USA > Massachusetts > Worcester County > Royalston > Reflections on Royalston, Worcester County, Massachusetts, U.S.A > 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 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48
The territory of the town, originally consisting of the purchase of 28,357 acres and the grants of 2,300, making a total of 30,657 acres, was materially reduced by the various changes in connection with neighboring towns, mentioned on page 41. The Memorial states that the amount of land as- sessed for taxation in 1864 was 26,882 acres. There was a large reduction in this amount from some cause, quite likely by the readjustment of the New Hampshire line, and now for many years the amount of land assessed for taxation has been 25,720 acres. The average valuation has been around $13. Some lots, probably those with valuable timber and wood, have been assessed as high as $80 and even $100 per acre; other lots, probably mostly those which have been de- nuded, have been rated at less than $4; and some small lots carrying buildings have been assessed at the rate of $800 to $1200 per acre for the land, aside from the buildings.
A few lines in relation to Proprietors. There seems to be good reason for thinking that our good Sir Isaac Royal was a slave-holder. Mr. Caswell publishes a picture of the
48
Reflections on Royalston
"Royal House and Slave Quarters" at Medford. Slave quar- ters indicate slaves; but if, as stated, the original house was built previous to 1640, there was room for previous occupants of the place to build and use the quarters, while Mr. Royal might have had no use for them. However, as he did not have them removed, and he lived in a time when slave-hold- ing was a respectable and fashionable accomplishment, we may do him no injustice in supposing that he held slaves.
From a paragraphic "History of the United States" issued by the New York World in 1886, we learn that in 1754 Massachusetts had 2,448 negro slaves over 16 years of age, about 1,000 being in Boston. (The population of Boston in 1752 was 17,574, and small pox killed about 550 of the people in that year.) In Connecticut and Rhode Island the ratio of negro slaves was higher, and in New York City, Philadephia, Mary- land, Virginia, North and South Carolina, much higher.
In 1766 a controversy sprang up in Massachusetts as to the justice and legality of negro slavery; and in 1767 the General Court attempted to restrict the importation of negroes; the negroes of the province began to sue their so-called owners for wages, and juries invariably gave ver- dicts in favor of the negroes. These trials were the first steps toward the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts.
The Memorial states that John Hancock became one of the Proprietors of Royalston by inheritance from his uncle, Thomas Hancock, who died in 1764, and that he succeeded to his uncle's large fortune and extensive mercantile busi- ness. It appears that this business interest had much to do with John Hancock's activity in the "Boston Tea Party."
In 1763 it was proposed in Britain "to maintain 10,000 regulars as a peace establishment to defend the Colonies against the Indians." Of course the Colonies were to be made to pay for this protection, and this was to be accomplished by means of duties, stamp taxes, the sugar act, and similar impositions. In 1765 an act was passed authorizing the British government to send any number of troops to America, and the quartering act, requiring the Colonies to "find quarters, firewood, bed- ding, drink, soap and candles" for the troops.
Objections to these burdens found vent in numerous conventions, and a Colonial Congress, which met in New York, Oct. 7, 1765, and passed a "Declaration of Rights and Grievances," claiming as their birthright all the privileges of Englishmen, including "the right of being taxed only by their own consent." A petition was sent to England for presentation to Parliament; all stamp officers were forced to resign, and the stamps remained unpacked or were seized and burned, and it was found impos- sible to enforce the stamp act. Citizens committees in Boston, New York and Philadelphia resolved to import no goods from Britain until the act was repealed. Many British merchants, doubtless deploring the loss of Colonial trade, petitioned for the repeal of the act; William Pitt, states- man, contended that "the kingdom had no right to levy a tax on the Col- onies;"' and the stamp act was repealed, March 28, 1766. This caused great joy throughout the Colonies, several of which voted statues to the king and to Pitt. Their joy was dampened by the remembrance of the sugar act which was still in force.
In 1767 an act was passed, to raise revenues in America by customs
49
Reflections on Royalston
duties, to maintain a standing army and to provide permanent salaries for the governors and judges. This led to measures to discontinue the importation of British goods and to encourage home manufactures; and to refusals to provide for the troops. The seizure of John Hancock's sloop, "Liberty," on a charge of smuggling wine, led to a great riot in Boston, June 10, 1768. In 1770 Parliament repealed the customs act, ex- cept as to the duty on tea, and the quartering act was allowed to expire. The tax on tea and the sugar act kept alive discontent. The tea tax of 3 pence per pound was justified in Britain by the fact that a drawback of 1 shilling per pound was allowed on the tea on leaving Britain, the colonists thus gaining 9 pence per pound.
Meanwhile John Hancock and others were smuggling tea from Hol- land to an extent that substantially nullified the tea tax, and in Britain in 1773 a drawback of the whole duty was allowed to the East India Com- pany, a chartered corporation, which largely controlled the British tea trade, with the result that that company would be able to undersell the smuggled tea, and John Hancock and the other smugglers would meet great financial loss.
It is said that the smugglers were panic stricken, but the masses of the people "were pleased at the prospect of drinking tea at less ex- pense than ever." Immediate steps were taken, however, to prevent the sale of British tea, and public meetings denounced whoever should aid or abet in unloading, receiving or vending the tea as an enemy to his country. A tea-ship arrived at Boston,.Nov. 27, 1773, and was put under guard of 25 men appointed at a meeting of a "body" of people of Boston and neighboring towns; two other tea-ships which arrived a few days later were likewise guarded. The owners of the tea-ships were com- pelled to promise to send them back with their cargoes; but the governor and the collector refused to give them a clearance till the cargoes were landed. Then, on Dec. 16, 1773, a band of 50 men, disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the tea-ships and emptied the cargoes of 342 chests of tea into Boston harbor.
John Hancock and the other patriots prevented the placing of that tea on the market, even though the duty had been remitted. They de- sired to retain that market for the tea which they had smuggled in.
At Philadelphia the captain of a tea-ship was persuaded to return to England without attempting to land his cargo. A tea-ship arrived at Sandy Hook April 21, 1774, but was refused a landing, and in a few days returned to England; the people seized 18 chests which arrived on an- other ship and emptied them into the river. At Charleston, S. C., a cargo was landed, but, stored in damp cellars, soon became worthless.
Following these episodes events accumulated rapidly in the history of the struggle of the Colonies for independence, and our Proprietor John Hancock was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence, . and the first governor of Massachusetts, under independence.
Although the Proprietors acquired possession of the ter- ritory in 1752, and soon after that had work done in plotting out the town, Mr. Bullock, in his centennial address, said that the French war of 1756 called so many men into service that little attention could be given to the new settlement. But in 1761, "the war having spent its fury," deeds had been granted to 21 settlers; in 1762 six families moved in; and soon after the French war closed as many as 75 heads of families had become established in the settlement. In an- other part of his address Mr. Bullock stated that Rev. Joseph
50
Reflections on Royalston
Lee, the first minister, said that there were 42 families in the town when he came in 1768. From some source I noted a population of 617 in 1775; and Mr. Bullock gave it as 1,130 in 1790; and we may well believe that births as well as set- tlements figured largely in this increase in population.
A story of the travels and tribulations of these early settlers would make most interesting reading. How did they travel? Many of them came from Sutton, a distance of 60 or 70 miles, probably, by such roads as were then available. Many others came from greater distances. There were no railroads, but probably there were stage-coaches running between those lower towns on which a man with his axe and gun and pack could ride a part of the way, finishing the trip on foot, with a trusty dog running along beside. But while it is possible that some of these stalwart settlers put in a first season alone in clearing and prepar- ing a place for a home and for crops, it seems probable that in most cases a team would go with the settler, and that it would be an ox team, and the vehicle might be a covered wagon, which might serve as a sleep- ing apartment; and into this might be packed the axes and plows and other tools needed, some salt meats and other provisions; the pioneer would probably find plenty of fresh meat, venison, fowl, fish, to be easily secured on his own or nearby lots. Perhaps wild fruits and berries would form a part of his sustenance, and the cattle would feed on the green stuff. The cattle might have been protected from wild beasts at night by stockade enclosures of timbers driven into the ground. Fires, once started, were probably banked and not allowed to go out; as the handy and everywhere-present friction-matches of later times had not been invented, and fires were usually started by getting a spark by bringing a piece of flint and a piece of steel in sharp contact and thus igniting tinder, which sometimes consisted of scorched linen rags. The tinder-box, containing flint, steel and tinder, was almost indispensable. The flint and the steel trigger on the "shooting-iron" of those old times produced the spark which fired the powder.
There were no stoves in those days, and fires in buildings were kept in open fireplaces, built of stone at first, and later of brick; and some of them were very large and were surmounted by chimneys of similar pro- portions. Around and over these open fires cooking was done, and it is probable that in most houses one fire was kept burning the year around, even when not needed for warmth. This was accomplished by using the right kind of wood to keep plenty of live coals, and careful banking of the coals with ashes when the fire was not needed. And in winter some- times the fire was fed by logs so large that they were rolled into the house, a good "back-log" being of great advantage. And if, perchance, the fire was "lost," it is said that they sometimes sent to a neighbor's for live coals, in preference to starting the fire by the flint-spark and tinder process, -when they had neighbors within reach.
Although the adjoining towns of Athol, Templeton and Winchendon were incorporated but little earlier than Royalston, there were settle- ments in them several years earlier, and it is probable that our Royalston pioneers tramped over into these towns and there secured desirable sup- plies, and perhaps found some connection for correspondence with their friends in the towns from which they came.
It is almost unbelievable that settlers could, with the facilities then available, have done enough in one season to make it possible to spend the winter there. But probably some of them "laid their foundations" so well the first season that they could raise crops and build log-cabins or other structures, during the second season, in which they could spend the next winter. When two or more went together into the wilderness, as was probably sometimes the case, it would seem that conditions might have worked out more favorably.
51
Reflections on Royalston
THE LITTLE MAP.
Right here I may as well devote a few lines to the little map of Roy- alston, which will be found on page 40, and which may be thrown on the screen again before the entertainment is closed.
· Much as I realize that I would like to apologize and offer excuses for it, I will boldly say that it is a better map of Royalston than any other that I have seen in connection with anything which could be regarded as a Royalston historical publication.
The much-quoted Memorial was not issued in the day of half-tones and line-cuts, now so easily produced from photographs and drawings by photo-engraving processes; and no map was to be expected. Its com- pilers doubtless had a view of the town in their "mind's eye" when they gave locations, and they probably tried to tell their readers what they saw by reference to places as they were known in 1865.
While in a certain sense I "made" this map, I could never have pro- duced it or anything at all like it without help from other maps. I have drawn from larger and better maps issued in 1853, 1870 and 1902, -quite largely from the latter. These maps do not agree with each other in all respects. There is a large variation in the shapes of the Athol and Orange "notches."
The 1870 map is extremely at variance with the others in the way it tips the easterly side of the town down, so that on the northerly line the north-easterly corner is placed fully a mile and a half further south than the north-westerly corner; whereas the other maps show only a slight deflection of possibly a quarter of a mile, agreeing with other state and general maps. The Atlas of Worcester County in which this 1870 map appears has a county map in which the northerly lines of Royalston and Winchendon agree well enough with other maps; but right on the next two pages are the separate maps of the two towns, each tipped down at that ridiculous angle! And both the county and town maps are indicated as in the correct position with relation to the points of compass by the customary arrow pointing north on each page.
We must confess to a sense of disappointment in not finding a real map of Royalston in Mr. Caswell's book. With a civil engineer on the job, we had reason to expect, as the result of more than seven years of travail and travel, something more than the mere outlines of the original grant of the town, -like a big dinner consisting of an immense empty platter in the middle of the table.
This outline map of Mr. Caswell's stands at the same impossible slant on the page as the 1870 map above referred to; but the customary arrow is lacking, to enforce the correctness of the position.
In making this map shown on page 40 it was intended particularly that it should be useful in helping the reader to locate places and objects mentioned. An effort was made to name a few locations on the map; some of them will be found in readable condition; others were "lost in the making." But in the descriptive matter following, reference will be made to the locations by the numbers of the squares on the map. That will be better than such designations as "the corner of Joseph Esta- brook's pasture," and the like, which have been used so much. A few of us still living know something about locations so described. But the aim with this map has been to furnish a means by which people in future generations, as well as those of the current time, may learn where the things mentioned were located.
A larger, folded-in map would have been better in some respects, but it is hoped and expected that this little one, printed right on a page of the book, will do good service as long as the other parts of the book remain in use; whereas a folded or inserted map would be likely to be- come broken, detached, and lost in part, much earlier.
Similar remarks might be made in relation to the map of the Center Village, which is somewhat larger and better than this one.
52
Reflections on Royalston
.
ONE
MISE
1
N
-
NGC
NOE
U-
.
26 N
NTE
CARRIAGE SHOP
PONU
NW
NO NS
1
bbc
10 N
59€
c 58
53
c 46
15w 9W 5W
16rc
:425
390
c 38
036
EN
37
c34
ROYALSTON CENTER VILLAGE
-
c 26
21c
COMMON
1022
LITTLE
19c
1
POND
cr
150
€ 18
11c .
12€ 16€
6E
yo
LLE-
c8
13€ 15E 12€
1c
c2
55
i.
95
1
8s
TENT
ONOd 371117
1
.
5c
€30
53
Reflections on Royalston
ROYALSTON CENTER VILLAGE.
This map of the Center Village, with all its faults and weaknesses, is probably the best one that has ever been made. I have seen two others, on the town maps of 1857 and 1870, referred to on page 51; they show evidence of a more practiced hand at map-drawing, and they also show erratic defects in the placements of boundary lines, buildings, etc.
It is not claimed that this map is strictly accurate with relation to po- sitions, distances and spaces. It is simply a plan from which any person familiar with the village may learn the approximate or relative locations of the things mentioned. Many things have been introduced which the other map-makers could not introduce for lack of knowledge thereof.
Perhaps the reader will allow that for handiness of consultation and durability this little map, all on one regular page, has advantages over a folded or inserted one of larger size.
The initial numberings will probably be readily appreciated. They are suggestive of what might be used in case of free mail delivery.
THE EXTENSION OF THE COMMON.
The original Common, as laid out by the Proprietors in 1762, was quite different in its proportions from what is now known as the Com- mon. . It is evident that the ten acres laid out for the Common by the Proprietors in 1762 were comprised in the wide and somewhat square part, where all of the buildings on both sides stand at a considerable distance back from the central roadway. Some interest attaches to the way in which the Common was extended to a considerable length, both north and south, but with less width than the original plot.
There seems to be good history relating to the extension northward. The reader will readily find on the map the designation of the location of the well on the Common, and a "cellar-hole" near it. The latter is in- tended to give an idea of the location of a former dwelling. Now from the Memorial, page 96: "Ebenezer Elliot settled north of the original Common. His house stood hard by the old town pump; d. 1794. This place, together with other lands north, was bought by Capt. William Raymond, from Athol, who built the house now owned and occupied by Ashbel Goddard, and gave the town the land by which the Common was extended to his residence." The Goddard house is 66C on map.
There is no such plain statement in relation to the extension of the Common at the south end. Rev. Joseph Lee's residence was at 1C, and Mr. Bullock said: "His spare form, in the style of the old school, emerg- ing through that garden gate year in and year out with scrupulous punc- tuality to the church service." If there was a garden in front of that parsonage quite likely it extended down to the original Common. Per- haps Mr. Lee relinquished that ground; or it might have been a matter of later adjudication and attended to by his son, Thomas J. Lee, or some later owner of the place. Probably it was accomplished before the Nichols house at 5C was built, otherwise that house might have been quite differently placed. Undoubtedly Mr. Lee's original 431 acres in- cluded all the land in that vicinity.
STABILITY IN NUMBER OF DWELLINGS.
The stability of Royalston Center is well illustrated in the fact that the village now, at time of writing late in 1918, has the same number of dwelling-houses, or within one of the same, that it had about 1850. The few changes that have been made have kept the number almost if not quite even. Here are the changes, as I recall them.
Beginning at the top of the map, the old two-story Jonas Pierce house at 15NE was torn down and replaced by the smaller one now there
54
Reflections on Royalston
by Barnet Bullock, around 1857. The little house at 5NE was built be- tween 1875 and 1885, probably, and was a real addition to the number of dwellings; but it was destroyed by fire early in 1918. The George Pierce house at 42C was burned and rebuilt. The large Estabrook house and store building at 34C was moved back and converted into a stable and the handsome new dwelling erected in its place in 1872. The building at 30C was not originally a dwelling-house, but was built by Gregory or Es- tabrook and used by one or both of them in their palmleaf work. About 1858 Joseph Estabrook transformed the building into a dwelling, which would have been an addition; but at about the same time Mr. Estabrook demolished an old house at 26C; it was a low one-story affair with a huge chimney, and was the last one of a kind that must have been in use be- fore the larger two-story mansions became common.
In 1874 the old parsonage, tavern and store building at 1C was re- moved to 12E, where it has since done service as a dwelling, and a new parsonage was erected on the old site at 1C. That would have added one to the number; but over at 16W a dwelling was demolished, to offset it, much earlier, around 1855.
WEST SIDE OF COMMON, OCTOBER, 1873.
The house at the left in the above picture stands at 5C on the map, and is the one that was built by Elijah Nichols, and was occupied by him and by his son, Joseph Towne Nichols, until about 1872, when it was sold to Anthony Donnelly, who occupied it for several years. In 1875 the place came into the hands of Dr. Frank W. Adams, who made extensive improvements and has occupied it for the many years since. The next house in the picture is at 9C on the map. It was built by William O. Brown, and after he removed to Fitchburg, in 1854, it was occupied for many years by Horace Pierce.
I have indicated on the map that a building once stood between 5C and 9C. I think that it was something that evolved out of or succeeded the hatter's shop which the Memorial says William Jerrel was given per- mission to build on the Common in 1780; but it may have had a very dif- ferent origin. At any rate, it is reasonable to suppose that it had found a place on the lot at 9C, and when William O. Brown built the large two- story house there he pushed it over where it could rest temporarily until it could be utilized elsewhere. It filled a need when it was moved over to 8S and became a part of the house which was the home of Anthony Donnelly for many years, and later of William Parke. The old building was a rather narrow, two-story affair. I have a somewhat vague rec- ollection of having seen it standing in the open on the Common while it
55
Reflections on Royalston
was being moved, and I have quite distinct recollection of having seen the work of building the ell part onto it, and the barn, in the early days of my going up to school, around 1853. Well, allowing that the old build- ing had not previously been used for a dwelling, this addition of the Don- nelly house and the other changes named may show a gain of one in the number of dwellings during the period from 1850 to 1918.
It is probable that more new dwelling-houses were put up in the decade 1840 to 1850 than in all of the following 68 years. I am quite sure that 6 or 7 of the smaller houses north of the Common were built between 1840 and 1850; and it is not improbable that some of the large ones on the Common arrived during that period; some of these probably took the places of smaller old houses.
George F. Miller came to Royalston about 1836. I have been told that he lived for a time at the Brewer house, 43N, on the hill. The best information we have indicates that Mr. Miller built the house at 58C, and
MILLER AND CLEMENT RESIDENCES, 1873.
that it was his home until he went to Westfield, about 1851. After that this Miller house went to George Whitney, who retained it as his home for the remainder of his long life. Probably Dr. Isaac P. Willis built the house at 12C, -the one at the left in the above picture; he lived there many years. It is probable that J. E. P. Austin, who had a store at 8C, built the house at 2C, -the one at the right in the picture. Later this house became the home of Dr. Willis; and Mr. Miller, returning after several years at Westfield, took the former Dr. Willis house, at 12C.
Dr. Willis was followed at the Austin house by Dr. Horace T. Hanks, for several years. After his retirement William W. Clement occupied the place, and Dr. Henry A. Deane and Dr. Frank W. Adams had their homes and offices there during temporary terms of practice. Some years later, Joseph T. Nichols, who had sold his place nearly opposite this one on the Common, and had lived in the old parsonage at 1C for a short time and in Fitchburg for a number of years, returned to Royalston, and occupied this place until his death in 1915; it is still owned by his family.
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.