USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Waltham > Waltham as a precinct of Watertown and as a town, 1630-1884 > Part 3
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
The first house was probably where the first settlement was made, east of Mount Auburn now in Cambridge. It was used but a short time and in 1635 a new one was erected on the north side of Mt. Auburn Street opposite but somewhat west of the old burying ground. This was over a mile west of the first one but still in the extreme eastern part of the town. When a new build- ing was needed in 1654 it was first decided to build on what is now Belmont Street and a considerable distance west of the old location but the vote was reconsidered and the new house, com- pleted in 1656, was built on or near the old site. Although at that time there were a considerable number of settlers in the parts now Weston and Waltham, especially along the western line of the present Watertown, they were not numerous enough to have much influence in town meetings. Although in a report of a com- mittee of the Council (1693) it is stated that for a long time ever since the days of their first minister, Rev. George Phillips, there had been "an earnest contending about the place of meeting" and a vote taken in February 1685-6 indicated that the removal of the meeting-house was contemplated, it was not until 1692 that a determined effort was made to have it in a more central location. On November 12 of that year the selectmen called a meeting for November 18 to settle a "place for the erecting of a house for the publick worship and servis of god among us as may be most Convenient for the bulke of the inhabitance ac-
26
HISTORY OF WALTHAM
cording to the advice of athority." The "athority" referred to is not specified but it was probably the Governor and Council. At this meeting those who desired to set up a meeting-house between the pound and Widow Whitney's were directed to follow Robert Harrington Sr. while those who were of a mind to keep it where it was to follow Mr. Norcross. In the case of a failure to agree "we will Refere it to men." There is no record of the number who followed these two men but they evidently failed to agree. The selectmen on December 9 agreed that Robert Harrington, Daniel Warren and Isaac Mixer Sr. should represent them in petitioning Gov. Phipps and Council to advise and determine what was best for "good settlement and peace amongst us."
The Council ordered that a town meeting be held Dec. 27, 1692, and at that meeting Lieutenant Governor Phillips, James Russell, Samuel Sewall and Joseph Lynde were present as representatives of the Council. It was voted that the decision as to the settling of a minister and the placing of the meeting-house be left to a committee and that William Bond and Lieutenant Benjamin Garfield apply to the Governor and Council to name the committee. This was done and William Stoughton, John Phillips, James Russell, Samuel Sewall and Joseph Lynde were appointed. This committee after giving a hearing in Boston re- ported May 18, 1693, that Rev. Henry Gibbs, who had been preaching at the old meeting-house for several years although not ordained and settled, "be speedily fixed among you" and that as most of the inhabitants were remote from the present meeting-house a new one be erected within four years on a knoll lying between Widow Stearns and Whitney Hill "to be the place of meeting to worship God, for the whole town." This decision was very pleasing to those of the "middle part of the town" but very disappointing to those of the eastern part and to some of the Farmers Precinct. It was nearly a year before this report was brought before the town. A meeting for that purpose was called for May 9, 1694. On that date 84 inhabitants of the eastern part and 33 of the western part signed a protest in which they denied "ever to pay one penny towards any such Building at that place." They expressed a willingness to assist in the erection of a meeting-house convenient for the Farmers. Ebene- zer Prout, the town clerk, evidently was not at the meeting and did not receive a report from the moderator for several days. As
27
THE BEGINNINGS OF A TOWN
he was unable to determine whether the vote to settle Mr. Gibbs in the ministry, first in the old meeting-house but later in a new one to be erected in three years, was a majority vote or not he attested in his record that it "passed negatively."
Another meeting for the same purpose, to be held at the house of Joseph Peirce, was called for Sept. 25, 1694. The call was signed by Mr. Prout but he dissented from the place of meeting. Later, upon advice received from the Council, the place was changed to the meeting-house and the date changed to Oct. 2. Daniel Warren, Sr. was appointed by the selectmen to be moder- ator. At that meeting Mr. Warren refused to put to vote the part referring to the call and settling of Mr. Gibbs "without several other things not properly to be mixed therewith." The majority then chose Simon Stone moderator and voted to renew the call to Mr. Gibbs without mention of settling him. A large majority of the selectmen dissented from this action claiming that it was irregular and another meeting was held Nov. 19 at which Mr. Gibbs was invited to serve for another year. This left the main question still unsettled.
The selectmen at a meeting held the 7th of the next March made a levy of four pence per pound, amounting to £320 - 4s to defray the charge of building a new meeting-house in the place appointed by the Committee. Mr. Prout, as one of the selectmen and town clerk, dissented stating that no grant had been made by the town and refused to enter the vote in the records until compelled to do so by another vote signed by all the other selectmen. The annual town meeting held on March 27 was a tumultuous affair. There were, according to the moderator and town clerk, Mr. Prout, "sundry persons offering to vote who were not qualified according to Law." The meeting was adjourned to the next day but the conditions were not much better. The town officers were chosen however and the middle part of the town obtained a large majority of the selectmen. Mr. Prout retained his membership in the selectmen but was supplanted as town clerk by Capt. Benjamin Garfield who was also elected selectman. There were no votes recorded in regard to the meeting- house but the selectmen evidently considered the election as an endorsement of their action for the building of the new house was promptly started. Reference was made to the old meeting-house on July 19 and on Dec. 20, 1695, a meeting was held in the new
28
HISTORY OF WALTHAM
meeting-house. No description of this meeting-house has been found. It was probably about the same size as others built at that period, no more than 40 by 50 feet. There were probably box pews around the walls for the well-to-do and seats in the middle for the others. That it was furnished with balconeys we know from an early entry made in the records kept by Mr. Angier dated Aug. 22, 1697, on which day he first administered the ordinance of the Lord's Supper: "the gallereys round the house were filled with persons as spectators." At this meeting Mr. Gibbs was called to officiate in that building. On Feb. 4, 1695-6, the town voted to accept the new meeting-house "to be the place for publick worship and service of god for the town." At this meeting a letter from Mr. Gibbs was read in which he declined the offer of the town on account of the dissatisfaction expressed in regard to the vote of the town inviting him. A committee was selected to obtain a minister for the new house, Mr. Gibbs to be again offered the position. This committee reported on Mar. 12 that they had twice made the offer to Mr. Gibbs and that he had refused to preach "so much as one day as did other ministers afterward."
On June 10, 1696, John Warren, Sr. called a meeting of the church in the new meeting-house "at the desire of several Bretheren." Notice of this meeting was given at both meeting- houses.
Mr. Samuel Angier was chosen pastor by the "majority of the church then met." A second meeting held Aug. 28 confirmed this action by a unanimous vote. Notice was given to the selectmen of this choice and a town meeting was called for Sept. 21, 1696. At that meeting a recess was taken for half an hour and during it each faction appointed three men to represent them in a "more orderly debate than could be in publick." Capt. Nathaniel Barsham, Simon Stone and Joseph Sherman represented the east part and Jonathan Sanderson, Philip Shattuck and Benjamin Garfield the middle part. They were instructed "to debeat those matters of difference that did kep them from uniting in love and peace as to the worship of god in the towne." The meeting then adjourned to Sept. 28. The debate was held on the 26th but no common ground of agreement could be found. At the meeting of the 28th the town desired to be informed as to the debate and at the request of the other representatives Capt. Garfield related
29
THE BEGINNINGS OF A TOWN
the proposals made by each side. Those of the east part proposed : 1. That there be two congregations and a rate made by the town to maintain both ministers. 2. All to meet in the old meeting- house. 3. To draw lots to see which meeting-house should be used. The reply of the middle part was that by long experience it had been found that two congregations were "very uncomfortable," that it was unreasonable to go back to the old meeting-house when a new one had been built on the place appointed for the whole town and as to drawing lots they considered that it had already been done when the matter had been referred to a com- mittee. The middle part then proposed that the expense of re- pairing the old meeting-house (which had been done by private subscription), the building of a house for Mr. Gibbs and the building of the new meeting-house be a general assessment on the whole town and that the town meet in the new house because it was the most convenient. If those of the east part desire that Mr. Gibbs be first put to vote as the minister in the new house and if he receive a majority vote they will comply with it. If he did not receive a majority then Mr. Angier would be voted for and if he received a majority they hoped those of the east would comply. Another proposition was to have both Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Angier in the new meeting-house. Those of the east would accept neither of these proposals nor did they care for further debate. The town then voted to concur in the action taken by the church and appointed Capt. John Warren, Caleb Church and Benjamin Garfield to treat with Mr. Angier. Forty-six inhabitants of the eastern part dissented from this action and their names are entered in the town book. Fifteen others not present at the meeting including three from the Farmer's Precinct also had their names recorded as dissenting. Caleb Church, one of the constables, made affidavit that there were 62 that actually voted to call and settle Mr. Angier. This shows that there was a majority of 16 favoring him at that meeting.
On Nov. 27, 1696, the church held a meeting of fasting and prayer to incline the heart of Mr. Samuel Angier to accept. He gave the committee encouragement that he would accept and on Dec. 2nd the town voted him a salary of £70. His formal accep- tance was not received until Mar. 9, 1696-7, and he was not settled until May 25, 1697. A meeting of the inhabitants of the east and middle parts of the town was held on the following July 2nd
30
HISTORY OF WALTHAM
and at it, with the approval of Mr. Angier, Mr. Gibbs was offered the position of assistant to Mr. Angier at a salary of £65 per year. He did not accept but continued to preach at the old meeting-house where a church was organized and he was ordained Oct. 6, 1697.
This account of the contest over the location of the meeting- house is given in considerable detail because it resulted in bring- ing together the scattered inhabitants of the middle part and so enabled them to combine for their mutual interests. It was really the beginning of the separation from the first settlement and the incorporation of a new town. Mr. Henry Bond in his history of Watertown wrote: "In the course of this controversy, the people in the middle part of the town seem to have been most reasonable and liberal; but they did not evince this upon the ordi- nation of Mr. Gibbs. Judge Sewall (diary) says, the ordination of Mr. Gibbs 'was done in the afternoon in the open air, though a cold day. The western party, having the selectmen on their side, got possession of the meeting-house and would not suffer the assembly to enter there'."
The new house was placed near the junction of the present Lexington and Belmont Streets and so was east of the Waltham- Watertown line but as the congregation was mostly from the west of the line it has always been considered a Waltham inheritance.
The inhabitants of Watertown Farms or the Farmers' Precinct as it was often called were remote from the rest of the town and their votes were divided. In February 1696-7 they were excused from paying rates for the support of the ministry as many of them attended the church in Sudbury, which was much nearer, and besides they were in "a probable way to have their meeting- house finished." This house, by the way, was not completed until 1700 and no minister installed until 1709.
MORE GROWTH AND MORE NEEDS
After Mr. Angier's settlement the bitterness between the east and middle parts of the town abated and later differences were more peacefully adjusted. The first schoolhouse in Watertown was erected in 1649 or 1650. It was placed on Strawberry Hill
31
THE BEGINNINGS OF A TOWN
(later called Schoolhouse Hill and still later Meeting-house Hill) near the junction of Common and Belmont Streets. It was 22 ft. long, 14 ft. wide and 9 ft. between the joists. School was not always held there. Sometimes it was held in the house of the schoolmaster, sometimes in the house of some of the towns- men and sometimes there was no school at all. On at least two occasions, in 1690 and 1696, the town sent committees to the County Court to "answer the towns presentment for want of a schole." On Nov. 25, 1701, the town voted to have a grammar school as the law required and to hold the first and third quarters in the schoolhouse and the second and fourth in the middle part of the town in a place appointed by the town. This was the result of what seems to have been the first attempt of the middle part to have a convenient place of learning. Mr. Ames Angier, son of the minister and recently graduated from Harvard College, was chosen schoolmaster. At the town meeting of March 9 following it was voted to hold the school for the second and fourth quarters "at the house where old father Ive lived formerly." (Miles Ives died in 1684) This house was probably on Hagar Lane next to the Garfield house and a little east of the present Watertown line. The first school to be held on Waltham territory seems to have been in the house of John Hastings on the north side of Trapelo Road. This was in 1706. In the intervening years school was kept "as the previous year" that is as in 1702. In the early part of 1707 it was held at Joshua Biglow's on the north side of the Great Road just west of Beaver Brook. In 1709 it was to be held no further west than Joshua Biglow's, an indication that an effort had been made for a change in that direction. Early in 1709 it was voted to erect a new schoolhouse within 20 rods of the middle meeting-house to be 25 ft. long, 20 ft. wide and 612 ft. between the joists. This building was not completed until 1711. In September of that year it was voted to repair the old schoolhouse or a part of it for a watch house. This schoolhouse as well as the Angier meeting-house can be considered a Waltham inheritance.
At a meeting held Jan. 1, 1702-3 the town gave liberty to the societies of the middle and farmer's meeting-houses to choose a burying ground for each society. The middle society promptly selected a 4 acre lot on the south side of the Great Road in the hither or little plain. This lot was granted to Richard Blois and
32
HISTORY OF WALTHAM
was then in the possession of his grandson Edmund Blois. The town voted to pay for it on Oct. 23, 1704, but it was in use before that time. "Sexton" in an article in the Waltham Sentinel of 1856 wrote that the earliest graves he had found many years before were those of Grace, the wife of Samuel Harrington, who died Nov. 11, 1703, age 33, and Susanna, wife of John Has- tings, who died Nov. 15, 1703, age 21. In the Waltham Sentinel of 1856 he suggests that there may have been earlier burials either unmarked or whose stones have disappeared. This lot with later additions is the present Grove Hill Cemetery. It was the only one in the town until Mount Feake was laid out in 1857.
The expense of carrying on the eastern congregation was met by private subscription for over fifteen years. On Aug. 12, 1712, a memorial from this eastern congregation was presented to the General Court. Its contents have not been preserved but Capt. Benjamin Garfield, "a principal inhabitant of the Middle Part of the town" was summoned to a hearing held on Oct. 30. The arguments presented at this hearing are not recorded but on Nov. 3 it was ordered that each minister be paid £84 per year and that it be an assessment on the two precincts. Each congre- gation was directed to pay for the repairs of the meeting-houses and the ministers' houses, all extras and all past debts on account of the ministry. It was also specified that the two precincts pay for the expense of removing the Middle meeting-house more westerly when that precinct determined to do so. The Angier meeting-house was not far from the geographical center of the two precincts and was undoubtedly fairly situated if it had been the only one. The refusal of those of the eastern part to abide by the decision of the General Court made in 1693 and their deter- mined and successful attempt to retain their old place of worship entirely changed the situation. The middle meeting-house then became far from the center of its congregation so it is not sur- prising that there was a desire for its removal.
This decision of the General Court was not acceptable to the majority of the town. A meeting was held Feb. 4, 1712-13, to consider it. A vote was passed declaring that they desired to follow the rules laid down by a previous decision. Apparently in answer to this vote the Court on Mar. 25, 1713, appointed a committee to divide Watertown into two towns. The subject was brought up again on May 4 but the town showed no inclination
33
THE BEGINNINGS OF A TOWN
to take action. The next meeting held only eight days later was more productive. Although a vote could not be obtained to en- force the decision a vote was put to see how many desired to divide into two towns. Only three or four hands were held up. The town then voted that it was "Reddy and Willing" to pay the two ministers equally according to the advice of the General Court provided that if either of them should be removed by death or otherways the two congregations should be re-united in the middle meeting-house with the remaining minister. This action was probably still unsatisfactory to the Court for still another meeting was held June 8, 1713, to "Once more to here & Con- sider the Advice & Direction of the General Court." At this meeting the moderator declared that a vote had been carried to submit to the decision of the Court. This vote was doubted and the moderator directed those of the negative to move to the gallery but no one did so. The next day this vote was decided by the General Court to be legal and then voted to supersede its action of March 25 in regard to dividing the town. Although the controversy would seem to have been settled there was no en- thusiasm in carrying out the agreement. In 1715 a complaint was made to the Court that Samuel Stearns, the town treasurer and also a member of the Court, had opposed the execution of the order in relation to the maintenance of the ministry. He was found not guilty but was cautioned to be more active in pro- moting compliance. A short time afterwards a committee of the eastern congregation petitioned to be made into a separate town because the western part continued to "Illude" the orders of the Court. A town meeting was held Sept. 6, 1715, to consider this petition. It was voted that "they do Desire that they may not be divided into two towns fore-seeing it will be atended with many Inconveniences & instead of healing our Differences will make our case more sad and Deplorable for sundry waighty Reasons if it should be done according to their desires in breaking of the Ancient Church and taking from us the Priviledges given us both by Law and Charter: we do therefore desire, appoint and impower the selectmen in behalf of the town to lay our Circumstances before the General Court praying that we may Injoy the privilidges of a town without seperation as other towns of this Province do." This plea was effective in delaying the division of the town but the cause of the dissention was not
34
HISTORY OF WALTHAM
yet removed. The House of Representatives on Dec. 6, 1715, voted to fine the selectmen of Watertown £50, unless payments were made as directed in 1712 before Jan. 10th next. Reference was made to the contempt shown in the town meeting of Jan. 27, 1714, in which the town voted non-compliance with that order. The Council non-concurred and appointed Samuel Sewall, Benjamin Lynde and John Clark a committee to investigate and report. The Watertown records of that meeting do not quite agree with the report received by the House. A vote to comply with the order was declared passed but the vote was doubted and the constables were ordered to number the voters. Their count was that there were thirty-four in favor of granting the money and sixty-one that did not vote at all. It became un- necessary for the committee to act for on Dec. 23, 1715, the selectmen directed the constables to pay Mr. Angier and Mr. Gibbs £84 each, their salaries in full for the last year. This payment was continued thereafter. In the General Court order of 1712 the middle congregation was given the privilege of moving its meeting-house more westerly at the expense of the two pre- cincts when it desired to do so. In the warrant for a town meeting to be held May 13, 1715, was an article "to know the towns mind whither they will build a New Meeting House in some Con- veniant place where it may Acomodate the Inhabitants of the most Westerly part of the Town better than Either of the Other Meeting houses do that are already Erected." At that meeting it was voted to build but no appropriation was made and no time for erection named. Nearly two years later, Jan. 25, 1716-17, a proposal to choose a committee to select a site for this building was not acted upon.
Another two years passed before there is any reference in the records to the western part of the town and during that time there are no indications of internal strife. On Jan. 13, 1718-19, the town voted to have a dividing line between the two congregations so that they might act separately as to repairs or additions to the meeting-houses and minister's houses. It was also voted that the line drawn by Col. Samuel Thaxter in 1712 when the committee of the General Court made its report was acceptable. The printed records refer to a plan made in 1720 in which an irregular line divided the two parts of the town. Notes on it indicate that in the parts formerly given to the con-
35
1247309 THE BEGINNINGS OF A TOWN
stables for the collection of rates the residents were not evenly divided. There were eighty-two houses in the eastern part and one hundred and four in the western part. Twelve houses were taken from the latter and added to the former making the count ninety-four and ninety-two respectively. The houses shifted seem to have been south of Hagar Lane and east of Warren Street. The constables' line was reasonably straight but a considerable dis- tance east of the present division line. The death of Mr. Angier, Jan. 21, 1718-19, at the age of sixty-five was undoubtedly a reason for the renewal of interest in the location of the meeting- house. Strangely his death is not included in the Watertown vital records. He was buried at Grove Hill and on the stone this date is given. The inscription relates that he was "Descended from the Most Famous Dr. James and allied to the Larned President & Divine Mr. Uriah Oakes by Marrying his only Daughter." He had been minister of the church of Rehoboth for fifteen years before coming to Watertown. The usual reaction after an im- portant vote had been taken came soon after for on May 4th of the same year the town refused to name a committee to ask the General Court to confirm a division line and also refused to act on an article proposing that the two congregations come to- gether.
The inhabitants of the western part were evidently now desirous that a division line be determined for on Nov. 19, 1719, a petition signed by Jonathan Sanderson and forty-seven others of the western part was presented to the General Court asking that a dividing line be run or that its meeting-house be moved further westward. This petition was dismissed as it was not shown that the Precinct had been asked for what they desired. Nearly a year later, Nov. 15, 1720, a similar petition signed by Jonathan Sanderson and forty-nine others was presented. These petitions have not been preserved so the names of the forty-nine others are not known. In response the Court on Nov. 18 ap- pointed a committee to determine a line and to select locations for the meeting-houses. Their report was accepted and adopted by the House on Dec. 7 and by the Council on Dec. 9 with an amendment, agreed to by the House, that the Western Precinct pay its proportionate share towards the moving of the east meeting-house that was to be paid for the moving of the west one. This report is given in full in the Watertown records. In
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.