance from the Selectmen of Cambridge alarmed the Court, and con- vinced them that action must be taken. A time was appointed for . the hearing of the parties. But debate and indecision continued to rule the day. The sturdy petitioners of Cambridge Village were determined to be satisfied with nothing less than that which they had hitherto sought to obtain. The town of Cambridge, jealous of such as undertook to escape from bearing a part of its burdens,- and the State, through its General Court, dreading to participate in a dispute, in the settlement of which one party or the other was sure to be discontented, delayed action,- hoping, doubtless, that time might change the aspect of affairs, and render the decision a less difficult one. Meantime, a Town Book had been procured in anticipation of the expected result.

Its first record is that a town meeting was held "27, 6, 1679, ' by virtue of an order of the General Court,' at which meeting the first Board of Selectmen was duly elected, namely, Captain Thomas Prentice, John Ward and James Trowbridge ; and Thomas Greenwood was chosen Constable." Another town meeting was held on the 30th of January, 1681-2,-at which meeting it was voted, " that the Selectmen should provide weights and measures for standards," and John Spring was chosen Sealer of the same. It was also voted "that Sergeant John Ward and Noah Wiswall

Ø James J( Hyde

MISTAKE OF DATE.

should commence a new Record Book, and copy all that was of moment from the old book ; and several other votes were passed."

These acts, however, were, in some sense, premature. They foreshadowed the independent town, rather than proved its exis- tence ; and an independent town the settlers were determined to have. In the language of Ex-Mayor J. F. C. Hyde, in his excel- lent Centennial oration,-

They offered to purchase their freedom of the mother town, but this could not be accomplished. Cambridge, it is true, proposed to compromise, but our fathers would then accept nothing short of an independent town. For years they had not only supported their own minister and church, but had also been taxed,-and that without their consent, which was very repugnant to their ideas of justice,-to pay the yearly expenses of Cambridge.

And the time anticipated drew near. Perseverance was rewarded by success. Events steadily tended to bring about the result which the inhabitants of New Cambridge aimed to secure. Newton was to have an honorable place and name among the towns of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But patience to wait was still required, until the " set time " should come.

Rev. Mr. Paige in his " History of Cambridge," pp. 92-96, after the record of the above remonstrance of the Selectmen of Cam- bridge, records the following considerations, which prove that the true birth-day of the town of Newton was not in 1679, as has generally been assumed, but January 11, 1687-8, old style, or January 11, 1688, new style. He says,-

In Jackson's "History of Newton," it is stated that "the result was that the Court granted the prayer of the petition, and Cambridge Village was set off from Cambridge, and made an independent township. The doings of the Court in this case are missing, and have not as yet been found, and there- fore we do not know the precise conditions upon which the separation took place. But the Town Record is quite sufficient to establish the fact of sepa- ration. The very first entry upon the new Town Book records the doings of the first town meeting held 27, 6, 1679, by virtue of an order of the General Court, at which meeting the first Board of Selectmen were duly elected, viz., Captain Thomas Prentice, John Ward and James Trowbridge, and Thomas Greenwood was chosen Constable." 1691, December 8 .- "In answer to a petition of the inhabitants of Cambridge Village, lying on the south side of Charles River, sometimes called New Cambridge, being granted to be a town- ship, praying that a name may be given to said town, it is ordered that it be henceforth called New Town." This order of the General Court, for a name only, has been mistaken by historians for the incorporation of the town, whereas the petitioners had been an independent town for twelve years. The child was born on the 27th of August, 1679, but was not duly christened until the 8th of December, 1691:

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

It is evident that the township was incorporated before December 8, 1691, (or rather December 18, the session of the Court commenced December 8; but the order adopting a name was obtained ten days later). This order plainly enough recognized the Village as already a distinct township. More- over in 1689, when a General Court assembled, after Andros was deposed and imprisoned, Ensign John Ward appeared as a Deputy from New Cam- bridge,* and was admitted to a seat, apparently without objection. So far Mr. Jackson has a good case. But other facts of public notoriety would justify grave doubts whether the town was incorporated so early as 1679. It is a very suspicious circumstance, scarcely reconcilable with such an early date of incorporation, that for seven years following 1679, until the charter government was overturned in 1686, the Village, or New Cambridge, never assumed, as a town distinct from Cambridge, to send a Deputy to the General Court; but did not miss representation a single year for half a century after the government was established under the new charter. People as tenacious of their rights as the inhabitants of the Village manifestly were, both before and after incorporation, would not be likely to let the newly acquired right of representation lie dormant for seven years, during a period of intense political excitement. The election of a Constable and three Selectmen in 1679 by no means furnishes countervailing proof of incorporation; for this is precisely what the inhabitants were authorized to do by the order passed May 7, 1673, which was never understood to convey full town privileges, and which, for aught that appears to the contrary, was the order mentioned in the Town Record, dated 27, 6, 1670.t

There is much force in the following records :

The Records of Cambridge show that Constables were elected by that town for the Village, after 1679, as follows, viz. :

1680, James Prentiss. 1684, John Prentice.

1681, Sebeas Jackson. 1685, Thomas Parker, senior.

1682, Edward Jackson.

1686, Ebenezer Wiswall.

1683, Abraham Jackson. 1687, Joseph Wilson.

After 1688 none distinctly described as for the Village.

In 1688 a committee was chosen by the inhabitants to make the rate for the minister for the ensuing year, and a rate for the town. For the Village, chose Noah Wiswall to join with Selectmen, to make a rate for the Village.

* In 1689 Ensign John Ward was chosen Deputy of Cambridge Village, which then included what is now Newton, and he was instructed to advocate an enlargement of freemen - that all the freeholders that are of an honest conversation and competent estate, may have their vote in all civil elections. Mr. Ward served fifty-four days, and was paid one shilling and sixpence per day.

¡At the close of their elaborate " answer," the Selectmen of Cambridge allege that the petitioners " have not submitted unto nor rested in the Court's last grant made . to them for the choice of a Constable and three Selectmen," etc. It seems highly probable that having again failed in their efforts to obtain incorporation in 1678, and despairing of present success, the petitioners determined to exercise the power granted in 1673, and accordingly elected a Constable and three Selectmen 'August 27, 1679. Such action would sufficiently account for the Record bearing that date in what Jackson styles "The New Town Book."

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT.

Mr. Paige continues thus :

But the evidence in the case is not wholly of this negative character. One of the documents published by Mr. Jackson indicates with some distinctness a different day [January 11, 1687-8], as the true date of incorporation into a distinct town.

We refer to the Articles of Agreement between the Selectmen of the two towns, bearing date in the fall of 1688, as follows :

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT.

Made September 17, 1688, between the Selectmen of Cambridge and the Selectmen of Cambridge Village, in behalf of their respective towns.

That whereas Cambridge Village, by order of the General Court in the late Government [Andros?] was enjoined to bear their proportion in the charges of upholding and maintaining the Great Bridge and school, with some other things of a public nature in the town of Cambridge,- also, there having been some difference between the Selectmen of both of said towns concern- ing the laying of rates, for the end above said,-Therefore as a full and final end and issue of all controversy past, and for the prevention of trouble that might thierein arise, it is mutually agreed by the Selectmen aforesaid that the Village shall pay to the town of Cambridge the sum of £5 in merchantable corn at the former prices, at or before the first day of May next ensuing the date above, in full satisfaction of all dues and demands by the said town from the said Village on the account above said from the beginning of the world to the eleventh of January, 1687-8; provided always, and it is to be hereby understood, that the town of Cambridge, on consideration of £4 in current country pay already in hand paid to the Village above said, shall have free use of the highway laid out from the Village meeting-house to the Falls forever without any let, molestation or denial .- Also, that the Constable of the Village shall pay to the town of Cambridge, or [all?] that is in their hands unpaid of their former rates due to the town of Cambridge above said. In witness whereof the Selectmen above said have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written.

JOHN SPRING,

Selectmen

EDWARD JACKSON,

JAMES PRENTICE,

New Cambridge. of

JOHN COOPER, SAMUEL ANDREWS, WALTER HASTINGS, DAVID FISKE, SAMUEL STONE, JONATHAN REMINGTON,

Selectmen of Cambridge.

The following receipt shows that the first instalment of the sum stipulated in the above agreement was duly paid :

April 30, 1689 .- Received of John Clark, Constable of New Cambridge, £5 in corn, at the common price; that is, at four shillings the bushel, Indian at three shillings, and oats at two shillings the bushel. By me,

SAMUEL ANDREWS.

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

What seems probable by reference to January 11, 1687-8 in the foregoing agreement is rendered certain by two documents which Mr. Jackson probably never saw, but which are yet in existence. One is an Order of Notice pre- served in the Massachusetts Archives CXXVIII. 7: "To the Constables of the town of Cambridge, or either of them. You are hereby required to give notice to the inhabitants of the said town, that they or some of them be and appear before his Excellency in council on Wednesday next, being the 11th of this inst., to show cause why Cambridge Village may not be declared a place distinct by itself, and not longer be a part of the said town, as hath been formerly petitioned for and now desired: and thereof to make due return. Dated at Boston the 6th day of January, in the third year of his Majesty's reign, Annoque Domini 1687. By order, etc., J. West, D. Sec'y."

What was the result of this process does not appear on record; for the Records of the Council during the administration of Andros were carried away, and no copy of the portion embracing this date has been obtained. Fortunately, however, a certified copy of the Order, which is equivalent to an Act of Incorporation, is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Judicial Courts in Middlesex Co. :- " At a Council held at the Council Chamber in Boston, on Wednesday, the eleventh day of January, 1687,-present his Exc'y Sir Edmund Andros, Kt., etc.

WILLIAM STOUGHTON, ROBERT MASON, PETER BUCKLEY, WAIT WINTHROP,

EDWARD RANDOLPH, 1 Esqs. JOHN USHER, - Esqs.

FRANCIS NICHOLSON,

"Upon reading this day in Council the petition of the inhabitants of Cam- bridge Village, in the County of Middlesex, being sixty families, or upwards, that they may be a Village and place distinct of themselves, and freed from the town of Cambridge, to which, at the first settlement, they were annexed ; they being in every respect capable thereof, and by the late authority made distinct in all things, saving paying towards their school and other town charges, for which they are still rated as a part of that town; and also the answer of the town of Cambridge thereto; and hearing what could be alleged on either part, and mature consideration had thereupon ; those who appeared on the behalf of the town of Cambridge being contented that the said Village be wholly separated from them as desired, and praying that they may be ordered to contribute towards the maintenance of Cambridge Bridge, and that other provision be made as formerly usual to ease the town therein :- Ordered, that the said Village from henceforth be and is hereby declared a distinct Village and place of itself, wholly freed and separated from the town of Cambridge, and from all future rates, payments or duties to them · whatsoever. And that for the time to come the charge of keeping, amend- ing and repairing the said bridge called Cambridge Bridge, shall be defrayed and borne as followeth, that is to say,-two sixths parts thereof by the town of Cambridge ; one sixth part by the said Village, and three sixthis parts at the public charge of the County of Middlesex. By order in Council, etc.

" JOHN WEST, Dep'y Sec'y.

THE TRUE DATES.

" This is a true copy taken out of the Original, 4th day of Decem., 88. " As attests LAUR. HAMMOND, Cler."

There remains no reasonable doubt that the Village was released from ecclesiastical dependence on Cambridge and obligation to share in the expen- ses of religious worship in 1661, became a precinct in 1673, received the name of Newton in December, 1691, and was declared to be " a distinct Vil- lage and place of itself," or, in other words, was incorporated as a separate and distinct town by the order passed January 11, 1687-8, old style, or January 11, 1688, according to the present style of reckoning .*

The orders in Council are dated January, 1687; but that this was in the Old Style, calling March 25th the first day of the year, and thus equivalent to January, 1688, commencing the year as we now do with the first day of Jan- uary, is certain, because, 1, according to the present style Wednesday was not the eleventh day of January in 1687, but it was in 1688; and, 2, King Charles II. died February 6, 1684-5, and consequently the third year of the reign of James II. did not commence until February 6, 1686-7; and the only January in that third year was in 1687-8, that is, in 1688, by the present style of reckoning.

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 7

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