USA > Massachusetts > Worcester County > Royalston > Reflections on Royalston, Worcester County, Massachusetts, U.S.A > 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
But if you have trouble in getting your meal via the "Table of Con- tents," just turn the book over, and there at the back end, following the "Appendix" and the addendum, you will find an "Index," containing several thousand names, and a few other things; pick out a good-looking name and look up the page or pages numbered, and see what you find. In order that some of the persons may not be overlooked, their names and numbers are given several times in a row. Thus, Simeon Chamber- lain, page 337, three times, and then again for other pages. Others get in twice. And there are names of very distinguished people in the list. William H. Vanderbilt, page 125. Well, what did he have to do with Royalston history? Well, sir, Arthur C. Brown, born in Royalston, studied law "in the law office of Eliot F. Shepard, a son-in-law of Wil- liam H. Vanderbilt." What do you think of that for glory? William H. Wanamaker, Jr .? Ellen Rawson Dexter, whose father was born in Roy- alston, became the wife of William H., Jr. Benjamin F. Butler is in- dexed, page 84; one vote for governor in 1866. Benjamin Bacheller Bartlett? Born in Royalston, lived there 36 years, and died; his name is mentioned twice in the book, and was due for just a few words more, giving the date of his death, but Mr. Caswell clipped it off, and the name is not indexed. Somehow the old historical machine didn't always run at a regular gait; and sometimes it run out good history, and some- times and sometimes
The Town gave the History grand financial support, appropriating $500 in 1911, which was handed over to Mr. Caswell that year; another $500 in 1912; $100 to Mr. Cross in 1913, for Military History; and another $500 in 1914-$1600 in all; and then the committee was authorized to go in debt for as much as it could get out of the sales of books when com- pleted-a maximum of $2000 for 500 copies at $4 each. Then the large income from the many pages of pictures at $20 per page. Well, it looks like the Committee had some $4500 to $5000 to be expended on the work.
38
Reflections on Royalston
The last paragraph of the "Report of the Town Committee," on page VII, reads as follows:
"There has been some delay in publishing the work, but there is no legal process by which persons in possession of valuable historic infor- mation can be made to resign it, and we think, on the other hand, the reader will admit that the history is richer because patience has been allowed to have her perfect work."
We admit the richness; but it seems hardly possible that that Com- mittee could ever have thought of using force to get the stuff. Why in the name of Honorable Isaac didn't they try moral suasion? A nice circu- lar, signed by the Committee, couched in the sweetest and most persua- sive language, informing the victims that at great expense of sweat and money, the Committee was endeavoring to fix up Royalston History, and that without the particular information needed in relation to the victims' families the thing would be absolutely worthless, as insipid as salt that had lost its savor; then, "Thanking you in advance for your kindness, knowing that you will be only too glad to do this for the old town you love so dearly," etc. Wouldn't the stuff have come rolling in! But the Committee didn't want the stuff. "Give it to Mr. Caswell."
Many people have lost patience over brusque demands to send in their family history for publication by unknown persons, accompanied by requests to pay for pictures and buy books, who would probably cheerfully respond to a courteous request in the name of the town. Mr. Caswell never intimated in his correspondence or printed circulars, so far as I have seen them, that the book was anything more than a private project, -a commercialized history, like his "Athol Past and Present."
Why could not some of these years of waiting have been used in look- ing up from the town records, cemeteries and other available sources, the information needed in relation to many Royalston people?
It is incomprehensible to me how the Committee, charged with the duty of providing an accurate History of the Town of Royalston, could have delegated their duty to another, and let him go on without looking at his work. But it seems that they must have done so, for they would not have let these things pass, which have been cited, and many others, if they had had any oversight of the work. I am sure that no member of that Committee would accept a building, an animal or a garment as correspondingly defective as Caswell's History of Royalston.
Having announced my intention of getting out an independent brochure on Royalston, I have waited patiently for Mr. Caswell's work to appear, not knowing but that it might be so superlatively fine as to make anything that I might put out seem ridiculous. Meanwhile I have been putting a few things in order, and now that the official book has appeared, I think that I may be justified in placing my work before the public; indeed, I may almost regard it as a duty to so place it.
A really good town history cannot be written mainly for pay. The work must be done largely for love of it, and much must be put into it for which no price can be made or received.
Hon. A. H. Bullock, in his Centennial address in 1865, said: “My recollections of this town, going back thirty, forty years, draw before me its scenes of life, action, and responsibility, as when quite young I wit- nessed them in the hands of the generation then moving on the stage."
My own recollections of the town go back well nigh seventy years. Perhaps I may be to that extent qualified to reflect on objects which have "become part and parcel of my intellectual furniture."
These Reflections, while historical in character, are not to be consid- ered as a history of Royalston. My intention is to bring out, in a more concise, connected and orderly a manner than has heretofore been done, some matters connected with Royalston history. And my aim will be to have everything I print as truthful and accurate as it is possible to make it. How far I may go with it may depend somewhat upon the' continuance of my life and health.
39
Reflections on Royalston
THE BIRTH OF THE TOWN.
Back in 1750, a tract of some 30,000 acres of land, on the northern border of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and in the north-western corner of Worcester County, lay idle and uninhabited by civilized humanity. This territory was destined within a few years, "under the providence of God," if you choose, and the shrewdness of men, to become the independent township of Royalston. The events consti- tuting this development are worthy of a little elucidation.
The territory of the Province of Massachusetts Bay was under control of the General Court, and the unappropriated lands were disposed of by that body as circumstances made it advisable, either by private grants or public sales. The grants were chiefly made upon petitions, embodying claims on account of special public service, or hardship endured. A successful applicant, having located his land and returned a "plat," or "plot," map or diagram of it to the Court for confirmation, the record of these doings in the Secretary's office constituted his title. Sales of land were ordered by the General Court, and conducted by a joint special commit- tee, empowered to give deeds; these deeds, duly entered with the records of the county in which the land was situ- ated, constituted the purchasers' titles.
It appears that there were four grants of land within the limits of what afterward became Royalston before there was a sale of the territory. The earliest grant was made Dec. 15, 1737, to Benoni Moore, Joseph Pettey and Robert Cooper, but before 1765 it passed into the hands of Samuel Hunt of Northfield and others. This land was between the present Athol and Warwick lines. The grant was probably made in consideration of services rendered by the grantees in bury- ing the bleached bones of soldiers. One "Pierpont and others" held the largest grant, but why, none of our histori- ans have discovered. It was located in the northeast corner of the town as at present bounded. Joseph Priest held a strip of some 300 acres, immediately east of Pierpont's, and it is told that it was given him "as a recognition of his loy- alty in extending the hospitality of his half-way house near the easterly line of the town to all those who passed that way
40
Reflections on Royalston
to and from the French wars." Thomas Hapgood had 200 acres next east of Priest's, the grant of which was ordered by the General Court, in 1742, in "consideration of services in the war with the eastern Indians and his sufferings by reason of wounds received from them, whereby in his ad- vanced age he was disabled from labor for the support of himself and family."
June 4, 1752, a vote was approved in the Council of the
RICHMOND, N. H
FITZWILLIAM, N. H.
1
.2
3
4
5
7
$
9 /
375
11
Royal Steschule
14
15
16
1 8
19
S
S
5
In
5
GSM
20
21
22
23
24
2.
26
PAIENT BROOK
28
GSM
.+ -
32
33
34
36
LOOK Food
Little Fondy 1
SM
.4.
-
37
S
38
39
402
41
42
40
-
1
5
Public Roade
Water Courses
46
45
+HHTH Railroad
Cemeteries
48
8 Schools T Tanneries,
GSM Grist and Saw Mills
SM Saw Mills
Squares represent one mile spaces
TOWN OF ROYALSTON
GSM
51
COUNTY OF WORCESTER STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS U. S. A.
TEMPLETON
PHILLIPSTON
WINCHENDON
29
30
3/
BRAVIA Baoua:
T
ORANGE
BRANCH
Trust RiveE
LAWRENCE
RIVER
5
49
ATHOL
MILLIES RIVES
ISM
WARWICK
13
Province ordering a sale of the lands north of Pequoig, now Athol, and onward to the Province line. The sale was made at public vendue or auction, Dec. 21, 1752; conveyance was made Dec. 27, and the document was recorded Jan. 1, 1753. An attested copy was placed on the first pages of the Pro- prietors' Records, which later were placed in the archives of the Town. The records of the titles show that the four grants comprised 2,300 acres, and the purchase 28,357 acres.
41
Reflections on Royalston
The amount paid for the purchase was £1,348, or less than one shilling or 25 cents per acre.
The purchase included a strip about a mile wide and con- taining some 2,000 acres, between the northerly boundary of Winchendon (which had been laid out a little earlier on the easterly side of the Royalston territory) and the province line. Those who later made their habitations on this strip or "leg," as it was called, probably found themselves too far away from the Royalston meeting-house, and in 1780 were set off to Winchendon, the voters of that town exacting from them and several principal inhabitants in the north part of that town a promise that they would never be instrumental in moving the meeting-house off of the meeting-house com- mon, so called. In 1783 several thousand acres were set off to Orange on the incorporation of that town, and in 1799, 1803 and 1837 a few hundred acres were added from Athol and Phillipston, bringing the town into the shape shown by our little map.
Hon. A. H. Bullock, in his Centennial address in 1865, said that when the Proprietors discovered that the 600 acres of the Hunt grant had been taken in the very heart of the best land, 200 acres of which had somehow been relin- quished, they claimed other acres as good somewhere else, and the allowance was voted. Subsequently, it appeared by the report of a committee, that after the allowance of the claim, a correct survey disclosed that these Proprietors had originally taken 500 acres more than their deed expressed, and he could not see that they had ever paid for it.
The names of the Proprietors, as they styled themselves, who purchased the tract in 1752, were: Samuel Watts, Thomas Hubbard, Isaac Freeman, Joseph Richards, Isaac Royal, Caleb Dana, James Otis, Joseph Wilder, Jr., and John Chandler, Jr. The names of Freeman and Richards soon disappeared from the records, and those of Thomas Hancock " and John Erving were substituted. Thomas Hancock died in 1764, and his nephew, John Hancock, who succeeded to his fortune and extensive business, became one of the Pro- prietors. At later dates by reason of other changes, Samuel A. Otis, Benjamin Kent, John Erving, 3d, William Haskins, Willis Hall, Cotton Tufts, James Bowdoin and Samuel Dan- forth became Proprietors.
42
Reflections on Royalston
Some of these men became quite distinguished in public affairs. John Hancock was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence, and the first Governor of Massachusetts. James Bowdoin was the second Governor. James Otis was a dauntless patriot in the Revolution. John Chandler was a Judge of Probate for Worcester County. John Erving had other land deals, and gave his name to a neighboring town.
Hon. Isaac Royal, who gave his name to the town, was a citizen of Medford, and a member of the General Court and the Council for 22 years. At the first meeting of the Pro- prietors, held at the "Bunch of Grapes Tavern," in Boston, it was unanimously agreed that the territory should be called Royalshire; whereupon Mr. Royal promised to give £25 toward building a meeting-house for the town. When the charter was granted in 1765, the suffix was changed, making the name of the town Royalston.
Mr. Royal gave a valuable pulpit Bible which was used in the First Congregational Church 75 years. He promised to give a full lot of land to the first male child born in the town; but Royal Chase, named after him, came a little too late. Mr. Royal loved his king more than he did his New England home; and when the Spirit of '76 became militant, he sailed to old England; and it is stated that although he wanted to come back, his friends in the new country would not allow him to come, but passed an "act of outlawry," which said that should he, or any one guilty of the same of- fense, return, he should be transported to British territory; and returning again without permission from the General Court, on conviction to "suffer the pains of death, without the benefit of clergy." However, with this one great fault, they loved him still, and did not cross his name off the town. By his last will and testament he gave 200 acres of land to the town for the benefit of the schools, and 2,000 acres, a large part of which was in Royalston, to found a professor- ship of law in Harvard University. John Chandler, another of the Proprietors, shared the same fate as an outlaw.
Our authorities disagree somewhat in their statements relating to the disposal of a part of their lands by the Pro- prietors. Hon. A. H. Bullock, in his Centennial address, stated that the Proprietors "at their first meeting in 1753
43
Reflections on Royalston
had directed that the land be laid off into 60 lots for set- tlers, and three others, for a minister, for the support of worship, and for a school. Their committee came here and personally superintended this work, and selected the wild spot so familiar to us on the Lawrence stream, for the mills."
Rev. E. W. Bullard, in his Centennial sermon of the First Congregational Church, delivered Oct. 14, 1866, stated that by the conditions of the sale of the lands to the Propri- etors, "they were required to locate 60 families, each with a clearing and a house, build a meeting-house for their use, provide adequate mill facilities, and devote one sixty-third part of their entire purchase to each of the following ob- jects: a settlement for the first ordained minister; for the ministerial support; and for a public school. In compliance with these terms, the Proprietors, at their first legal meet- ing, held in Boston, chose a special committee to come upon the ground and lay out 60 lots of 100 acres each, called the settlers' lots, and three other lots, of like dimensions, for the above-named objects; view the streams and select a con- venient mill-site; and open up a way, or ways, to their pro- spective settlement. The 60 settlers' lots were offered, one to each settler, upon condition that he should clear six acres of land, build a house thereon, and unite with the others in establishing a gospel minister among them."
Mr. Bullard also stated that in 1765, "the Proprietors having already given some 6,000 acres of land to promote their settlement, 200 acres, called the mill lot, as part con- sideration for building and maintaining an adequate grist- and saw-mill, and 10 acres for a public common, proceeded to fill the appropriations for ministerial and school purposes. These foot up several hundred acres more than were re- quired by their contract."
Mr. Bullard was one of the compilers of the Memorial, which gives a very different story relating to the division of the lands. Perhaps he confused what the Proprietors tried or wished to have done with what was actually done, in pre- paring his sermon. In the note on "Proprietors' Records" in the Memorial, it is stated that "the records designate two divisions of these lands. The first consisted of seven-
44
Reflections on Royalston
teen 200-acre lots [not sixty 100-acre lots] appropriated for the settlement of the 60 families and the public lots required by the conditions of the sale, and called the 'settlers' division' or 'first division.' These lots were located in different parts of the purchase in such manner as the committee judged would best subserve the interests alike of proprietors and settlers. The public square of 10 acres is also to be added, and we have the amount of land appropriated to fill the con- ditions of the sale."
It is further stated that by the second, or "Proprietors' division, the residue of the land was also laid out in 200-acre lots, where it could be done, and in other cases the contents of the smaller lots were expressed. The meadow lands, how- ever, were laid out in 10-acre lots, so far as the committee judged them worth the expense of surveying."
Then it is stated that "the Proprietors, at a meeting June 7, 1765, and before proceeding to draw for lots, appro- priated to the first settled minister, for the ministry, and the school, in addition to the 100 acres already set apart for each," eight other lots, designated by numbers and contents. These allotments made the total for the minister, 431 acres; for the ministry, 524; for the school, 520. As the one sixty- third part of the entire purchase of 28,357 acres was about 450 acres, it appears that no one was given the large amount of extra land credited by Mr. Bullard. The whole amount actually given to the settlers and for public purposes foots up 4,585 acres, and not 7,360 acres, as would have been re- quired by the first plan of giving 60 settlers 100 acres each, and the lands for public purposes.
The most of the remaining lots were drawn by the sev- . eral Proprietors and became their individual property. The residue remained as common or undivided lands. The last recorded meeting of the Proprietors was held in 1787, by which time, probably, the land had all become individual property.
Quite likely the reason why some of the 60 first settlers were not given 100-acre lots was because they did not wish for so much land. While 100-acre lots in Royalston would be very acceptable presents in this twentieth century, it is easy to see how timber, which has become the most valuable
45
Reflections on Royalston
product, was in those days largely worse than valueless, as it must be destroyed at great expense of labor, to provide the required land for tillage. And it appears that the Pro- prietors receded from their plan of settling 60 families on 60 lots of 100 acres each, and allowed the 60 settlements to be made on 17 lots of 200 acres each; this provided for a little more neighborliness among the settlers, and it is probable that two or more brothers or other relatives settled on one lot, in some cases.
In his Centennial address Mr. Bullock said: "In the year 1865, February 16th, the act of incorporation of the town, under the name of Royalston, was approved in Council. No copy of this act appears among your files. Accordingly I have availed myself of the kindness of the present obliging Secretary of State, Hon. Oliver Warner, and have procured a literal transcript of the charter, handsomely engrossed upon parchment and bearing his attestation, which the Town Clerk will please faithfully preserve." And then Mr. Bul- lock handed the document which he had mentioned to Charles H. Newton, Town Clerk.
In the Memorial it is stated that "The incorporate life of Royalston began with its charter, February 16th, 1765." And the charter or act of incorporation is published.
Mr. Caswell publishes the act of incorporation, which he says "was passed February 19, 1765." But he gives no ex- planation of or reason for his change of the date, and we may well regard it as one of his easy errors.
There are differences between the wording of the act as given by Mr. Caswell and in the Memorial, but they are mainly with relation to trimmings, and in the essential de- tails there is agreement. The substance of the document is that the Proprietors of the land known as Royalshire having petitioned the Court "that said land may be incorporated into a town, and vested with the powers and authority belonging to the other towns, for the encouragement of said settle- ment," it was "enacted by the Governor, Council and House of Representatives, that said tract of land," the boundaries of which are given in detail, "be, and hereby is erected into a town, by the name of Royalston, and the inhabitants thereof shall have and enjoy such immunities and privileges as other
46
Reflections on Royalston
towns in this province have and do by law enjoy." And it was "further enacted, that Joshua Willard, Esq., be and hereby is empowered to issue his warrant to some principal inhabitant of said Town of Royalston, requiring him, in his Majesty's name, to warn and notify the said inhabitants qualified to vote in town affairs to meet together, at such time and place in said town as shall be appointed in said warrant, to choose such officers as the law directs and may be necessary to manage the affairs of said town; and the in- habitants so met shall be and are hereby empowered to choose officers accordingly." And it was still "further en- acted, that all those persons that have already agreed to set- tle in said township, and have given their bonds to perform the same, shall be accounted as part and parcel of said inhab- itants, and be allowed to vote in their town meetings, in all town affairs, as fully as those who actually live upon their settlements in said town, and shall be accordingly taxed for the purposes aforesaid."
Then comes the certification of the passage of the act.
"In Council Jan. 31, 1765, read a first time. In Council February 1, 1765, read a second time, and passed to be en- grossed. Sent down for concurrence.
"JNO. COTTON, D. Secretary."
"In the House of Representatives February 14, 1765. Read three several times and concurred.
"S. WHITE, Speaker."
The final endorsement, which fixes the date of the com- pletion of the enactment, is omitted entirely by Mr. Caswell, but is given in the Memorial, as follows :
"Saturday, February 16, 1765. An engrossed bill, enti- tled 'An Act for Erecting a Town in the County of Worcester, by the name of Royalston,' having passed the House of Rep- resentatives to be enacted,
"In Council read a third time, and passed in concur- rence to be enacted."
From these endorsements it is quite apparent that it was the rule to have each bill read three "several" times in each branch of the General Court or legislature; and that this bill was read in Council on two different dates, then sent down to the House, where it was read three times, and then re- turned to the Council, where it was "read a third time, and passed in concurrence to be enacted," February 16, 1765.
.
47
Reflections on Royalston
Those Proprietors did not go up and subdue that wilder- ness by their own efforts and toil. Not at all. They thought out an easier and, for them, a better way. By giving a part of their purchase to others they induced them to do the sub- duing, well knowing, no doubt, that the improvements which the settlers would be obliged to make would greatly enhance the value of the lots which the Proprietors would have for sale. Mention of this increased valuation is found in the statement in the Memorial that four Bullocks bought of the Proprietors, about 1770, 3451/2 acres in the extreme north- west corner of the town, at 8 shillings per acre; and John Osborne, about the same time, bought a lot of 133 acres, for which the price was 9 shillings and 6 pence per acre. And Mr. Caswell tells us that John Davis purchased a farm of 200 acres in 1778, for £240, or 24 shillings per acre. It is proba- ble that some of these prices might have been essentially reduced in actual value by the depreciation of some of the money of those times, which may be mentioned in connection with the first minister's salary; but those Proprietors un- doubtedly looked well after their own interests, and the set- tlement of Royalston yielded them large profits.
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.