USA > Massachusetts > Worcester County > Lancaster > History of the town of Lancaster, Massachusetts : from the first settlement to the present time, 1643-1879 > Part 5
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
Another extract from the Records is necessary to explain a section of the preceding covenant. All subsequent divi- sions of land, whether upland, intervale, meadow or swamp, were to be " according to men's estates," on the valuation of the taxable property, which they brought into the settlement. Here follows a table containing "the several estates of the planters who by covenant, and according to the
53
ESTATES OF THE PLANTERS.
rules thereof, have engaged that it may thereby be known what shall be their proportion of land, which, by covenant, every planter may make claim unto in a second, third or other divisions of land, and also of meadow, within the town of Lancaster." Date, 1654.
£
s. d.
John Prescott
£366 15
0
Brought up
£2,287 13 0
William Kerley
270
.
Richard Smith
313 13 10
Edward Brick .
202 11
John Lewis ..
18 10
..
Ralph Houghton
264
4
Stephen Gates
314
..
.
Thomas James
36
John Whitcomb
241
. .
John Johnson
30
John Whitcomb, jr
29
. .
.
John Smith
38
. .
Nathaniel Joslyn
155
. .
.
James Atherton
69
5
Lawrence Waters
277
. .
Thomas Sawyer
110
Jacob Farrah
107|10
Robert Brick.
10
.
John White.
380
6
2
William Kerley, jr.
186
Henry Kerley
78
4
John Rugg.
83 10
. .
Richard Linton
90 ..
John Moore.
110
·
Philip Knight.
100
. .
William Lewis
285
9
..
. .
.
John Farrah
10
..
£4,701|17
0
£2,287|13| 0
The estates of several entered since 1655 :-
Roger Sumner, his estate
232
.
..
Jonas Fairbank, 66
172
..
..
Jacob Farrah, added when his wife came.
168
7 10
£5,274
4
0
..
Thomas Joslyn.
210
. .
Edmund Parker
98
.
·
From this list we learn that John White had the largest property, a fraction over £380; but the Kerley family, including father and sons, had a much larger valuation, equal to £534.
Before concluding this chapter three or four points re- quire a brief explanation.
It has been a question why the name of Lancaster was given to the town. It is matter of record, that the settlers at one time requested the general court to call the town by
John Roper.
100
54
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
the name of Prescott, in honor of the most persevering planter. This request was not granted. It is too late to divine with certainty the reasons which governed the court in this refusal. But it may be suggested that Prescott was not a man of sufficient prominence in the colony to have such an honorable recognition as is implied in giving his name to a town. Moreover, the course of Prescott in sym- pathizing with Child would be enough to deter the court from doing anything which would give him special dis- tinction. It is presumed that Prescott became satisfied with the policy of the colony, as he readily agreed to the con- ditions of the settlement, and was one of the most worthy fathers of the town, though he did not become a freeman, (in consequence of his uniting with the church, ) until 1669. The probability is that the name was given in accordance with the desire of those settlers who had ancestral connec- tions with Lancashire, in England, as was the case with the Houghtons, Atherton and Prescott.
It will be observed that the town was not laid out in the manner, nor with the dimensions prescribed by the general court. By the grant, as well as by the purchase, the town was to be ten by eight miles square and to contain eighty square miles. It was reduced when the survey was made in 1659, by shortening the southern line to six and a half miles, leaving sixty-five square miles.
Again, the starting point in fixing the boundaries, was to be at the " wading place" in Nashua river. There were three wading places according to records and tradition. One was on the North river, about twenty rods up the stream from the Sprague bridge. A second was near the Carter mills in South Lancaster. The third was on the Penacook, as the main river was called, a little east of the house of Charles L. Wilder. By the act of the general court in 1653, the bounds were to be " according to a deed of the Indian sagamore, viz., Nashua river at the passing over to be the center, five miles north, five miles south, five miles
55
OATH OF LOYALTY.
east, three miles west." Starting from the northeast corner of the town, as it now is bounded, the distance is very nearly five miles to the wading place on the Penacook, and six miles to the place of "passing over" at Carter's mills. According to this, the center would be at the crossing on the Penacook. Besides, the lines were to run north and south, and east and west.
The actual starting point A, of Noyes, when he came to survey, was three miles from the Carter mills, in a direction northwest one degree west, as given in the first chapter. Five miles north from that point would carry the northern boundary of the town about as far northward as five miles from the wading place near Mr. Wilder's house. Why Noyes reduced the size of the town and canted it around so many degrees from a north and south line is not known. It is probable that other grants or claims conflicted with the original plan, and the court had reserved the right to arrange the matter as circumstances might require.
With regard to the oath of loyalty required of the planters, when forming a town, a few words only are needed. Those writers who sneer at the narrowness and folly of the colony are guilty of the grossest misrepresentation. The colony was resorted to by all sorts of adventurers from the old country, who came hither with the wildest notions in regard to government, and who wanted to try their experiments within the bounds of the Massachusetts and Plymouth set- tlements. If such men, however worthy in other respects, had been allowed to form plantations in the rear of those on the sea-board, the inevitable result would have been antago- nism and trouble. The new towns would have formed con- nections with the Indian tribes, and war would have ended the enterprise of settling New England. Besides, our fathers were jealously watched in England and were obliged to build circumspectly, both in the times of the Stuarts and of the Commonwealth. It was necessary to their very existence that they should be homogeneous and harmonious,
56
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
so far as possible. Hence every new town was formed on the model of those already settled. And to this fact much of the prosperity and strength of the colony was due. At the same time, on the continent there was a boundless field where people of every conceivable peculiarity might try their own experiments in government and society without molestation from the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay.
The same may be said, in general, regarding the alleged religious exclusiveness and bigotry of our forefathers. Why did they exclude excommunicants and profane persons from their new communities ? And why did they have a religious qualification for suffrage? In regard to men of loose morals and manners, and to those whose misconduct compelled the churches to cut them off, it may be said that they were poor materials out of which to form a town on the frontiers, or in the interior. Such persons might be controlled in the older settlements, by the combined influence and power of a toler- ably stable government, while in the forming of a planta- tion, they might become the leading element. Quicksand thrown sparingly upon good soil might work no harm, while if used in a foundation, would involve certain ruin.
In the early days of the colony it was necessary to restrict suffrage. As a matter of fact it is restricted in many of the states of the Union to the present day. What is tolerated now was indispensable then ; and it will be found, on examina- tion, that our fathers met the needs of the time with admi- rable sagacity. Qualifications for sharing political power, are different in different countries. And let it be remembered that the early settlers did not put in hazard the civil rights of any one who obeyed the laws. The qualifications for suf- frage and power are birth, property, education or religion ; that is character. And with our fathers, in their situation, character was everything. Men of birth, property and edu- tion, but of loose character, and without sympathy with the religious views of the planters, would have been the dead li- est foes of the great enterprise. Such men did cause much
57
RESTRICTED SUFFRAGE.
trouble and mischief while the fathers of the colony were laying the foundations. To admit such men to a share of power; to take them into the interior of the frame of gov- ernment, would have introduced discord and internecine strife. The way of safety was found in the restricted suf- frage. No man would be apt to join the church unless he sympathized with the colonists as to church and state. And with suitable allowance for hypocrites, men would not volun- tarily unite in church fellowship unless they were men of good character. Thus the ruling force in the colony was made homogeneous, and thus the government was united, strong and stable. At the same time, every man had it in his own option to become a freeman. It was simply by becoming a Christian ; and the direct and steady effort of the colony was to bring in, and bring up a generation of religious people. The men who enacted the religious clause in our early legislation, did not wish to exclude any from the exer- cise and enjoyment of power ; but on the other hand, endeav- ored to qualify all men living on the soil, to share with them, not only all the rights and immunities, but all the powers of government.
And it may be truly said in conclusion, that when, in the course of time, the need of a religious qualification was removed by the gradual consolidation of government, and by the more favorable aspect of the old country towards the colony, the restrictions were repealed. But let us not in our day of stable quiet, rashly question the wisdom and magnanimity of the men, who in the midst of unparalleled toils and dangers, laid the broad basis of the best govern- mental, educational, social and religious institutions ever enjoyed by the children of men.
CHAPTER III.
THE FIRST SETTLERS. . THE FIRST ROADS. THE LOCATION
OF THE FIRST SETTLERS. THEIR FIRST ACTS AS A TOWN.
IT will be in place to present a few notices of the early settlers so far as items of interest may be gathered. From the pages of Willard, and especially the " Genealogical Dic- tionary " of Savage, the following facts have been culled.
Edward Breck entered, in connection with his name on the covenant, these words : "I subscribe to this for myself, and for my son Robert, save that it is agreed we are not bound to come up to inhabit within a year's time, in our own persons." In fact, Robert never became a resident, and Edward, the father, was here but a short time. He was from Ashton, Devonshire, probably, [see Savage] and came to Dorchester in 1636. He returned to Dorchester from Lancaster and died in November, 1662. The family owned property here, it is believed, down to a recent date. Joseph Breck, the late well-known seedsman of Boston, lived here, and had a fine garden extending from the house of Mr. Symmes across the railroad, and onwards between the road and the North river.
James Atherton was, perhaps, a brother of Major-general Humphrey Atherton, of Dorchester. If so, he came from Preston, in Lancashire. He became a resident in 1653, but returned to Dorchester. His sons James and Joshua, were born in this town. The latter was a resident, and had descendants here within the memory of those now living.
58
59
NAMES OF THE FATHERS.
Gamaliel Beaman came over in 1635, when twelve years of age, to Dorchester. Removed to Lancaster in 1659, with several children, and had several after his removal. His son John left town, but returned, and died in the west precinct, now Sterling, in 1740.
William Billings soon left the place.
Samuel Dean did not remain.
James Draper was from Roxbury, and returned thither.
Richard Dwelley was a transient resident. He served with credit in king Philip's war.
Jonas Fairbank, son of Jonathan, came from Sowerby, Yorkshire. He married Lydia, daughter of John Prescott. Seven children were born to him. He was killed by the Indians, with his son, Joshua, in 1676.
Jacob Farrar was killed, in August, 1675, by the Indians. His son Jacob was probably born in England. He left children here. Some of his descendants through his son George, became distinguished.
John Farrar, brother of the first Jacob, canie here, per- haps, from Woburn. He died in 1690.
Daniel Gaines was killed in the great massacre, or reserved for torture. There is no record of posterity here.
Stephen Gates came from England in 1638 to Hingham. Here he was a freeman in 1656, and a constable in 1657. He went to Cambridge, and died in 1662.
John Houghton came from England when a little boy, about four years old. His last will was presented in 1684. His wife was Beatrix. His sons were Benjamin, Robert, Jonas and John Harris. Mrs. Beatrix Pope was hiis daughter, and there were others.
Ralph Houghton was cousin to John, and probably older. He left three sons, John, James, Joseph, and perhaps others ; and four daughters. He, with his cousin and their families, went to Woburn at the massacre, but returned. He was town clerk as early as 1656, and for many years after. In 1668 he became a freeman, and was representative in 1673 and perhaps in 1689.
60
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
Thomas James has this notice in Savage, " Died shortly after 13 March, 1660, the date of his will, in which, to his wife, who, if living, was then in England, and cousins, named Isaac, Lydia, Mary, Hannah and Christopher Lewis, he gave all his estate, and made John Lewis, perhaps their father, his executor. Yet they may have no relation to our country and he have been only transient."
John Johnson may be the same as John of Marlboro, who died in 1713. If so, he came here from Sudbury.
Thomas Joslin came from London in the Increase, 1635. He died in 1661, seven years after coming to Lancaster. His widow married William Kerley in 1664.
Nathaniel Joslin, his son, was a freeman in 1673. His brother Abraham was also here. After the massacre he moved to Marlboro, where he died, 1694. He had two sons, Nathaniel of Marlboro, and Peter of Lancaster. The latter had a " wife and three children killed by the Indians, July 18, 1692, when they took away another child, Elizabeth Howe, the sister of his wife and other prisoners, but killed the child in the woods." He was a tough old veteran ; was a captain, outlived his fourth wife, and died in Leominster at a great age, in 1759.
William Kerley, or Carley, sen., after the death of his wife in March, 1658, married Bridget Rowlandson, widow of Joseph, and mother of the minister, in May, 1659. She died in 1662. It is supposed that he married Rebecca, widow of Thomas Joslin in 1664. His death occurred in 1670.
William Kerley, jr., supposed son of the former, was in Sudbury in 1672, and in Cambridge in 1683. Probably he removed before the massacre.
Henry Kerley, son of the first William, was born about 1632, and was brought by his father to Hingham. He mar- ried November 2, 1654, Elizabeth, daughter of John White and sister of Mrs. Rowlandson. He became a freeman in 1668. His wife and two children, William and Joseph, were
61
NAMES OF THE FATHERS.
killed by the Indians at the burning of the minister's garri- son, in the spring of 1676. He went to Marlborough, where he spent his days, having married again. The family disap- peared from this town, except old "widow Kerley," or " Caley," mentioned subsequently in the Records.
William Lewis was probably from Cambridge. He died in 1671, and left no children in the place, unless John, which is uncertain.
Richard Linton was here in 1643-4, and became a per- manent settler among the very first. He was probably, says Savage, of Gov. Craddock's plantation at Medford in 1630, and at Watertown in 1638. He died March 30, 1665. His wife was Ann, daughter of Lawrence Waters, his brother pioneer. George Bennet, who was killed by the Indians in August, 1675, was his grandson.
John Mansfield, son of John and grandson of Sir John, had five hundred acres given by his aunt Ann Keayne.
John Moore, sen., of 1653, was a freeman in 1669, and representative in 1689 and 1690. He married Anna, daughter of John Smith, and among other children had a son born April, 1662, named
John Moore, jr., called junior representative in 1689.
Mordecai MacLoad, or McLoad, or McLoud, or Macloud, was killed by the Indians, August, 1675. His wife and two children shared his fate. Probably the whole family was cut off, as we do not again meet with his name.
Anthony Newton was freeman in 1671. Probably he left at the time of the massacre in 1676. One of that name was in Dorchester in 1678, when Lancaster was uninhabited. Willard supposes him to be the same man.
Edmund, or Edmon Parker, was from Roxbury, whither he carried children to be baptised in June, 1656, before Mr. Rowlandson was ordained. We can easily imagine him going with his family on a pleasant visit to his old home and church.
John Pierce, of Watertown, freeman in 1638, and a man
62
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
of "very good estate." He died on the nineteenth of August, 1661, leaving several children; but they are not found in the succeeding history of the town.
John Prescott, a blacksmith, came from Sowerby, in the parish of Halifax, west riding of Yorkshire, where he had married Mary Platts, a " Yorkshire girl." But he was born in Lancashire, as were Atherton and several others who set- tled here. He came here to stay in 1645 or 6, with the purpose of building up a town. Many children were born to him before and after he came hither. John, a black- smith also, Jonathan and Jonas were sons. His daughter- Mary married Thomas Sawyer; Sarah married Richard Wheeler ; Martha married John Rugg; and Lydia married Jonas Fairbank. He took the oath of allegiance in 1652, and was admitted freeman in 1669. His family escaped from the massacre, and he returned in 1682, when the num- ber of families was only one-third as large as seven years before.
Edward and John Rigby seem to have left no trace, unless the "Rigby road," so called, from Deers Horns district to Clinton, is named for them.
Jeremiah Rogers, of Dorchester, married Mehitable, daughter of John Pierce ; not the John Pierce mentioned above.
John Roper, who was in Charlestown, 1647-58, is thought to be the man of that name who came here in 1656, and was killed by the Indians in 1676. Perhaps it was his son Ephraim who was the only man who escaped from the minister's garrison.
John Rugg, freeman in 1669, married Martha, daughter of John Prescott, and had two children who died quite young. She died in 1665. His second wife had eight children. He died in 1696, and next year his widow was killed by the Indians. His son John had eight children. Another son, Joseph, with his wife and three children were killed in 1697 by the Indians, at the same time that his. mother was murdered.
63
NAMES OF THE FATHERS.
Thomas Sawyer, one of the first six settlers, became a freeman in 1654. He married Mary, daughter of Prescott, and lived next south. His children and descendants were numerous. His son, Ephraim, was killed by the Indians in 1676 at Prescott's garrison, now in Clinton.
The Smiths, John and Richard, cannot be traced and indi- vidualised.
Roger Sumner, of Dorchester, was son of William, and born in England. He became freeman in 1657 and came to Lancaster two years later. He married a daughter of Thomas Joslyn. One record of him fixes the date of the origin of the church in this town, formerly a disputed point. The record reads, "1660, Aug. 26, Roger Sumner was dis- missed, that with other Christians at Lancaster, a church might be begun there." At the destruction of the town he removed to Milton, and became a deacon there, where he died May 26, 1698, aged 66.
Richard Sutton of Charlestown, and probably of Roxbury, is supposed to have been one of the proprietors of Lancaster.
John Tinker of Windsor, Conn., removed to Boston, where his daughter Sarah was born in 1652. He was made freeman in 1654. He was a great acquisition to this town, and was clerk and selectman. According to Willard, his " chirography was very neat." He left the place in 1659, and settled at Pequid, or New London, where he was held in great esteem.
John Towers of Hingham, came from Hingham in Norfolk county, England, in 1637, and was a freeman two years later. His wife was Margaret Ibrook, and he had several children. Probably the family did not remain here, if they ever came.
Benjamin Twitchell came from Dorchester, and probably went to Medfield, where he was in 1663, with a wife and several children.
Henry Ward of Hingham.
Lawrence Waters has been already mentioned.
64
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
John White of Salem, 1638, had grant of land next year ; joined the church in 1643. He, with his son, was one of the first planters of Lancaster. He had children : Josiah, his executor, Thomas, besides daughters Joan, Elizabeth, Mary and Sarah, who were married, and Hannah who lived with him until after his decease and then married ensign Divoll. There is an entry in the Records of the town in March, 1658, which it is not easy to understand, but seems to indicate that he was a man who stood up for his rights. The record reads as follows : all the orders of the selectmen passed, except that of goodman White, which was rejected " because he feared not to speak in his own cause."
John Whitcomb, senior, of Dorchester, 1635, removed to Scituate and became a freeman in Plymouth colony, June, 1652. He had five sons and daughters. His death occurred here in 1662, September 24.
John, jr., his eldest son, was born in England. He died about 1683. His descendants have been numerous and re- spectable.
James Whiting, or Witton left no record here.
Thomas Wilder, or Wyellder, of Charlestown, 1639, joined the church on the thirtieth of March, 1640, and was admitted freeman, June 2, 1641. Besides daughters he had four sons, Thomas, John, Nathaniel and Ebenezer.
Matthew Knight owned quite a tract between the house of Charles L. Wilder and the center bridge, on the north- west side of Nashua river, which went by the name of " Knight's pasture," besides a lot in South Lancaster, and perhaps in other parts of the town; but it is not easy to locate him. His descendant, William Knight, now resides at Ponakin.
Stephen Day was the noted printer of Cambridge. He never lived here, but had a connection with the town which will be noted in the proper place.
Rev. Mr. Rowlandson was a proprietor by the conditions of the grant to legalise a township. He became owner of
65
INDIAN TRAILS.
forty acres, either west of Knight's pasture, or including it. But his house and house lot was the garrison and its surroundings.
Before specifying the location of those proprietors who became residents, it is necessary to ascertain the position of the lines of road used in the early days of the settlement. Roads are not only the skeleton framework of a town or a state ; but they also serve as the circulating system to the human body. The homes of the people are posited on the roads, and all the busy life of the place flows through them. Where then did the first roads begin, and whither did they lead ?
There can be no doubt that there were Indian trails from the seacoast to the interior before the English came. And after their coming, the natives were accustomed to travel to the lower towns, not only to reach the seaside, (being fond of sea food,) but also for the purpose of traffic. The Eng- lish would naturally follow these trails when hunting, or vis- iting the Indians at their settlements. It is probable that Thomas King, or the men whom he sent up to the Nashua country, came through Sudbury and the upper part of Marl- borough, to Lancaster, and that they crossed the Nashua river near the Carter mills in South Lancaster. This was almost in a direct line from Sudbury to George hill, on the south- east side of which was the first "trucking house," at a spot afterwards known as the " Indian camp pasture," marked A on the Sectional Map. In the year 1653 the general court directed "that Sudbury and Lancaster lay out highways be- twixt town and town, according to the direction of the court, for the countries use, and then make them as need shall be." This was doubtless the principal route to Boston for several years. Probably there was a trail from Washacum lake, the seat of Sholan, to the Indian camp, on George hill, and also to the " place of passing over," at Carter's mills.
The next step was to open a road to Concord, the nearest town directly east. This was in the spring of 1656. But
5
66
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
as the trucking business had now been sold by King and Symonds to Prescott, and the place of trade had been moved from the Indian camp to South Lancaster, there was without doubt a traveled way between these two points. This way can even now be traced by marks which leave no doubt in the mind of those who have examined them. The road came down the hill from the Indian camp to the house of Jonas Goss, and thence to Prescott's corner. Traces of this old road still exist. Again, starting from the Indian camp, and going nearly north, on the eastern slope of George hill, through a field which has been cultivated, the observer will come to what seems to have been an orchard, in which are a few straggling old apple trees. This is directly west from the young orchard and grapery of Mr. Goss. In the vicinity of these old trees is a very ancient cellar-hole: Going still farther north, into the next lot, and about forty rods west of the house of E. Warren Smith, a well will be found, nearly filled with stones. Proceeding towards the brook which comes down the hillside, another old well is found. Here the road must have been deflected towards the east, and then sloping along towards the northeast to a spot marked K on the map. Here is a cellar-hole, and till recently there were two. These are just west of the ledge which over- . looks the meadow of Mr. Howard. This was probably the site of the garrison house of Lieut. Nathaniel Wilder, though it may be that his house was towards the southwest, where the old wells are located. The road can be traced no farther, though, from the "lay of the land," it must have proceeded northerly, and come out not far west of the house formerly occupied by L. W. Spalding, and now by Cyrus D. Howe. This old road is marked by a double line. It was extended, in process of time, as far as the present poorhouse, skirting the hillside all the way.
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.