USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Woburn > The history of Woburn, Middlesex County, Mass. from the grant of its territory to Charlestown, in 1640, to the year 1680 > Part 15
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
24 Wonder-working Providence, Book II., Chap. xxii., pp. 175-181.
11*
126
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
Yet mnst thou shew, Christ makes his bold to be As lions, that none may his truths tread down ; Pastoral power he hath invested thee With, it maintain, leest he on thee do frown. Thy youth thou hast in this New England spent, Full sixteen years to water, plant and prune Trees taken up, and for that end here sent;
Thy end's with Christ; with's saints his praises tune." 24
What the last sickness of this venerable divine was, the Records do not specify. But two charges in the bill for his funeral expenses, presented to the Selectmen, October 6, 1684, give reason to conjecture, that it was some short and violent disease, perhaps a putrid fever. That bill was as follows :
"Charges on Mr Thomas Carter's funerall in 1684.
By fourteene gallons of wine at 38: 6ª per
gallon £2.09:00
For tarr, two shillings
.
0:02:00
For gloves
1:16:00
For his coffin, money
0:06:00
For his graue, in pay
0:05:00
For manchester, 6 yards, and a jarr for tarr 0:01:06
£4: 19 : 06." 25
At a General Meeting of the inhabitants, October 6, 1684, the same day on which the above bill of funeral expenses was presented to the Selectmen, they voted and agreed unanimously that there should be half a rate made for defraying it and other " Town's debts." They also generously agreed that Mr. Carter's rate for his salary should " be compleated and payd for this yeare as formerly." 25
By his wife, Mrs. Mary (Dalton) Carter, whom he married be- fore his settlement in Woburn, and who died March 28, 1687, Mr. Carter had eight children, viz : Samuel, Judith, Theophilus, Mary, Abigail, Deborah, Timothy and Thomas. Theophilus and De- borah died young, before their father; Samuel, usually styled in the Town Records, Mr. Samuel Carter, was born August S, 1640;
16 Town Recorda, Vol. III., p. 68.
127
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
had a liberal education, was a graduate at Harvard College, 1660, was admitted an inhabitant and a proprietor of the common lands by vote of the town, 4th Jan. 1665-6; 26 sustained at different times several responsible offices in the town, as Select- man, Town Clerk and " Commissioner of the Rate," and was repeatedly employed there as an instructor of youth. By his wife, Eunice [Brooks], whom he married 1672, he had eight children, and died 1693.
Judith married Samuel, son of Deacon Edward Convers, June 8, [alias October 14,] 1660,27 and secondly, Giles Fifield, May 2, 1672, and died 1676. Mary, born July 24, 1648, married John Wyman, Jr., son of Mr. John Wyman of Woburn, about 1671, and he being killed by the Indians at the Swamp Fight, December 19, 1675, she next married Nathaniel Bachiler of Hampton, N. H., October 31, 1676, by whom she had eight children, and died 1688.28 Abigail, born January 10, 1649-50, married May 7, 1674, John Smith, and died prior to 1684. Timothy was born June 12, 1653, married Anna Fisk, daughter of David Fisk of Cambridge [Lexington] May 3, 1680, and died July 8, 1727.28 Thomas was born June 8, 1655, married, 1682, Margery Whitmore, daughter of Francis Whitmore of Cambridge, who died October 5, 1734.28 Timothy and Thomas Carter were both husbandmen, and proprietors, in their father's right, of several considerable tracts of land in Woburn. Timothy was the father of thirteen children, of whom three died before their parents ; and the descendants of Thomas, who had a family of six children, are still numerous in Wilmington, and in that part of Burlington adjoining, which is known by the name of Carter Row.
The same year in which Rev. Mr. Carter died, 1684, the Charter of the Massachusetts Colony, which had long been threatened, was vacated in England; and with their Charter, the people had taken from them, not long after, the invaluable privilege of choosing their own rulers. In December, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Boston, as Governor of Massachu-
26 Town Records, Vol. I., p. 31. 27 Town Records. Savage's Genealogical Dictionary.
28 Town Records of Marriages, Births, etc., etc. Savage's Genealogical Dictionary. Letter of Thomas B. Wyman, Esq.
128
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
setts, by commission from King James II .: a fit servant of a Popish and arbitrary master. Of this Governor, it has been observed, that " Nero concealed his tyrannical disposition more years than Sir Edmund and his creatures did months." He promised fairly at first : but very soon exerted the great power intrusted to him, for ruling as he pleased. He and a few of his Council (appointed also by the King) who resided in or near Boston, passed what laws and raised what taxes they saw fit, without check from any assembly of representatives of the people. They declared the titles to the lands granted under the former Government to be of no validity, under the pretence that the Charter had been vacated, and likewise that those grants had been made without the Colony Seal; and they required the people, if they would enjoy their possessions unmolested, to come to them, and take out new patents for them, at an extravagant price. And when some ventured to complain of oppression, they were insolently told by one of the Council, "that they must not think the privileges of Englishmen would follow them to the end of the world."
This tyrannical government was suddenly put down, in an unpremeditated insurrection of the people, in April 1689. Previously, however, the people had in general been submissive to its measures, because resistance appeared to them both pre- sumptuous and vain. And yet, in some places, murmurs of disapprobation and uneasiness would at times arise, and a dis- position to oppose would occasionally manifest itself. The Selectmen of Ipswich, for instance, voted to " petition the King for liberty of an assembly before they [made | any rates "; for which daring act, they were fined and imprisoned. Samuel Appleton, Esq., of the same town, and Rev. John Wise, one of its ministers, were imprisoned for a like offence.
Woburn, too, repeatedly resented the privation of some of its ancient liberties, which it suffered by this government. A law had been passed by Sir Edmund and his Council forbidding town meetings to be held at any time or for any purpose what- ever, except once a year for the choice of town officers; and even for this single meeting in any year for this one purpose, it
-
129
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
was required, it seems, that it should be called, not by the Selectmen of any town, but by warrant from certain Justices of the County in which the town was located, or by direct authority from the government. But the people of Woburn could not brook this encroachment upon a privilege which they had enjoyed under the old charter from the beginning. Their meet- ing, for the choice of town officers for 1687, was convened February 22d, the last Tuesday of that month, their long accustomed day for this business, when they chose for Select- men, William Johnson, Esq. (well known for his warm attach- ment to the old charter), Francis Kendall, Samuel Walker, William Lock, and Increase Winn. But, within a fortnight, this election was annulled; and the inhabitants were directed to meet, March 7th, for a new choice, by a warrant from Capt. Jonathan Wade, of Medford, Capt. John Brown, of Reading and Lieut. William Symmes, of Medford, three Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex, when they chose again the same persons for Selectmen that had been elected in Feb- ruary.29 No other town meeting is on record for that year. But the next year, to show their continued aversion to the existing law respecting the calling of town meetings, they again ventured to meet on the day they had been used to, February 28th, and re-elected the old Board of Selectmen. But again their proceedings were nullified for being made at a meeting illegally convened; and the people were required, by " Order of the Governour and Councill," to assemble anew for the choice of town officers, May 21, 1688. Accordingly, in obedience to authority, they met again on the day appointed; when William Johnson, Esq., was either purposely dropped from the office of Selectman, and from that of Town Clerk, (which he had holden uniformly since the death of his father, in 1672,) from fear of the resentment of the governor and his creatures ; or else, being chosen, he declined accepting ; being unwilling to occupy a public
29 Town Records, Vol. III., p. 121. The name of William Johnson is not mentioned with the others, In the record of the choice of Selectmen, Feb. 22, 1636-7; but he subscribed his name as Selectman with the others to a record of Feb. 6, 1687-8, (Town Records, Vol. III., p. 116,) before the next choice of town officers, Feb. 28, 1687-8, wherein he is expressly named as chosen one of the Selectmen.
130
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
station during the existence of a government that had showed itself so arbitrary, and so hostile to the liberties of the people.
In 1694, the town was thrown into a state of violent, agitation, in consequence of a summons to answer before the County Court the presentment of Mistick or Medford Bridge. In 1648, the General Court had passed an Order, laying the expense of mak- ing and repairing bridges, upon the towns within whose limits they were. 30 But this Order was repealed in 1655.31 And, sub- sequently, for a series of years, it became an established custom to assess the repairs of Medford Bridge not on the town of Medford alone, nor on the whole county of Middlesex, but jointly upon the towns of Charlestown, Woburn, Reading, Malden and Medford ; even as the great bridge over Concord river at Bille- rica was wont to be maintained at the united expense of Billerica, Chelmsford and Groton. Woburn, however, had long been growing weary of the incumbrance. As early as October 8, 1672, the town directed the Selectmen to address the General Court by their deputies, or by petition, for granting them " some ease of their burden at Mistick Bridge; " and also authorized them to make an agreement with the other towns united in the support of it, if they saw fit, with the understanding, "that if there come to be County Bridges," their agreement to this end should be void.32 But no relief was obtained of the General Court, and, apparently, no agreement with the other towns, in pursuance of this vote. The repairs of the bridge being neglected, it was presented in 1675, and from that time Woburn quietly did its part towards keeping it in passable order till 1690. October 16th, of that year, the Selectmen of Woburn, Reading and Malden, met in this town, and agreed to petition the General Court concerning Mistick Bridge.33 The result of this petition appears to have been the appointment by the Court of a committee to confer with committees of the above named towns, and then, a reference of the whole subject to the County Court for settlement. But the result of this conference is not known. In 1691, the several towns above named were cited to
30 Colony Recorda, Vol. II., p. 203.
37 Town Recorda, Vol. I., p. 37.
31 Colony Records, Vol. IV., l'art I, p. 231.
8 Town Records, Vol. III., p. 39.
131
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
appear before the County Court, to answer a presentment of the bridge in question. And now the Selectmen of Woburn held a meeting in May 1691, with those of Reading and Malden, to consult with one another how they should conduct their defence.34 They also chose Sergeant Matthew Johnson to appear before the Court on behalf of Woburn,34 and appointed a committee of three to measure, previously to the Sessions, all the bridges in the country highways in town, with a view, doubtless, to exhibit to the Court a statement of the cost they were liable to, for maintaining bridges within their own bounds.35 And, to crown all, the inhabitants at a General Meeting, December 7, 1691, voted as follows : " That the Selectmen of said towne [of Woburn] should withstand the said town's allowing anything more to the repair- ing of Mistick Bridge; and if they withstand it in law, that the town shall bear all the charge thereof." 36
In consequence of this bold resolution, nothing seems to have been done by the town for the support of the bridge at Medford for two years. But it did not clear them of their responsibility in this matter. December 22, 1693, the Selectmen received a summons from the Clerk of the Court of Quarter Sessions to send men before said Court on the 26th of that month, "to answer the presentment of Mystick Bridge." In obedience to this citation, Samuel Blogget, one of the Selectmen, and James Convers 2d (afterwards known as Major James Convers), appeared before the Court on the given day, and made answer, " that Woobourne was not concerned in the presentment of Mis- tick Bridge; neither would they do anything in order to the repairing thereof, except by Law they were forced thereto; and that they referred themselves to the law in that case; and so left the case for that time." 37 But this resolute stand was easier taken than kept. For, immediately after, came a new citation from the clerk of the sessions, ordering the Selectmen or others on behalf of Woburn to appear before the Court at their
84 Town Records, Vol. III., p. 149.
35 " Town Dr. to Mr Carter [Samuel] the 4th. month 1691 for a daye's work taking a Sur- vey of all the Bridges £0:02:10." Town Records, Vol. III., p. 149. Charges for the same service on the same page, by Matthew Johnson and Thomas Peirce.
36 Town Records, Vol. III., p. 154.
37 Town Records, Vol. IV., p.
132
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
adjournment, January 23, 1693-4, and then " to make returne to said Court of the repairing of Mistiek Bridge, on the penalty of five pounds fine to their Majesties for the town's default in that matter." 38 The receipt of this summons threw the whole town into a ferment. The Selectmen immediately called a meeting of the town, January 10, 1693-4, at which they made known to them the above order of Court. Whereupon " the Inhabitants of Woobourne joyntly declared, that what they had formerly donc towards the repairing of Mistiek Bridge, was only an act of Charity to help Medford when they were low and poore, and to help those men that had engaged themselves to help repaire the same; and now Medford was much increased both in num- ber and in estate, and those gentlemen that had formerly engaged themselves as aforesaid being all dead, now therefore the said Inhabitants once more voted with a joynt concurrence, that as by law they were not engaged to help repair Mistick Bridge, so they would do nothing to the same; and furthermore, that they may shew their obedience to authority, the Inhabitants aforesaid nominated and chose Lt. Matthew Johnson and James Convers 2d, both of Woburn aforesaid, to appear for them on the 23d inst. before the said Honored Court at their said adjournment, and make this answer as abovesaid. And further that the said town of Woburn refer themselves to the law in such cases had and provided in this their Majesties Province: also the said Inhabitants do hereby impower the said Matthew Johnson and James Convers to defend the said town in a course of law, either by review, appeal, or any other lawful way or means whatsoever, against the repairing or maintaining of any part of Mistick Bridge, against any who shall demand the same : hereby promising to reimburse all the charges and expenses that they or either of them shall necessarily be at, in and about the premises, granting and allowing unto the said Johnson and Convers full power and authority to appoint and constitute Attorneys one or more under them, and at pleasure to revoke; giving unto the said Johnson and Convers full power to say, execute and do in and about the same whatever is necessary in law ; hereby
38 Town Records, Vol. IV., pp. 5, 0.
133
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
promising to ratify and confirm all and whatsoever the said Matthew Johnson and James Convers or their attorneys shall lawfully do or cause to be done in and about the premises and dependances thereof.
" Per order of the Inhabitants of Woburn, " JAMES CONVERS, Town Clerk." 38
Thus armed with power and authority from the town, one of its two agents, James Convers, repaired by advice to Boston, and feed a couple of lawyers aforchand, " for fear " (as he expresses it), " of being intercepted "; and both of them appeared before the Court at its adjournment, January 23d, and made defence, as follows : " That Woburn was not presented [presentable ?] upon account of Mistick Bridge, nor were they culpable as criminals upon that account. If Medford could plead anything of a Covenant, that was a Civil case, and not a criminal; and they might have their action against us in the Common Law : but at this Court, and in this way, we were not obliged to make any further answer, but to refer ourselves to the law, 'that bridges were to be mended in those towns in whose precincts they lie,' and so left it with the Court; and the Court considered thereof, and gave us the following determination.
"Middlesex, ss : At the Generall Quarter Sessions of the Peace, holden at Charlestown, Jany 23d, 1693-4 ffrom the 20th of December 1693, by their Majesties Justices :
" Whereas there was an Order of the General Court in the year 1691 referring the settlement of Mistick Bridge to ye County Court of Middlesex, and the said Court ordering the repairing of said bridge to be by the respective townes of Charlestowne, Woobourne, Malden, Redding and Medford, according to their wonted manner, till the Generall Court make further provision ; and the defects of said bridge having been presented to this Court before the late law respecting Bridges ; this Court order that the said respective townes do forthwith make sufficient repaire of the said defects of said Bridge, upon paine and penalty of fiue pounds fine to their Majesties for the respective defaults of each of the said townes, and then to make returne of their doings therein to the next
12
134
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
General Sessions of the peace for Middlesex; and then for the future it shall be left to the determination of the Law."
" Vera Copia Examd per Samuell Phipps, Cler." 39
With this decision of the Court, Woburn thought it prudent to comply. " Whereupon," adds the Town Clerk, immediately under his copy of the decision just referred to: " Whereupon the said Bridge was sufficiently mended by Josyah Convers sworne surveyor, and return made as abovesaid and recorded. 39 No doubt, one inducement with the people for thus doing, contrary to their previous resolutions, was the expectation that this was the last time they should ever be called on to repair Mistick Bridge. This expectation was founded on the closing sentence of the decision of the Court, that the repairing of this bridge should in future " be left to the determination of the Law": which they thought would clearly free them and the other towns above named, except Medford, from the burden in question. But in this idea, they soon found themselves mistaken. The law referred to was passed by the Provincial Legislature in 1693, and is entitled " An Act for Highways." Among its numerous provisions is one for the annual choice of two or more Freeholders in each town, who should "take care that all Highways, Private Ways, Causeys and Bridges lying within the Precinets of such Town, be kept in repair, and amended from time to time, when and so often as shall be needful, at the charge of such Town (where it is not otherwise settled)," cte., etc.40
" Where it is not otherwise settled." Of this exceptive clause in the law, advantage seems to have been afterwards taken, to defeat the expectations of Woburn, of being freed from all obligation to aid in the repairs of Mistick bridge. It was doubtless insisted upon by Medford, with the counte- nance of the Court, that it had been so long settled by cus- . tom, that Woburn should join with Charlestown and the other towns concerned in helping Medford to keep that bridge in repair, that the law referred to did not now release them from
» Town Records, Vol. IV., p. 6.
40 Colony and Provincial Laws of Massachusetts Bay, pp. 267-8.
135
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
it, and they must still do as they had done. Hence, after the above decision of the County Court, in 1694, Woburn was called upon year after year, again and again, to mend the bridge at Medford, though out of its own limits; again and again it demurred, and passed resolutions against complying; and yet eventually complied : # so that nearly seventy years more elapsed, before it was fully released from a burden so long complained of. But, in 1761, an agreement was entered into between Woburn and Medford, by which the long vexed question of Medford bridge was fully put to rest. At a general meeting in Woburn, July 21, 1760, it was voted, " that the Committee chosen at the annual meeting in March last past to manage the affair con- cerning the Great Bridge at Medford, are hereby directed and impowered to agree with the town of Medford about said Bridge for a certain sum, that so the town of Woburn may be finally discharged from any future charge relative to said Bridge." 42 To this proposal for settlement, Medford showed itself willing to assent. For at a town meeting there, May 13, 1761, six of its citizens were chosen as a committee "to treat with Woburn, Reading and Malden, or either of said towns separate, concern- ing Medford Great Bridge; that is, to take a certain sum of money of said Town or Towns, and acquit any of them that shall comply, from all further charge." 43 After this manifestation on the part of Medford of its readiness to compromise its difficulty with Woburn in the way of Woburn's own proposing, the com- mittces of the two towns met to confer with one another on this subject, and came to a mutual agreement. This agreement was ratified by Woburn in town meeting, June 25, 1761, when its inhabitants voted " that they would give the sum of two hundred
41 Viz, in 1702. - (Town Records, Vol. IV., p. 204.) In 1706. - (Town Records, Vol. V., pp. 24, 23.) In 1711, Aug. 20th, " The Selectmen of Woobourn were warned to appear at the Quarter Sessions of the l'eace . .. . to answer the Presentment of Mistick Bridge. Accord- Ingly, the Seleetten appointed Stephen Richardson to procure Stuff and mend Said Bridge, which be did," etc., etc .- (Town Records, Vol. V., p. 196.) At a general meeting, March 3, 1728-9, chose Mr. Daniel Peirce and Mr. Caleb Blogget, as a Committee to go to the Gen- eral Court with a Petition that they may be " eased of the burden of Mistiek Bridge, or to have liberty of a Landing Place at the River," etc., etc. - (Town Records, Vol. VI., p. 369.) See also l'roceedings of the Town at a general meeting, Jan. 28, 1744-5, (Town Records, Vol. VII., p. 462,) and May 19, 1760, (Town Records, Vol. VIII., p. 291.)
42 Town Records, Vol, VIII., pp. 294, 315. 43 Town Records, Vol. VIII., p. 466.
136
HISTORY OF WOBURN.
pounds, Old Tenor, or equivalent in Lawful Money " (the amount agreed upon by their committee), " to the town of Medford." 42 And thus this controversy of nearly a century's standing was brought to a peaceable issue, as stated in the following attested copy of' Medford's agreement :
" Agreement of Medford about ye Bridge.
" Know all men by these Presents, that we Samuel Brooks Esq'. Stephen Hall Esq. Zachariah Poole Gentleman, Simon Tufts Gentleman, Seth Blogget Gentleman, and Benjamin Parker Gen- tleman, being chosen and impowered by the Town of Medford to agree with the Town of Woburn about Medford Bridge, we being all of the Town of Medford in the County of Middlesex and Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, DO agree that for and in consideration of the sum of Twenty six pounds thirteen shillings and four pence of Lawful Money paid by the Town of Woburn before the ensealing hereof, do hereby acquit and discharge the said Town of Woburn from all past and future charges arising by reason of said Bridge, and do, in our said capacity take upon the town of Medford all the charge and care of said Bridge, which the Town of Woburn was bound to do or ever shall be : In Witness whereof we in our said capacity have here- unto sett our hands and seals this seventh day of July annoque Domini one thousand seven hundred and sixty one, and in the first year of his Majesty's Reign.
" Signed, Sealed and Delivered
STEPHEN HALL [L. s.]
in the Presence of us
Z. POOLE [1 .. s.]
WILLIS HALL
SIMON TUFTS [L. s.]
AARON HALL
BENJ" PARKER [L. s.]" 43
An amusing specimen of the town's watchful attention to its minute as well its weighty interests and concerns in former times, occurs in the Records of 1696. At a General Meeting, June 24th of that year, after citing several delinquents in the payment of Rev. Mr. Fox's salary to appear before the Select- men on the following Monday at the house of James Fowle, " public notice was likewise given to all persons concerned, that have incroached upon the Town's Common and High- ways by fencing in yards or the like without Order," that
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.