USA > Massachusetts > Berkshire County > Pittsfield > The history of Pittsfield (Berkshire County), Massachusetts, from the year 1800 to the year 1876 > Part 31
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69
Having resigned the presidency of Amherst College in 1845, leaving it among the leading institutions of learning in the coun- try, Dr. Humphrey showed the strength and permanence of his affection for the people of his old charge by returning to Pitts- field, to spend the evening of his days among them. He was then but sixty-six years old, and for seventeen years he contrib- uted his counsel and aid, with all the ardor, and almost with the vigor of his youth, to every enterprise, religious or secular, which was proposed for the good of the town. Having thus lived, beloved and venerated, until the year 1861, he died on the 3d of April; and, on the Sth was buried in the beautiful cemetery, which from the day when he took part in its consecration, he had loved to contemplate as his last resting-place.
CHAPTER XIV.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1820-AMENDMENT TO THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS-ABOLITION OF SEATING THE MEETING-HOUSE.
[1820-1836.]
Opinions and votes of Pittsfield regarding the convention -- Equality of relig- ious sects before the law-Amendment of the bill of rights offered and advo- cated by Ilon. H. H. Childs - Rejected by the convention - Senatorial apportionment upon a property-basis-Changes in the political-year-Vote of Pittsfield on the several amendments-Reforms in the constitution finally obtained-Curious advertisement of Sylvester Rathbun as Methodist committee-man-Legislative action upon the amendment of the bill of rights-Proposition to change the pews in the meeting-house into slips and to abolish the seating-system - Doctor Humphrey's description of the old system-Names of seating-committees from 1790 to 1830-Evils of the seating-system-Plans for change-Change effected.
T rTHE old difficulties and discontent caused by the preference given by the laws of Massachusetts to societies professing the Congregational faith, and the taxes laid for the support of public worship, continued to disturb religious harmony in Pitts- field, and through nearly all the towns of the commonwealth . until the year 1834. In Pittsfield a considerable portion of the Congregationalists, especially those of the democratic party, agreed with members of other denominations in considering the law unjust and impolitic; inconsistent with American institu- tions, and detrimental to the true interests of the religion which it was intended to protect. In this view the pastor of the church, in 1818, seemed, at least partially, to concur.
Two years afterwards, in 1820, the question whether a conven- tion should be held to revise the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the State was submitted to the people ; and Pittsfield gave a hundred and sixteen affirmative votes, with none in the negative.
39
306
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
Very diverse feelings prevailed in different towns in regard to this subject. Thus in Stockbridge there was little or no interest taken in it, while Great Barrington threw twelve yeas to a hun- dred and three nays ; and a similar diversity appeared in the votes of other towns without any obvious reason for it. In the entire state eleven thousand seven hundred and fifty-six votes were given in the affirmative; six thousand five hundred and ninety-three in the negative. In Suffolk county, the vote was twenty-one to one in favor of calling the convention. In Berk- shire two to one. Very different views were also entertained by those who agreed that the convention ought to be held, as to the character of the changes which it ought to make. Thus Boston and Pittsfield, which were among the towns giving the largest affirmative majorities, were governed by precisely opposite opin- ions in regard to the necessity of making radical alterations in the organic laws of the state. Daniel Webster, who was a mem- ber of the convention, thought, with his conservative friends, "that it should have a view to the permanency of the constitu- tion, and it would be necessary to change it only for practical purposes. It has been found, in the practice of forty years, that it had served to protect all the essential rights of the citizens ; that the great outlines were so established as to need no altera- tion."
The majority of the people of Pittsfield, on the other hand considered several provisions of the constitution subversive of natural right, and inconsistent with republican institutions. Chief among the obnoxious clauses whose reform, they asked from the convention, were the third article of the Declaration of Rights-under which the laws providing for the support of pub- lic worship were framed-and the article in the constitution which required that the General Court, in fixing the number of senators to which the districts should be respectively entitled should be governed by the proportion of taxes paid by the respective dis- tricts.
Under the latter article it was found that the county of Suffolk was entitled to one senator for every seven thousand and five hundred of its inhabitants, while the county of Berkshire had only one for every twenty thousand ; which was " deemed a gross and cruel inequality." The Sun cited the case of an individual in Boston whose property of one million three hundred thousand
.
307
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
dollars, had as much representation in the senate as thirteen hundred independent Berkshire farmers with a property of one thousand dollars each.
The democratic instincts of Pittsfield revolted against these and some other provisions of the constitution which seemed to favor particular classes ; and, to carry out their views in the conven- tion the people chose Hon. Nathan Willis, Dr. H. H. Childs and Mr. Jonathan Yale Clark, as their delegates.
The convention met, November 15th ; and the question of an amendment of the third article in the Bill of Rights came up for consideration on the 20th of December, when Mr. Phelps of Ches- ter offered a substitute, doing away with all interference on the part of the state with religious affairs other than to protect all sects and persons in the free exercise of their respective modes of worship. Mr. Saltonstall, of Salem, moved a resolution that it was not expedient to make any change in the article except to insert the word "Christian " instead of " Protestant." Between these extremes Dr. Childs proposed to amend the article as fol- lows :
As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and moral- ity, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God; and, as it is the inalien- able right of every man to render that worship in the mode most con- sistent with the dictates of his own conscience, no person shall by law be compelled to join, or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation or religious society whatever. But every person now belonging to any religious society, whether incorporated or unin- corporated, shall be considered a member thereof until he shall have separated himself therefrom in the manner hereinafter provided.
And each and every society, or denomination, of Christians in this state shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and priv- ileges; and shall have power and authority to raise money for the sup- port and maintenance of religious teachers of their respective denomi- nations, and to build and repair houses of public worship, by a tax on the members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society-meeting, warned and held accord- ing to law.
Provided, nevertheless, That if any person shall choose to separate himself from the society or denomination to which he may belong, and. shall join himself to another society of the same, or a different, denomi- nation, he shall leave a written notice thereof with the clerk of such
308
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
society, and shall thereupon be no longer liable for any further expenses which may be incurred by said society.
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peace- ably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law. And no subordination of one sect, or denomination, to another, shall ever be established by law.
Dr. Childs subsequently stated that the reason why he was the mover of this resolution was that Rev. Thomas Baldwin, D. D., who was a member of the committee, and had proposed making a motion of similar import, was not in his seat when the subject came up in convention. But, Mr. Phelps withdrawing his propo- sition, the amendment offered by Dr. Childs was vigorously and ably supported by Dr. Baldwin, Levi Lincoln of Worcester, and other gentlemen of liberal views. Dr. Childs, himself, advocated it to the end with characteristic ardor and no little parliamentary ability. He was, however, met by such leaders of the opposition as Daniel Webster, Samuel Hoar and Josiah Quincy, and, with the conservative sentiment of the convention also arrayed against him, his effort was from the first almost hopeless. Although the liberty he asked in religious matters for the people of the country had long been enjoyed by the citizens of Boston, Salem and Newburyport, they feared to extend it to the people of the coun- try. Perfectly efficient and satisfactory as the voluntary system, in their hands, had proved for the support of public worship, the delegates from the favored towns, with some honorable excep- tions, and the conservatives of the interior dared not trust the free-will contributions of country Christians for the support of their own institutions of religion. Indeed, the whole tone of the speakers who opposed a change in the third article indicated that they considered the friends of the voluntary system as the ene- mies of all religion, and believed that the success of their propo- sition would result in the decay of all the churches, and the spread of infidelity and immorality throughout the state. And they were followed in these opinions by a majority of the dele- gates from the country-towns themselves ; and among the rest by Nathan Willis, who certainly acted in this instance contrary to the wishes of a majority of his constituents.
The discussion was prolonged, and became probably the most excited which took place in the convention. Many amendments to Dr. Childs's propositions were offered; but it was finally sub-
309
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
mitted to a vote in a new draft made by himself, the variations being hardly more than verbal. It was rejected by a vote of one hundred and thirty-six yeas to two hundred nays; General Willis voting in the negative.
The amendment of the third article of the Bill of Rights which the convention finally submitted to the people, made substantially the same provision as to the mode of supporting publie worship as already governed legislation in practice.
Dr. Childs and Mr. Clark united heartily with the other liberal members of the convention in their effort to make persons instead of property the basis of representation in the senate. But here again the conservative element proved too powerful for them. The reform was rejected by a vote of one hundred and forty-seven to two hundred and forty-five; General Willis not voting.
Among the alterations in the constitution desired by Pittsfield, in common with other country-towns, was one making the first Wednesday of January the beginning of the political year, and substituting a single session of the General Court in winter for one in the spring and fall respectively : and this amendment was submitted to the people and adopted.
Fourteen articles of amendment were submitted to the people for ratification ; and a committee of twenty-eight members, of whom General Willis was one, was appointed to meet on the fourth Wednesday of May, 1821, to ascertain the result.
In the Pittsfield town-meeting the feeble amendment to the third article of the Bill of Rights received but eight ayes, to a hundred and eighty-five nays. The amendment regarding the basis of representation in the senate, although somewhat modified from its first extreme inequality, was still so unsatisfactory that not a single vote was cast in its favor, while two hundred and six were cast in opposition.
A similar temper was shown by the votes thrown upon all the amendments submitted.
On the count of the vote of the entire state it was found that the amendment of the third article of the Bill of Rights, and the article in the constitution concerning the appointment of senators were both defeated; those in favor of reforming those articles altogether, voting against the amendments, together with those who were opposed to any change. The amendment regarding the
310
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
alteration in the beginning of the political year was also rejected; but was finally secured in 1831.
After a while, also, the public sentiment of the state, as usual, overtook that of Pittsfield, in regard to the other proposed liberal reforms. In November, 1833, the following amendment to the " third article," having obtained the requisite majorities in the legislature, was ratified by the people :
As the publie worship of God, and instructions in piety, religion and morality promote the happiness and prosperity of a people, and the secur- ity of a republican government ; therefore the several religious societies of this commonwealth, whether corporate or incorporate, at any meet- ing legally warned and holden for that purpose, shall have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the pay- ment of necessary expenses ; and all persons belonging to any religious society shall be taken and held to be members until they shall file with the clerk of such society a written notice declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thenceforth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made or entered into by such society ; and all religious sects and denominations, demeaning them- selves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law ; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
The amendment was introduced in the legislature of 1832, by the presentation of sixty-five petitions in the house of repre- sentatives, on the third day of the session. A few days after- wards Jonathan Allen, 2d, one of the representatives from Pittsfield, introduced similar memorials from that town, signed by Jarvis C. Nichols, Robert Francis, and others. The amend- ment passed, after a sharp discussion, on the tenth of February, by a vote of three hundred and forty-seven to ninety, receiving the support of all the Pittsfield representatives : Nathan Willis (who had voted against it in convention), Thomas B. Strong, Jonathan Allen, 2d, and Jirah Stearns. In the senate, it received the requisite two-thirds vote, although the judiciary com- mittee, to whom it was referred, reported, through its chairman, Hon. Leverett Saltonstall, that the change was " neither neces- sary or expedient."
When, having in like manner passed the ordeal of the second trial in the legislature of 1833, it was submitted to the people in
311
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
November of that year-it was adopted by the extraordinary vote of thirty-two thousand three hundred and twenty-four yeas, to three thousand two hundred and seventy-two nays : almost ten to one. So great had been the change in less than twelve years.
In 1840, by another amendment, the anomaly of a property- basis for representation in the senate was abolished and the sena- tors were apportioned to the several districts according to their population.
ยท The defeat of the expected reform of the inequality of different sects before the law created intense dissatisfaction among those who were not members of the standing-order, and they in Pitts- field, were loud in their denunciation of the delegate, who, differing from his colleagues, voted against it. The large number of Congregationalists who favored the change, and the fact that Dr. Childs, its champion on the floor of the convention, was of that faith, prevented the old angry division of the town upon the question. The irritated feeling of the dissenters was, however, manifested in various ways, and among others by the following advertisement, which was printed in the Sun of January, 1821, with a rude wood-cut of a man kneeling, with a chain around his neck, before another who held the other end :
To all whom it may concern : Having been informed, that there are many persons wishing to become members of the Methodist parish, and free themselves, as far as possible, from the oppression1 of a religious persecution, which the intolerants of the late convention still think proper to advise the people to submit to ; I therefore take this method of giving notice that I am legally authorized, by said parish, to give the necessary certificates of membership.
January 16th, 1821.
SYLVESTER RATHBUN.
Upon the ratification of the amendment of 1833, the corporate connection of the Congregational society with the town of Pitts- field ceased ; but under the operation of the law. passed by the legislature of 1834, all persons previously connected with the parish continued to be so until they filed with the clerk a notice declaring the dissolution of his membership. It also retained all the rights, privileges and immunities which it had previously possessed, except such as were abrogated by the amendment, and the law explanatory of it.
1It will be remembered that the Methodist parish in Pittsfield had some important immunities and privileges by special charter.
312
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
While the effort to secure equality before the law for all relig- ious denominations was going on, a similar endeavor for altera- tions in the First Parish meeting-house, in the interest of equality within that church, was also in progress.
The pews under the old plan were square and huge; "so that the congregation," said Dr. Humphrey, "might stare at one another instead of looking at the preacher; and high, square play-houses along the sides of the galleries above, were the seats of the children. The boys not content to be so shut up made good use of their penknives in opening such communications as suited their convenience." " It is true," he added, "we had tithing-men then, and they occasionally rapped in the midst of the sermon, and once in a while took a boy by the collar and marched him along to the tithing-man's seat, where he sat, casting an occasional stealthy sidelong glance at his playmates, who were enjoying his duress. It was a bad arrangement of the seats, above and below. But it was generally the same in other places ; and there was one thing about it I liked: The aged were seated together nearest to the pulpit, where they could hear better than far down the aisles. It was pleasant for the preacher to see them sitting so near, under the droppings of the sanctuary."
But there were other circumstances than that named by Dr. Humphrey, which were considered by the committee in "seating the meeting-house ;" and some of them did not command so unan- imous an approval. There were taken into account, social stand- ing, official position, professional occupation, wealth, and that indefinable combination of dress, bearing, and manner of living, which, under the name of " style," is peculiarly obnoxious to the jealousy of a large class in every village community. And it would be to attribute to the committees an almost miraculous exemption from human frailties, did we not add to the list of the considerations which might sometimes influence their allotment, favoritism and its reverse.
Embittered feeling and jealous heart-burnings, of course, arose from a custom like this ; and would have done so if angelic wis- dom and purity of purpose, instead of human imperfection, had made the assignment. Wounded sensitiveness often prevented the attendance of the more susceptible or irascible upon Divine service. The church-records contain many instances of discipline administered-and generally administered in vain-for the
313
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
reclaiming of those who had abandoned both public worship and the communion, exasperated at what they deemed an unjust assignment of their places in the house of God. Frequently a pew was given to more of the class likely to be thus offended, than could be possibly be crowded into it; the committee remark- ing, "O, it won't matter, they never go to meeting, anyhow."
In the latter days of the system, however, more attention was given to attempts to satisfy all; and the committee gave notice, through the newspapers, asking all persons desirous of seats to specify those which they preferred. But, however sincere and painstaking in their efforts, it was obviously impossible to place every person where he wished to be, or to avoid giving offense to many.
Another evil arising from the old system was the separation of families; and this was specially connected with the huge square pews of which it was not practicable to give one to each family ; as it is with the greater economy of space secured by the division of the floor into slips. Indeed, the old system of pews, and that of seating the congregation by a committee, were so inseparable, that it would have been very difficult to abolish the latter without changing the former.
With this statement of the evils connected with the interior arrangement of the meeting-house, the reader will be able to de- tect without special mention in each case, the reasons for the votes, and other town-action, by which improvement was sought.
In March, 1824, the votes of the town belonging to the Con- gregational society were called upon to decide whether they would agree to make sale of the pews in their meeting-house as they then were, or previous to said sale, alter them into slips. The wording of the warrant would indicate that a sale of the pews in some form had already been determined upon; but such was not the fact. That was a question still unsettled; and Thomas B. Strong, John Dickinson, Butler Goodrich, Thomas A. Gold and Samuel M. McKay were appointed a committee to esti- mate the cost of making the proposed change, to devise a plan for selling the slips, if they were built, for the benefit of the society, and to devise also, if practicable, "a mode to seat the meeting-house; other than the mode heretofore adopted-or for selling the pews in their present form."
Two weeks afterward, the committee reported. They submit-
40
314
HISTORY OF PITTSFIELD.
ted a plan for making the pews into slips at an expense which they thought would not exceed three hundred and fifty dollars, and in a manner which would seat a hundred and fifty persons more than could be comfortably accommodated in the old pews. And it was their opinion, if it was the pleasure of the parish to so alter the house, "the slips, or a part of them, should be sold at auction, for a period of five years, for certain sums, payable annually, to be applied toward the support of the pastor." They thought it would be inexpedient to sell the pews in the old form, as there were not enough of them to accommodate separately all the families in the parish.
They found it beyond their power to devise any plan for seating the meeting-house which would, in their opinion, be better than the old; but they thought that the substitution of slips-"even if they were not sold, but seated-would contribute much to the convenience, comfort, and eventually, the harmony of the parish." Still, as the project was new to a majority of the parish, the committee proposed a postponement of its consideration in order that they might become better acquainted with it. Their advice was accepted, and the meeting ordered their report, with the plan attached, to be conspicuously posted.
The next year the subject again came up, but the parish was still unprepared to act upon it, and Phinehas Allen, Hosea Merrill, Charles Churchill, S. M. MeKay, and Jonathan Allen were directed to examine into it, and report to an adjourned meeting. The meeting was held; but there is no further allusion in the records to the change of pews into slips until March, 1830, when it was considered with a deliberation that indicates the interest which it excited, and the difference of opinion concerning it.
The moderator, Joseph Merriek, nominated a committee - Josiah Bissell, Phinehas Allen, and Henry Hubbard-who, having been formally approved by the meeting, nominated as a committee to consider the article in the warrant regarding the proposed alteration : Nathan Willis, Simeon Brown, Ezekiel R. Colt, S. M. McKay, Curtis T. Fenn, E. M. Bissell, Solomon L. Russell, and Henry H. Childs.
In September following, the committee reported three methods of disposing of the question. The third, which was adopted by the meeting, is the only one described in the record; and is as follows :
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.