USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 1630-1880. Vol. I > 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 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76
So little did the founders of the colony anticipate the establishment of numerous and scattered settlements, that at the first Court of Assistants, in answer to the question how the ministers should be maintained, "it was ordered that houses should be built for them with convenient speed, at the common charge; " and in answer to the further question, what should be their present maintenance, after enumerating what should be given them, it was added, " all this to be at the common charge, those of Mattapan and Salem only excepted."7 It is not much to the credit of the first settlers of Boston, that when Mr. Cotton came over a few years later they desired to have this precedent apply to his support; but on "second thoughts " the
1 Winthrop, New England, i. 137.
2 Mass. Col. Records, i. 123. [Shurtleff, p.
475, traces in some detail the history of this for- tification. - ED.]
Mass. Col. Records, i. 137.
4 Ibid. p. 165.
5 Winthrop, New England, i. 54.
6 Mass. Col. Records, iii. 162.
7 Ibid. i. 73. The exception was probably because these places already had ministers.
224
THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.
council did not see any sufficient reason why the colony treasury should con- tribute to the support of a minister for Boston.1 Though the Boston minister soon ceased to derive any part of his support from the colony rates, his suc- cessors continued to exert an important influence on colonial politics till the very end of the charter government. From Winthrop's language it would appear that the first meeting-house in Boston was not built until the town had been settled for nearly two years, and that the cost, both of the meeting- house and of a house for the minister, was defrayed, in part at least, by a voluntary contribution.2 The same course was pursued some years afterward, when it became necessary to build a new meeting-house in place of the old one. "The church of Boston," says Winthrop, under date of February, 1640-41, " were necessitated to build a new meeting-house, and a great dif- ference arose about a place of situation, which had much troubled other churches on the like occasion ; but after some debate it was referred to a committee, and was quietly determined. It cost about £1000, which was raised out of the weekly voluntary contribution without any noise or com- plaint, when in some other churches which did it by way of rates there was much difficulty and compulsion by levies to raise a far less sum."3
During the first ten years the town grew rapidly in wealth and popula- tion, and it has been estimated that before the breaking out of the civil war in England about twenty thousand persons had emigrated to New England.+ Of these a much larger number settled in Boston than in any other place. But with the meeting of the Long Parliament the immigration nearly ceased. "The Parliament of England setting upon a general reformation both of Church and State," says Winthrop, in June, 1641, " the Earl of Strafford being beheaded, and the archbishop (our great enemy) and many others of the great officers and judges, bishops and others, imprisoned and called to account, this caused all men to stay in England in expectation of a new world; so as few coming to us all foreign commodities grew scarce, and our own of no price."5 The assessments of the colony taxes will afford an ap- proximate idea of the relative wealth and population of the several towns. In October, 1633, it was ordered that $400 should be collected from eleven plantations "to defray public charges." Of this sum Dorchester was to pay £80; Boston, Roxbury, Cambridge, Watertown, and Charlestown, £48 cach ; and Salem, £28.6 In September of the following year a tax of £600 was ordered to be levied. In this assessment Dorchester, Cambridge, and Boston were each to contribute £80; Roxbury, £70; and Salem, $45.7 In
I Winthrop, New England, i. 112. Hutchin- son, who published the first volume of his His- tory of Massachusetts Bay in 1764, says : "The ministers of the several churches in the town of Boston have ever been supported by a free weekly contribution. I have seen a letter from one of the principal ministers of the colony ex- pressing some doubts of the lawfulness of receiv- ing a support in any other way." ( Hist. of the Col. of Mass. Bay, from 1628 to 1691, p. 427.)
2 Winthrop, New England, i. S7.
3 Ibid. ii. 24. See also Emerson's History of the First Church, p. 65.
4 Hutchinson, Hist. of the Col. of Mass. Bay, p. iii. (preface). This estimate has been adopted by Dr. Palfrey and by other writers, and has been made the basis of some curious calculations.
5 Winthrop, New England, ii. 31.
6 MMass. Col. Records, i. 110.
7 Ibid. p. 129.
225
BOSTON AND THE COLONY.
May, 1636, the General Court appointed a committee "to require the last rates of each town in the plantation, and to find out thereby, and by all other means they can according to the best of their discretion, the true value of every town, and so to make an equal rate."} A similar vote was passed in the following September; 2 but in neither instance was any change made in the last rate of assessment. In April, 1637, the Court ordered a levy of soldiers for the Pequot war. The whole number to be raised, in- cluding those already in the service, was 211. Of this number Boston was to furnish 35; Dorchester, 17; Charlestown, 16; Roxbury, 13; Cambridge, 12; and Salem, 24, -fourteen towns being included in the levy.3 The next colony tax was in August of the same year, when in an assessment of $400 Boston was required to pay £59 4s .; Salem, £45 12s .; Dorchester and Charlestown, £42 6s. each; Roxbury, £30 8s .; and Cambridge, £29 125.4 From a comparison of these figures it would appear that in 1637 Boston was not only the most populous, but also the wealthiest town in the colony. In May, 1640, -not quite ten years after the settlement of Boston, - a tax of £1200 was ordered to be levied on seventeen towns. Of this sum Boston was to contribute £179, or almost exactly fifteen per cent ; Braintree, which it will be remembered was set off from Boston in the same month, £25; Cambridge, £100; Dorchester, £95; Charlestown, £90; Roxbury, £75; and Salem, £115.5
The first windmill was erected in August, 1632, having been brought down from Cambridge, because, where it first stood, " it would not grind but with a westerly wind."6 Four years later another windmill was erected ; and subsequently other windmills were built on the various hills in the town,8 and tidemills were also introduced. For the purpose of encouraging the erection of a watermill, the town granted, in July, 1643, all the cove and the salt marsh bordering upon it northwest of the causeway leading to Charlestown, together with three hundred acres of land at Braintree, on condition that the grantees should, within three years, erect one or more corn mills to be maintained forever.º The cove thus granted was known, down to our own time, as the mill-pond; and, in order that the grant to the mill-owners might not interfere with the rights of other persons, the grantees were required to make and maintain forever a gate ten feet in width, to open at flood tide for the passage of boats, so that they might arrive at " their ordinary landing places."
It is not known when the first wharf was built; but in January, 1638-39, the town granted " to the owners of the wharf and crane one hundred acres
1
Mass. Col. Records, i. 175.
2 Ibid. p. 180.
3 Ibid. p 192.
4 Ibid. p. 201.
5 Ibid. p. 294.
6 Winthrop, New England, i. S7. This wind- mill appears to have been placed on Copp's Hill (see Wood's New England's Prospect, in publi- cations of the Prince Society, p. 42).
VOL. 1. - 29.
7 Winthrop, New England, i. 196. About the same time a windmill was erected at Charlestown.
8 | So late as 1824 a large windmill stood at Windmill Point, on the easterly side of the South Cove, and is shown in the view of Boston en- graved that year in Snow's History. - ED.]
9 Second Report of the Record Commissioners,
P. 74. [See Mr. Bynner's chapter. - ED.]
226
THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.
of land at Mount Wollaston, next to the allotments already granted, toward the repairing and maintaining of the said wharf and crane."1 It seems probable, therefore, that there had been a wharf for a sufficient length of time for it to fall into decay and to need " repairing." Not long afterward a much more comprehensive scheme was planned for facilitating a com- mercial intercourse with other places. In November, 1641, the town granted to Valentine Hill and his associates and successors a considerable tract of "waste ground " near Dock Square, for a specified term of years, dependent on their purchase of various wharf-rights, and on the cost of repairs and other charges incurred by them; and, in consideration of the improvements which they proposed to make, the grantees were authorized to collect tonnage and wharfage dues from all persons who should land goods there, except persons whose lands bounded on the granted territory, who might land, free of charge, goods for their own use, but not for sale. Provision was likewise made for the valuation of the warehouses and other buildings to be erected, and for keeping the wharves in repair, all of which were to become the property of the town at the expiration of the period covered by the grant.2 The proper charges for the use of these and other wharves were regarded by the colonial authorities as matters within their discretion ; and in October, 1641, the General Court appointed a committee " to settle the rates of wharfage, porterage, and warchouse hire, and certify the next Gencral Court, - and the order to stand the meanwhile."3 In November, 1646, the Court adopted a minute schedule of charges, to re- main in force until the Court of Election in 1648; and the owners of wharves, whether at Boston or at Charlestown, were "required to attend to these rules for wharfage of such goods."4 From time to time new rules and regulations on the subject were made by the same authority.
But by far the most important enterprise of this kind was undertaken near the close of the colonial period, and was designed partly to secure the town from any attack by a hostile fleet, and partly to encourage maritime trade. In the summer of 1673 the Court of Assistants recommended to the town to cause a sea-wall or wharf to be erected in front of the town, from the Sconce to Captain Scarlett's wharf, or to adopt some other means for securing the town against fire ships in case of the approach of an enemy. At a town-meeting held in September it was voted not to carry on so extensive an undertaking at the public charge; but the selectmen were authorized to make such a disposition of the flats as they might think best for promoting the execution of the proposed work by private enter- prise. Accordingly, a few days afterward, the selectmen issued proposals for the construction of a wall or wharf of wood or stone from Captain Scarlett's wharf, which was at the foot of Fleet Street, in a straight line to the Sconce, or south battery, near the head of India wharf, - a distance of about twenty-two hundred feet. The wall or wharf was to be twenty-two
1 Second Report of the Record Commissioners, P. 37.
Mass. Col. Records, i. 341.
2 Ibid. pp. 63, 64.
4 Ibid. ii. 170, 17I.
227
BOSTON AND THE COLONY.
feet in breadth at the bottom and twenty feet at the top; and it was supposed that the necessary height would be fourteen or fifteen feet, with a breastwork for cannon, and suitable openings for the passage of vessels. In consideration of the execution of the work in the manner proposed, the undertakers were to have a grant in perpetuity of all the flats within the wall, with liberty to build wharves and warehouses for a distance of two hundred feet back from the wall, the remainder to be kept as an open cove, but with the reservation of certain rights to those persons who already abutted on the shore line. And the undertakers were to have all the income which they might derive from anchorage or wharfage dues from vessels sheltered within the cove, or from grants of the privilege of fishing there.1 Under these proposals forty-one subscribers undertook the work, in sections vary- ing in length from twenty to one hundred and fifty feet.2 The work was prosecuted with very little energy; but at the General Court held in May, 1681,-more than seven years afterward, - an order was passed setting forth "that, at the great cost, pains, and hazard of said undertakers, a sca wall hath been built, and almost finished, for the safety of said town and this his Majesty's colony; " wherefore " the said undertakers, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, or major part of them, shall have power to make orders for finishing and preserving the said wall, the regu- lating of themselves, and appointing persons among themselves to manage their affairs," &c.3 Fortunately, the wharf was never needed for purposes of defence, and it soon fell into decay. It is shown on Franquelin's map of 1693 ; but on Bonner's map of 1722, and on Burgiss's map of 1729, only its general outline can be traced, and probably neither of these is accurate in its delincation.4
A little more than two months after the town was settled, arrangements were made for setting up a ferry between Boston and Charlestown; and at a Court of Assistants, Nov. 9, 1630, it was ordered " that whosoever shall first give in his name to Mr. Governor that he will undertake to set up a ferry betwixt Boston and Charlestown, and shall begin the same at such time as Mr. Governor shall appoint, shall have one penny for every person, and one penny for every hundred weight of goods he shall so transport."5 In November, 1637, the Governor and Treasurer were authorized to lease the ferry for the term of three years at the rate of $40 per annum ; 6 and at the expiration of that time it was granted to the college.7 In September, 1638, the General Court ordered a ferry to be set up " from Boston to Winnissin-
MS. Records of the Town of Boston, ii. Wharf, ran pretty nearly in the direction of the Si, Sz.
2 Ibid. pp. S2, S3.
3 Mass. Col. Records, V. 310, 311.
# [It is also shown between the South Bat- tery and Long Wharf in Bonner's sketch of the waterfront, made in 1714, and figured elsewhere in this work. This " out-wharf," as it was some- times called, of which a portion was still con- cealed in the structure known in our day as T
present Atlantic Avenue. Portions of it form- ing island wharfs are seen in the map of 1824 in Snow's Boston. Cf. Shurtleff's Description of Boston, p. 118. - ED. Į
5 Mass. Col. Records, i. SI.
( Ibid. p. 20S.
7 Ibid. p 304. See also Quincy's History of Harvard University, ii. 271, 272. The college enjoyed this income until 1785.
228
THE MEMORIAL HHISTORY OF BOSTON.
met, Noddle's Island, and the ships; the person to be appointed by the magistrates of Boston." 1 Three years later the Court passed a general order regulating the use of ferries, and providing that every person to whom a ferry was granted should have " the sole liberty of transporting passen- gers from the place where such ferry is granted to any other ferry, or place where ferry-boats used to land, and that any ferry-boat that shall land passengers at any other ferry may not take passengers from thence, if the ferry-boat of the place be ready; provided that this order shall not preju- dice the liberty of any that do use to pass in their own or neighbors' canoes or boats to their ordinary labors or business."2 In November, 1646, an order was passed prohibiting the overcrowding of ferry-boats, and regulating the manner in which passengers should go on board.3 It seems to have been tacitly recognized that the establishment and regulation of ferries were exclusively within the powers of the colonial government; but in two or three instances the town seems to have set up a ferry by its own authority. In January, 1635-36, Thomas Marshall was chosen to keep "a ferry from the mill point unto Charlestown, and to Winnissimmet; " in December, 1637, it was agreed that Edward Bendall should keep " a suffi- cient ferry-boat to carry to Noddle's Island and to the ships riding before the town ; " and in January, 1646-47, George Halsoll was ordered to " keep and employ a passage boat between his wharf and the ships where the ships ride," and no other person was " to make use of his wharf or landing place for hire or reward, but it shall be lawful for any seamen or others to pass to and fro from said landing place in their own boats without paying any- thing for themselves or friends."4 It is probable, however, that these ap- pointments were cither temporary, or were made subject to the action of the General Court.
From the first the town was careful to prevent encroachments on the streets and highways, and to keep them clean; but she does not seem to have been equally careful to keep them in a safe condition. For this neg- lect Boston was frequently fined, or threatened with a fine, by the General Court; and she was also required from time to time to build or repair bridges and highways, or to contribute a proportionate part of the expense of building or repairing them. For instance, in March, 1634-35, it was or- dered that a sufficient cart bridge should be built over Muddy River " before the next General Court, and that Boston, Roxbury, Dorchester, New Town, and Watertown shall equally contribute to it."5 In December, 1638, the town was fined ten shillings for defective highways and want of a watch-house, and allowed until the next court to remedy the neglect.6 Apparently the town paid little or no attention to this order, and in the following June " Boston was fined twenty shillings for defective highways, and enjoined to repair them, upon the penalty of five pounds."" Six months later, " Boston,
1 Mass. Col. Records, i. 241. 5 Mass. Col. Records, i. 141.
Ibid. p. 338.
6 Ilicl. p. 247.
3 lbid. ii. 170.
7 Ibid. p. 266.
Second Rept of the Record Com. pp. 7, 22, 89.
229
BOSTON AND THE COLONY.
for defect of their ways between Powder-Horn Hill and the written tree, is fined twenty shillings, and enjoined to mend them; " but on a representa- tion that the ways were " new laid out," the town was allowed, in October of the next year, further time to repair them.1 At the expiration of that time the General Court passed a more peremptory order, " that the highway between the written tree and Winnisimmet should be made sufficient for carts, horses, and men by Boston, within three months, upon pain of twenty pounds."2 Again, in May, 1670, the Court passed an order that, "Whereas the country highway over some part of Rumney Marsh was laid out long since, from a point of upland to the written tree, and the said way was never made passable, but in stead thereof a causey or bridge hath been made in another place, which hath been made use of, but is now and hath been often out of repair : it is ordered that the selectmen of Boston shall take speedy care to make and maintain a sufficient causey or bridge over the marsh and creek where the way was laid out first, or to see and cause the causey and bridge that is already made to be sufficiently repaired, and so kept from time to time." 3 On the other hand the town passed numerous orders for the abatement of nuisances in the thickly settled neighborhoods; and in Octo- ber, 1649, the selectmen made a general order " that no person whatsoever shall suffer any stones, clay, timber, or firewood, boards or clapboards, or any other thing that may annoy the town's streets, to lie above forty-eight hours, upon penalty of five shillings for every default."4 To a similar pur- pose is the following order passed by the selectmen in January, 1657-58 : " Forasmuch as sundry complaints are made that several persons have re- ceived hurt by boys and young men playing at foot-ball in the streets, these are therefore to enjoin that none be found at that game in any of the streets, lanes, or enclosures of this town, under the penalty of twenty shillings for every such offence." 5
From a very early period the town began to take precautions against the harboring of strangers who might become a charge; and in May, 1636, “ it was ordered that no townsmen shall entertain any strangers into their houses for above fourteen days, without leave from those that are appointed to or- der the town's businesses."6 At a later period, in March, 1647, the scope of this order was somewhat enlarged, and a definite penalty for any neglect to comply with its provisions was established. At that time it was " ordered that no inhabitant shall entertain man or woman from any other town or country as a sojourner or inmate with an intent to reside here, but shall give notice thereof to the selectmen of the town for their approbation within eight days after their coming to the town, upon penalty of twenty shillings." At the same time it was ordered that no inhabitant should let or sell to any person any house or houses within the town, "without first acquainting the
1 Mass. Col. Records, i. 285, 310. | The " writ- A Second Report of the Record Commissioners, ten tree " was on the present bounds between p. 98. Everett and Revere. - ED. ] 5 Ibid. p. 141.
2 Ibid. p. 33S.
3 Ibid. vol. iv. pt. ii p. 450.
6 Ibid. p. 10.
230
THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.
selectmen of the town therewith."1 In March, 1652, both of these orders were re-enacted.2 Some years later, - in June, 1659, - at a general town- meeting further orders were made on the subject, reciting that, " Whereas sundry inhabitants in this town have not so well attended to former orders made for the securing the town from sojourners, inmates, hired servants, journeymen, or other persons that come for help in physic or chirurgery, whereby no little damage hath already, and much more may accrue to the town: for the prevention whereof it is therefore ordered that whosoever of our inhabitants shall henceforth receive any such persons before named into their houses or employment, without liberty granted from the select- men, shall pay twenty shillings for the first week, and so from week to week twenty shillings, so long as they retain them, and shall bear all the charge that may accrue to the town by every such sojourner, journeyman, hired servant, inmate, &c., received or employed as aforesaid." 3 Provision was made, however, that if a satisfactory bond were given to the selectmen to secure the town from all charges, and the persons received were not " of notorious evil life and manners," the fine might be remitted ; and if any one who had given such a bond should give " such orderly notice to the select- men that the town may be fully cleared of such person or persons so received," his bond should be given up. Meanwhile, as a further precau- tionary measure, it was ordered, in March, 1657, " that henceforth no per- sons shall have liberty to keep shops within this town, or set up manufac- tures, unless they first be admitted inhabitants into the town."# On the breaking out of Philip's war the town took steps to prevent being burdened with charges which properly belonged to the whole colony; and under date of November, 1675, the town clerk made the following record : " An humble request was presented to the General Court to settle some general way whereby those persons or families who by the outrage of the enemy were bereaved of all means of their subsistence, or forced from their habi- tations, many whereof have come into this town, may find such relief and redress that no particular town may be burdened thereby." 5
After the great fire of 1676, which destroyed among other buildings the Second Church and Increase Mather's house,6 an order was issued by the Court of Assistants, or Council, as it was often called, restraining any per- son from building within the burnt district before the next General Court, " without the advice and order of the selectmen." Subsequently the select- men widened the street, now known as Hanover Street, to what was probably a nearly uniform width of twenty-two feet; and thereupon the Court passed an order that " The act of the council and return of the selectmen of Bos- ton, as above, being read and perused by the Court, who took notice that the street, as now laid out, is made wider and more accommodable to the
1 Second Report of the Record Commissioners,
p. 90.
2 Ibid. p. 109.
3 ]bid. p. 152. # ]bid. p. 135.
& MIS. Records of the Town of Boston, ii. 94.
6 Hutchinson, Ilist. of the Col. of Mass. Bay, P. 349. note ; Cotton Mather, Parentator, P. 79; Sewall, Diary, in 5 Mass. Hist. Coll. v. 29. [Sce Mr. Bynner's chapter. - ED 1
231
BOSTON AND THE COLONY.
public, and due satisfaction given and received by all persons concerned, one only excepted, the Court approves of the act of the selectmen, and orders it to be proceeded in, and the person that hath not consented, to have the like proportionable satisfaction tendered him for so much of his land that is taken and staked out to the street."1
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.