History of Newton, Massachusetts : town and city, from its earliest settlement to the present time, 1630-1880, Part 8

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 8

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 above Record of the Council may be verified by referring to the files in the office of the Clerk of the Judicial Courts in Middlesex County, where it rested in obscurity for many years, till. it was brought to light by the researches of the historian of Cambridge above referred to, and was presented to the Historical Society in

*OLD AND NEW STYLE.

The distinction between Old Style and New Style, in dates, is thus explained. The Julian year, so called, consisted of three hundred and sixty-five days and six hours, which was too much by about eleven minutes. In 1582, Pope Gregory undertook to reform the calendar. This excess of eleven minutes, in the period between the Coun- cil of Nice (A.D. 325) and the time of Gregory, amounted to about ten days. To make all right, it was ordered in 1582 that that year should consist of only 365 days, and that ten days, between October 4 and October 14, should be cancelled in the calendar of that year. To prevent future discrepancies, it was also ordered that no initial year of a century should be leap-year, excepting each four hundredth year. This plan expunged three days in every four hundred years, at the rate of nearly eleven min- utes per year during that time, leaving an error of only one day in five thousand and two hundred years.

The calendar arranged by Julius Cæsar was the Julian Period or Old Style; the Gregorian was the New Style. All Roman Catholic countries (the Western Church) adopted the New Style at once. Great Britain and her colonies, being prejudiced against anything of Papal origin, did not adopt the New Style till 1752,- or one hun- dred and forty years after the change ordered by Gregory. Russia and her depend- encies (the Greek or Eastern church) still adhere to the Old Style. Previous to 1752, England recognized the historical year, beginning January 1; the legal and ecclesias- tical year, beginning March 25. The change of style adopted by Great Britain in 1752 fixed January 1 as the commencement of the year, and abolished the distinction between the legal and historical year. The difference in the commencement of the respective years led to a system of double dating from January 1 to March 25,-which was expressed sometimes as February 10, 1734-5,- sometimes as February 10, 173 4-5 - the four denoting the legal, the five the historical year.

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

order to correct certain errors in dates that had been current in the received History of Newton.

From this it appears that the second item, engraved in 1873 and perpetuated for six years on the corporate seal of the city of New- ton,- "incorporated a town 1679,"-is incorrect, and should have been "incorporated a town 1688."

It is a singular fact that an error in regard to the birth-day of the town could have been perpetuated nearly two centuries, and that no curious investigator of history should have discovered the mistake. The possibility of such an occurrence confirms our im- pression of the importance of original and rigid examination of the sources of history. It is unsafe and unwise, in questions of moment, to substitute tradition for written records, or to rest in general belief without having recourse to documentary testimony.

It is also an interesting circumstance, that while, by her separa- tion from Cambridge, Newton lost in territory, she found, in due time, more than she lost. By the limitation of her boundaries she cut herself off from Master Corlet's " fair grammar schoole," though she retained as much right in the college as belonged to any and every town in the Commonwealth. She was deprived of the pres- tige of the great men whose dignity and learning brought fame to the colony ; but she has since been the mother of governors and statesmen, of ministers and missionaries, of patriots and saints. And in the progress of years she added to her reputation, as the scene of that great enterprise, the translation of the Bible into the dialect of her aborigines and the first Protestant missionary efforts on this continent. Subsequently, she had the first Normal school for young ladies (continued from Lexington) , several of the earliest and the best academies and private schools, and, finally, the Theological Institution whose professors have been and are known and respected in all lands, and whose alumni have carried the gifts of learning and the gospel to every part of the earth. She left the rustic church near the college, by the inconvenience of attend- ing which she was so sorely tried ; but she has attained to thirty churches within her own borders.

The frequent recurrence in this history of the phrases,-" became a freeman," or"took the freeman's oath," will justify a brief explanation of them. To acquire all the privileges of a citizen was- deemed by the fathers a boon greatly to be desired, and therefore a blessing not to be conferred lightly. They guarded scrupulously

NAME OF NEWTON.

the elective franchise, and allowed no man to vote who could be supposed capable of trifling with so sacred an obligation. The provisions of the freeman's oath, however, opened the door to evils which in later times proved of grave importance. The free- man's oath is explained in the words of Rev. F. A. Whitney, of Brighton,- "To become a freeman, one must be a member of the church. Permission having then been obtained from the General Court, or from the Quarterly Court of the County, the freeman's oath was taken before a magistrate. In 1664, those might be made freemen who brought certificates from clergymen acquainted with them, of their being correct in doctrine and conduct. Free- men only could hold offices or vote for rulers. And yet many church members refused to take the freeman's oath, from unwilling- ness to serve in any public affair. The oath, as altered and amended by the General Court May 14, 1634, ran thus : 'I, A. B., being by God's providence an inhabitant and freeman within the jurisdic- tion of this Commonwealth, do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof, and therefore do here swear, by the great and dreadful name of the Everlasting God, that I will be true and faithful to the same,' etc., etc. Records of Massa- chusetts. The custom of making freemen ceased about 1688."

After Cambridge Village was set off from Cambridge and organ- ized as an independent town by virtue of the order of the General Court, it was more often called New Cambridge until 1691. "This name," says Mr. Jackson, "was not given by the Court, nor is there any vote in relation to it upon the Town or Court Records. It appears to have been assumed by the leading inhabitants, and generally acquiesced in by the public. Captain Thomas Prentice, John Ward, Ebenezer Stone and other leading men wrote the name New Cambridge in their deeds and other papers, dated between 1679 and 1691. John Ward was chosen Deputy to the General Court from New Cambridge in 1689, and so entered on the Court Records. The change of name from ' Cambridge Village ' to 'New Cambridge' by the public was gradual, and never became uni- versal. It produced some confusion, and the inhabitants petitioned the Court, more than once, to give the town a name."

On the 8th of December, 1691, the General Court passed the following order: " In answer to the petition of the inhabitants of Cambridge Village, sometimes called New Cambridge, lying on the south side of Charles River, being granted to be a township, praying that a name may be given unto the

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

said town,-it is ordered, that it be henceforth called 'NEWTOWN' ;- very naturally and properly restoring the ancient name, which was discon- tinued by the Court in 1638, for the reason already stated " (p. 37).

On the Court Records the name appears in two words-New town, as in the Court Records of 1631. The process of changing it to the form in modern use seems to have been a gradual one. The town clerks followed the order of the Court in spelling the name until 1766, when Judge Fuller obtained the office, who always spelt it on the Town Records Newton. The question of the orthography was never put to vote; the usage of seventy-five years gradually prepared the way, and justified him in assuming the responsibility of omitting the w.

The number of freemen within the limits of the town in 1688- the date of its complete separation from Cambridge,- was about sixty-five. In forty years,- from 1639 to 1679,- forty-two free- men became permanent settlers,- some from England, others from the neighboring towns. During the same period, thirty of their sons had reached their majority,- making, in all, seventy-two. But five had deceased and two had removed,-leaving the sum total, sixty-five. There were six dwelling-houses in Cambridge Village in 1639,- all being situated near the present dividing line between Newton and Brighton, and all on farms adjoining one another.

CHAPTER VII.

GRANTS OF LAND .- WATERTOWN'S GRANT TO NEWTON .- BROOKLINE OWNED BY BOSTON .- BOSTON'S GRANT TO NEWTON .- BOUND- ARY BETWEEN BOSTON AND CAMBRIDGE .- BETWEEN CAMBRIDGE AND NEW CAMBRIDGE .- DISTRIBUTION OF LANDS.

WE must now revert to the period that elapsed between the commencement of the settlement of Cambridge (1631) and the establishment of Newton as an independent town (1688). Many incidents and arrangements falling within that period belong to the history of the territory and internal economy of the town of Newton.

In conformity with the customs of the period, large grants of land, out of the waste and wilderness territory; were given to towns and individuals. And the indefiniteness of these grants, one overlapping and including another, often resulted in serious disputes and complications, which the inhabitants and the General Court found very difficult to disentangle. The fragmentary records of the period seem to imply that before Newtowne (Cam- bridge) was commenced, large portions of territory had already been granted, as Charlestown, Medford and Woburn on the north- east, and Watertown, Waltham and Weston on the west and north- west. And a commission appointed to lay out a road from Boston, westward, in due time reported to the body by which they were commissioned that they had laid out a road twelve miles, to Wes- ton, and, "in their opinion, that was as far westward as a road would ever be needed." Boston and Roxbury bounded Cambridge on the remaining sides, leaving little room for growth of territory on the part of Cambridge, without infringement on the lands of her neighbors. Notwithstanding, the people had a great desire for

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

more space, complaining that they were circumscribed, involving themselves in disputes about boundaries with their neighbors and with the General Court in reference to the extension of their limits. At the session of the General Court, held September 25, 1634, it was ordered "that with the consent of Watertown, the meadow on this syde Watertown weire, contayning about thirty acres, be the same more or less, and now used by the inhabitants of New Towne, shall belong to said inhabitants of New Towne, to injoy to them and their heirs forever." At the same time, an order was passed granting to Newtowne lands about Muddy River (Brookline) on certain conditions (see page 28). But Mr. Hooker's company maintaining that they were actually suffering for want of room, and representing that unless their territory were extended they should leave the settlement, they first explored the grounds offered them at Ipswich and in the vicinity of the Merrimack,- with which they were dissatisfied ; and, finally, accepted the proffer of the territory on which was afterwards built the city of Hartford. The Court of Assistants, September 7, 1630, ordered that the town upon Charles River be called Watertown. The place was then an unexplored wilderness, and the inhabitants of Watertown claimed a large tract on the south side of Charles River,-all of which they gave up to Newton except a strip two hundred rods long and sixty rods wide, enough to protect their fishing privilege, afterwards called the Wear (Weir) lands. "All the rest of the ground on that side of the river, the Court ordered, was to belong to Newtown" (Cambridge). "This grant,-all the rest,"- says Mr. Jackson, "was the earliest made to Newtown on the south side of the river."

The following is from the observations of Mr. Jackson :

How much Watertown owned on the one side, and Boston on the other, no one can now tell. Probably neither of them ever knew, nor did the Court itself know,-as it appears from its own record in the case of their special grant to Simon Bradstreet of five hundred acres of land on the south side of Charles River, with the condition that " he was to take no part of it within a mile of Watertown Wear, in case the bounds of Watertown shall extend so far on that side the river."

Boston early obtained a grant of Muddy River (Brookline), where the alloters were authorized to "take a view and bound out what may be suffi- cient there." In Boston the lands assigned within the peninsula were of limited extent. But at Muddy River and Mount Wollaston, four hundred acres were sometimes given to a single individual. William Hibbins' allotment at Muddy River was four hundred and ninety-five acres, bounding southwest upon Dedham.

BOUNDARY LINES.

The extreme vagueness of these two grants,-"all the rest," on the one hand, and " what may be sufficient," on the other,- we may be sure covered all that is now Brookline, Brighton and Newton, except the special grants that had been previously made to individuals, and what belonged to the Indians.

The condition upon which Boston gave Muddy River to Newtown having been broken by the removal of Mr. Hooker's company to Connecticut, that territory reverted to Boston, and the Court appointed a committee to settle the boundaries between Newtown and Muddy river. (See page 29.)

The line indicated in the Report of the committee not being satisfactory (doubtless because it was blindly expressed and vari- ously construed), -the towns of Boston and Cambridge mutually chose committees from their own citizens, 20, 11, 1639, to form a new boundary line, as follows :

We, whose names are underwritten, being appointed by the towns to which we belong, to settle the bounds between Boston (Muddy River) and Cam- bridge, have agreed that the partition shall run from Charles River, up along the channel of Smelt Brook, to a marked tree upon the brink of said brook, near the first and lowest seedy meadow ; and from that tree, in a straight line, to the great red oak, formerly marked by agreement, at the foot of the great hill, on the northernmost end thereof; and from the said great red oak to Dedham line, by the trees marked by agreement of both parties, this 2, 8, 1640.

THOMAS OLIVER,

WILLIAM COLBRON, for Boston.

RICHARD CHAMPNEY,

JOHN BRIDGE,

GREGORY STONE, JOSEPH ISAAC, THOMAS MARETT,

for Cambridge.

" This line from Charles River, following the brook to the northerly end of the great hill, is the same as it now is. But as the line ends at Dedham, it is plain that there has been an alteration at the southwest end of Brookline, as no part of that town now comes within one mile and a quarter of Dedham."

In 1662 a line of division between Cambridge and New Cam- bridge, or Cambridge Village, was agreed upon, as already related, with reference to the payment of ministerial taxes. This division became a town boundary on the separation of the Village from Cambridge, and is substantially the same line which divides New- ton from Brighton, (now Boston).

The above specifications relate to the easterly and southeasterly bounds of Newton. At all other parts it bounds upon Charles

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

River, excepting the two hundred rods upon the river, reserved to Watertown by order of the General Court in April, 1635.

1647.

Laid out, on the south side of the river, near Watertown mill, ten acres land to John Jackson; ten acres to Randolph Bush; ten acres to John Ken- dall or (Holly's) house [Kendall married Holly's widow]; and forty acres to Edward Jackson, adjoining that already laid to his brother, John Jackson, and to himself for Redsen's house, provided he satisfy Mr. Corlet for the town's gift to him; and eleven acres to Richard Park, abutting on Mr. Jack- son's land east and west; and the highway to Dedham [now Centre Street] runs through it.

These transactions date back to the period before Cambridge Village became an independent town. In process of time Cam- bridge adopted the policy of making over all the common lands on the south side of the river to private parties (p. 46). This method of procedure indicates how dim were the expectations of the authorities in respect to the future value of the lands, aris- ing out of the growth of the population. That land in Newton would ever be sold at one dollar or more per square foot doubt- less surpassed the most extravagant dreams of those simple- hearted and modest men. And he who should have advocated the reserving of these acres in anticipation of such an augmenta- tion of value would have been deemed a fit subject for the wards of an insane hospital. The advantage accruing from this gener- ous distribution was that the soil was the more rapidly subdued and brought under profitable cultivation.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE FIRST SETTLERS .- BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES.

ACCORDING to the views of the late Hon. William Jackson, who was a diligent investigator, and whose manuscripts have greatly aided in the preparation of this volume, twenty-two land-holders came into Newton and established their residence here between 1639,-the date of the coming of Mr. John Jackson,- and 1664,- the date of the organization of the first church. The fol- lowing are their names, which differ in two or three instances from the catalogue on page 40, owing to circumstances which the in- telligent and careful reader will be at no loss to explain :

JOHN JACKSON,

DANIEL BACON,

SAMUEL HIDES (HYDE),

RICHARD PARKS,

EDWARD JACKSON,

JOHN SHERMAN,

JONATHAN HIDES (HYDE), JOHN FULLER,

JOHN WARD,

THOMAS PRENTICE,

JOHN PARKER, THOMAS WISWALL,

ABRAHAM WILLIAMS,

VINCENT DRUCE,

THOMAS PARK,

JOHN KENRICK,

JAMES PRENTICE,

REV. JOHN ELIOT,

JOHN SPRING, THOMAS HAMMOND,

JAMES TROWBRIDGE,

ISAAC WILLIAMS.

To these, some historians add the names of William Healy and Gregory Cook ; some also suppose that there was a third family by the name of Prentiss.

The first settler, 1639, was John Jackson. Says Mr. Jackson, a descendant, in his history, "John Jackson bought of Miles Ives, of Watertown, a dwelling-house and eighteen acres of land. This lot was very near the present dividing line between Newton and Brighton, twenty-four rods upon Charles River, and extending southerly one hundred and twenty rods. Same year, Samuel 85

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

Holly owned a like lot and dwelling-house, adjoining Jackson's es- tate, and Randolph Bush owned a like lot and house, adjoining Samuel Holly's estate, and William Redson or Redsyn owned four acres and a dwelling-house, adjoining Bush's estate, and William Clements owned six acres and a dwelling-house, adjoining John Jackson's west, and Thomas Mayhew owned a dwelling-house near the spot where Gen. Michael Jackson's house stood. These six dwelling-houses were in the Village in 1639, and perhaps earlier. Samuel Holly was in Cambridge in 1636, and died in 1643, but left no descendants in the town. We cannot tell who occupied the houses of Mayhew, Clements, Bush and Redson ; they were transient dwellers there, and were soon gone. Edward Jackson bought all these houses, and the lands appurtenant, before 1648, and all except Mayhew's were in what is now Brighton."

We give below a brief notice, so far as possible, of these first settlers.

JOHN JACKSON was baptized in the parish of Stepney, London, June 6, 1602. He was the first settler of Cambridge Village who removed thither and died in the place. He brought a good estate with him from England. He took the freeman's oath in 1641. He was one of the first deacons of the church, and gave an acre of land for the church and cemetery, in the centre of which the first meeting-house was erected in 1660. This acre constitutes the oldest part of the old cemetery on Centre Street. He labored long and earnestly, by petitioning the General Court and otherwise, to have Cambridge Village erected into an independent town ; but he did not live to see the object accomplished. He died January 30, 1674-5, aged about 73 years. His widow, Margaret, died August 28, 1684, aged 60. His son, Edward, was slain by the Indians at Medfield, in their attack upon and burning of that town, Feb. 21, 1676. His house was near the place where Mr. Smallwood's shop afterwards stood. The cellar yet remains, and the pear trees now standing there, are supposed to have been planted by him. Abra- ham was the only one among his sons who reared a family ..

SAMUEL HOLLY (included by some writers among the early pro- prietors) was in Cambridge in 1636, owned a house and eighteen acres of land in Cambridge Village adjoining John Jackson in 1639. Six acres of this land he sold to Edward Jackson in 1643 for £5. He died in 1643.

LIVES OF FIRST SETTLERS.

SAMUEL HYDE was born in 1610. He came to Boston in the ship Jonathan, leaving London in April, 1639. He was the second settler in Cambridge Village, about 1640. In 1647, he and his brother Jonathan bought of Thomas Danforth forty acres of land. In 1652, they bought two hundred acres of the administrators of Nathaniel Sparhawk. They held this land in common until 1662, when it was divided. He was one of the first deacons of the church. He had by his wife Temperance, Samuel, Joshua, Job, Sarah and Elizabeth. Sarah married Thomas Woolson, of Water- town, 1660; Elizabeth, Humphrey Osland, 1667. Samuel Hyde conveyed to his son-in-law Osland a piece of his land on the west side of the Dedham road, in 1678, on which the latter had previ- ously built a house, being part of the same land now owned by E. C. Converse, Esq. Mr. Hyde died in 1689, aged 79, and his wife Temperance soon after.

His descendants, Samuel of the fifth generation, and George of the sixth, have resided upon and owned a part of the same land. His son Job married Elizabeth, daughter of John Fuller. He and his wife both died in November, 1685. His father, Dea. Samuel Hyde, took and provided for half their children, and John Fuller the other half. His son Samuel married Hannah Stedman, in 1673. His house was burnt in 1709, and with the assistance of his neighbors raised again in fourteen days. He died in 1725, and his wife in 1727. His house stood on the east side of Centre Street, near where Mr. Freeland's now stands. The descendants of Samuel Hyde of the seventh generation still occupied a por- tion of his estate in 1879.

EDWARD JACKSON, senior, brother of John Jackson, was born in London, England, about 1602. He lived in the parish of White chapel, and was by trade a nail maker. Tradition affirms that his youngest son by his first marriage, Sebas Jackson, was born on the passage to this country. He bought land of Samuel Holly in Cambridge Village in 1643, took the freeman's oath in 1645, and the next year purchased in Cambridge Village a farm from Governor Bradstreet, of 500 acres, for £140, long known as the Mayhew farm; Bradstreet having purchased it of Thomas Mayhew in 1638, with all the buildings thereon, for six cows. This five hundred acre farm commenced near what is now the division line between Newton and Brighton and extended westward, including what is now Newtonville, and covering the site where

HISTORY OF NEWTON.

Judge Fuller's mansion house stood. The site where Gen. Michael Jackson's mansion house stood, was near the centre of the Mayhew farm; and a few rods nearer the brook, stood the old dwelling-house conveyed with the land in Mayhew's deed to Brad- street ; of course it was built previous to 1638, and therefore highly probable that it was the first dwelling-house built in Newton ; the cellar hole, a few rods from the brook, is still visible.

In the laying out of the highway in 1708, which passed by the old house, the description is, " crossing the brook near where the old house stood." The house which was erected before 1638, was gone before 1708; it had stood about the allotted space of three score years and ten. It was probably the first residence of Edward Jackson, senior, in Cambridge Village, from his first com- ing in 1642 or '43, until his marriage in 1649, and perhaps for many more years. At his death in 1681, his then dwelling-house stood about three-quarters of a mile east of the old house, and is de- scribed as a spacious mansion with a hall, designed, no doubt, for religious meetings.

He was chosen one of the representatives from Cambridge to the General Court in 1647, and continued to be elected to that office annually or semi-annually for seventeen years in all, and was other- wise much engaged in public life. He was Selectman of Cam- bridge in 1665; chairman of a committee appointed in 1653 to lay out all necessary highways on the south side of the river ; chairman of a committee appointed to lay out and settle high- ways as need should require in Cambridge Village, and one of the commissioners to end small causes in Cambridge for several years. "He was constantly present with the Rev. John Eliot at his lectures to the Indians at Nonantum, to take notes of the ques- tions of the Indians and of the answers of Mr. Eliot. He was one of the proprietors of Cambridge, and in the division of the common lands in 1662, he had four acres, and in 1664 he had thirty acres. He was also a large proprietor in the Billerica lands, and in the division of 1652 he had four hundred acres, which by his will he gave to Harvard College, together with other bequests. He was the author and first signer of the petition to the General Court in 1678,- praying that Cambridge Village might be set off from Cambridge, and made an independent town by itself. The remonstrance to this petition by the Selectmen of Cambridge (pp. 64-71) bears honorable testimony of Edward Jackson.

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 8

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