USA > Massachusetts > Norfolk County > Brookline > History of the town of Brookline, Massachusetts > 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).
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
From the history of the movement it appears plain that what the inhabitants of Muddy River wanted above all else was not a free school (which they had), nor an orthodox church (for two were available, and widely used), nor representation in the General Court (an expensive undertaking with remote benefits), but freedom from the Boston tax collector. And it is quite plain that while Boston was ready to grant, and did grant, almost all of the powers usually associated with self-
59
A SEPARATE VILLAGE OR PECULIAR
government, she would not relinquish this point. On the part of Muddy River the whole movement arose from the desire to determine, and thereby to conserve, her public levies; and while some increase in total assessment must have been antici- pated, the petitioners were probably eager to restrict other expenditures and effort to those matters strictly necessary to the welfare of their own area.
Town government was known to be expensive. It entailed very definite responsibilities under the law, including a school, a church, and representation in the General Court. The close of the charter period had marked, moreover, a great accumu- lation of legislation affecting towns; some thirty-three orders, penalties, and permissive regulations were directed to the town- ship, while some sixty others enlarged or facilitated the duties of the selectmen.
It may well have been that some of the petitioners were un- willing to bind Muddy River to such responsibilities, and while they sought a status that would give freedom from the un- welcome connection with Boston, looked for a middle course that would not engulf them in political commitments possibly difficult to fulfill. It is significant that even after incorporation was granted, nine years passed before a church was established and a meeting-house built, six before a change was made in the school situation, and five before a representative was sent to the General Court. In fact, for fifteen years the town. was represented only four times, and on several occasions flatly refused to choose a delegate.
But by the order of November, 1705, they were immediately free from financial liabilities to Boston, and at their first town meeting the only new officer to appear on the list is the assessor, who maintains his position with unremitting regularity. If Muddy River really wanted a full corporate status, it was either unable or unwilling to make complete use of it when it was secured.
'WEASEL WORDS'
On the contrary, the petitioners had asked to become a ham- let, village, district, or peculiar, but always 'separate from the town of Boston.' Hamlets or villages have never had corporate
60
HISTORY OF BROOKLINE
significance in Massachusetts. A hamlet appears to have been a small place with social and economic solidarity, usually within the bounds of another community. Village, almost identical in meaning, gradually displaced the former term in general use.
Municipal organization within the colony was in a rapidly formative state, and the situation that Muddy River exempli- fied was becoming typical of many communities. Usually on account of their remoteness, they desired a semi-corporate status to supply certain limited services; and this status was finally settled by the middle of the eighteenth century, under titles depending upon the type or extent of service required, such as plantation, district, peculiar, precinct, or parish.
The political features that distinguished these areas are not wholly clear. Even in the early days of the colony, gradations had been recognized, and groups of loosely organized indi- viduals had been accorded special and limited privileges under the title of 'plantations,' but the practice was later extended to include other forms, among which were the district, pre- cinct, or parish, and peculiar. The district was identical with the town except that it sent no representative to the General Court. The term 'precinct' served many purposes, being synonymous sometimes with district, sometimes with parish, sometimes with peculiar, and gradually dropping out of use in the eighteenth century, until it came to its own again in the nineteenth century as an electoral subdivision of a town. The term 'peculiar' was of especial interest; in English ecclesiastical law it denoted a parish or church independent of the ordinary but subject only to the metropolitan, a condition that may have accounted for its appearance in America. Like the plantation, it seems to have been largely used in this country to assure the taxation of isolated individuals and groups not under any local jurisdiction.
When the real significance of these terms is understood, the haphazard element in the Muddy River petitions is somewhat reduced. It is quite likely that any of these forms would have satisfied the aims for which the citizens of the hamlet were striving - that is, freedom from Boston, and in particular also freedom from too great additional burdens.
A SEPARATE VILLAGE OR PECULIAR 61
The selectmen of Boston, on the contrary, are at pains to insist in their answers that the petitioners wish to become 'a town by themselves,' and hint at both their 'inability' to under- take such burdens and their insincerity in requesting an 'ortho- dox minister,' obviously arguments in defense of their whole position. It may be that the petitioners felt the force of such a view and attempted to meet it by their demands for partial independence, as indicated in the special terms they used. It is true that on one occasion they asked for selectmen and 'all other rights belonging to a Township,' but the final petition again falls back on the lesser terms of 'village or peculiar.'
What happened in between it is impossible to say. The fact is that Muddy River became formally a town in the full sense of the term, but that for some time it in fact corresponded more to the semi-corporate unit that it had so frequently asked to become. There are many conclusions that could be drawn from such circumstances, but few would go beyond surmise. The obvious fact is that the petitioners from Muddy River were shrewd men, accustomed to ask for what they wanted. If they received a little more, few will deny that they turned it to good account.
THE NAME OF BROOKLINE
A point that has caused even more discussion than the pre- ceding pertains to the origin of the name of Brookline, a mat- ter that seems more susceptible of satisfactory decision. If the area ever had an Indian name, it is not known. Whether in primeval days it was a part of Nonantum, now Newton, or Shawmut, now Boston, has never been determined. The first extant notice, that in Winthrop's Journal telling of the 'ten Sagamores and many Indians assembled at Muddy River,' gives the title that was officially maintained for seventy-three years.
There can be little doubt, however, as to the origin of the name 'Brookline.' Through his marriage with Hannah Hull, Judge Samuel Sewall had obtained the large estate of his father-in-law in Muddy River. This land extended irregu- larly from Harvard Street to the Charles River, northwest to the Cambridge line, and was probably tillable southeast to
62
HISTORY OF BROOKLINE
the old Cedar Swamp. The swamp seems originally to have drained into the Charles through a small brook that formed the boundary between meadow and swampland of the Sewall estate. To the arable parts of this area Judge Sewall very early gave the name of 'Brookline.'
In a proposal for the division of the estate of John Hull (March 13, 1684) between his widow Judith, and Samuel Sewall and his wife Hannah, there is this description:
All the Lands lying at muddy River within ye Limit of Boston with ye houseing, barns buildings and fence thereupon. Vizt. Brookline Lands (so called) in ye present tenure and Occupation of Simon Gates, - Swampline Lands in ye Tenure and Occupation of George Barsto, and Hoggs-cote Lands in the Tenure and occupation of Andrew Gardner.
Here is perhaps the earliest use of the term 'Brookline' in connection with the Muddy River region. It will be noticed that the spelling is Brookline, and could hardly have been pro- nounced Brooklyn. It is, moreover, contrasted with another kind of land called 'Swampline,' and appears therefore to have been used as a descriptive term to designate different parts of the same holdings: that is, on the one hand, the arable farm lands bounded on the northwest by Smelt Brook, and on the southeast by the Cedar Swamp and a slender tributary of the Charles; and on the other, swamp lands beyond the Cedar Swamp in the general direction of Sewall's Point.
It is merely surmise, but the possibility occurs that those who, in early records, wrote the name Brooklyn may have done so with the notion that it described 'brook-lying' lands. This interpretation would be in consonance with 'swamp-lying' lands, and the irregular orthography of the times would excuse much. And surely, though a brook might mark a line, a swamp could not.
Judge Sewall himself gives the next reference to the term. In his Diary under date of June 20, 1687, he writes: 'Went to Muddy-River with Mr. Gore and Eliot to take a plot of Brook- lin'; and two days later he elaborates the incident. 'Went to Muddy River, Mr. Gore finishes compassing the Land with his plain Table: I do it chiefly that I may know my own, it
63
A SEPARATE VILLAGE OR PECULIAR
lies in so many nooks and corners.' It seems plain, however, that these references are to the farm and not to the area as a whole. Indeed, throughout the Diary, until 1705, the term Muddy River is used to describe Sewall's many visits to the hamlet, and while one or two entries might permit some doubt as to the exact application of the term, they are certainly far from conclusive evidence that a substitution had already been made for Muddy River.
Dr. Pierce, in his Address at the Opening of the Town Hall in 1845, went into the matter with customary thoroughness, and through correspondence with the great-great-grandson of Judge Sewall, who possessed many of his ancestor's private papers, gleaned the information
that Brookline borrowed its name from one of the farms within its bounds, namely, the Gates farm, hired of Judge Sewall, which was probably called Brookline from the cir- cumstance, that Smelt-brook, running through it, was the line of division between that and one of the neighboring farms .... This accounts for the name being often mentioned by the Judge, in his Journal, before Brookline was incor- porated; and, as he was a large land-holder in the place, and a member of the Council, at the time of its incorporation, it seems likely that it might have been submitted to him to furnish the name for the new Town; and that he gave it this of Brookline, which had been for years familiar to him, as the name of a farm within its precincts, and likewise a very good name for the purpose designed.
There can therefore be no doubt as to the origin of the term in connection with Judge Sewall's farm. There seems to be no direct evidence that he actually applied the name to Muddy River, but the circumstances point strongly to that conclusion.
CHAPTER V PROBLEMS OF TOWN GOVERNMENT
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS
WHEN distance is translated in terms of time, the Brookline of 1705 was inconveniently distant from Boston for many pur- poses. Awareness of that, as we have seen, had induced the citizens of Boston to acquiesce in the choosing by the people of Muddy River of their own local officers.
Now, as the newly created Brookline, those people faced a much larger problem. They were obliged, of course, to set up a more extensive frame of local government. First of all - indeed, it was supposed to be a prerequisite to the establish- ment of the town - they were required to settle an orthodox minister in their midst, and to erect a meeting-house.
There were schools to be provided, highways to be created and maintained, and the poor to be cared for. There must be a system of assessment of properties and collection of taxes.
An obligation was assumed to the larger community of the province. Participation was expected, with other towns, in the Great and General Court. A quota of men and munitions must be made available for the public defense.
The men of Brookline were familiar, of course, with the work- ings of this mechanism of government. Now, for the first time, they undertook to operate it in its entirety on their own account.
Perhaps it may be possible to attain some semblance of log- ical approach in examining some of their problems with them. The last phrase is used deliberately, for in the pages of the town records of a century or two ago, it is easy to find oneself pictur- ing the scenes in the meetings where town affairs were delib- erated. Between the terse lines of the written resolutions, one may read the long, earnest debates of those who strove to persuade their fellows for the good of the community.
That the labors of these citizens were, with the rarest excep- tion, unselfish and sincere there is little room to doubt. The
65
PROBLEMS OF TOWN GOVERNMENT
spirit of their meetings and the soundness of their common con- clusions are proof that here were men above the modern aver- age in shrewdness and practicality and devotion to the public welfare. If our American experience of democracy on a vast nation-wide scale has proved disillusioning to recent genera- tions, we may reflect that it was a different thing when the country was small, and its youth made men eager to preserve it and win for it dignity and honor. And in the scheme of town government which Brookline has relied upon with conspicuous success for two centuries and a quarter, we may find proof that on a suitable scale that system is still unsurpassed.
MINISTER AND MEETING-HOUSE
Provision for public worship deserves first consideration here, both because it was the first thing the new town was bound to attend to, and because the subject is accorded a far greater portion of the public records between 1705 and 1820 than any three or four other matters put together. The order of the General Court of November 13, 1705, allowed three years for the building of a meeting-house and the settling of a minister. But the first town meeting, March 4, 1706, decided not to do anything about it right away. At a meeting held November 28, 1709, they voted to think about the matter a little longer, and come to some conclusion the following March.1
However, it was June of 1712 before three men were 'chosen and appointed to surveigh the limits of this town and find the center or middle thereof and to inquire where a Convenient Place may be Procured whereon to build a meeting-house; as neare the center of said Town as may be.' A year and a half later Caleb Gardner offered to give to the town 'a piece of Land nigh to his dwelling House, Lyeing west ward therefrom on the left hand of the Road way Leading to Roxbury, where on to build a Meeting house for the Publick worship of God.' Lieutenant Thomas Gardner, Lieutenant Samuel Aspinwall,
I March meeting, it should be understood, was everywhere the regular, annual meeting of the towns, for by the reckoning then in general use March 25 was the beginning of the new year, for which budgets were made and plans laid out. When the calendar change was belatedly made in English-speaking lands there were those who continued by the old style, and others who began the new year on Jan- uary I. In consequence, dates between January I and March 25 might belong to either year; hence the form, 'March 4, 1705.'
66
HISTORY OF BROOKLINE
Erosamon Drew, Thomas Stedman, and John Sever were ap- pointed to look after the construction of the building. Its frame was raised November 10, 1714, on a site almost opposite where Pierce Hall stands today.
Thus Brookline was more than six years late in fulfilling one of the supposed prerequisites to its creation as a town. True, permission had been obtained to delay erection of the building, but this was from lack of money rather than lack of desire to go ahead.
Meanwhile the residents of Muddy River had gone to wor- ship with the First Religious Society in Roxbury. When Rox- bury erected a new meeting-house in 1674 people of Muddy River contributed £104 5s. and were allotted a fifth of the seats. At the same time, Lieutenant Thomas Gardner, Ser- geant Benjamin White, and John Winchester were formally invited to help 'seat the meeting house.'
Church and government were closely interlocked in Massa- chusetts in those days; the parish and the town were identical in their limits; erection of the meeting-house was a public con- cern, as was also the selection of a minister, chosen by the church but approved and paid by the town. Thus a levy of £115, voted on March 1, 1714, was the first move to raise funds for the meeting-house. That this probably involved drastic economies appears from the vote of May 14 to petition the General Court to excuse the inhabitants from sending a representative that year 'upon the Acc't of their Building a Meeting House and the Great charges thereof for such a Poor Little Town.' The same device was employed in many subse- quent years.
At March meeting in 1715 another hundred pounds were voted toward finishing the meeting-house, and in May a com- mittee was appointed to supervise that work, with very specific instructions as to how it should be done. Another committee was directed to get a deed for the land from Caleb Gardner, the construction apparently having been started without the preliminary of that formality. Gardner's 'gift' seems to have been qualified, for the price is now stated to be £15 18s.
William Henry Lyon, who came as minister in 1896, has described the structure thus:
HOUSE OF EROSAMON DREW, 1693-1873 Drew owned the saw mill on Palmer's Brook where it crossed Newton Street near the Newton line
67
PROBLEMS OF TOWN GOVERNMENT
It was a modest affair - forty-four by thirty-five feet, with fourteen pews and several long benches on the floor and more benches for the children in the galleries, which extended around three sides. In the middle of the fourth side stood the pulpit, with an hour-glass upon it and a huge sounding- board over it. There was a door opposite the pulpit, in the side toward the road, and one in each end. When the steeple was added in 1771 it stood on the upper end. An interesting question arises when we find that there were only 66 seats in the meeting-house, while in 1700 there were 360 inhabitants in the town. Allowing liberally for children, sick and aged, there seems to have been a larger proportion of non-attending population than today [1898].
-
The spirit of economy raised its long head in the town meet- ing of October 31, 1715, 'a Demurr being raised among the inhabitants ... Concerning the cost and manner of the Dinner that was Provided att the Raising of the meeting House,' but both were formally approved. In November completion of the building was urged, and on March 12, 1716, a committee was chosen to decide which inhabitants should be entitled to buy spaces for the erection of their own pews. These were to be owned outright, but if an owner moved from the town, or was unable to pay his taxes, the pew was to revert to the town to be sold again, the original owner receiving back his pay- ment for the 'pew spot' and the cost of building the pew. All who were allotted spaces by the committee accepted them at the prices fixed, except Joseph White and Lieutenant Thomas Gardner, who either felt themselves discriminated against as to location, or thought the committee's price too high. Gard- ner was later reported satisfied.
THE FIRST MINISTER
Perhaps because their religious affiliations had been prin- cipally with Roxbury, it was natural for the First Parish in Brookline to ask the Reverend Nehemiah Walter of Roxbury to preach the first sermon in their new meeting-house, and to choose James Allen, also of Roxbury, for their first settled min- ister. A town meeting of December 10, 1716, voted to give Mr. Allen one hundred pounds 'gratuity for settlement' -
68
HISTORY OF BROOKLINE
probably a kind of bonus to cover the cost of moving over to Brookline - and an annual salary of eighty pounds. The following February this was confirmed, and a committee was sent over to see how the proposal appealed to Mr. Allen. He said he would come, but thought the town ought to supply his firewood. Ten cords a year being promised, a satisfactory agreement was finally reached.
James Allen was ordained November 5, 1718, and served nearly thirty years, until his death in 1747. His salary was not large, even for those times, and year after year the town voted him extra contributions to make up his domestic deficits. It was probably a gesture of generosity that, in June of 1718, gave him 'all the Strangers money delivered into ye contribution Box both for ye time past & to come.' This was too good to be true, and less than two years later the inhabitants thought that anything outsiders contributed to the church could be put to better use. Accordingly they 'Voted yt ye Strangers & over- plus money yt is brought in by way of contribution shall be brought to ye Town Treasurer for ye Towns use.'
One suspects that it was a town clerk to whom the thought of the minister suggested psalms or the psaltery, who recorded the vote of 1732 'To Give the Reverand Mr. James Allin forty pounds over and above his Stated psallery for the present year.' It was a vote many times repeated. In 1739 it was forty pounds 'and four contributions ... ' In 1743 it was fifty pounds and four contributions; in 1744, sixty pounds; in 1746, 'Eighty pounds old Tenuer.' There is continuous evidence of an in- tention to care adequately for the minister, and protect him from the burden of increased living costs or other special ex- pense. Thus, in 1741 it was 'Voted it be the minds of the Town to pay the Town Rates in manufactury money Exclusive of Mr. Allins Money.'
Finally, on March 2, 1747, it was 'Voted that the Town will Raise Sixty Pounds towards Defreying the Charge of the Funierall of the Reverend Mr. Allin Deceased.' Later that month one hundred and fifty pounds were appropriated 'for to Procure Preaching,' and in October two hundred pounds more. At the same time Samuel White, Major White, Cap- tain Sharp, Isaac Gardner, and Thomas Aspinwall were made a committee to obtain ministers until the following March.
69
PROBLEMS OF TOWN GOVERNMENT
PRESTIGE IN WORSHIP
Before continuing with the account of how the pulpit was again filled, it may be appropriate to consider something of the formalities of the use of the meeting-house. Locations for the pews, as has been explained, were sold outright. To be entitled to buy one was regarded a privilege, accorded only to those of recognized standing in the community.
Sometimes a committee allotted the 'pew spots' at fixed prices, subject to acceptance by those to whom they were offered. Sometimes the spaces were sold at auction to the highest bidder. From time to time, as the demand for pews became increasingly pressing, encroachments were permitted upon the 'body seats,' and eventually the stairways to the men's and women's galleries were moved so that more pews could be built.
In April of 1785 it was 'Voted to sell the whole of the Bodie Seats in the Meeting house for pew Spots, and that Sd Seats be Sold at Vendue to the highest Bidder, on next May Meet- ing Day,' but the matter was apparently neglected, for nothing seems to have been done about it, and on April 1, 1793, eight years later, it was voted 'not to sell the whole of the Body seats in the Meeting House to Build Pews on.' Provision was made for the sale of half of the seats as pew spaces, to the highest bidders, the money to be applied to the erection of a school house in the middle of the town. Therein is evidence of the intimate relationship between church and town, their separate treasuries being, as it were, but two pockets in the same pair of trousers.
Reconsideration of the plan to have only pews in the meeting- house must have been the result of some objection from those who would, by such a program, have been virtually excluded from the meeting. Except that the list of names would provide very dull reading, there might be reproduced here the descrip- tion of the seating of the meeting-house on March 9, 1719.1 Perhaps it is enough to explain that every member of the parish was assigned a specific seat, the men according to their dignity and standing in the community, and the women according to
I To be found in The First Parish in Brookline: An Historical Sketch [by William H. Lyon]; Brookline, Riverdale Press, 1898; pp. 9-10.
70
HISTORY OF BROOKLINE
their husbands. Those who did not occupy family pews were divided according to sex, the women's 'body seats' being on one side of the central aisle, and the men's on the other. There were men's and women's galleries, too, for those whose rank did not deserve space on the floor.
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.