USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > North Reading > History of North Reading > Part 2
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11
There was also abroad in the Parish other money besides pounds and shillings. Traders sometimes brought in Spanish money, such as dollars
[15]
and pieces of eight. So in 1761 the Parish voted to give Jerusha Coburn, former widow to Silas Eaton, deceased, six dollars annually, during the time of her natural life, for her right and dower of third in her former husband's estate. The Parish, you see, had taken over Mr. Eaton's farm as parsonage land. For some time after this the old Spanish coins passed as legal tender for debts.
Occasionally there was trouble with the town government. Sometimes these difficulties were easily adjusted and then at other times there was a threat of resorting to the courts or even of separation. At first the Parish felt that they had not received all the help from the town to which they were entitled. In their extremity they called a special parish meeting in 1730 and voted to petition the General Court that a part of Reading, a part of Lynn and a part of Andover "be set off to us to help to support the gospel in said precinct with us." Matters must have been shortly adjusted for the above action was rescinded. By 1762 there had grown up some- thing of a feeling of pride and self sufficiency. Then it was voted "to try to get off from the South Parish, to be a district town, provided we can have our proportional share of the town stock."
Occasionally trouble arose over the distribution of the school money. This was always assessed in the town rates and the town treasurer was in- structed to give each district its proportionate share. Occasionally, either the Parish did not receive their money, or else, they felt they had not re- ceived a sufficient amount, so in 1788 it was voted "that the assessors be a committee to assist our treasurer to get our part of the school money, that the town owes us, by suing or any other way they shall think best." Out of this difficulty the parish escaped, for all future time, by voting the next year to assess their own school money along with the ministerial charges.
These incidents indicate that all was not running smoothly in the busi- ness affairs of the town. After a while there came political differences. After the Revolution something of the political teachings of Rousseau and other French political scientists began to make their appearance in the New England Calvinistic atmosphere. For the most part Massachusetts adhered to the Federalist party and had little use for the new Democratic- Republicanism of Thomas Jefferson. Here and there there were a few of the new persuasion. The South Parish seems to have been such a case in point. The residents seem to have inclined towards the French in the commercial war of 1808. The other parts of the town were still staunchly Whig in sentiment. And by this time the West Parish had assumed such proportions that combined with the North Parish they carried the town elections. This then was behind the agitation which led to the sepa- rate incorporation of the town of South Reading, in the year 1812.
The West and the North Parish continued thereafter as the Town of
[ 16]
Reading. But from the start things were not destined to be harmonious. Although beginning late the West Parish had a remarkable growth. In the elections the north end was hopelessly bested. Towards the middle of the century the list of officers elected contains few names of those who resided north of the river. The result of this was the petition of 1853 to the General Court asking for incorporation as a separate town. The petition was granted and an election was called for and Samuel P. Breed, Lysander Upton, and Joel A. Abbott, were elected Select Men along with the other officers called for in the Massachusetts Town government. Since that time the Town of North Reading has continued with its own government, no better nor no worse than the government of the average New England town. On the 5th of November, 1895, the town adopted a seal with the Flint Memorial Hall as a motive.
THE FLINT MEMORIAL HALL
For almost a century the old Parish and town continued with a stable and substantial population. There was always some descendant of the old families to take the place of the fathers while the increase moved on to other communities. Even the coming of the railroad in the 1840's did not disturb greatly this stable equilibrium. At the time of the celebration of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the town in 1894 the old families were still intact. Then came the turn of the century and the street cars. This brought a new attractiveness to the hills of North Read-
[ 17]
ing, to Martin's Pond and to Swan Pond. Those seeking a summer vaca- tion and a little shack began to come in increasing numbers.
Joseph Gowing is given the credit for opening the Martin's Pond sec- tion for settlement. Others caught the idea and soon the new develop- ments began to multiply. In 1917 the old Poor Farm was sold and came into the possession of one of those so-called "Land Sharks." As a special inducement each purchaser of a small bit of land received a set of dinner dishes. But after the First World War there seemed to be no need of inducements. The population began to increase rapidly. In 1911 the num- ber of polls, according to the assessor, were 308 while in 1929 there were 526, and similarly the number of arrests made by the town constable increased. In the former year there were 15 while in the latter year the figure was 52. These figures indicate not only the rate of increase in the population, but the rate of the deterioration of the population as well. The old family names are fast disappearing. There are still a few Uptons. Eatons, Parkers and Gowings but the old families are fast disintegrating. In their place there are the Eisenhaures, Turners, Jones, together with a long list of names indicative of the many and various racial groups from whence they have sprung.
[18]
CHAPTER 11 LIFE THEN AND NOW
It is difficult to get a full-length picture of life in the North Parish of early Reading. There is, it is true, a full set of Parish records, but these give only incidentally a notion of what must have existed. Reading the laws and the decrees of the General Court, and then placing them in reverse helps somewhat. Then by piecing out with what is known to have existed in other towns one is enabled to arrive at some rather valid con- clusions.
Off hand, one would say that the inhabitants of the Colonial days were stern disciplinarians. They had to be, for in those primitive days it was necessary to keep human nature in check. It was a brand new society without any traditions to help preserve order. And there was a tendency, then as now, to break away from the monotony of life and seek excitement in forbidden fields. Should this tendency have got out of hand there would have been no possibility of an orderly society. With that in mind we are prepared to grant them a severity of discipline we would not coun- tenance today.
In 1671 Thomas Clark was fined for allowing disorderly persons in his house at an unseasonable time of night. Undoubtedly the rum flowed freely that night, "Sylvester Hay and Eliza Browne for wanton dalliance were whipt." Undoubtedly they were making love on the way home. Such things ought to be regulated, for there was no social intercourse except at the Sunday service and at the Parish or town meeting, and no one knew how far such matters might go, in these wild and primitive times. So the General Court passed laws and the local magistrates imposed fines.
Those old laws regulating family relationships seem quaint to us. When the law said that a man should not marry his wife's grandmother, or his wife's granddaughter we wonder what kind of people our ancestors were. But when people do not travel they are apt to make the best of shortened opportunities. So such relationships undoubtedly were known in that day. Judge Sewell, according to his journal, had a perfectly delight- ful time choosing from the eligible widows when he married the second time, but most people did not get about as he did. Then when the law of morality was violated it was thought best to keep, not only the offend- ers, but people generally, reminded of the moral law. The letter "A" worn on the arm, or on the back, served to remind all passersby that they are never far from transgression. How else would such matters have been handled and an orderly society preserved? In the pioneer days of the
[ 19]
West such matters were handled in a more summary fashion. There it was not unusual for such offenders to be shot without trial.
There were to be no inter-marriages with the slaves that were from time to time brought in, and, that all might be orderly there were bans to be announced from the pulpit two weeks in advance. After that either the minister or justice might perform the ceremony. Divorces and broken homes were not frequent, but in case of a divorce the wife might claim one third of the property.
Liquors such as cider, wine and rum flowed freely in those early days. The will of John Upton, dated 1697, contains a clause which says that his sons, Ezekiel and Joseph should give, to his wife Eleanor two barrels of cider yearly as long as she should live. Captain Thomas Flint's will of 1721, provided that his son should give his mother four bushels of ground malt and four barrels of cider annually. In 1731 the same Joseph Upton who was to provide so generously for his mother, also put a codicil in his will providing that his sons Joseph and Ebenezer should furnish their mother with two hundred pounds of pork and two barrels of cider. Evi- dently the ladies entertained in those days and no party was complete without refreshments. Even at the time of the ordination of the minister, the old town records show that the church of the South Parish had wine and rum. To the honor of the North Parish the accounts do not show any such expense at the time of Mr. Putnam's ordination. The revival of religion, started at North Hampton and aided and abetted by the Wes- leys and Whitefield doubtless helped to check inordinate drinking. Al- though the old account books of Eliab Stone, the son of the second minis- ter, do show that he continued to bring malt from Salem during the latter part of the eighteenth century. Undoubtedly the Revolutionary War, as other wars have done since, brought about an increase in drunkenness.
In 1820 there was a committee of five appointed to report on the alarming situation of the inhabitants of the town resulting from idleness, intemperance and dissipation. The report, when brought in, sounds almost modern, for it stated that there was violation of the law by the retailers, and there was much frequenting of houses where drinks were sold. The fact that such a report was called for indicated that there was a temper- ance movement afoot. And so it was. At the time of the celebration of the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the Town in 1844, the speaker for the day, Rev. James Flint, D.D., boasted of the cleanness of the town and of the absence of liquor.
Then came the Civil War and another slump in intemperance. In order better to regulate the sale of liquor, in 1863 the town of North Reading took out a State License to sell liquor. Mrs. Abbott and J. L. Eaton were the saloon keepers in this instance and the reports show that the business was run at a loss. That indicates that conditions in the town
[ 20 ]
were not too bad. And thus they remained until the population began to grow after World War 1. During the period of national prohibition from 1918 to 1931 there was some bootlegging. Then with the repeal of the prohibitory laws the town of North Reading decided, at a poorly attended town meeting, to go license. Now there are eleven licensed places along the Main street; two selling bottled goods and nine purportedly selling liquor along with food.
Evidently it is the old story over again. In the Beverly Evening Times for February 11, 1944, there appeared this statement: "The saloon is back, the only difference being that now women fight with men for a place at the bar. Juvenile delinquency has attained the proportions of a national scandal. Bootlegging and hijacking are today rapidly moving towards the front page in many cities. The Federal Government has itself gone into the bootlegging business in Georgia and Missouri by selling federal licenses to liquor dispensers whose activities are prohibited by state law." This is putting the situation in strong language, but the statement is largely true. Evidently we could stand a revival of the old-time Puritan sentiment.
In the early days the inhabitants of North Reading had cider and they also had other things to contend with. There were wolves and bears in the woods and swamps. A bounty of fifteen shillings was offered by the town, but even this did not remove all danger to livestock. As a precaution each householder had one or more dogs, which usually followed their masters without making distinctions as to whether the master was on the way to town meeting onto church. And the canine population was not Christian enough to lay aside quarrels when they came to church. So in 1662 the town created the new office of "dog whipper." He was to be paid by each resident and in case there was no contribution, such a one was fined when his dog appeared at the meeting house. North Reading escaped most of this difficulty, but as late as 1754 the Parish voted that "people should keep their dogs at home." Then twenty years later this significant clause was added to the former act, "or else loose them."
Our fathers had their full quota of all the diseases to which the flesh is heir. To combat the same they made special concessions to the doctors of medicine who consented to locate in the town. And these doctors, as was the custom in that day, bled and puked our grandfathers and grand- mothers to their heart's content. The first doctor in North Reading was Dr. Daniel Putnam. Then later in the Revolutionary days there was Dr. Martin Herrick, and later:still Dr. Jacob Goodwin.
The most dreaded disease of the time was smallpox, an epidemic of which came shortly after the Parish was organized. Then there were re- currences off and on for a century. In the meantime Dr. Jenner had been born in Scotland, and made his discoveries in vaccination. Eventually the
[ 2] ]
new idea made its appearance in the Colonies. So in 1778 the Rev. Caleb Prentis made this notation in his diary. "April 15; This evening I agreed with Betty, to tarry with us another year. I am to give her thirteen pounds, six shillings, eight pence and the smallpox." Not everyone, how- ever, was convinced that vaccination was either right or proper. There was much opposition. When there was an epidemic in 1692 the town voted in this fashion. "Not to provide any house in town for inoculating the smallpox. Voted that whoever shall presume to inoculate any person or persons with smallpox in this town shall be prosecuted agreeable to law. Voted to provide a smoke house in Reading near Malden. No person to pass without being smoked." Later, however, the town relented and pro- vided two houses where those who wanted to have this dread disease might go and remain until they were fully recovered.
There were poor then as now. Sometimes it was a widow left with small children, sometimes elderly people, and sometimes just plain shift- less ones. But the town always looked after its indigent ones, sometimes there was a lecture on the value of industry that went with the help. And occasionally it was needed, for there were those who were not adverse to asking the town to support an aged parent. These were the ones who would rather hunt wild game than to work in the fields. So the old records are cluttered with the cases of abated taxes and of the poor helped. All of this was what we moderns would call "out-door" relief.
After a time there grew up the idea that the poor could be helped more effectively and more economically if they were all under one roof. After some negotiations and a number of committees had been appointed, the town decided to buy Mr. Hesekiah Flint's 183-acre farm, located in the North Parish. The purchase price was $5000.00. Then after a few alter- ations the poor, infirm and mentally weak were there housed and fed under the direction of the Overseers of the Poor. The reports of this venture, from year to year make interesting reading. There was no attempt made to spare anyone's feelings. Doubtless there was the unexpressed idea that in this way the number of poor in the alms house might be kept at a minimum. So in the report for 1843 we read the name of the poor helped with comments following the names. Anna Foster, aged 69, always sick; Polly Melindy, aged 68, not much faculty; Lucinda Nichols, aged 59, in- sane. No wonder it was a disgrace to go to the poor house.
When North Reading became a separate town in 1853, she inherited the old Almshouse. That is she inherited it after paying the town of Read- ing for her proportionate part of the same. In times of depression it be- came a haven for all the "weary-willies," plain hoboes, or, as the town reports called them, traveling paupers. One can almost judge as to the severity of the financial crisis by following the statements of the number of this class fed during the year at the town farm. In 1773 there were
[ 22 ]
=
THE OLD POOR FARM, BUILT A LITTLE BEFORE 1800 (Now owned by Miss Mary Heffron)
forty-seven traveling paupers fed at the house on Park Street, then in 1876 there were 377, and the next year 437. After that the number began to ease off a bit. Then in the nineties it began to climb once more.
It was not deemed wise to feed this horde without the recipients mak- ing some show of compensation. The rule was that each "weary-willie" should cut so much wood in order to pay for his bed and breakfast. But the travelers soon learned and managed to arrive too late for their stint in the wood pile.
Gradually conditions were changing and even the idea of the way to administer help was undergoing a change. In 1911 there was but one inmate in the Almshouse. But all the while there had been those outside receiving assistance. Of these, for that year, no names are mentioned, but there had been appropriated $600 and this sum had been overdrawn by $525.55. Then a little later came the Board of Public Welfare with its old age assistance and its aid to dependent children. The state also came along with its aid and regulation. So that in the course of a hundred years the idea of administering charity traveled a complete circuit, and now we are back to the starting point, except we omit the names of those helped.
At the present time we have three categories of public relief : Old Age Assistance, Aid to Dependent Children, and General Relief. The Federal Government participates to the extent of one half the amount approved
[ 23 ]
by the State. In no case, however, must the total monthly allotment exceed $40.00. Of the remainder the State pays five-sixths and the town one-sixth. As for the aid to the children a similar policy is followed. The National Government pays one half, with a limit of $18.00 for the first child and $12.00 for each succeeding child. The town and State participate in the same proportion as in the case of the aged. In the case of temporary aid the local community, or the place of legal residence, assumes full responsi- bility.
The aim of our present-day assistance program, is to meet the basic needs of those who are unable to meet them through their own efforts. And these efforts may include, in the case of the aged, the help that may be rendered by the children. In our day the State has been 'known to compel unwilling children to support their parents. So the idea is not to pauperize or create communistic sentiment, but to honestly render assistance where assistance is necessary. To this end there is a paid secretary in each town, responsible largely to the State, but in part also to the town.
All of this leads naturally into a consideration of the family. As we know the early families were large, but it was not long before the number of children in the homes began to decrease. The original John Upton had fourteen children. The second generation, however, never went beyond ten, while the third generation was reduced to about six for an average. This same thing is to be noted in connection with other families. Once in a while there were exceptions, but the rule was that as infant mortality decreased the number decreased. Perhaps this is nature's way of pro- tecting itself. Occasionally there was a virile widow who reached the ripe old age of ninety, but for the most part the residents of the North Parish died much younger.
In the early days everyone was a law unto himself. To be sure there were certain minor obligations everyone owed to his neighbor and to the community, but in the larger issues each one did his own thinking. Pioneer living makes that sort of thing possible. So there was in North Reading, as elsewhere, what an English writer once called a fierce spirit of democ- racy. One can see a manifestation of this spirit here and there. There were large locks on the gates of the pound where they stray cattle were kept. This, together with the fact that various fines from time to time were imposed, indicated that our Puritan ancestors were not adverse to coming at night and rescuing a straying cow. We have also been led to assume that the ministers of that early period were always held in high esteem. That was hardly true in the old North Parish. When the second meeting house was completed the Rev. Mr. Putnam asked for a certain pew, near the women's gallery and the clerk of the Parish meeting records, "the re- quest was passed in ye negative." It was a year and a half before he was granted his request.
[ 24 ]
Another case in point occurred when the General Court, in 1753, passed a law regulating the calling of town and parish meetings. Accord- ing to the law the town constable was to warn the town seven days previous to the impending meeting. This was to be done by tacking a notice on the meeting-house door. North Reading ignored the law for six years and then there must have been some complaint. So in 1759 this article ap- peared in the call for the town meeting, "to see if the Parish will warn precinct meetings by setting up a warrant or notification at the meeting house door, seven days before the town meeting." Then the secretary's report for that meeting states, "and it passed in the negative." Neverthe- less the Parish continued to comply with the law and before many years had passed everyone came to expect the notice on the meeting house door.
They were plain, homely people, these pioneers in their homespuns. Wheat flour was a luxury for Thanksgiving time, while rye flour and corn meal were for ordinary living. This with salt meat and bean porridge con- stituted their diet. No graphophones, telephones or radios were theirs. Spinning wheels, pots, dog-irons and trammels were articles they cherished. To get a good idea as to how people lived in North Reading of the eighteenth century read over the will and the inventory of one of its early citizens. Among other things you will find listed, axes, hoes, carts, wedges, wearing apparel, bed linen, pewter, flax combs, glass bottles, saddles, bridles and guns. Other things there were too trivial for we moderns to mention, but all had cost time, effort and sacrifice and, therefore, were not to be thought- lessly discarded.
For the most part, our ancestors respected the rights of others, and were inclined to have a wholesome respect for the laws of the General Court, and for the ordinances passed by their own town meeting. At first it was not necessary to have police or constable. All that was necessary was to impose a fine for doing certain things or for not doing them and this was sufficient. As for the carrying out of these regulations such as yoking hogs, building fences, or felling trees on the common land, it was left to the neighbors to keep watch and report to the selectmen who were put in charge of the prudentials of the town. The one reporting the violation was to receive half of the fine. After a while this did not work as it was in- tended, for doubtless they had the same human nature to deal with that we have in our time. So about the time North Reading was set off as a parish the town began to elect tithing men whose duty it was to report on violations of rules and ordinances. They, by the way, were also to receive a share of the fine imposed.
Fines and rates were usually promptly paid. From time to time taxes were abated for one reason or the other, but it was only infrequently that anyone refused to pay at all. If they should they were straightway com- mitted to the jail. In 1758, the old records state that one Benjamin Mac-
[ 25 ]
kintire was committed to the Cambridge jail because he refused to pay a tax of three shillings and seven pence. As to what Mr. Mackintire's griev- ances were the record does not state. But he learned that the law was not to be tampered with, for the next year his rates were the same and he paid without question.
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.