USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Metropolitan Boston; a modern history; Volume I > Part 6
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
The Town Government of Boston-The development of town govern- ment in Boston was not dis-similar to that of other towns except that it was one of the smallest in acreage and grew rather more rapidly, there- fore requiring more numerous and elaborate orders and committees. Its acreage was only about 750; much of this was hilly, and little of it was wooded. Without legislative appointment, it was the capital. For these and other reasons, Boston was always more associated in laws and town activity with the general government of the colony, and many of the town records are those that really were a part of the government as a whole. In 1632 Boston was granted by the General Court a neck of land at Winthrop; liberty was given for twenty years to "fetch wood from Dorchester." The next year the right was given to "fetch wood con-
47
REVIEW OF EARLY POLITICAL HISTORY
tinuously" from a part of Noddle's Island, the whole of which was granted in 1637 to Boston. Other grants were made until, by 1639, the Boston town meeting had jurisdiction over 43,000 acres, or very much more than the whole area of the present city. Fifty acres of The Com- mon had been purchased for £30 from Blackstone; there were other common planting grounds and pastures which probably totaled, in 1635, about 4,000 acres. The common of today is but the shrunken vestige of the ancient common lands of Boston. It has been preserved with but little change from Colonial times, and is one of the pleasantest memorials of the primitive conditions under which the city was founded.
Boston's Early Importance-The extant town records have no entries dating back of September, 1634, and most of the entries for the following six years have to do with grants of garden, house and planting lots. The first entry refers to a "bridg"; perhaps this was at the foot of the present Brattle Street. The meeting-house was the nucleus around which most town organizations were constructed. Boston had a church, founded August 23, 1630. A ferry was undertaken by one "Edw. Converse in 1631" and was maintained until 1786, when it was superseded by the Charles River Bridge, the first to connect the town with the mainland opposite. A market was a prominent part of every large town plan; there were references to one as early as 1636. The commercial side of Boston came early to the fore; a town dock was one of the first com- munal enterprises, although the wharves were mainly privately owned. Boston has always been the entrepôt of New England. It has been esti- mated that during the period 1630-40 the arrivals in the colony totaled 298 ships, bringing 21,200 passengers. The greater part of these came to Boston. Of the fishing vessels, and the fisheries of that time that were the principal source of revenue to Boston, we have no records. The Brit- ish State papers of 1664 are authority for the statement that Boston had a great trade with Barbadoes in fish and provisions; that 300 vessels traded to the West Indies and elsewhere; and 1,300 boats were engaged in the Cape Sable and Cape Cod fisheries. Probably the statistics had reference to Massachusetts rather than to Boston. The metropolis of the colony was a busy, forward-looking place, its first records showing that spirit which characterized it for two centuries, that of being at least one step in advance of her neighbors.
The Capital Town-Boston's history is not that of a town among the many of the colony, but of the leader, the center, the capital. The first town house was built in 1659, and was a combination of town, market and court house, located in the place now occupied by the "Old State House." It was the seat of the town government until it was super-
48
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
seded, in 1742, by another market and town house, Faneuil Hall. The first house was more valued as a market than for its chambers for the courts and town officials, for the General Court or Assembly was the more important feature of the governmental life of Boston than the civic, in which it was unlike the other towns in Massachusetts. The sessions of the Assembly were probably held in the First Church, which was near the Market Place, as well as those of the other courts.
In 1643 the whole colony was divided into four shires for military as well as judicial purposes, Boston becoming the shire town of Suffolk County. The erection of the counties mark the beginning of the end of the strictly Puritan period and Boston from now on increased in station as the capital of a colony of less limited nature. There were, perhaps, 18,000 people in Eastern Massachusetts alone, and possibly 25,000 in New England. The experimental stage had been passed ; the colony was in a fair way to become wealthy and powerful. "Fifty villages rested in the openings in the forests, and the spires of forty churches pointed to the heavens." The Puritans were not only land rich, but, profiting by a sur- plus production, had become importers. "New buildings, some even of brick, sprang up in every quarter of Boston; markets were erected; wharves stretched into the harbor; native and foreign vessels were sent to the West Indies and to the Madeira Islands, and returned laden with sugar, oranges, wine, cotton, tobacco and bullion; and these with furs, and the products of the fisheries, were sent to England to pay for manu- factured goods."
Signs of a Change of Policy-The Massachusetts Bay Company, as a commercial corporation, had proven a great success, but was beginning to show weakness as a religious-state organization. Was prosperity incompatible with religion; could not the colony succeed financially and progress religiously? Had there been too lax a control over the lands chartered to the company, and of the towns which were founded on them? Or was the whole scheme of a theocracy impossible of reali- zation? At any rate, there were signs of disintegration at this time (1643). Winthrop was not being elected Governor with any regularity, and no one seems to have been able to fill his place. Controversies were many ; the number of enemies of the Commonwealth increased at home and abroad; jealousy of the success of the venture was stirring up inquiries into the management of what was supposed to be a Crown colony. The electorate was also getting out of hand, refusing to be led by an oligarchy, one result of which was the forcing of the leaders from their position that God's laws as found in the Scripture was the rule and required no promulgation of others. The Bodye of Liberties, of 1641, was one result of the insistence of the people. Such were the signs of
49
REVIEW OF EARLY POLITICAL HISTORY
the times, but the Commonwealth was to live, in name at least, for thirty years.
The Union of the Colonies-On the other side of the shield is a more cheerful picture. The great event of the year 1643 was not the creation of shires, but the final formation of the confederacy of the colonies in New England, a thing for which Governor Winthrop had worked unceas- ingly for six years. This Confederation or Union was one of the most memorable of the events in the history of our country, and may have been the pattern of confederacies since proposed or established in America. Only four colonies adopted it, and it was but feeble in its effects, but it was the first of its kind. At Boston, on September 17, 1643, the commissioners of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Haven- Plymouth coming in later-met and signed the agreement. It was the birthday of the town, and one hundred and fifty years later, the same day and month, the Constitution of the United States was adopted, the like- ness to the original articles being noticeable.
The preamble to the articles of New England Confederation or Union reads as follows :
We all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, viz .: to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity with peace; and whereas by our settling, by the wise providence of God, we are further dispersed upon the seacoast and rivers than was at first intended, so that we can- not, according to our desire, with convenience communicate in one government and juris- diction; and whereas we live encompassed with people of several nations and strange languages, which hereafter may prove injurious to us or our posterity; and forasmuch as the natives have formerly committed sundry insolences and outrages upon several plantations of the English, and have of late combined themselves against us, and seeing by reason of the sad distractions in England (which they have heard of) and by which they know we are hindered both from that humble way of seeking advice and reaping those comfortable fruits of protection which at other times we might well expect; we therefore do conceive it our bounden duty, without delay, to enter into a present consola- tion among ourselves for mutual help and strength in all future concernment, that as in nation and religion, so in other respects, we be and continue one, according to the true tenor and meaning of the ensuing articles.
This explicit preamble is followed by twelve articles. The first fixes the name, "The United Colonies of New England." The second is a declaration of a perpetual league, with its purposes. The third asserts the rights of jurisdiction of each colony within its own boundaries, and confines the confederacy to the four colonies forming it, until otherwise agreed. The fourth establishes the rule to be followed in the apportion- ment of colonial expenses in time of war. The fifth states the course to be pursued in case of any foreign invasion. The sixth gives to each col- ony the power to choose two commissioners, fully authorized to act in its
Met. Bos .- 4
-
50
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
behalf. The seventh provides for the election of a president of the board. The eighth provides for the establishing of "agreements and orders in general case of a civil nature," and for the preservation of justice in general. The ninth forbids each colony engaging in war, without the consent of the rest. The tenth provides for calling extraordinary meet- ings. The eleventh provides for cases arising from a breach of the articles; and the twelfth ratifies and confirms the whole.
This league had to meet many difficulties, but was in general satisfac- tory. It was practically an assumption on the part of the colonies of sovereignty, which far exceeded the expectations of the giver of the charter, and the founders of the colonies. The noble legislation was a forerunner of a more significant act, when a Declaration of Independence was the first document of a Union of States.
The confederacy accomplished the purpose for which it had been formed, but never was a strong organization. It made the colonies feared by their Dutch and French neighbors on the north and south, and by the Indians. The members of the union were not yet ready for any close association, the colonial legislatures being too jealous of their rights and powers. There was also a growing jealousy in the mother country of the thriving colonies on this side of the water. When a royal commis- sion arrived in 1664, the Confederacy was ordered henceforth to meet only once in every three years. There were meetings in 1672, 1675, 1679, 1681, and 1684, but the glory of the organization had long since passed. The confederacy was indeed one of the reasons for the Royal Commis- sion, since it was held to indicate an assumption by the colonies of the King's perogative. The Union did add largely to the prestige of Boston as the principal town in the most important member of the body.
Trouble Brewing-Winthrop died in 1649. For ten years after his death the freemen of Massachusetts were left to manage their affairs with little interference from abroad. There had been times of anxiety, but Charles I had been kept too busy with his own affairs to have time for any attention to those on this side of the water. The colonists, on the other hand, had recognized the importance of keeping on the right side of Parliament and, later, of Cromwell. In 1660 news arrived of the restoration of the monarchy; Charles II had been proclaimed King of England. No address of loyalty to the new sovereign was sent by Massachusetts, and the Kingship of Charles II was not proclaimed in the colony. Complaints were laid before the King by Mason and Gorges and others, the Quakers and some of the eastern people made their grievances known. The Commonwealth had been rather severe in its refusal of religious freedom to others. Samuel Maverick, he of Noddle's Island, had been compelled to leave the bay and, returning to England,
51
REVIEW OF EARLY POLITICAL HISTORY
became a bitter enemy of the colony, one who later had the ear of Charles. Dr. John Clarke had been banished from Massachusetts, as had been the Quakers. With the restoration, it was expected that the Puritans would be called to account ; it was not likely that this country would be over- looked in the housecleaning process.
The colony authorities kept very quiet wondering and planning how best they might conserve their liberties enjoyed for thirty years. A greeting was eventually sent to the King, and a brief but gracious reply received. After fifteen months of hesitancy, a proclamation of the restored Charles was ordered by the General Court. Bradstreet and Norton were sent abroad to pray his Majesty might "graciously confirm our patent granted by your royal predecessor of famous memory." The agents were graciously received and answered. The King in his reply confirmed the charter privileges and declared an anmesty of all past errors, "Provided always," and followed this with a string of conditions which nullified all that had gone before. To these conditions and the list of complaints brought back by Norton and Bradstreet but slight atten- tion was paid. Two years later, the royal commissioners, of whom men- tion has already been made, came to see how the colonies had heeded the orders of the King. They were "wined and dined," soft words were exchanged, and the commission went on its way without accomplishing much of that for which it had been sent. Fortunately for Massachusetts, home affairs so engaged the attention of the King that the colony had a ten-year respite from interference.
The Charter Revoked-These ten years of grace were marked by troubles with the Indians, which reached their climax in King Philip's War, which drew heavily upon the men and resources of the colonies and was particularly hard on Boston. In 1676, before there had been time for recovery, Edward Randolph, "the evil genius of New England," landed in Boston. As representative of the King he instituted the inquiry, which continued, brought about the downfall of the Puritan government of Massachusetts, and the vacating of the charter. In the end an action pro warranto was brought against the Governor and Company of Massa- chusetts Bay, the object of the warrant being to find whether the com- pany had done any of the things of which it stood accused, and if so, to show cause why the charter should not be vacated. There was little use of fighting, for if the King wanted to annul the charter, any defense the company might make would not avail. And many illegal acts had been performed. On October 23, 1684, the charter under which the Massachusets Colony had been founded was declared vacated, and the Puritan Commonwealth which had existed as an independent political body for more than a half century, came to an end.
52
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
The revocation of the charter caused great distress and anger in this country. It was but natural that a people who had lived so long in the enjoyment of a government of their own creation should resent the abrupt deprivation of it. With no encouragement, and lacking any royal aid, a company had been formed which had developed a region where others had failed. They had taken their lives in their hands, left the safety and comfort of home and England and sought freedom in a harsh land. With their own hands had they subdued soil and natives, become prosperous, and above all had created a political organization independent of English control or aid which secured to them life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- ness. By what right, then, did a new King of England deprive them of their just rights? Why should they not have the continued control of their own destinies?
The Crown Against the Colony-There are at least two sides to every question, as there was to the question of the right of the Massachusetts Bay Colony to govern itself without interference by the Crown. Accord- ing to the English idea the government was a living body with which all parts were indissolubly joined. Emigration did not break this connec- tion, particularly when the emigrants settled on what was claimed by the dominion as their lands. The King had consented to the emigration, and to this country, but on the implied condition that they recognize that these lands were the Crown's, and their allegiance was to be to the King. The Crown lawyers drew up a list of the things that the colonies had no right to do, and which should be condemned and changed to conform with the English type of government. They had confined the right of franchise to a small number instead of in conformity with the rules of the mother country. They had refused to allow the free use of the Eng- lish Book of Common Prayer by those desiring to do so. The oath of allegiance was no longer required by their people. Laws had been made not in accord with English law, and in some cases contrary to it. Appeal from these laws to England was refused. Laws were made, and writs issued in the name of the colonies or their officials, instead of in the name of the King of England. Money had been coined without permission. What was probably one of the principal causes behind the movement to regain control over the colonies was the rising jealousy of the English merchants of the prosperity of the Massachusetts marine, and the great accusation against the colonies was that they paid no attention to the navigation laws. Many other accusations were brought up, but these are sufficient to show that there is something to be said on the English side of the question.
Boston Against the King-Massachusetts, from the very beginning, had been a bad child, defiant as none of the other children of Britain were
53
REVIEW OF EARLY POLITICAL HISTORY
defiant, independent almost to perverseness, lusty and bold. But there were excuses to be made for her, and which she had the courage to make. Emigration had been of free will, and as such they had a right to liberty ; that they had the right to have within the colony a free government of like privileges and jurisdictions as the State from which they had emi- grated; "that they were entitled to the like power of reasoning and will in a similar legislature, and to a like judicature and executive powers within the bounds of their corporation, as the government of the mother country had within its own realms; in short, that the colony, as a politi- cally free being, had a right to all those internal powers which were essential to its being as a free agent. The power of the Parliament to tax them without consent, since they were unrepresented in that body, was generally denied, and the right to trial by jury in all cases was inflexibly demanded."
There was much to be said on both sides, but it was the English ideas of jurisprudence which were to be enforced a long period of years. The colonists were to be humbled; reduced to the plane of mere vassals of the crown. But the character of the people was such that their spirit was unbroken and their love of liberty was to increase until they were ready to throw off the ties which bound them to the mother country.
Political events in England for a time prevented the setting up in Massachusetts of a legal government. Charles II died and James II came to the throne in February, 1685, with a promise on his lips to pre- serve the laws of the land inviolate. England rejoiced, ignorant of what new forms of tyranny they were to witness and bear ; the colonies waited, knowing only that they would be humiliated. The King was, for a time, too busy with home affairs to give any attention to those of the colonies. In May, 1686, Joseph Dudley was given a commission as president of a provisional government consisting of Massachusetts, Maine, and the "King's Province." Randolph was the true manager, or considered him- self such, which boded ill to this country. The president's commission was read before the General Court, which immediately adjourned. Dud- ley and Randolph, although both on the King's business, could never agree. The colonies viewed their quarreling with amused contempt.
Andros Comes to Boston-On December 20, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived in Boston, with the authority, and accompanied by forces, to set up a provincial government. As Governor-General he announced a series of measures that thoroughly angered the people. A tax of twenty pence was levied on each poll, and also one penny on every pound value in real estate, for the defrayal of the expenses of his government. The press was bridled, a restraint placed on marriages, and the Episcopal Church was all but forcibly established as the State church, a tax being levied for its
54
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
support. Excise laws were passed and enforced; no one could leave the country without permission. The act which enraged Massachusetts most, was one which proclaimed that because of the revocation of the charter, all lands automatically had reverted to the King, and whomso- ever desired to retain legal possession of the lands which they formerly had owned must pay a quit-rent to the Crown. The common lands were also claimed by Andros for the King. In effect all titles dating prior to Andros' day were thrown into the discard. The enraged inhabitants of the colony, particularly those resident in Boston, since the new laws were more strictly enforced in the town than elsewhere, fought this arbitrary oppressive government as well as was possible. But the only legislative body that remained was the "Governor's Council," which could do little more than approve the Governor's decrees.
Increase Mather was sent to England to present the grievances of the province, but secured nothing but the vague promises of a forgetful King. The revolution which seated the young Prince of Orange on the throne of James II inspired a minor revolution in Boston, when once the news had been brought to this country (April 4, 1689). The Bostonians, on the eighteenth, rose in force, captured the commander of the frigate "Rose." The inhabitants gathered in the streets needing but leadership to make the insurrection formidable. The secret history of the fortnight preced- ing the eighteenth, and of that day's events, has never been written. Before the day was over, the most of the officials who served under Andros were in jail, and the Governor had taken refuge in the fort on Fort Hill. A message was sent to Andros calling attention to how "unsafe he was like to be if he did not deliver up himself and the fort and government." He tried to escape, but was captured and jailed. On the next day the fort surrendered under an order extorted from Andros, the "Rose" struck her foremasts and sent her sails ashore, and the govern- ment of Andros had been overthrown by the first of the revolutions which were staged in Boston in the strife for independence.
The laws of the old charter were now declared to be in force. A provisional council was called, at which the former Governor, Bradstreet, and the council of 1686 were returned to office. Increase Mather was again sent abroad with representations from the revolting province. While there, William and Mary became monarchs of England, and all Mather could win from them was a promise that Andros would not be sent to Boston again to rule, and that he and the queen were "to be pro- claimed by the former magistrates." Mather remained for months trying to secure a renewal of the old charter, but to no avail. A new charter was framed and signed, October 7, 1691, by which Massachusetts was to be ruled as a royal province. The King was to appoint the Governor,
55
REVIEW OF EARLY POLITICAL HISTORY
Deputy-Governor and Secretary ; the people to elect twenty-eight coun- cillors (eighteen from Massachusetts). Each town was allowed two deputies to represent them in the General Court (Boston was allowed four) ; rights of citizenship were to be respected; liberty of conscience was granted to all but "Papists." The province was to consist of Nova Scotia, Maine and Plymouth annexed to Massachusetts, and Boston was to be the seat of government.
Boston the Capital of a Province-The provincial period in Boston history dates from May 16, 1692, when the charter became operative, to October 7, 1774. It was a period filled with wars against the French and Indians, when the colonists were associated as never before with citi- zens of England who had not come to this country to make their perma- nent homes. It was a time of intimate acquaintance with England and English government, when Boston, in particular, reaped what advan- tages there were in having royal governors in the town with all the pomp and glory connected with such events. But Massachusetts grew steadily away from the mother country, and Boston was the seat of sedition. With the exception of the first Governor, all the rest, in their official papers, show that the province was disaffected with Kingly management, making the most distinct assertions "that the animating feeling and intent of all the disaffection here was consistent only with an absolute resolve to be independent of all royal and parliamentary control." The usual advice given was to use repressive measures and intimidation by a military force quartered on the province.
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.