USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 1630-1880. Vol. I > Part 32
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
A few months later, after the fire of 1679 which destroyed eighty dwell- ing houses and seventy warchouses, - " the most woful desolation that Bos . ton ever saw," ?- the General Court passed the first building law for the town: "This Court, having a sense of the great ruins in Boston by fire, and hazard still of the same, by reason of the joining and nearness of their buildings, for prevention of damage and loss thereby for future, do order and enact that henceforth no dwelling-house in Boston shall be erected and set up except of stone or brick, and covered with slate or tile, on penalty of forfeiting double the value of such buildings, unless by allowance and liberty obtained otherwise from the magistrates, commissioners, and selectmen of Boston or major part of them." 3 At the same session an order was passed that certain persons were " under vehement suspicion of attempting to burn the town of Boston, and some of their endeavors prevailed to the burning of one house, and only by good Providence prevented from further damage," and therefore the Court ordered ten persons, within twenty days, to " depart this jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Colony; and in case of the return of any of the abovesaid persons without license first had from the governor and council, such offenders shall be committed to close prison until they pay the sum of twenty pounds in money, and give good security to depart this jurisdiction, and not return again contrary to this order." In the follow- ing May the Court, on a petition from some of the inhabitants setting forth that many persons, in consequence of their heavy losses, were not able to rebuild with brick and stone, suspended the operation of the law "for the space of three years only, when it is to be in force, and all persons are required then carefully to attend unto the same."5 At the expiration of that time, in December, 1683, the Court again attempted to legislate on the subject, and passed an order that "This Court, being sensible of the great ruins in Boston by fire at sundry times, and hazards still of the same, by reason of the joining and nearness of buildings, for the prevention of
1 Mass. Col. Records, v. 139, 140.
2 Hutchinson, Hist. of the Col. of Mass. Bay, P. 349, note. [See Mr. Bynner's chapter. - ED. ] 3 Mass. Col. Records, v. 240. Describing Boston in 1665, the Royal Commissioners, or some person employed by them, wrote : "Their houses are generally wooden, their streets crooked, with little decency and no uniform- ity." (Hutchinson, Original Papers, p. 421). Josselyn, who was here a short time before, probably drew on his imagination, or trusted to an imperfect recollection, when he wrote : " The houses are for the most part raised on the sea-banks and wharfed out with great in-
dustry and cost. many of them standing upon piles, close together on each side of the streets as in London, and furnished with many fair shops; their materials are brick, stone, lime, handsomely contrived, with three meeting-houses or churches, and a town-house built upon pillars, where the merchants may confer; in the cham- bers above they keep their monthly courts. Their streets are many and large, paved with pebble stones, and the south side adorned with gardens and orchards." (3 Jass. Ilist. Coll. iii. 319.)
4 Mass. Col. Records, v. 250, 251.
5 Ibid. pp. 266, 267.
232
THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.
damage and loss thereby for the future, do order and enact, that henceforth no dwellinghouse, warehouse, shop, barn, stable, or any other building, shall be erected and set up in Boston except of stone or brick, and covered with slate or tile, on penalty of forfeiting one hundred pounds in money to the use of said town for every house built otherwise, unless by allowance and liberty obtained from this Court, from time to time." Some other provisions then followed, and the building law of 1679 was expressly repealed.1 A few months later the law was amended by the enactment of the important provision that half of any parti-wall might be set on the adjoining estate, and that when it was built into, one half of the cost of the wall should be paid for by the person using it.2 The subsequent legislation on this subject does not fall within the period covered by this chapter.
Three or four years after the settlement of the town, -in March, 1633-34, - the Court ordered a market to be kept at Boston every Thursday.3 It was not till November, 1639, that the first post-office was set up in Boston. The General Court at that time passed an order to give notice " that Richard Fairbanks's house, in Boston, is the place appointed for all letters which are brought from beyond the seas, or are to be sent thither, are to be brought unto ; and he is to take care that they be delivered or sent according to their directions; and he is allowed for every such letter a penny, and must answer all miscarriages through his own neglect in this kind, - pro- vided that no man shall be compelled to bring his letters thither, except he please."+ It is not known how long Mr. Fairbanks held this office; but in June, 1677, the same difficulties which had led to his appointment compelled the merchants of Boston to petition for some further action of the General Court. From the statements then made it appeared that " many times letters are thrown upon the exchange, that who will may take them up; " and the Court thereupon appointed Mr. John Hayward, the scrivener, as a "meet person to take in and convey letters according to their direction."5 Three years later he was re-appointed to this office.6
The first act of incorporation affecting Boston was passed in October, 1648, when " upon the petition of the shoemakers of Boston, and upon consideration of the complaints which have been made of the damage which the country sustains by occasion of bad ware made by some of that trade," the General Court granted an act of incorporation for three years to certain persons, " and the rest of the shoemakers inhabiting, and housekeepers in, the town of Boston, or the greater number of them (upon duc notice given to the rest)," empowering them to choose "a master and two wardens, with four or six associates, a clerk, a sealer, a searcher, and a beadle, with such other officers as they shall find necessary." These officers were to be chosen annually and to be sworn before the governor or one of the magistrates; and they were to have power to make orders for the government of the company and the regulation of the trade, which
1 Mass. Col. Records, v. 426.
Mass. Col. Records, i. 281.
2 Ibid. p. 432.
$ Ibid. v. 147, 148.
3 Ibid. i. 112.
6 Ibid. p. 273.
233
BOSTON AND THE COLONY.
orders were not to be in force until approved by the County Court or the Court of Assistants. The company was also authorized to impose fines for any infractions of its orders, " provided always, that no unlawful combina- tion be made at any time, by the said company of shoemakers, for enhanc- ing the prices of shoes, boots, or wages, whereby either their own people or strangers may suffer," and provided also "that no shoemaker shall refuse to make shoes for any inhabitant, at reasonable rates, of their own leather, for the use of themselves and families only, if they be required thereunto." 1
At the same session of the General Court, " upon petition of the coopers inhabiting in Boston and Charlestown, and upon consideration of many complaints made of the great damage the country hath sustained by occa- sion of defective and insufficient casks," the coopers also were incorporated, with similar powers, " for the space of three years, and no longer, except this Court shall sce cause to continue the same; " and with a proviso that none of the orders of the company, " nor any alteration thercin, shall be in force before they shall have been perused and allowed by the court of that county where they shall be made, or by the Court of Assistants." It was also provided " that no unlawful combination be made at any time by the said company of coopers for enhancing the prices of casks or wages, whereby either our own people or strangers may suffer; " and that "the priority of their grant shall not give them precedency of other companies that may hereafter be granted." 2
A few years later, - in June, 1652, - the General Court granted an act of incorporation to "inhabitants of the Conduit Street in Boston," to pro- vide a supply of fresh water for their families, and especially for use in case of fire. The nature and extent of the powers which it was intended to confer on the corporation are involved in some obscurity; but the corpo- rators and their associates were authorized to clect annually two of the proprietors to be masters or wardens of the water-works, with power to arrange for the payment of the annual rent of their land, to make all necessary repairs on the water-works, to assess the proper sums for these purposes, and to admit new members of the corporation. If any persons should be found guilty of corrupting, wasting, or spoiling the water, or water-works, or injuring the pipes, cisterns, or fountains, the warden for the time being might prosecute the offender; and if any person should take water from the conduit without license, the warden might confiscate "such vessels from them as they shall bring to carry away such water with." The wardens could also allow poor persons to take water " for a time " without charge.3 Under the authority of this aet, or perhaps just before its passage, it seems that a reservoir was constructed near the corner of the streets now known as Union Street and North Street, and that it was supplied by pipes
4 Mass. Col. Records, ii. 249, 250.
2 Ibid. pp. 250, 251.
VOL. 1. 30.
3 Mass. Col. Records, vol. iv. pt. i. pp. 99, 100.
234
THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.
leading from wells or springs in the neighborhood.1 It is not perhaps strange that "water-works" on so simple a plan should have failed to answer any useful purpose, and that they are scarcely mentioned in the town records.
In September, 1670, the town found it necessary to supplement the existing means for extinguishing fires by passing an order, which shows how simple and inadequate these means still remained. The order recites : "Whereas, it is found by experience that in case of fire breaking out in this town the welfare thereof is much endangered for want of a speedy supply of water, it is therefore ordered that after the first of March next, and so forward to the first of November in every year, every inhabitant in this town shall at all times during the said term have a pipe or a hogshead of water ready filled, with the head open, at or near the door of their dwelling-houses and warehouses, upon the penalty of five shillings for every defect."2 From time to time persons were fined for having defective chimneys, and were required to have them put in order and swept; and in December, 1676, the colony council recommended to the town the appointment of certain per- sons who were named, or other persons instead of them, to see that the chimneys in the town were kept properly swept. The suggestion proved agreeable to the town, and the appointments were accordingly made.3
The colony grew so rapidly that in 1643 there were thirty towns within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and the need of further organization was felt. Accordingly, in May of that year, the General Court divided the whole plantation into four shires or counties. Seven towns were associated with Boston under the designation of Suffolk County. These were Rox- bury, Dorchester, Dedham, Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, and Nantas- ket.4 The origin of the English counties is lost in the obscurity of Anglo- Saxon history; but their privileges and obligations were well understood, and for this reason, probably, there is in the order creating the Massachu- setts counties no enumeration of the powers which the towns thus united might exercise. Closely connected with the division of the colony into counties was the creation of a military organization; and a few months afterward an elaborate plan was adopted by the Court for this purpose, on the ground that " as piety cannot be maintained without church ordinances and officers, nor justice without laws and magistracy, no more can our safety and peace be preserved without military orders and officers."5 In the or- ders now adopted it was expressly declared that no war ought to be under- taken without the authority of the General Court; but as emergencies might arise requiring immediate action there was to be a council, of which the Governor should always be one, with authority to raise the whole force of the country, or any part thereof, and to make such disposition of the
1 Shurtleff, Topographical and Historical De- scription of Boston, pp. 401-103.
2 MIS. Records of the Town of Boston, ii. 54.
3 Ibid. pp. 100, 101.
4 Mass. Col. Records, ii. 38. [Mr. William
H. Whitmore contributed to the Mass. Ilist. Soc. Proc., February, 1873, a paper on the origin of the names of these and other towns in Massa- chusetts. - ED.Į
5 Mass. Col. Records, ii 42.
235
BOSTON AND THE COLONY.
soldiers thus raised as they might think best " for the necessary defence of the country." There was also to be a " sergeant major-general to lead and conduct their forces levied, and to execute all orders and directions of the council." In each shire or county there was to be a lieutenant with power to act independently when timely notice could not be given to the Governor and Council, and there was also to be " one sergeant-major to command, lead, and conduct the forces of that shire, being called together," and to act in the absence of the lieutenant.1 Other regulations were adopted to secure the effective disciplining of the forces in each shire, and the defence of each shire by the local military officers. The idea of local self-government was becoming rapidly developed, though it was long before it was fully recog- nized and firmly established.
A precedent for this action of the General Court in the establishment of counties and the distribution of the military powers, if any were necessary, may be found in the orders passed in March, 1635-36, providing for the holding of local courts at Ipswich, Salem, Cambridge, and Boston, for those towns and the towns in their immediate neighborhood. In these orders it was declared that the courts thus established "shall be kept by such magistrates as shall be dwelling in or near the said towns, and by such other persons of worth as shall from time to time be appointed by the Gen- cral Court, so as no court shall be kept without one magistrate at the least, and that none of the magistrates be excluded who can and will intend the same; yet the General Court shall appoint which of the magistrates shall specially belong to every of the said courts. Such persons as shall be joined as associates to the magistrates in the said court shall be chosen by the General Court, out of a greater number of such as the several towns shall nominate to them, so as there may be in every of the said courts so many as (with the magistrates) may make five in all." 2 This limited right of local appointment for the associates curiously illustrates the tendency of colonial politics to enlarge the powers conferred by the charter, and to adapt it to the wants of a growing colony.
There was no provision in the colony charter expressly authorizing the creation of any legislative body other than the Court of Assistants; but there was nothing in it inconsistent with the establishment of a representa- tive body in which the freemen who could not be personally present in the General Court might express their will through regularly appointed dele- gates. With the rapid growth of the colony it soon became impracticable for all the freemen to meet together in the General Courts for which express provision was made in the charter, and the establishment of some system of representation became a necessity. So early as May, 1634, the General Court met the difficulty, and solved it, by ordering "that it shall be lawful for the freemen of every plantation to choose two or three of each town before every General Court, to confer of and prepare such public business as by them shall be thought fit to consider of at the next General Court,
1 Mass. Col. Records, ii. 42. 2 Ibid. i. 169.
230
HIL MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.
and that such persons as shall be hereafter so deputed by the freemen of they several plantations, to deal in their behalf in the public affairs of the commonwealth, shall have the full power and voices of all the said free- men, derived to them for the making and establishing of laws, granting of lands, &c., and to deal in all other affairs of the commonwealth wherein the freemen have to do, the matter of election of magistrates and other officers only excepted, wherein every freeman is to give his own voice."1 Various orders were passed subsequently as to the manner in which the dep- uties should be paid for their necessary expenses ; and in March, 1638-39, "it was ordered that no town should send more than two deputies to the General Courts."2 At length, nearly forty years afterward, the town of Boston instructed its deputies to have the number of deputies from the town augmented, as the number of freemen had much increased.3 No immediate action appears to have been taken on the subject; but in March, 1680-81, the Court granted the town liberty to send three deputies in future.+ At first the magistrates and deputies sat together, the former claiming the right to negative the votes of the deputies; but in March, 1643-44, after a contro- versy which belongs to the history of the colony rather than to the history of the town, the Court passed the following preamble and order: "For- asmuch as, after long experience, we find divers inconveniences in the manner of our proceeding in Courts by magistrates and deputies sitting together, and accounting it wisdom to follow the laudable practice of other States who have laid groundworks for government and order in the issuing of business of greatest and highest consequence, -it is therefore ordered, first, that the magistrates may sit and act business by themselves, by draw- ing up bills and orders which they shall see good in their wisdom, which having agreed upon, they may present them to the deputies to be con- sidered of, how good and wholesome such orders are for the country, and accordingly to give their assent or dissent; the deputies in like manner sitting apart by themselves, and consulting about such orders and laws as they in their discretion and experience shall find mect for common good, which agreed upon by them, they may present to the magistrates, who, according to their wisdom, having seriously considered of them, may consent unto them or disallow them ; and when any orders have passed the approbation of both magistrates and deputies, then such orders to be engrossed, and in the last day of the Court to be read deliberately, and full assent to be given, provided, also, that all matters of judicature which this Court shall take cognizance of shall be issued in like manner."5 These orders of May, 1634, and March, 1643-44, formed the basis on which, with only a single important modification, the system of town representation in Massachusetts rested down to our own time.
Almost nothing is known about the places in which the General Court
Muss. Col. Records, i. 118, 119.
4 Mass. Col. Records, v. 305.
2 Ibid. p. 254-
5 Ibid. ii. 58. 59.
3 JIS. Records of the Town of Boston, ii. 105.
2 37
BOSTON AND THE COLONY.
held their sessions during the first twenty-five years after the settlement of the town. It is stated, indeed, by Johnson, that the first Court of Assistants, August 23, 1630, was held on board the " Arbella ; "1 but as his work was not published until 1654 the statement is of doubtful authority. In May, 1634, the Court was held in the meeting-house in Boston : 2 and this probably continued to be its place of meeting, for according to Lechiford - who was here for about four years, and whose Plaine Dealing ; or Newes from New England was published in 1642 - "the General and Great Quarter Courts are kept in the church meeting-house at Boston."3 In at least one mem- orable instance, in May, 1637, the Court of Election was held in the open air.4 But in 1658, when the first town-house was erected in Boston, the town was required to provide suitable accommodations for the courts as one of the conditions of receiving aid from the colonial treasury. At its session in May of that year the Court passed the following order: "In answer to the request of the selectmen of Boston, the Court judgeth it meet to allow tinto Boston, for and toward the charges of their town-house, Boston's pro- portion of one single country rate for this year ensuing, provided that suffi- cient rooms in the said house shall be forever free for the keeping of all courts, and also that the place underneath shall be free for all inhabitants in this jurisdiction to make use of as a market forever, without paying of any toll or tribute whatever."5 According to the contract with the builders it was to be "a very substantial and comely building," sixty-six feet in length, and thirty-six feet in breadth, set upon twenty-one pillars ten feet in height between the pedestal and capital. The building was to be a story and a half in height, with three gable ends on each side; and the principal story was to be ten feet high. On the roof was to be a walk fourteen or fifteen feet wide, with two turrets and turned balusters and rails around the walk. The contract price was four hundred pounds, - the town fur- nishing all the mason's work and materials, all the iron-work, lead, glass, and glazing. The cost was to be defrayed in part from a legacy of three hundred pounds left to the town by Captain Keayne, and in part from a voluntary subscription.6 It does not appear whether the town intended that any part of the cost should be raised by a direct tax; but the contrac-
1 Wonder-working Providence, p. 37.
2 Winthrop, New England, i. 132.
3 3 Mass. Hist. Coll. iii. S4.
4 Hutchinson, Hist. of the Col. of Mass. Bay, p. 61, note.
5 Mass. Col. Records, vol. iv. pt. i. p. 327. In consideration of the joint occupancy of the town-house, the colony recognized the obligation to keep the building in repair, and in September, 1685, the following order was passed : "The Court, considering the necessity of covering the west staircase of the town-house with lead, - the wooden covering, being deficient, lets in the rain, which decays the main timber thereof, - it is ord- ered that it be done with all speed, and that the Treasurer defray the charge thereof upon the
country's account, and the rather in regard that the town of Boston have long since covered the east staircase of said house at their own cost and charges." MMuss. Col. Records, v. 501.
6 Papers relating to the Boston Town House in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., March, IS58, pp. 337- 341. | Keayne is famous for having left the most voluminous will known on our records. It fills 158 pages ; was executed Dec. 28, 1653, and proved May 2, 1656. Cf. Savage, Win- throp's Ilist. of N. Robert Keaynu F. i. 378. Keayne
lived opposite the old market-place (old State llouse lot), on the south corner of Washington and State streets. Shaw, Boston, p. 117. - Er. ]
238
THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.
tors claimed a much larger sum in the final settlement, and in January, 1660-61, the town voted to allow them six hundred and eighty pounds in full.1
In at least one instance the colony made a specific grant to Boston in aid of a purely local institution. At the session in October, 1660, the General Court, in answer to a petition of the town of Boston, granted to the town one thousand acres of land " for their furtherance and help to discharge the charge of a free school there."2 On the other hand, the town was not back- ward in contributing to general colonial objects. In December, 1652, at a public town-meeting a committee was chosen to receive any sums of money which any persons might subscribe " toward the maintenance of the Presi- dent and Fellows or poor scholars of Harvard College."3 In July, 1654, another committee was chosen "to collect the several sums subscribed for the use of the college by the selectmen."4 In November, 1656, " a rate for town and country and college " was committed to the constables for collec- tion ; and in the following month it was voted to discharge the constables of this rate, - the whole amount apparently having been collected.5 But the relations of the town and the college will be treated at length in another chapter of this History; and these votes have been cited only to show that the town had helped to support the college even before she received aid for her free school.
All through the colonial period Boston clung to the charter with an un- questioning devotion ; and it was no doubt with a smile of grim satisfaction that the town-clerk placed on record the unanimous decision of the town- meeting in January, 1683-84, against a surrender of the charter : -
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.