USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Marlborough > History of the town of Marlborough, Middlesex county, Massachusetts, from its first settlement in 1657 to 1861; with a brief sketch of the town of Northborough, a genealogy of the families in Marlborough to 1800 > Part 9
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
But as humble and devoted as these petitioners professed to be, the Court did not see fit to grant their request.
In May, 1684, John Ruddocke and thirty-four others of Marl- borough, petitioned the General Court for authority to purchase the Indian plantation, and some ten of the Indians joined in the request. But Capt. Tom, Witt Wahaughton, and twenty-five other Indians, memorialize the Court, and allege that they are and always have been friends of the English; and that the plantation at Marlborough was granted with an express provis- ion, that it was not to be sold without the consent of the Court ; but that Thomas Waban and Great James do appropriate to themselves the land at Marlborough, and sell it, and that with- out order, and keep all the pay to themselves; they therefore ask that the General Court " would be pleased to take so much matter of the business for us, as to appoint a committee to in- quire into the business, that justice may be done to the Indians in this case ; for many Indians are very much distressed about it,-we having showed ourselves under the wing of your Hon- ors, do rest, hoping for a gracious answer."
This appeal to the Court was duly considered ; and in this case, as in every other in which the Indians were a party, the Colony adhered to its plighted faith, and protected the Indians in their rights. The General Court did not grant the prayer of John Ruddocke and others, and authorize the sale of the plant-
13
94
ation. But it appears that the principal inhabitants of Marlbo- rough, headed by John Brigham, resolved to possess the Indian lands ; and to cut the knot which they could not untie, on the 15th of July, 1684, they obtained, without the consent of the Court, a deed of the plantation from the Indians. This fact being brought to the knowledge of the General Court, they passed the following order on the subject.
" This Court doth order and declare, that the Indian deed of sale to the inhabitants of Marlborough, of five thousand eight hundred acres of land lying at Whipsufferadge, near Marlbo- rough, granted to the Indians by this Court for a township or plantation, which deed bears date July 15, 1684, is illegal, and consequently null and void ; being made and done expressly con- trary to the law and order of this Court."
But notwithstanding this explicit declaration of the Court, that the deed was void, and consequently the title invalid, the purchasers proceeded at once to take possession of the planta- tion, and to lay out and divide the lands.
" The 29th of October, 1686 : At a meeting of the proprietors of Ockoocangansett Plantation, it was ordered that every propri- etor should have laid out to him in some of the best of the land lying as conveniently as may be to the town of Marlborough, thirty acres for a first division of upland, and Mr. John Brigham is agreed withall, to lay out the abovesaid lands, and to have five shillings a day, the one half in money, the other half in corn, rye at four shillings per bushel, and Indian at three shil- lings per bushel, and to have his diet all the while he is about the work. Also at the same meeting it was agreed that John Maynard, Sen., and Richard Barnes, should join with John Brigham, to order the laying out of the land, and order high- ways according to their best discretion, and they to have two shillings a day for their pains, in corn at country prices. Also, at the same meeting, it was agreed that when the lots were laid out, every proprietor should draw his lot."
At a meeting of the proprietors, in December of the same year, probably to avoid any collision with the General Court, it was voted that Maj. Hincksman and others who had a claim against the Colony, "should have the thousand acres of land which was surveyed by John Brigham, and signified by the plats under his hand, should be recorded in the Company's
95
Book of Records, so that it make a final settlement of all dif- ference about the said land, as to any further claimes."
As the proprietors of the Indian plantation were in a great measure identical with the inhabitants of the town, and as the history of the plantation from this time forward is, in part, the history of the town, we will give a list of them, which shows who were the principal inhabitants in 1686, when the Ockoo- cangansett Plantation was practically swallowed up in Marl- borough.
John Ruddocke,
Nathaniel Johnson,
Nathaniel Rice, John Maynard,
Jonathan Johnson,
John Barrett, Sen.,
Nathaniel Joslin, Sen.,
John Rediat,
Moses Parker,
Nathaniel Joslin, Jr.,
Daniel Howe,
James Woods,
Thomas Barnes,
John Fay,
Joseph Newton,
Samuel Goodnow,
John Bowker,
Samuel Ward, William Eager,
John Barnes, -
Jerathmell Bowers,
John Johnson,
Isaac Newton,
Edward Rice,
Isaac Amsden,
Richard Barnes,
James Taylor,
Solomon Johnson,
Eleazer Howe,
Thomas Brigham,
Thomas Wheeler,
Thomas Rutter,
John Jones,
Samuel Stow, James Sawyer,
Moses Newton,
John Gove,
Josiah Howe,
Thomas Martin,
Joshua Rice,
Joseph Bulkley,
Joseph Rice,
William Ward,
John Brigham,
Samuel Brigham,
James Ward,
William Taylor.
Thomas Hincksman,
Abraham Howe,
Thomas Howe, 7
John Bigelow,
Mercy Hunt,
Feeling uneasy about the title to their lands, the proprietors, under their own hand in 1693, agreed that their grants of land "shall stand good to all intents and purposes, if they be attested by John Brigham their Clerk." But knowing that their own act could not supply the legal defect in their original purchase, at a meeting of the proprietors, held February 5, 1703, 'it was voted that they would try to come into a way for the confirmation of their land ;' and James Sawyer, Thomas Howe, and Nathaniel Gove were chosen a committee, "for to atain a confirmation." Despairing of any confirmation from the Court whose authority they had disregarded, at a meeting held in February, 1709, they 'voted that they would make articles to bind themselves in a covenant, whereby what we do may stand in force.' Subsequently, the proprietors signed a cove-
96
nant, that they would pay each his several proportion, to defray all charges growing out of their lands.
They appear to have been conscious that their title was invalid; and hence they were willing to make common cause against any one who should attempt to dispossess them. The Legislature having declared the original purchase illegal, were not disposed to retrace their steps, and give legality to a viola- tion of their order. But in 1719, another attempt was made to obtain a confirmation of the purchase, and the Court finally annexed the territory to the town of Marlborough, and at the same time confirmed the title to their lands.
There can be no doubt that the Indians might have dispos- sessed the proprietors of their lands, if they had brought a suit in the Courts, or had prosecuted their claim before the Legisla- ture. But that portion of the tribe which had consented to the sale, could have no motive to do it ; and the general dispersion of the tribe, and the consciousness that some of their num- bers, at least, had been unfaithful during Philip's war, would naturally deter them from taking any step, which would pro- voke inquiry into their conduct. The General Court, too, knowing that the Indian plantation ought, from its position, to belong to Marlborough, would not be likely, of their own motion, to take any step to dispossess the proprietors. They had pronounced the purchase a nullity, and they refused to confirm it ; and so left the question to be agitated by those who had a direct interest in it. No suit having arisen, and no one interrupting their possession, they gained a title by pre- scription, and the Court then confirmed it.
A question here arises as to the justice of the course pursued by the people in relation to this territory. So far as their course related to the public, it was wrong. They violated public policy. The General Court, by providing that their assent should be obtained to give validity to a purchase, intend- ed to guard the Indians against imposition ; and by purchasing the plantation in contravention of that wise and wholesome order of the Court, they subjected themselves to the suspicion of having defrauded the Indians, whether they did or not. A copy of this deed has not been found; nor has it been ascer- tained what sum was paid for the plantation. It is presumed, however, that the price was not at all extravagant, but that the
97
poor Indians were, to some extent at least, defrauded in the bargain.
But the people of Marlborough have at least this apology ; they acted in accordance with the spirit of the age. The thirst for land incident to all new settlements, took pretty strong hold of the people at that day. 'They probably were imbued with the superstitious belief that, like the Israelites of old, they were in a manner sent to drive out the heathen. The cvils of the late war, the barbarity of the Indians, and the great losses they had experienced, would naturally strengthen their faith in their inission to make this country a Canaan of rest, which they could best do by cultivating the soil, where the enemy so recently lurked in ambush. One of the characteristics of our worthy ancestors was, the love of expansion and desire for landed possessions. We see this exhibited not in Marlborough alone, but in every settlement. Petitions are presented to the General Court, setting forth their immediate wants or sufferings, their inability to support their families, and closing with a prayer for a grant of wild land, that could not in any degree administer to their present wants, however it might contribute to their future wealth. This desire for landed possessions became a kind of mania with the people generally, and almost the whole community were engaged in such speculations.
Outward circumstances contributed to fan this flame. The fear of having the Colonial charters revoked, induced all the Colonies to be liberal in the grants of their lands ; and the dis- putes which arose among the Colonies concerning the bound- ary of their respective dominions, made all parties inclined to grant lands freely, especially within the disputed territory. The paucity of the Indian tribes, which at the first establish- ment of the Colony, left a vast quantity of vacant territory, and the almost extinction of these tribes by the late destructive war, opened a still more extensive field for settlements. The people thought that, as they had driven out the heathen by suffering- by toil-by blood-they were justly entitled to some remunera- tion for the hardships they had endured, and the losses they had sustained ; and that a liberal inheritance of the soil, which they had thus redeemed from savage beasts and savage men, was no more than their just due. As in war it is lawful to
98
forage upon the enemy, and as "to the victors belong the spoils," they could easily reconcile themselves to the reception of a liberal tract of that land which God had designed for civil- ized man.
These feelings, however just they may be, when kept within proper bounds, and restricted to their absolute wants, were un- doubtedly carried to considerable extent, and may perhaps justify the remark that they tolerated at least the sentiment which is now almost openly proclaimed, that it is innocent to cheat the public. And though the first settlers of Marlborough may not have been faultless in the purchase of the Indian plantation, it hardly becomes those of us at the present day, who run wild in pursuit of California gold, or who embark in every vain scheme of speculation, to accuse them of selfish- ness. But while such considerations may disarm an accuser, they can hardly justify the policy, or sanctify the act itself.
After the close of the Narraganset, or Philip's war, Marl- borough enjoyed a season of peace. Industry revived; their habitations were rebuilt ; and a considerable acquisition was made to the settlement. The people turned their attention to their municipal affairs, to the improvement of those institutions on which the prosperity of every community must depend. We have already said that, in 1688, the people erected a new house of worship. This house, for that day, was large and commodious, as may be inferred from the fact that, with a few modifications, it met the wants of the people for more than a century. It appears, however, that at that early period there was some opposition to the location of the house. The love of expansion had already planted several families west of the Assabet, and near Chauncy pond ; and it was clearly foreseen that a considerable settlement would grow up in that part of the township. To satisfy these families, it was voted, " That if the westerly part of the town shall see cause afterwards to build another meeting-house, and find themselves able to do so, and to maintain a minister ; then the division to be made by a line at the cartway at Stirrip brook, where the Connecticut way now goeth, and to run a parallel line with the west line of the bounds of the town."
This act of the town showed a liberal spirit towards the dis-
99
tant settlers, and laid the foundation for the erection of a new town, which subsequently took place.
The early Records of Marlborough are exceedingly meagre. Save the division of lands and the laying out of highways, there is no record of their municipal proceedings for a long period. There must have been a record of their doings at the time, but it is unfortunately lost. From 1665 to 1739 there is no consecutive account, so that we have to depend upon a hint, here and there, found in the proprietors' records, or connected with the doings of the Company owning the Indian plantation. We learn from these that Benjamin Franklin, probably an unele of Dr. Franklin, was employed as a schoolmaster in Marlborough, from the first of November, 1696, to the last of March, 1697, at eight shillings per week ; "he engaging care- fully to teach all such youth as come, or are sent to him, to read English once a day, at least, and more, if need require ; also to learn to write and cast accounts." This school was kept at Isaac Wood's house, which was then unoccupied. Jan- mary 10, 1698-9, the town voted to build a school-honse. After this, Mr. Jonathan Johnson was employed as a schoolmaster several years in succession.
The inhabitants of Marlborough manifested, at an early day, their devotion to the cause of liberty. When the tyrant, An- dros, was resisted, and made prisoner by an indignant people, for his numerous acts of oppression, on the 18th of April, 1689, the Government of the Colony was superseded by an organiza- tion which took the title of " A Council for the Safety of the People and the Conservation of the Peace." This Council recommended to the towns to meet by delegates to provide for their own safety. Marlborough responded to the call, and Obadiah Ward, Sen., and John Brigham, were chosen dele- gates ; and when the Convention had duly considered the sub- jeet, they resolved "to resume the Government according to Charter rights ; " and the Governor and Magistrates chosen in 1686, were requested to carry on the affairs of the Colony.
Though the Indians who were confederated under Philip, submitted to the English after the death of their daring leader, the northern and western Indians, instigated by the French in Canada, made frequent incursions into the Colony, but did not
100
generally penetrate as far south and east as Marlborough. There were, however, a few isolated cases in which they stole into the town or neighborhood, and destroyed or carried into captivity a few individuals.
On the 18th of July, 1692, a party of Indians assaulted the house of Peter Joslin, in Lancaster, who was at labor in the field, and barbarously butchered his wife and three children, together with a widow lady living in his family. Elizabeth Howe, of Marlborough, daughter of John Howe, and a sister of Mrs. Joslin, was there on a visit at the time, just before the period fixed for her marriage. She, with one of Mrs. Joslin's children, was carried into captivity. The child was murdered in the wilderness, but she was retained three or four years, when she was redeemed by the Government. After she re- turned to her friends, she was married to Thomas Keyes, to whom she was engaged before her capture. Mr. Keyes, sup- posing she was irrecoverably lost to him, resolved never to marry ; but, on her return, wisely changed his mind. She was never able to overcome the shock of terror she experienced at the time she was made a prisoner, though she lived to the age of eighty-seven years.
We should be glad to open the century with a full view of the condition of the town at that time ; but the meagre state of the Records up to 1700 forbid any such detail. The ex- celleney of the soil, its adaptation to grass and to orchards, which were early planted, and produced an abundance of fruit ; and above all, the acquisition of the Indian plantation, would naturally bring settlers to the place. There had been an addi- tion of several families. The names of Stow, Morse, Weeks, Holloway, Sherman, Bigelow, Wheelock, Keyes, Forbush, Oakes, Hapgood, and others, had been added to the list of the inhabitants, and there must have been a considerable increase in the older families in the place. But the thirst for more land, and the fear of being " straitened " for the want of room, led many of the settlers to move farther west. In fact, Marlborough, for a long period, was a sort of way-station-a place for a tem- porary sojourn for the families which were bound to towns farther in the interior. The Howes, the Brighams, the Rices, the Wards, the Newtons, and several other families which were
101
numerous here, early commenced a tide of emigration ; and Shrewsbury, and Brookfield, and Rutland, and Worcester, and Grafton, drew largely from the population of this town.
In 1701, the church and town had the misfortune to lose their minister, the Rev. Mr. Brimsmead. Though he had be- come rather infirm, he had kept them together in peace. But on his decease, an unfortunate misunderstanding arose, which greatly disturbed the quiet of the town. In September of that year, Rev. John Emerson, a native of Ipswich, and a graduate from Harvard in 1689, was invited to become their minister. This gave rise to a warm and bitter controversy, in which there was too much evidence that the parties belonged to the church militant. In March, 1702, Mr. Emerson declined the invitation, which was renewed in April, and declined again in May. The advice of several distinguished divines was asked, and two ecclesiastical councils were convened, both of which advised Mr. Emerson to decline the invitation, in consequence of the divided state of opinion among the people. The papers connected with this controversy, such as letters of invitation, remonstrances, and the results of councils, have been pre- served, and among them are letters from Increase and Cotton Mather.
These papers, while they show a decided opposition to the settlement of Mr. Emerson, on the one hand, and a fixed deter- mination for his settlement, on the other, give us no distinct information relative to the grounds of opposition. The character or doctrines of the candidate are not questioned, nor any rea- sons alleged, of sufficient magnitude, to justify the excitement which prevailed among the people for more than a year. The feeling was probably somewhat personal and sectional, and may have been the germ of local considerations which subsequently disturbed the peace of the town. In those days, when the religious element was in active operation, whatever disturbed the people in that respect, extended to all the relations of life. They regarded the ecclesiastical as the fundamental principle of society ; and though they may have mistaken their own prejudices for the promptings of religious faith, they acted as though the impulse were from on high. Though we cannot justify their course, we are willing they should be judged in the spirit of the age in which they lived. Nothing but feelings
14
102
deep-seated, and resting somewhat on religious convictions, could have aroused the whole community, and brought the principal men * before the public in this determined manner.
After Mr. Emerson declined the invitation at Marlborough, he was settled in New Castle, N. H., in 1703, where he re- mained till 1712, when he took a dismission, and was after- wards settled in Portsmouth, N. H. He died there, 1732.
The unprofitable controversy in relation to the call of Mr. Emerson having been brought to a close, by his absolute refusal to settle among them, the people of Marlborough, before attempting to settle a minister, thought it expedient to take counsel of the churches. Accordingly, Rev. Joseph Estabrook, of Concord, Rev. Thomas Clarke, of Chelmsford, and Rev. Grindall Rawson, of Mendon, were called to advise in their
* Those who opposed the settlement of Mr. Emerson were William Kerly, Obadiah Ward, Samuel Stow, James Taylor, Jr., Joseph Morse, William Taylor, James Hosmer, John Howe, Josiah Howe, Thomas Howe, Supply Weeks, John Barnes, Sen., John Barnes, Jr., Nathaniel Johnson, Alexander Stewart, Joseph Wait, Daniel Newton, Zachary Eager, Isaac Bellows, Thomas Axtell, Eleazer Bellows, Daniel Johnson, Adam Holloway, James Keyes, John Barrett, Jr., Joseph Newton, Sen., David Newton, John Newton, Edward Newton, Thomas Newton, James Sawyer, Abiel Bush, Daniel Flagg, Zeehariah Newton, Joseph Johnson, Isaac Woods, John Newton, Sen., John Sherman, James Taylor, Samuel Johnson, John Wheeler, Samuel Bigelow, John Maynard, Sen., Thomas Bruce, John Woods, Jr., Samuel Wheelock, Isaac Howe, Samuel Morse, Moscs Newton, Thomas Witherbee, Thomas Hapgood, Thomas Keyes, Ebenezer Taylor, Jonathan Johnson, John Newton, Jr., John Johnson, Samuel Morse, David Church, Isaac Amsden, and John Bigelow.
Those who sustained Mr. Emerson were Abraham Williams, Richard Barnes, Sen., John Bowker, James Taylor, Sen., Thomas Rice, Eleazer Rice, Abraham Howe, Nathan Brigham, Richard Barnes, Jr., Peter Rice, Henry Barrett, Ben- jamin Riee, Daniel Howe, Jacob Rice, Samuel Goodnow, Jr., Eleazer Ward, Jonathan Brigham, John Brigham, Jr., William Ward, Sen., Simon Maynard, Gershom Fay, Edward Rice, Jr., Thomas Brigham, Gershom Bigelow, Thomas Forbush, David Brigham, Edmund Rice, Joseph Newton, Jr., John Mathis, Inerease Ward, Thomas Beaman, Joseph Newton, Peter Bent, Samuel Ward, Sen., Nathaniel Oakes, Joseph Ward, Joseph Stratton, John Barrett, Jr., Edward Barnes, John Maynard, Jr., Samuel Brigham, Nathaniel Joslin, David Maynard, Samuel Forbush, Joseph Witherbee, James Rice, and John Johnson, Sen.
These two lists must have comprised nearly all the men of the town at that time ; and they serve to show how many men there were, and who they were, at the commencement of the eighteenth century. This list also shows that the controversy was in a great degree sectional-those in favor of Mr. Emerson being mostly from the west, the others from the east part of the town. Though a few names appear on both sides, this is not uncommon in such con- troversies.
103
proceedings. Their recommendation, after due consideration, was adopted by the church and inhabitants unanimously. It was dated the 26th day of the 3d month, 1704, and was as follows :
" Whereas the inhabitants of the town of Marlborough did, upon the 25th of the 3d month, 1701, apply themselves in a public meet- ing to ns, the subscribers, for advice ; referring to such a regulation of future steps towards the settlement of the Gospel Ministry in said town, as may tend to establish peace among them :
" We, according to our best judgment, after we had duly considered this subject, do advise :
" 1st. That they themselves lay aside all thoughts of seeking after any minister to settle among them, unto whom they have given a call formerly, and could not settle without hazarding the breach of the town peace.
" 2d. That the ratable inhabitants of said town, being legally warned, do pass into a joint nomination of three persons, out of whom (as in the subsequent advice will be contained) one shall be chosen for the minister, in the manner hereafter declared.
" 3d. We judge it advisable for them in the present circumstances, that the said nominations procced after this manner, that is to say ; that the whole of the ratable inhabitants vote each man for whom he shall find his heart inclined, and the man that hath the most votes shall be one of the three out of whom the subsequent election shall be made, and so the nomination of a second or third repeated till the number be completed.
" 4th. We judge it at present, as the case stands with them, that the Church having the three persons nominated as above presented to them, do out of all them, choose one for their pastor, who being by the subsequent vote of the major part of the ratable inhabitants chosen as the law directs, shall be the minister of said town."
Proceeding according to this recommendation, Mr. Robert Breck of Dorchester, son of Capt. John Breck of that town, received an invitation to take the pastoral charge of the Society, which he accepted. He was born December 7, 1682, gradu- ated at Harvard College, 1700, and was ordained October 25, 1704, when only twenty-two years of age. His salary was to be "seventie pounds annually, and fire-wood for the year annually, and settlement one hundred pounds."
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.