USA > Massachusetts > Worcester County > Westminster > History of Westminster, Massachusetts (first named Narragansett no. 2) from the date of the original grant of the township to the present time, 1728-1893, with a biographic-genealogical register of its principal families > Part 17
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 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115
Only three persons, Daniel Hoar, Reuben Miles, and Jabez Bigelow, had money on hand liable to taxation, which indicates the meager pecuniary resources of the people of the district at the outset.
According to the same authority there were in the place at the same date: oxen, 53; cows, 170; horses, 52; swine, 35; sheep, 176. Fifteen persons owned two horses each; twenty- one, a pair of oxen; while Joseph Horsley alone had two pair. The number of polls in the district was eighty.
129
PROPRIETORS' ACTION AFTER INCORPORATION.
Before proceeding with the narration of events occurring under the jurisdiction of the district of Westminster, it is deemed proper to notice briefly a few topics of considerable importance in themselves, some account of which is necessary to complete the history of the period now in review.
Last Days of the Propriety. Although the new re- gime had been fully established and was in practical working order, yet the old society, known as the propriety, had still important interests at stake in the place, and special busi- ness affairs to superintend and direct. Its members retained ownership and control of all the yet undivided lands, besides having outstanding claims and obligations which they were in duty bound to care for, meet, and ultimately extinguish. This condition of things necessitated for a time a double government or system of operations, the old propriety continuing to act simultaneously with the new district, holding meetings and transacting business upon matters belonging to its own proper province, although that province very naturally became more and more limited with the passing years, until it reached the vanishing point and disappeared forever. A few of the more notable acts and events of its declining days will be adverted to, in passing to the course of proceedings pursued under the corporate name of the settlement.
At a meeting of the propriety, held June 30, 1762, the treas- urer, Joseph Miller, made a statement of financial affairs cover- ing the time that had transpired since his last report, July 5, 1758, which was accepted. The debts of the body at this date were £16 19s. 2d., and money was granted for the payment of the same.
No officers of the propriety were chosen after the "Act of Incorporation" went into effect, until Nov. 3, 1766, when Andrew Darby was elected clerk, and Andrew Darby, Thomas Conant, and Capt. Daniel Hoar, standing committee. At this meeting it was
"I'oted to give Rev. Asaph Rice [who had previously been installed min- ister of the gospel in the place, as will in due time be noted, and who had located on the west side of the old common, near the site of the Abram Wood house, now owned by Reuben P. Merriam] ten rods and half of land of the. Meetinghouse plott fronting his house, it being three rods wide Southward and Running Northerly to the line of Mr. Rice's Land to a pint where the fence now stands."
At a meeting held Dec. 30, 1766, it was
"Voted that any of the proprietors that have not their Compliment of Land in their third Division according to the Standerd Shall have their Liberty to make up their Compliment of Land on any of the undivided Land they takeing of it in a Regular forme and bringing their Planns for acceptance to the proprietors within one year.
"Voted, that all those proprietors that have not had their third Division of upland; who have thrown them up - that they have Liberty to pitch for their Divisions on any of the undivided Land where their third Divisions
9
130
HISTORY OF WESTMINSTER, MASS.
origenally Laid out are taken up or Broken in upon they to be under the same Restrictions as they ware under when they flung them up: but where their third Divisions Remain Intire, to have no priveliges hereby Notwith- standing."
At this same meeting a proposition from Dr. Zachariah Har- vey of Princeton seems to have been laid before the proprietors, in regard to the building of a gristmill in the north part of the town (on the spot where what was known as Brooks' mill after- ward stood), if sufficient encouragement could be given him in the way of granting land, etc., accompanied by a plan of third division lot No. 59, which was to be included in the proposed grant ; whereupon it was
"Voted to Except the plann of Lott No. 59 as Exhibeted by Doctor Harvey and Voted that the Clerk Record the Same in the proprietors' Book. "l'oted that they would Give Doctor Harvey about forty four acres of Land [in addition to lot No. 59] for the Incouragement of Building a Grist- mill, he being under obligation to build the Same in a Suiteable time.
"Also V'oted that Sd Harvey have two small peaces of Land more ajoyn- ing to his Land viz .- one of ten acres and Eighty Rods. the other of Eleven acres and Eighty Rods as Disscribed in the plann taken of the Same as a further Incouragement for Building Said Mill."
The mill was accordingly built, facilities for sawing being afterwards added, and did good service for nearly half a cen- tury. It was finally destroyed by fire, as was also its successor on the same site. Just a year later, Dec. 30, 1767, after accept- ing certain plans of lands drawn in accordance with orders passed at previous meetings, the proprietors
"Voted to allow any proprietor Liberty to make up their Compliment of Land in the third Division (Except that peace of Common Land Before Landlord Holden's Dore and the Land between Mr. Darby's and Joseph Holden Jr. which Land is hear Excluded) by the first Day of June Next. they to be under the same Restrictions as heartofore, with this further Restriction that they Shall not Goe into the midst of a peace of Commonage but ajoyne their pitch to Divided Land and then to take it in Reguler forme.
" l'oted to divide the Commonage or fourth Division of upland and twenty acres to be the Standard and Voted to Lay it out by a Committee and voted that the Committee have power to Quallifie the Land as shall be Judged proper by Sd Committee, to make all equall as near as they can- Voted that all the undivided Land be Layed out by this Committee with this Re- striction that a Roade be Left on the Common [lot] Between Abner Hold- en's House and the pond ajoyning to Mr. Marshes' Fence of two rods wide."
Mr. John Gates of Stow, surveyor, was appointed to lay out the lots as ordered, with Dea. Joseph Miller and Elisha Bigelow as aids; the work "to be completed by the first day of Dec. next." It was furthermore
"Voted that each proprietor Shall Draw his Lot out of the Box and pay three shillings and four pence two farthings Cash att time of Drawing and if Not payed the Delinquent Lot to be Sold for payment thereof att a pub- lick vendue agreeable to Law."
131
FURTHER ACTION OF THE PROPRIETORS.
The land excluded in the first of the above votes was that lying between the road and the water at the northeasterly extremity of Westminster pond, and the road provided for in the third was the lane, which has always remained open, from the highway to the water at the foot of Meetinghouse Hill, on the easterly side.
At an adjourned meeting, held Jan. 5, 1768, a new board of officers was elected, with ex-Rev. Elisha Marsh, clerk. For some reason now unknown, the former clerk, Abner Holden, declined giving up the books of the propriety to Mr. Marsh, wherefore, upon an appeal from the latter, it was, at a meeting convened April 28th,
"T'oted that if Abner Holden, the former Proprietors' Clerk, will not de- liver up the Proprietors Books to Mr. Elisha Marsh, the present Proprie- tors' Clerk, &c. then Mr. Marsh sue the Books out of his hands to the next Court, if Said Books are not delivered up by the fourth Day of May."
Whether or not any action was taken, pursuant to this vote, does not appear. If there were, it was of no avail, inasmuch as the books in question seem to have been in Mr. Holden's possession as late as December, 1769. Mr. Marsh left town the following year, when Mr. Holden was chosen his successor, which obviated the necessity of any further consideration of the matter.
Meetings of the proprietors were held from time to time as occasion required, but since the business transacted in them related mostly to the readjustment of third division lots, the raising of money to meet current expenses, and other unim- portant matters, they are deemed worthy of little notice in this review.
On the 13th of March, 1770, it was
"Voted for the consideration of Sixteen Spanish Milled Dollars Paid by Nathaniel Brown of Brookfield, that he have all that piece of Common Land between Mr. Joseph Holden's and Mr Andrew Darby's House Lotts."
This was a part of the original main street of the township, as laid out by the proprietors' committee. It was four rods wide and extended from the pond southeasterly eighty rods, making two acres area, being the original lot on which the house of F. M. Carpenter is at present located.
A meeting was called for Tuesday, the 22d of May, 1770, of which one of the items of business was
"To draw the fourth Divisions of upland which are all laid out and ready to Draw."
When the meeting convened it was first "Voted that the Clerk Draw for the Ministerial and School Lotts," which being done it was "Voted that the Tickets of the Fourth Divisions be Layed in the Hands of the Clerk and the proprietors to
132
HISTORY OF WESTMINSTER, MASS.
Draw their Lotts as soone as they please paying the Cost." As there is no record of any further public action in regard to this drawing, it is to be inferred that it took place quietly at the house of the clerk, at the convenience of those concerned. The lots were located mostly in what is now the town of Gardner, but only a few plans of them in any form have been discovered. They were all drawn, however, in due time, as the clerk's book shows, thus closing out the joint proprietorship of the common lands of the original township. By an act of the general court, passed Nov. 14, 1770, the proprietors were empowered to sell all lands on which taxes were due, for the payment thereof, enabling them to meet and cancel their financial affairs to the uttermost farthing.
The last notification for a meeting of the proprietors was issued March 25, 1777, calling them together on the 23d of April. They assembled in due form and subsequently, at different dates, by proper adjournments, for more than two years, attending to such articles of business as were obligatory upon them or incidental to the final adjustment and termination of their affairs. On the 26th of October, 1778, it was "Voted to Sell one rod of the four Rod Roade leading from the meet- inghouse to houselott No. 90 on the Northerly Side of sd Roade or any part of sd Roade," "to be sold on Monday, the 16th day of Nov. next att the house of Landlord Everett in Westminster att one of the clock in the afternoone," and the committee on selling other lands, already chosen, were charged with the duty of carrying this vote into effect. This action pertained to the main street of the town, and the committee attended to the duty assigned them, deeming it wise, however, to retain at its original width that portion of the thoroughfare extending through what afterward became the principal part of the central village.
A few adjourned meetings took place after the last named date, at which very little and sometimes no business was trans- acted. The final adjournment was to the last Monday in August, 1779. But no meeting, so far as the clerk's book shows, was held at that time, and so the propriety of "Narra- ganset No. 2 at the Wetchusett" came to a peaceful end. Its work was done; its mission fulfilled. But in its place was the "Town of Westminster," fully organized and equipped for ser- vice and in the "full tide of successful experiment." So that while we "speed the parting" we also "hail the coming guest."
Sequel to the Ministry of Rev. Mr. Marsh. It will be remembered that in the controversy arising between Mr. Marsh and the propriety in regard to the amount of money to be paid him after he was informally deposed from his office, certain terms of settlement were determined by a board of arbi- tration appointed by the superior court with the consent of both parties, and that in order to secure the payment of the
133
SEQUEL TO THE CASE OF REV. MR. MARSII.
sum awarded him, Mr. Marsh had deemed it necessary to open another suit against his opponents, which resulted in the attach- ment of certain property belonging to them. To discharge the obligation, the proprietors at a meeting, Oct. 28, 1761, voted to raise the requisite amount of money. This vote they undertook to carry into effect by laying an assessment upon the original house lots of the township, to be collected in the usual way, a refusal to pay in any instance being followed by sale of lands, as by law duly provided. The non-resident proprietors pro- tested against this course and made an appeal to the general court for a stay of proceedings, on the ground, as stated in the records of that body for June 5, 1762, "that they had been at great expense in bringing forward the settlement of said place and that not long since on a Petition of a number of Inhabi- tants to the General Court there was a tax of one half penny an acre laid upon the Lands of the Non Residents for four years and it was then agreed that they should then be exempt from any further burdens-notwithstanding which a Proprie- tors meeting was called and the Residents being a Majority or near it they Laid a Tax of nine shillings or thereabouts on each Right which the Petrs apprehending to be contrary to the agreement made before the General Court's committee declined paying and their Lands are put upon sale for the payment of said Tax and Praying Relief."
Upon this petition it was ordered that the resident proprie- tors be cited to appear and show cause why it should not be granted. The matter was considered at a meeting of the district, Dec. 30, 1762, and Nathan Wood and Abner Holden were chosen to act in response thereto. A hearing before the court took place in due time, when the case was referred to a committee, of which the afterward celebrated James Otis was chairman. The committee reported in favor of the petitioners, Jan. 29, 1763, whereupon the court ordered "That the tax be set aside as unreasonable and that all proceedings in levying the tax be wholly stayed."
While this was going on, Mr. Marsh seemed determined to have the property attached by him for the payment of his claim sold. The committee of the proprietors, Dea. Joseph Miller, Abner Holden, and John Rand, who had managed the case against Mr. Marsh, voluntarily came forward and, to pre- vent this, paid Mr. Marsh the amount awarded him, and so stopped all proceedings in that direction.
After a time, the question of reimbursing the committee the amount they had advanced to satisfy judgment in Mr. Marsh's favor, came up for consideration. The proprietors seemed to rest easy as the matter stood, and the people of the district were at least indifferent in regard to it. There is no record of any action upon it by either of these parties for two years, although there is collateral evidence that both were applied to
134
HISTORY OF WESTMINSTER, MASS.
for an adjustment of the claim, yet without practical avail. Unable to obtain satisfaction from either the propriety or the district, the committee laid their case before the provincial leg- islature, asking aid in securing their rightful due. At first, that body dismissed the matter, but afterwards referred it to a committee of which Benjamin Lincoln was chairman, who re- ported adversely, and all further proceedings for the time being were stayed.
After a few months a second petition of a similar import was presented to the same body, which came up for consideration at the January session, 1765. The petition, after rehearsing in detail the controversy with Rev. Mr. Marsh, up to the date of the order of the general court canceling the tax that had been levied for the payment of the award in his favor, closes as fol- lows: "the Execution is not satisfied, then the Officer turns upon the Committee for the Remainder and we have been obliged to Discharge the same or must have submitted to the Sale; we Have applied to the town, they wont Ease us, to the propriety, no mercy from them. To this Hon. Court we now most humbly apply and plead that it can't be just that we should Care [carry] the Charge of the whole or any more than our proportion. We know of no agreement that Ever was made by any Committee that the proprietors should be freed from paying their own Just Debts and are Sure that no Committee had a Legall Right to Doe it."
It is not in evidence that the general court granted any relief to the petitioners. Very likely the matter was regarded as belonging to the judicial rather than the legislative depart- ment of the government ; or, possibly, the action of the district soon after may have induced the committee not to urge their plea further before the legislature.
In the warrant for a district meeting, March 4, 1765, was an article
"To know the minds of the District whether they will prefer the petition that was Entered in the General Court by Joseph Miller on January ye 22, 1765, in order that the Committee may be Releaved; or to come into any other method that the affaire may be settled in the most Just and Aequita- ble manner."
In the proper order of the proceedings of the meeting,
" After debate the vote was put whether they would Act on this Article and the vote passed in the afairmitive and then Voted to apropriate the Half penny tax to Defray the Charge of the Lawsuite as far as it will Goe and to Defray the Remainder by a Grant out of the District upon poles and Estates."
But this action was not satisfactory to certain of the inhabi- tants who expressed their dissent as follows :
135
TROUBLES OF THE PROPRIETORS' COMMITTEE.
"We the Subscribers Enter our protest against the votes passed by the District upon the Eighth Article in the Warrant for this Annual March Meeting Because they have there by taken upon them to pay a Debt which the District Never Contracted and Do not owe Conterary to Law and Com- mon Sense.
" ELISHIA MARSII, JOHN MILES,
RICHARD BAKER, STEPHEN SAWIN,
JOSIAH KENDALL,
STEPHEN HOLDEN,
RICHARD GRAVES, JOHN WOODWERD."
REUBEN MILES,
JOSEPH HOSLEY,
NOAHI MILES,
This protest is based upon the fact that the committee, in whose interest the action was taken, were the servants of the propriety and not of the district, and should therefore look to the proprietors for reimbursement of moneys expended in the discharge of duties entrusted to them. At a subsequent meet- ing, the opposition endeavored to obtain a reconsideration of the votes in question, but did not succeed. Baffled at home, they turned, as seemed to be much the habit in those days, to the provincial authorities for a revocation of the action of the majority of the voters of the district. Their petition was presented Feb. 17, 1766. The usual order of citation was passed, and on May 26th following, Abner Holden and Joseph Miller were chosen "to make answer to the petition," which they did in a remonstrance reviewing once more the whole case from the beginning, and closing with a strong appeal in behalf of the district. The document is too long for insertion here.
About the same time an address upon the matter in contro- versy to the recusant petitioners was prepared, probably by Dea. Joseph Miller, in whose handwriting it has come down to the present time. It is spicy reading, and well worth the space it may occupy in this work.
" To the Inhabts of the District of Westminster that have petitioned the General Court against the Proprietors Committee. Gentlemen.
" You have now had the full Representation of the formidable and awful Complaint Entered in the General Court against us the Committee for undertaking and carrying on the Lawsute against Mr. Marsh. How far it will Bare the force of Examination when wayed in the Ballance of Truth, I leave to every unprejudiced Candid mind to Determine, Nay after Examin- ing facts in Relation thereto I leave my verry Enemys themselves to Judge. Sirs, if only an Enemy had done thus we could Cheerfully have Borne it, but it is thou o my friend that has Stirred up the adversary-as if the Loss of time and all our Cost was not enough. But must bare such Calumny as I would not Dare Cast upon an aboriginal Native, -however through Shortsightedness we may have done those things that hant pleased you, yet Designingly we have Done nothing against ye Interest we undertook for but with faithfulness prosecuted every method within ye Limits of our Power Conducive to your Real Service and have Spared no Cost nor pains to ease you of the Burthen of paying us, Much time have we lost that we ask no Reward for & Likewise each of us have paid more Cash (besides all our loss of time) than will cost either of you if you pay us our demands, if I mis- take not greater Ingratitude cant be Discovered than appears in some of you Gentlemen -pray Consider how urgent how Zealous Some of you ware with us to proceade in this Service."
136
HISTORY OF WESTMINSTER, MASS.
This case speaks for itself. Evidently, human nature was much the same a hundred and twenty-five years ago as now. It is no uncommon thing at any time for servants of the public to fail of being appreciated, or of receiving just compensation from those in whose behalf they have acted -at whose most urgent demand, perhaps, they have discharged important public trusts or gained public benefits of great value.
No record of the result of the petition and remonstrance described above has anywhere been found. It seems probable, however, from what subsequently transpired, that the peti- tioners prevailed, and that the district was restrained from carrying into effect the votes against which protest had been made, probably on the ground before hinted at, that the district, legally considered, had no responsibility and no jurisdiction in the matter, but that it belonged to the propriety, and to the propriety alone, to adjudicate and bring it to a final settlement. This is to be inferred from the fact that the proprietors at last took the whole subject in hand and carried it through to a suc- cessful and permanent issue.
Before doing so, another step was taken by the committee, which probably determined the ultimate action in the case and hastened the final consummation. Failing, as it is presumed they did, in obtaining the encouragement and support of the general court in their previous line of effort, they laid their case before the court of common pleas at Worcester, at its May ses- sion, 1767, where they obtained judgment in their favor against the propriety, upon which, according to the decision rendered, they had a legal, if not a rightful, claim.
In compliance with this action of the judicial tribunal of the county, the proprietors, in closing up to the 30th of December, 1767, their outstanding liabilities, included the award of the court in the committee's favor among them, and at a meeting held by adjournment, Jan. 7, 1768, made due and adequate pro- vision for its liquidation, which was satisfactorily consummated not long afterward. Thus it was that, after a delay of five years, during which there had been a great deal of hard but ineffectual labor expended, with much time and money on the part of all concerned, and not a little irritation and hard feeling engen- dered, Messrs. Miller, Holden, and Rand obtained their evi- dently just and rightful due - what, it seems at this day with the facts at hand, ought, upon all principles of honesty and honor, to have been cheerfully and gratefully paid at the outset without question and without hesitancy in any behalf. And thus, too, it was that the financial troubles growing out of the relations of the people of Narragansett No. 2 with the first minister of the Gospel in the place, came to a perpetual end. It is not the province of this history to distribute merit and blame in this or in any other case, but simply to state the facts with scrupulous regard to the truth of things, so far as it can
137
NON-RESIDENTS OVERTAXED.
be ascertained, leaving the reader to draw his own inferences and to form his own conclusions in matters involving moral considerations and personal deserts, referring all at last to Him whose eye is in every place beholding the evil and the good, whose wisdom is unerring, whose judgment is impartial, and whose ways are holy and righteous forevermore.
Non-Resident Proprietors' Taxes. Before taking up the thread of transpiring events and business transactions in the district of Westminster, it is proper to refer to yet another matter, thus far unexplained, closely related to, and forming a part of, the history of the period under notice. In the petition for an act of incorporation there was a clause praying "that the non-resident Proprietors be required to bear equal tax with us for seven years for the Support of the Gospel and the laying out and Clearing away new roads," which was referred to a commit- tee in the customary form for consideration and recommenda- tion.
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.