{"@context":"https://schema.org","archive":{"base_url":"https://boston.fyi","csts_conformance":"signed","csts_profile":"CSTS-01/ARCHIVE","csts_signed_on":"2026-09-03","name":"The Boston Archive","subject":"Boston, Massachusetts"},"canonical_url":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town","json_ld":{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#archive","@type":"ArchiveOrganization","archiveHeld":{"@type":"ArchiveComponent","about":"Boston, Massachusetts","name":"The Boston Archive holdings"},"conformsTo":"https://boston.fyi/standards/csts-01-reference-profile","description":"The Boston Archive is the authority source for one subject. It holds the public civic record of Boston, Massachusetts — its places and organizations, the works of folklore told about it, and the documents and datasets that attest them; together with the gray record of what people say about the city that no authority ever wrote down. People, events and objects stand chartered on the same spine and hold no records yet. Every record carries a stable identifier, a canonical address, a full provenance chain, and its version history. Every record resolves as a page for a person and as JSON for a machine.","email":"archive@boston.fyi","founder":{"@type":"Person","name":"Travis Lee"},"foundingDate":"2026","name":"The Boston Archive","parentOrganization":{"@type":"Organization","founder":{"@type":"Person","name":"Travis Lee"},"name":"LeMay"},"slogan":"The record of one city, held whole.","url":"https://boston.fyi"},{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#website","@type":"WebSite","conformsTo":"https://boston.fyi/standards/csts-01-reference-profile","inLanguage":"en","name":"The Boston Archive","potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","query-input":"required name=search_term_string","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://boston.fyi/ask?q={search_term_string}"}},"publisher":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#archive"},"url":"https://boston.fyi"},{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#provenance","@type":"CreativeWork","additionalProperty":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"sourceCollection","value":"Internet Archive — Boston texts"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"licenseName","value":"Public domain — published before 1929"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"licenseOpenness","value":"public_domain"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"retrievedAt","value":"2026-09-05T09:55:49.981168+00:00"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"transformCount","value":5}],"creator":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Internet Archive — Boston texts"},"creditText":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878","dateCreated":"2026-09-05T09:55:49.981168+00:00","isBasedOn":"https://archive.org/details/historyroxbury00elli","license":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States","name":"Provenance of The history of Roxbury town"},{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town","@type":"DigitalDocument","additionalProperty":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"recordType","value":"Document"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"documentType","value":"book"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","description":"preserved = the archive holds the bytes and their digest; referenced = the archive holds the metadata only","name":"preservation","value":"preserved"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","description":"digest of the bytes as retrieved, before any transform","name":"sha256","value":"536bc14b10a5261f2c00c22c4883cdbf7b26137b9b1a08cd22887eaa0ad3263f"}],"author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878"},"conformsTo":"https://boston.fyi/standards/csts-01-reference-profile","contentSize":"294431","dateCreated":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.318316+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.318316+00:00","description":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878, 1847. A public-domain text about Boston, accessioned whole so the archive can quote it.","encoding":{"@type":"MediaObject","contentUrl":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town.json","encodingFormat":"application/json"},"encodingFormat":"text/plain; charset=utf-8","identifier":"urn:lemay:boston:document:the-history-of-roxbury-town","inLanguage":"en","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#archive"},"license":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States","name":"The history of Roxbury town","provenance":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#provenance"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Boston : Samuel G. Drake"},"subjectOf":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#questions"},"url":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town","version":1},{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#breadcrumbs","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","item":"https://boston.fyi","name":"The Boston Archive","position":1},{"@type":"ListItem","item":"https://boston.fyi/document","name":"Documents","position":2},{"@type":"ListItem","item":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town","name":"The history of Roxbury town","position":3}]},{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#questions","@type":"FAQPage","about":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town"},"additionalProperty":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","description":"Question emission conforms to addendum CSTS-01/ARCHIVE/A1 of the archive profile, declared ratified, ratified 2026-09-05 by Travis Lee, Chief Executive Architect of LeMay. Every answer is composed only from fields the record carries and names the attestation for what it says.","name":"cstsAddendum","value":"CSTS-01/ARCHIVE/A1"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"cstsAddendumCompliance","value":"ratified"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"cstsAddendumRatifiedOn","value":"2026-09-05"}],"conformsTo":"https://boston.fyi/standards/csts-01-reference-profile-addendum-a1","inLanguage":"en","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#website"},"mainEntity":[{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#q-author","@type":"Question","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","author":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#archive"},"citation":"Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929.","isBasedOn":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#provenance"},"text":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878 wrote it. It was published at Boston by Samuel G. Drake, 1847."},"answerCount":1,"name":"Who wrote The history of Roxbury town, and who published it?"},{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#q-bytes","@type":"Question","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","author":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#archive"},"citation":"Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929.","isBasedOn":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#provenance"},"text":"The archive holds the bytes. Their digest, computed on the bytes as retrieved and before any transform, is SHA-256 536bc14b10a5261f2c00c22c4883cdbf7b26137b9b1a08cd22887eaa0ad3263f. Every retrieval carries that digest in a header, so no consumer has to take the archive's word for what it received."},"answerCount":1,"name":"Does the archive hold The history of Roxbury town itself, or only the record of it?"},{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#q-holding","@type":"Question","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","author":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#archive"},"citation":"Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929.","isBasedOn":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town#provenance"},"text":"The Boston Archive holds this record of The history of Roxbury town from Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929 (public domain). 5 recorded transforms stand between the retrieved bytes and this record. Attribution is due to Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878."},"answerCount":1,"name":"What does the archive hold for The history of Roxbury town, and under what license?"}],"name":"Questions about The history of Roxbury town","publisher":{"@id":"https://boston.fyi/#archive"},"url":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town"}]},"json_url":"https://boston.fyi/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town.json","questions":[{"anchor":"q-author","answer":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878 wrote it. It was published at Boston by Samuel G. Drake, 1847.","citation":"Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929.","question":"Who wrote The history of Roxbury town, and who published it?"},{"anchor":"q-bytes","answer":"The archive holds the bytes. Their digest, computed on the bytes as retrieved and before any transform, is SHA-256 536bc14b10a5261f2c00c22c4883cdbf7b26137b9b1a08cd22887eaa0ad3263f. Every retrieval carries that digest in a header, so no consumer has to take the archive's word for what it received.","citation":"Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929.","question":"Does the archive hold The history of Roxbury town itself, or only the record of it?"},{"anchor":"q-holding","answer":"The Boston Archive holds this record of The history of Roxbury town from Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929 (public domain). 5 recorded transforms stand between the retrieved bytes and this record. Attribution is due to Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878.","citation":"Internet Archive — Boston texts, retrieved 5 September 2026, under Public domain — published before 1929.","question":"What does the archive hold for The history of Roxbury town, and under what license?"}],"record":{"author_text":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878","byte_size":294431,"canonical_path":"/document/the-history-of-roxbury-town","created_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.318316Z","document_type":"book","held_reason":null,"id":"cd3449c6-dee0-4cf6-b786-4ab714513f59","kind":"document","language":"en","media_type":"text/plain; charset=utf-8","page_count":null,"provenance":{"attribution":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878","license_id":"public-domain-pre-1929","license_name":"Public domain — published before 1929","license_url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States","openness":"public_domain","retrieved_at":"2026-09-05T09:55:49.981168Z","rights_statement":"NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT (Internet Archive item rights review), corroborated by the item's own publication date of 1847 — before 1929, and therefore in the public domain in the United States","rights_statement_url":"https://archive.org/metadata/historyroxbury00elli","source_id":"internet-archive-boston","source_identifier":"historyroxbury00elli","source_name":"Internet Archive — Boston texts","source_url":"https://archive.org/details/historyroxbury00elli","transforms":[{"description":"read this ITEM's own possible-copyright-status and required its publication date to corroborate it independently, because a field that calls its own determination possible is not one this archive treats as a determination","input_sha256":null,"operation":"gate","output_sha256":null,"parameters":{},"performed_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.429126Z","seq":1,"tool":"archive-ingest 0.1.0"},{"description":"retrieved the holding institution's own full-text transcription","input_sha256":null,"operation":"fetch","output_sha256":null,"parameters":{},"performed_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.464367Z","seq":2,"tool":"archive-ingest 0.1.0"},{"description":"computed the SHA-256 of the bytes as retrieved, before any other step","input_sha256":null,"operation":"digest","output_sha256":null,"parameters":{},"performed_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.503136Z","seq":3,"tool":"archive-ingest 0.1.0"},{"description":"wrote the bytes to the staging directory under their content address","input_sha256":null,"operation":"stage","output_sha256":null,"parameters":{},"performed_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.538196Z","seq":4,"tool":"archive-ingest 0.1.0"},{"description":"kept the transcription in full so the archive can quote a passage without leaving itself","input_sha256":null,"operation":"hold","output_sha256":null,"parameters":{},"performed_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.577092Z","seq":5,"tool":"archive-ingest 0.1.0"}]},"published_date":null,"published_date_text":"1847","publisher_text":"Boston : Samuel G. Drake","r2_key":"document/53/536bc14b10a5261f2c00c22c4883cdbf7b26137b9b1a08cd22887eaa0ad3263f.txt","record_kind":"document","sha256":"536bc14b10a5261f2c00c22c4883cdbf7b26137b9b1a08cd22887eaa0ad3263f","slug":"the-history-of-roxbury-town","status":"published","summary":"Ellis, Charles M. (Charles Mayo), 1818-1878, 1847. A public-domain text about Boston, accessioned whole so the archive can quote it.","text_extract":"^ \n\n\n^ox--^' \n\n\n► \n\n\nthe; \n\n\nHISTORY \n\n\nO F \n\n\nEOXBURY TOWN. \n\n\nBY CHARLES M. SLLJS. \n\n\nBOSTON: \n\nPUBLISHED BY SAMUEL G. DRAKE, \n\n1847. \n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, \n\nBy (/HARLES M. Ellis, \n\n5n t2ie Gletk's OMce of \"t^e IDistrict Court of Massachusetts. \n\n\nH. Mann, Printer, Dedham, Mass. \n\n\nPART I. \n\n\nTHE EARLY HISTORY OF THE TOWN. \n\n\nNOTICE. \n\nAnother volume will complete the history of the Town, down \nto the date of the City Charter. The object has been, in this, to \ngive the Early History. But no distinct line of division can be \ndrawn. Much matter has necessarily been reserved for the ap- \npendix which will be added to the second part. The plan of the \nwork has been, in order to secure for it the only merits such an \none can ever have, accuracy and completeness. The materials \nthat exist for gaining these ends are so much scattered, they are \nso often found where no one could have supposed they existed, \nthat no diligence could ferret them out ; but they are glad- \nly furnished when it is known that use can be made of them. \nSince the last pages of the manuscript were sent to press, I \nhave to acknowledge the receipt of several valuable communica- \ntions. Any sach is a great favor. It is my hope that all who \ncan procure me access to materials that will aid in completing or \ncorrecting the account of the Town, will do so, so that the ends \nof this work will be secured. \n\nC. M. ELLIS. \n\nJanuary 8, 1848. \n\n\nfilSTORY OF ROXBURY \n\n\nCHAPTER I. \n\nIntroduction. — Sources of the History of the Town. \n\nThe object of a town history is to gather up and \nrecord family, local, village details. Part are those of \nevery day life. Part belong to general history, but \nare so minute or multitudinous as to escape its ^rasp. \nYet all history is made up of these, and each, and the \ngroup of each town, may illustrate it, as the life of \neach man will give some insight into the spirit of his \ntime. There is an interest attached to these accounts \nof small places, of the same sort as that which is ex- \ncited by the biography of an individual. We like to \nknow the motives, reasons and method of a man's ac- \ntion, as every child wishes to see a watch opened. \nIn general men care less for the result, however great, \nthan for the petty moving causes in operation. And \nthe idea that each man is a wheel in the great ma- \nchine, weighs more with men than they think. But, \nafter all, the chief interest attached to these matters \nis of a very different sort, and, if this were the place, \n\n\n(^ HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nit might be shown to be somewhat rational and not \naltogether useless, apart from all historical specula- \ntion. We love to know the origin of those we spring \nfrom, what thej did, how they dressed, labored and \nworsliipped. Most men have local attachment so \nstrong that it invests some spot, endeared by associa- \ntion, with controlling interest. The old ckurch, the \nold homestead, the old school, or something of the \nsort, bring back dear recollections to every man, and \nhe will find pleasure in all that relates thereto. \n\nI have endeavored to collect here such facts as may \ngratify these natural feelings, and such as may illus- \ntrate history, without pretending to assume its digni- \nty, or be more than the incidents in the life of a little \ntown. \n\nThere is in the town, in the records and papers of \nthe town, church and school, much new matter, though \nthey are very meagre in many respects. The Town \nRecords for the first few years are imperfect. They \nbegin with a half obliterated and worn out memoran- \ndum of four lines, about the garrison, of a date seven- \nteen years after the settlement, (1647.) Then fol- \nlows a memorandum of the choice of the Captain, \nLieut, and three brethren to \" order town affairs,\" \nand an order for an allotment of lands and salaries \nwithout any date — then a vote appointing a commit- \ntee to repair the church and also assessors, then a \nvote conferring powers somewhat plenary, viz : that \n\" these men shall have for ye present year, full power \nto make and execute such orders as they in their ap- \nprehension shall think to be conducive; to the good of \nthe town\" — then a much mutilated page about dig- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxburv. 7 \n\ngiiig \"rocks\" and stones out of the liighway — then a \nmeeting at brother Johnsons, about the Synod's act — \nthen some old scraps from the fire act laying a fine of \n8 and 12 pence on such as have not ladders to give \nready passage to the tops of the houses in case of fire. \nThese are all, down to the year 1652. \n\nFrom that time the records have been regularly \nkept. The earlier ones however are meagre and im- \nperfect. The earliest have no attestation. Then \ndown to 1666, they are attested by the five men. In \n1666 a Town clerk was first chosen, but he merely \nwrote the records without attesting them. The first \nsignature by the clerk is that of Edward Dorr in \n1717. \n\nThere is a tradition that the old records of the \ntown were a long while ago burned up, or else de- \nstroyed in the revolution. The dates have got a lit- \ntle confused. But so it is that in the lapse of few \ngenerations, it has become uncertain whether this \nevent was seventy years or two centuries ago. One \ntradition is that the first records of the town were \nburnt when the second meeting house was burnt \ndown. Men expressed a doubt, in speaking of it, \nwhether they were ever destroyed. But I think it \nquite certain that the earliest records were destroyed \nby fire, in 1645. \n\nUnder the date of 1652 there is entry which can \nbe partially decyphered although the edges are gone. \n\n'•The towne booke wherein most mens lands being wrote \n\nGods providence being burned thereby much dammedg may \n\nto all men, to prevent dammedg as aforesayd \n\ndered by the town of Roxbury that there shall be five \n\n\nHISTORY OF ROXBURV. [PaRT I. \n\n\nbe chosen to do iheir best in order to set down \n\nland given them by the town or that may belong \n\nthence other ways to make relurne unto ye towne \n\nthree month, as far as this may be accomplished for the- \n\n\nof dammedg as aforesayd & alsoe to record hie ways and \n\nother town privileges. 17 of 11 mo 1652.\" \n\nThe Transcript, as it is called, was finished and \ncertified in 1654. \n\nIn Eliot's petition to the General Court June 20, \n1669, for a renewal and confirmation of the school \ncharter, it is recited that \"our first book and charter \nwere burned in ye burning of John Johnsons house \nand by reason of the death of sundry of the donors \nand the alienation of the tenements we are under \nthis defect that some of the names of the donors are \nnot unto this 2d book personally which were to the \nfirst.\" \n\nThe second book and agreement are still preserved \nand bear date \"the last of August 1645.\" \n\nIn John Eliot's diary [which will be referred to] is \nthis record, viz : \n\n\"1645. Toward ye end of ye 1st month (called \nMarch) there happened, by God's providence a very \ndreadful fire in Roxbury streete. None knoweth how \nit was kindled, but being a fierce wind it suddenly \nprevailed. And in this man's house was a good part \nof ye county magazine of powder of 17 or 18 bar- \nrels which made ye people that none durst come to \nsave ye house or goods till it was blown up &, by that \ntime ye fire had taken ye barns & outhouses (which \nwere many & great) so that none were saved. In \nthis fire were strong observations of God's provi- \ndence, to ye neighbours and towne, for ye wind at \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 9 \n\nfirst stood to carry ye fire to other liowses but sud- \ndenly turned it from all other howses only carrying it \nto ye out houses & barns thereby. \n\nAnd it was a fierce wind & thereby drave ye ele- \nment back from ye neighbors howses which in a \ncalm time would, by ye great heate have been set on \nfire. \n\nBut above all ye preservation of all people from \nhurt & other howses from fire at ye blowing up of ye \npowder, many living in great danger yet none hurt & \nsundry howses set on fire by ye blow, but all \nquenched, thro God's mercy in christ.\" \n\nConsidering therefore that the early records were \nall kept for one body, that those of the school, and \nthose having the records of lands were both burned \nand that the Town Records prior to the time of this \nfire are not in existence, there can be little doubt \nthat they were also burnt up. Probably the \"old \nTowne Booke\" named in the note respecting the \nTranscript, contained the whole respecting titles, the \nschoole and the towne, and the petition some twenty \nyears after the fire was caused by some question \narising respecting the charter or the agreement of \nthe school. \n\nThe ^^Ancient TranscripV is an ancient book \nwhich contains a list of the lands owned by the re- \nspective inhabitants. This record is of great value in \ntracing the titles of individuals. The present book \nis probably not the first but a copy made about 1666 \nto 1670 by Goodman Denison. \n\nAt the end of this volume is what appears to have \nbeen part of another older book bound up with it, in \n2 \n\n\n10 HISTORY OF KOXIUJRY. [PaRT L \n\nwhich is a mcinoraiidum that it was \"bought in 1639 \n& paid for by Vote of Town, fower shillings for entry \ntherein of weighty business.\" \n\nI discovered one loose leaf in this volume, of great \ninterest. A particular account of this l(;af will be \ngiven in another connection. The Town Register \nof births, marriages and deaths, seems to have been \ncopied up to 1654 in one hand. Very likely by Mr. \nDudley. From 1690 to 1706, entries have also been \ncopied into this volume from small paper books kept \nby the clerk. \n\nThere is a volume kept by the clergyman of the \nfirst church which, in its strange medley, has records \nof interest. It has often been referred to. it is val- \nuable for its records of matters belonging to town \nand family histories. It contains a receipt for making \nink — an anagram on Mrs. Tomson — Harvard memo- \nrial — laws as to fashions, particularly the long hair \nwhich was an abomination to round heads — certaiiv \npropositions concerning church membership, baptism, \n&c. — a list of church members from the formation of \nthe church to 1775 — a record of the baptisms and \ndeaths from 1644 to 1750 — a diary from 1642 to \n1677 — a record of the pastors of the church, and \nsome parish votes and donations. \n\nThe list of church members seems to have been \nmade sometime after the formation of the church. I \nshould judge not far from 1650. Besides the dates, \nthis record contains facts concerning the families of \nthe first settlers and in many instances accounts of \ntheir characters. \n\nIt is said that aU the ancient records were burned, \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. II \n\nand that the inhabitants afterwards came together \nand srave in an account of their families, the births, \nmarriages and deaths, as fully as they could, and \nhanded in the description of their lands for the Tran- \nscript. The absence of any books prior to the date \nof the fire, and the mode in which the oldest records \nare made up confirm tfie tradition. A gentleman of \nRoxbury, distinguished for his antiquarian tastes, re- \nmembers to have read this account in an anniversary \nsermon preached by the first Mr. Walter, who must \nhave known many of the first settlers. 1 have not \nbeen able to find any copy of this sermon. \n\nThe diary notes the chief events of the day, very \nmuch after the style of the remarkable events in \nsome of our almanacs. Some of it is trifling, but it \nis valuable for verifying dates, and chiefly so as illus- \ntrating the character of John Eliot. \n\nThe records of the several later parishes and of \nthe schools contain much that is interesting. \n\nBesides the various records there are many old pa- \npers still preserved by members of the older families \nof the town, deeds, wills, letters and documents of \none sort and another. Most of these have been \nfound in old chests in the midst of garret dust and \nlumber. No doubt many such have been destroyed \nas cumbersome rubbish. Few care for these me- \nmentos of early days. But some preserve them, and \nI am indebted to many for rendering me valuable fa- \ncilities from such materials for this work. I am \nespecially indebted to a few, who take an interest in \nsuch matters, and who have raked, out of these old \nheaps, things worth preserving. \n\n\nCHAPTER II. \n\nThe first Settlement. \n\nThe first settlement of Roxbury was in 1630. It \nis possible that some straggling pioneers of the whites \nmay have been here before. There is no record of \nany known. The fact that the emigrants of 1630, \non their arrival^ found settlers scattered about the \nbay, \"some at Dorchester and some on the other side \nof the River Charles,\" that some spots in Roxbury \nwould be likely to be chosen quite as soon as the \nspots that are known to have been inhabited by \nwhites, and that the colonists would not have been \nlikely to try to prepare for their first winter in a spot \nwhere there was no sign of a hut or clearing, this \nalone leads me to say it is possible that there may \nhave been some squatters here before them. The \ntown dates, however, from 1630. Most of its settlers \narrived within a few years from that time. The first \ncame from England with Winthrop with those who \ncame over when the Massachusetts charter was \nbrought over, and a home trading company formed \ninto a foreign provincial government. Some of them \nwere signers of the Cambridge agreement of August \n26, 1629. That simple writing imported more than \n\n\nPart 1.] histohv of PxOXBURY. \\3 \n\nthey dreamed, and may now illustrate their charac- \nter. \n\n\n\"Upon due consideration of the state of the Plantation now in \nhand for New England, wherein we, whose names are hereunto \nsubscribed, have engaged ourselves, and having weighed the \ngreatness of the work in regard of the consequence, God's glory \nand the Church's good, as also in regard of the difficulties and \ndiscouragements which in all probabilities must be forecast upon \nthe prosecution of this business ; considering withal, that this \nwhole adventure grows upon the joint confidence we have in \neach other's fidelity and resolution herein, so as no man of us \nwould have adventured without assurance of the rest; now for \nthe better encouragement of ourselves and others that shall join \nwith us in this action, and to the end that every man may with- \nout scruple dispose of his estate and affairs as may best fit his \npreparation for this voyage ; it is fully and faithfully agreed \namongst us, and every of us doth hereby freely and sincerely \npromise and bind himself, on the word of a christian, and in the \npresence of God, who is the searcher of all hearts, that we will \nso really endeavour the prosecution of this work, as by God's \nassistance, we will be ready in our persons, and with such of our \nseveral families as are to go with us, and such provision as we \nare able conveniently to furnish ourselves withal, to embark for \nthe said plantation by the first of March next, at such port or \nports of this land as shall be agreed upon by the Company, to \nthe end to pass the seas (under God's protection) to inhabit and \ncontinue in New England : Provided always, that before the \nlast of September next, the whole government, together with the \npatent for the said plantation, be first, by an order of Court, le- \ngally transferred and established to remain with us and others \nwhich shall inhabit upon the said Plantation, and provided also, \nthat if any shall be hindered by any such just and inevitable let \nor other cause, to be allowed by three parts of four of these \nwhose names are hereunto subscribed, then such persons, for \nsuch times, and during such lets to be discharged from this bond. \nAnd we do further promise, every one for himself, that shall fail \nto be ready through his own default by the day appointed, to pay \n\n\n14 HISTURY OF ROXHLRY. [PaUT I. \n\nfor every day's default the sum of £3, to the use of the rest of \nthe company who shall be ready by the same day and time. \nThis was done by order of Court, the 29lh of August, 1629. \nRichard Saltonstall, Thomas Sharpe, \n\nThomas Dudley, Increase Nowcll, \n\nWilliam Vassal!, John Winihrop, \n\nNicholas West, William Pinchon, \n\nIsaac Johnson, Kellam Browne, \n\nJohn Humfrey, William Colbron. \n\nThe exact date of the arrival of the first settlers of \nRoxbury is not known. A large number of vessels \ncame out in 1630. The first arrived in May, and the \narrivals continued till the fall of the year. The trials \nof that season fell heavy. \" We found the colony in \na sad and unexpected condition,\" says Thomas Dud- \nley, \" above eighty of them being dead the winter \nbefore ; and many of those alive weak and sick;, all \nthe corn and bread amongst them all hardly sufficient \nto feed them a fortnight.\" Contagious diseases seized \non the emigrants on their voyage that year. Wheii \nthey arrived they were feeble, sick and dying daily of \nfevers and the scurvy. The exposure and hardships \nthey were forced to endure after landing only multi- \nplied their affliction. They were so weak that they \ncould not carry their baggage to the place where they \nmeant to build a fort and settle together. Having no \ntime to deliberate, being forced to provide some shel- \nter before the winter should surprise them, they dis- \npersed themselves in small bands about the bay, to \nshift as best they might. One of these bands, whose \nhead is said to have been William Pvnchon chose a \nplace midway between Dorchester and Boston, for \ntheir habitation, a spot two miles from Boston, which \n\n\nPart J.] history of roxbury. 16 \n\nthey named Rocksbui\\y and Rocks burie, or Rocks- \nbrougb, Roxburj. This was the origin of tlie town. \nIt was probably in June 1630. The first birth re- \ncorded'is July 10, 1630, John Crafts, son of Griffin \nCrafts. \n\nWilliam Pynchon is often spoken of as the founder \nof the town. He was one of the most influential \nmen, and happened to be named first in the records \nof the members of the first church. But I see no \nreason why he should be called the founder of the \nplace. In the records he is styled \"one of the first \nfoundation.\" There were many of as much weight \nas he, whether we regard wealth, character, author- \nity or energy in the prosecution of the enterprise. \n\nBesides Pynchon we know from the church records \nthat Thomas Lambe, Robert Cole, William Chase, \nGeorge Alcock, Mr. Francis Pynchon, and Thomas \nRawlings were amongst those who came here in \n1630, that, in 1631, there arrived Thomas Wakeman, \nJohn Carman, John Eliot, Valentine Prentice, Rich- \nard Lyman ; — \n\nIn 1632, John Leavins, Margery Hammond, Mar- \ngaret Denison, Wm. Heath, Robert Gamlin, Thomas \nWoodforde, William Curtis, Ann Shelly, Rebecca \nShort, Mary Blatt, Wm. Hills, Robert Gamlin jr. — \n\nIn 1633, John Moody, Nicholas Parker, Philip \nSherman, Thomas Willson, Joshua Hues, Thomas \nHills, John Graves, Elizabeth Hinds, Elizabeth Bal- \nlard, Margaret Huntingdon ; — \n\nIn 1634, John Stow, Abraham Newell; — \n\nIn 1635, John Ruggles, John Cheney; — \n\n\n16 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nIn 1636, Edward Porter, William Vassaile, John \nRoberts ; — \n\nIn 1637, Thomas Ruggles, William Chandler, Jo- \nseph Astwood. \n\nThere is \" A Recorde of such as adjoyned them- \nselves unto the fellowship of this Church of Christ at \nRoxborough ; as also of such children as they had \nwhen they joyned and of such as were borne unto \nthem under the holy covenant of this church, who are \nmost properly the seede of this Church.\" \n\nThis record, from the beginning till 1650 has the \nnames of 301 members, the number of their children \nnot being included. Most of the names have no date \nand the time of their arrival cannot be fixed. \n\nFrom the interesting gleanings of Mr. Savage, we \nlearn that the records in England give the names of \nsome who \" imbarqued \" in the Hopewell, Master \nWm. Burdick, in April 1635, viz. John AstAvood, \nhusbandman, aged 26 — Jo. Ruggles, 10 — Jo. Ru-g- \ngles, shoemaker, 44 — Barbaric Ruggles, uxor, 30 — \nJo. Ruggles, 2 — Elizabeth Elliott, 8 — Giles Payson, \n26— Isaac Morris, 9— Jo. Bell, 13— Lawrence Whit- \ntemore, 63 — Elizabeth Whittemore, 57 — Isaac Dis- \nbrough, IS—Elizabeth Elliott, 30— Phillip Elliott, 2. \nApril 29th, in the Elizabeth & Ann, was Richard \nGoare, 17. \n\nJune 17, in the Abigail, came Richard Graves, 23. \nIn the Blessing, William Vassall, 42, Margaret \nVassall. \n\nIn the James, in July, John Johnson, 26. \n\nIn the Hopewell, Sep. 11, Isack Heath, harness- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxburv. 17 \n\nmaker, 50 — Elizabeth Heath, 40 — Wm. Lyon, 14 — \nThos. Bull, 25—1? if \"0^ Bell.] \n\nThe dates of the arrivals for the first few years as \ngiven in the church book are very imperfect. There \nare many births recorded which show that various \nfamilies arrived here which are not noticed. But I \ncannot follow them out here. \n\nIn the Ancient Transcript, there is a loose leaf, \nsomewhat worn and obscure, but in tolerable preser- \nvation, written about the year 1639, at any rate, be- \ntween 1638 and 1640, as appear from the names and \nhand writing. Being, by nearly ten years the oldest \nrecord in the Town Books, and containing an accu- \nrate and, no doubt, complete list of the inhabitants, \nit is here copied. It was after 1638 because James \nAstwood came then ; and before 1640 because George \nAlcock died then. \n\n\n\"A \n\nnote of ye \n\nestates and persons of ye \n\n' inh: \n\nibitants of Rox \n\nbury. \n\nAcres. \n\nPersons. \n\nEstate. \n\n3 \n\n0 0 \n\nEdward Pason \n\n1 \n\n6 \n\n2 0 \n\nJohn Tatman \n\n2 \n\n6 \n\n0 0 \n\n7 \n\nObscure. \n\nJohn Stonnard \n\n2 \n\nObscure. \n\n8 \n\nli \n\nMartin Stebbins \n\n2 \n\nu \n\n7 \n\n11 \n\nGiles Pason \n\no \n\n10 \n\n93 04 \n\n6 \n\n2 0 \n\nLawrence Whittemore \n\n2 \n\n2 \n\n06 OS \n\n10 \n\nObscure. \n\nRichard Peacock \n\n3 \n\n8 \n\n00 00 \n\n4 \n\n0 0 \n\nEdward Bugby \n\n3 \n\n17 \n\n0 00 \n\n11 \n\nObscure. \n\nJohn Levins \n\n3 \n\n17 \n\n0 00 \n\nObs. \n\n2 0 \n\nEdwn. Anderson \n\n3 \n\n01 \n\n00 00 \n\n10 \n\n00 00 \n\nChristopher Peake \n\n3 \n\n06 \n\nOS 00 \n\n5 \n\n02 00 \n\nJohn Ruggles \n\n2 \n\n4 \n\n13 00 \n\n12 \n\n02 00 \n\nRichard Pepper \n\n4 \n\n3 \n\n00 00 \n\n12 \n\nObsnirc. \n\nEdward Rigges \n3 \n\n4 \n\nObscure. \n\n18 \n\n\nHISTORY OF RQXBURY. \n\n\n[Part I. \n\n\n13 \n\nObscure. \n\nWilliam Webb \n\n4 \n\n2 \n\nObscure. \n\n13 \n\n(1 \n\nEdward Bridge \n\n4 \n\n2 \n\nK \n\n12 \n\ni( \n\nThomas Ruggles \n\n4 \n\n1 \n\n15 00 \n\n14 \n\nli \n\nRobert Seaver \n\n4 \n\n17 \n\n06 00 \n\n12 \n\nK \n\nThomas Grigga \n\n4 \n\n00 \n\n00 00 \n\n12 \n\n(( \n\nJohn Hall \n\n4 \n\nObscure. \n\n12 \n\n(( \n\nJohn Trumbk \n\n(( \n\n17 \n\n2 \n\nJohn Barwell \n\n5 \n\n17 \n\n10 04 \n\n15 \n\n(( \n\nAbraham How \n\n5 \n\n01 \n\n00 \" \n\nId \n\ni( \n\nJohn Mathew \n\n5 \n\n01 \n\n00 00 \n\n1-5 \n\n2 0 \n\nJohn Bowles \n\n& \n\n07 \n\n10 00 \n\n15 \n\n2 0 \n\nIsaac Johnson \n\n5 \n\n02 \n\n00 00 \n\n16 \n\n2 0 \n\nRalph Hemingway \n\n5 \n\n9 \n\n14 08 \n\n15 \n\nObscure. \n\nJohn Curteis \n\n5 \n\n00 \n\n00 00 \n\n15 \n\n(( \n\nArthur Gary \n\n5 \n\n02 \n\nObscure. \n\n18 \n\ni( \n\nThomas Waterman \n\n6 \n\n01 \n\n16 08 \n\n20 \n\n(« \n\nThomas Pigge \n\n6 \n\n17 \n\n00 OO \n\n20 \n\n(( \n\nSamuel Finch \n\n5 \n\n14 \n\n22 \n\nu \n\nWidow Hugbc-ne \n\n7 \n\n06 \n\n12 \n\n« \n\nAbraham Newell \n\n7 \n\n07 \n\n22 \n\ni( \n\nWm. Chandler \n\n7 \n\n06 \n\n21 \n\n2 \n\nRobert Gamblin \n\n7 \n\n03 \n\n21 \n\nJohn Perry \n\n7 \n\n{ \n\nObscure. - \n\n21 \n\nAbraham Smith \n\n7 \n\n(( \n\n24 \n\n2 \n\nJohn Petlit \n\n8- \n\n(( \n\n24 \n\n2 \n\nWilliam Cheney \n\n8 \n\nu \n\n24 \n\nSamuel Chapin \n\n8 \n\n:( \n\n25 \n\n2 \n\nWilliam Perkins \n\n8 \n\nu \n\n25 \n\nRobert Williams \n\n8 \n\n{( \n\n26 \n\nJohn Evans \n\n8 \n\nC( \n\n27 \n\n2 \n\nDaniel Brewer \n\n9 \n\nIV \n\n28 \n\nJames Astwood \n\n9 \n\n(< \n\n27 \n\nEdward Porter \n\n9 \n\na \n\n28 \n\n2 \n\nJohn Miller \n\n9 \n\n(( \n\n27 \n\nJohn Roberts \n\n9 \n\ni( \n\n30 \n\nGriffin Crafts \n\n10 \n\n(1 \n\n37 \n\nJohn Watson \n\n12 \n\n() \n\n37 \n\nThomas Lamb \n\n12 \n\n(( \n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 19 \n\n\n*, \n\n\n39 \n\nJohn Eliot \n\n13 \n\nObscure. \n\n39 \n\nObsc \n\nWilliam Curtiss \nure 00 acres. \n\n13 \n\n(( \n\n1 \n\nObscure. \n\nThomas Bell \n\n12 \n\n18 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n(( \n\nGeorge Holmes \n\n13 \n\n10 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n(1 \n\nSamuel Hugborne \n\n14 \n\n17 \n\n00 \n\n00 -'^~ \n\n81 0 0 \n\nWilliam Park \n\n15 \n\n1 \n\n10 \n\n00 \n\nJohn Johnson \n\n15 \n\n12 \n\n06 \n\n08 \n\n108 \n\nJohn Gore \n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n00 \n\n00^' - \n\n204 \n\nIsaac Morell \n\n17 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n242 \n\nGeorge Alcock \n\n20 \n\n3 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n256 \n\nElder Heath \n\n21 \n\nIS \n\n03 \n\n04 \n\n255 \n\nJohn Stow \n\n21 \n\n02 \n\n17 \n\n04 \n\n^'— 267 \n\nWilliam Dennison \n\n24 \n\n07 \n\n06 \n\n08 ^-^ \n\n298 \n\nJoseph Weld \n\n23 \n\n03 \n\n15 \n\n00 \n\n288 \n\nJoshua Hewes \n\n24 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n303 \n\nPhilip Eliot \n\n25 \n\n07 \n\n13 \n\n04v ' \n\n333 \n\nMr. \n\nThomas Weld \n\n26 \n\n01 \n\n43 \n\n00 \n\n355 \n\nMr. \n\nThomas Dudley \n\n26 \n\n10 \n\n00 \n\n00\" \n\nUpon the other side of the foregoing list is the following \nObscure •- \n\n\n\"Wm. Eliot 8 goats 5 kidds Elder 12 goats 7 kidds \n\nJohn Johnson 6 goats 4 kidds Wm. Dennison 2 \" 3 \" \n\nIsaac Morell 4 goats 3 kidds John Stow 20 \" 8 \" \n\nMr, Sheafe 14 do. 10 kidds John Levins 8 \" 8 \" \n\nEdward Bugbee 6 goats 7 kidds Thomas Waterman 7 goats obscure \n\nJohn Bugby 2 goats 2 kidds Thomas Freeman 3 \n\nEdward Sheffield 2 goats 1 kidd Richard Peacock 1 \" \n\nWilliam Chandler 1 \" 1 \" Dorithy 1 1 kidd \n\nWe, whose names are under written, have appointed John \nBurnell, to give \\2d. appeace for goats & kidds out of which we \ndid appoint him to pay Goodwife Burt for her boy ye full tyme \nihat hee ded keepe the goats. \n\nIsaac Heath \n\nJohn Stow.\" \n\n\n20 HISTORY OK ROXBURY. [PART I. \n\nThere are few of the families of the town, except \nthe recent comers, who do not trace their descent \nfrom some of those whose names are here recorded. \nIt has been remarked that no people can boast of \nmore honorable descent than those of Massachusetts, \nand it is also recorded that \" the Roxbury people \nwere of the best that came.\" \n\nThe first year was one of severe toil, and hardship, \nand affliction almost unmitigated. Those who w^ere \nalive at the end of the first summer were worn out \nwhen winter set in, either with disease or with the \nfatigue of making the first clearing and a hut for shel- \nter. Food was scarce. The cold was intense. Dud- \nley, one of the first and richest men in the Bay, had \nno table, and but a single room, and there he wrote \nto the countess of Lincoln, the letter that is preserved, \n\"on his knee in that sharp winter,\" with his family \npressing to the fireside^about him. Mrs. Alcock and \nMrs. Pynchon died. They could, indeed, \" almost \nsay there was not a house where there was not one \ndead, and in some houses many.\" They held many \nfasts. It was a time of gloom. They did \" enjoy \nlittle to be envied, but endured much to be pitied.\" \nBut they came not to plant \" for worldly ends\" but \n<' for spiritual.\" They did not repine. It was fortu- \nnate indeed for the Roxbury setdement that they \nwere \" not of the poorer sort.\" But nothing could \nsave them from the hardships of the first season. \n\nAnd to add to these, they were in constant danger \nfrom the natives. The position ot the first settlement \nseems to have been chosen with a view to defence. \nCharges are frequently met with in the town records, \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 21 \n\nfor the first few years, of sums paid for driving away \nIndians. \n\nRoxbury was thought of the first year as a fit place \nto build a town. December 6th, 1630, the governor \nand assistants met there and agreed to build a town \nfortified on the neck between there and Boston, and \nthey appointed a committee to make the necessary \narrangements. But when the committee met there \neight days later, they concluded not to build and one \nreason was that \" there was no running waters and \nif there were any springs they would not suffice \nthe town.\" They considered also that most had al- \nready built and if they settled here they would be \nforced to keep two families. \n\n\nCHAPTER III. \n\nThe First Church in Rozbury. \n\nThe religious concerns of the people, were, of \ncourse, the first in importance. They had left the \ncomforts of home, and chosen to risk life for their re- \nligious liberty. The first act of the emigrants on ar- \nriving in this country was the organization of a church. \nThe chief bond of the people was, for a long time, \ntheir religious association. The first thought of each \ntown was for the support of religious worship. In \nmost towns the formation of a church and a town \ngovernment were simultaneous, if not identical. It \nwas probably because of the hardships of the Roxbury \npeople that such was not the case here. But, for the \nfirst two years they had no church of their own. \nThey were assessed for the support of the church \nat Charlestown. They joined themselves to the \nchurch at Dorchester, \" until such time as God shall \ngive them an opportunity to be a church amongst \nthemselves,\" in the same way as the Muddy River \n(Brookline) people were, for many years, joined to \ntheir own. \n\nThe first churchWvas gathered in 1632, in July. \nThomas Wcldc was then \"chosen and invested with \nthe pastoral care.\" \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 23 \n\nJohn Eliot, now known as the apostle became their \nteacher in November of the same year. \n\nThe first church, and all that was connected with \nit, was to the people, the object of love and affection. \nThey were so identified with it, that it would be un- \npardonable to omit some details which might, other- \nwise, seem trifling. Its complete history for a hun- \ndred years, would be the history of the town. \n\nA meeting house was built very early. The exact \ndate is not known. But at a town meeting in 1647, \nit was voted \" that the meeting house be suddenly \nput in safe repaire, and the charges put in the consta- \nbles rates.\" This is almost the earliest record of any \ntown doings. The first house stood in nearly the \nsame spot where Dr. Putnam's now stands. It was. \na building poorer than any decent barn now in the \nplace. It was not shingled without, nor plastered \nwithin. It had no galleries, pews, or spire. The \npeople sat on plain benches without any appointed \nplaces. The men and the women's seats were on \nopposite sides of the house. It was such as we some- \ntimes see in frontier towns, or in the woods in the \nsouthern states, provided for the slaves of the neigh- \nboring plantations. \n\nIn 1654, the town voted to build two galleries in \nthe meetins; house and that the selectmen \"see to it.\" \n\nIn 1656, the ends of the building were clapboard- \ned. \n\nIn 1658, the town passed a vote \"that ye meeting \nhouse be repaired, and for warmth and comfort, that \nye house be shingled\" — to build \" two galleries with \nthree seates,\" and that ye house \" be plastered with- \n\n\n24 HISTORY OF ROXnURY. [PaRT I. \n\nin side with lime and hairc, also, for setting out of ye \nhouses, that some pinacle, or other orniments be set \nupon each end of ye house and that ye bell be \nremoved in some covenient place for ye benefit of ye \ntovvne,\" \"always provided before this be done ye tim- \nbers of ye house be well searched that, if there be \nsuch defects as some think, our labor may not be in \nvaine.\" \n\nIn 1659, John Chamberlain (the first sexton no- \nticed) was to have 50 shillings a year- for ringing the \nbell and sw^eeping and £3 if he would \"keep ye \ndoore bovvlted.\" \n\nIn 1665, there was complaint that several wanted \nconvenient room to sit in the meeting house \"to their \nedification by reason of the disturbance the boys \nmade in the galleries,\" and the town desired the se- \nlectmen to advise with the elders about removing the \nboys and building some other gallery, or making \nanother \"paire stayers\" or doing any thing to remedy \nthe evil. \n\nIn 1672 there was a \"full towne meeting in con- \nsultation about repairing of meeting house\" and after \nmuch debate \" with love and condescendency one to \nanother,\" they voted to build a new house not more \nthan ten rods from the old one. The Muddy River \npeople contributed, towards building the new church, \n104/. 5sh, \n\nIn 1698, it appears from the records of Brookline, \nthe Roxbury people agreed to permit the people of \nMuddy River to worship at their house, and to bear \none-fifth of the expense, which was £6 45/i. and a \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 25 \n\nmeeting, at the Flower-de-luce, kept by Mr. Rug- \ngles, was called to settle that business. \n\n\"A list of the names and sums of our Brethren & Neighbors \nof Muddy river that they contribute towards the erecting of a \nnew meeting house in Roxbury. \n\nSrcms. £ sh. d. \n\nThomas Gardner 10 00 00 \" \n\nJohn White, Jr. 10 00 \n\nPeter Aspinwall 7 \n\nJohn Sharpe, Jr. 5 \n\nThomas Boistan 5 \n\nRichard Wolford 1 10 \n\nAndrew Gardner 5 \n\nJoseph White 3 \n\n- Moises Crafts 2 \n\nClement Corban 1 10 \n\nJohn Evens 00 15 \n\nJohn Accers 1 10 \n\nJohn Winchester 3 00 \n\nRobert Harrise 4 00 \n\nJohn Harise 2 00 \n\nBenjamin Child 2 00 \n\nDenman Meriam 1 00 \n\nJohn Clarke 3 00 \n\nEdward Mills 00 10 \n\n— James Clarke 1 10 \n\nEdward Devotion 5 00 \n\nHenry Stevens 5 00 \n\nJohn Parker 1 10 \n\nEdward Keebe 1 10 \n\nGoodwife Keebe 00 10 \n\nMrs. Mather & ) 07 00 \n\nJames Rementon ) \n\nThomas Woodward 00 10 \n\nGoodman Winchester 7 00 \n\nSamuel Dunkin 1 10 \n\n\n£104 05 00 \n\nThey had a raising, and the bill of expenses and \nprovisions was £20, \\6sh. \\0d. £9, 55. to hands for \netceteras ! \n\nIn 1673, by request of inhabitants living remote, \n\n4 \n\n\n26 HISTORY OF R0X13URY. [PaRT (. \n\nleave was given to build nooning houses, for sabbath \nand other public dajs. \n\nIn 1693 is a grant for \"pueing the meeting house\" \ngiving \"liberty to build pues around the meeting \nhouse except where the boys do sit, upon the charge \nof those who desire the same, to have consent of the \ncommittee, & this only to be granted to meet persons \nfor them to enjoy, & they & their familyes to fill the \npews or else the committee to do it for them, the use \nof this grant being to save room & not to lose it, but \nif any dye, the pews to return to the town & no one \nto sell.\" The locality of the pews is recorded. Be- \nhind Mrs. Denison's seat, and ranging with Mr. Wal- \nters pew was Palsgrave Alcocks. The remainder of \nthat corner was cut up into two pews, one for Jas. \nBailey and one for Capt. Saunders, the one having \nthe innermost to pass through the other. Capt. \nTimo. Stevens built his next the door at the South \nend on the right hand, and John Howard betwc-en \nthat and the stairs to the women's gallery. Eben \nPierpont's was on the right, coming in at the front \ndoor, and Jos. Gardner's between that and the men's \ngallery stairs. Opposite those was Saml. Ruggles. \nOn the left of the North door was Edward Dor's, and \nbetween that and the stairs to the men's gallery, was \nEdward Weld's. John Gores' was by the pulpit \nstairs. \n\nBut I cannot dwell longer on these matters. If \nany one would see the watchful care, and the attach- \nment of the people for the church, let him read the \nletters and instructions concerning selling the old bell \nand buying a new one. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 27 \n\nIt is not known whether the people of Roxbury \nwere called together for church service by beat of \ndrum, as in other towns, before they had a bell. \n\nThe order of exercises at Church were first a \nprayer by the Pastor ; then the reading and expound- \ning of scripture by the Teacher ; then the singing of \na Psalm, which was dictated or lined by the Ruling \nElder ; after that the Pastor preached a sermon or \nmade an extemporaneous exhortation. The services \nconcluded with prayer and a blessing from the \nTeacher. The distinction made between the office \nof Pastor and Teacher in Roxbury, and generally \nobserved, was not universally adopted. \n\nIn the first organization of a Church the procedure \nwas thus : \"one of the Church messengers of for- \nraine Churches examined and tried the men to be \nmoulded into a Church, discerned their faith and re- \npentance, and their covenant being before ready \ninade, written, subscribed, and read and acknowl- \nedged, hee discerned and pronounced them to be a \ntrue Church of Christ,\" &c. \"So did Master Weld \nat the founding of Weymouth Church.\" \n\nChurch members and officers were elected. The \ncustom was to have strict personal examination. At \nthe formation of the Indian Church a long examina- \ntion was had in public in the Church at Roxbury \nwhich is still preserved. It was always rigid. \n\nOrdination was by imposition of hands, by minis- \nters, if there. If there were none, \"then two or \nthree of good report, tho' not of the Ministry, did, \nby appointment of the Church, lay hands on them.\" \nThe right hand of fellowship was either given by one ^ \n\n\n28 HISTOKV UF ROXBURV. [PaRT I. \n\nin tilt' name of all, or else the several delegates of \nthe Churches each took the hand of him, to whom, \nhy this rite they pledged the faith of christian broth- \nerhood. \n\nThe salary provided by the town in 1649-50, for \nMr. Eliot was £60. By the same vote £50 was as- \nsessed for Mr. Davenport. This indicates that such \na person was engaged in the Church after Mr. Weld \nleft, before Mr. Danforth was ordained. But it may \nhave been for the school or the fort. In 1652, £120 \nwas assessed, to be equally divided between Mr. El- \niot and Mr. Danforth. In 1718, they gave to Mr. \nNehemiah Walter £100, and to his son Thomas £80, \nand also voted £100 towards his settlement. \n\nIn 1674, 6th, 10th month, is the first record of a \nsabbath school. \"This day we restored a primitive \npractice for ye training up of our youth,\" and then \nreciting '^/William Denison \" \" 00 OS 00 \n\nPhillip Elliott \" \" 00 OS 00 \n\n\n38 \n\n\nHistory of roxbury. \n\n\n[Part I. \n\n\nJohn Roberts \nGeorge Holmes \nWm. Cheney- \nJohn Watson \nSamuel Ffinch \nJohn Watson \nDaniel Brewer \nIsaac Johnson \nJames Astwood \nJohn Bowies \nGriffin Crafts \nJohn Ruggles \nRobert Williams \nJohn Scarboro \nGiles Pason \nRichard Pepper \nHumphrey Johnson \nRichard Woody, senr. \nRichard Woody, scd. \nJohn Woody \nAbraham Newell \nJohn Stonnard \nEdward Pason \nRobert Seaver \nRobert Gamlin \nThomas Gardner \nJohn Leavinz \nEdward Porter \nChristopher Peake \nRichard Peacock \nFfrancis Smith \nThomas Ruggles, widow \nJohn Mays \nRalph Hemingway \nEdward Bridge \nAbraham Howe \nEdwin Anderson \nArthur Garey \n\n\nfor his dwelling house \n\n\nfor his lot at ye pond \nfor his house \n\n\n00 OS 00 \n\n00 OS 00 \n\n00 OS 00 \n\n00 OS 00 \n\n00 06 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 05 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 04 00 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 02 06 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 03 04 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 06 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n00 02 00 \n\n\nHISTORY OF \n\nROXBURY. \n\n3y \n\nfor his 1: \n\nlOUSG \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\nCl \n\nIt \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n(1 \n\n(( \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n(( \n\n(( \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n(( \n\n(1 \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\nl( \n\ni( \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n1 \n\n(( \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n(t \n\nu \n\n00 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n(( \n\n(( \n\n00 \n\n04 \n\n00 \n\nPart I.] \n\nEdward Bugby \nEdward White \nRobert Pepper \nWilliam Lewis \nMartin Stebbin \nJohn Stebbin \nJeremiah Cesworth \nRobert Prentice \nLewis Jones \n\nIt is agreed by all such of the inhabitants of Roxbury as have \nor shall subscribe their names to this booke for themselves sever- \nally and their severall & respective heires and executors that not \nonly their houses, but also their yardes, orchards, gardenings, \nouthouses and homesteads shall be and are hereby bounde and be \nmade lyable to and for the severall yearly somes and rente before \nor hereafter in this booke mentioned to be paid by every of them \ndated the xxviii th day December 1646. \n\nTho. Dudley William Cheney \n\nTho. Weld Richard Pepper \n\nJohn Eliot Edwin Anderson \n\nIsaac Heath Giles Payson \n\nHugh Prichard Humphrey Johnsoa \n\nJohn Johnson Edward Porter \n\nWilliam Parke Isaac Johnson \n\nJohn Roberts Thomas Gardner \n\nThe following notes occur in the agreement, viz : \nUnder Capt. Gookin's name, \n\n\"When Capt. Gookins leases the house he dwells in then the follow- \ning inhabitants obs who shall possess the lot adjoining \n\nthereto are to pay two shillings yearly and the possessors of the neck \nlate Samuel Hugburnes are to pay the other ten shillings yearly.\" \nOpposite Thos. Welde's name, \n\n\"Although the name of Mr. Thos. Welde our reverend pastor be not \nsett down, only Mr. Eliot hath subscribed to both Mr. Weld's gift and \nhis own, the reason is because Mr. Weld being in England gave orders \nand power to Mr. Eliot so to do and his son who doth inherit his lands in \nRoxbury doth say that he is fully satisfied in it because Mr. Eliot did \nshow him his father's letters wherein he gave him power so to do, to \nthese expressions of Mr. Tho. Weld the son of our reverend pastor, we \ntestified by our hands. William Parks, \n\nJohn Bowls.\" \nUnder Thos. Bell's name, \n\n\"Mr. Bell at request of Mr. Eliot hath (obs.) gived power to (obs.) & \nwe (obs.) Eliot to make the sum of his donation upon his farm the sum \nof twenty shillings (witness) his letter dated 22 of the third month 1669 \nthis is 20 shill. pr. annum. We, the feofiers saw this letter & by ouc \nnames we certify the same that he giveth 20 pr. annum.\" \n\n\n40 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nSuch was the origin of what is now the Roxbury \nHigh School. \n\nThe school rents created by these agreements were \ncollected the next year. And for about a hundred \nyears afterwards rent was collected by virtue of these \nagreements, though the amount was afterwards re- \nduced one half by general consent. The first charter \ndid not free the signers of the original instrument \nfrom their obligations under them. No trace has yet \nbeen found of any act or agreement by w^hich the va- \nrious estates in town are exempted from payment of \nSchool rent. The author of a sketch of the history \nof this school published in 1826, who was a teacher \nof the school, says, \" how or in what manner the \nlands originally subjected to this tribute, became ex- \nempted from the payment of the tax or whether they \nare in fact legally exempted will remain matter of \nuncertainty until further papers shall be found, as the \nwant of boundaries and descriptions prevent all \nknowledge of the estates subjected to the payment.\" \nIn a very full manuscript account of the school, writ- \nten by a very accurate man and one who was learned \nin the ancient history of the Town and School, no \nallusion is made to the release of the estates from this \nrent. In 1722 a suit was commenced against Sam- \nuel Stevens for the recovery of five years back rent, \nby the feoffees. It has been supposed that this was \ntried to test the question whether the estates were \nholden fof these rents. But, on examination of the \nrecord, (the suit being brought before Habijah Sav- \nage, of Boston) it appears that no question was made \nas to Stevens' liability. The only dispute was wheth- \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 41 \n\ner anotlier party who had bought half of the estate of \none of the original donors was not obhged to pay part \nof the rent as well as Stevens the other half, which \nhe owned ; and finally, on settlement, the parties in- \nterested in the other part of the estate gave 31. to \nStevens and he assumed payment of the whole of the \noriginal donation. The rents were collected for \nsome time after this. But the accounts show that \nthey gradually fell off. \n\nIn 1752, on the petition of some \" it was proposed \n(in town meeting,) whether they might apply to the \ngeneral court to take off the donations from the es- \ntates doned for the benefit of the school land, and no \ngreat matter being said upon that affair it was vo- \nted not to act upon it.\" There can be little doubt \nthat as sufficient funds came in gradually from other \nsources for the support of the school, the ancient rent \nwas not exacted. As estates changed hands and \nwere divided it became more difficult to collect it. It \nwas probably, quietly abandoned by common consent. \nIt is said, however, to have been the opinion of Dr. \nPorter that the rents were commuted for some speci- \nfied amount paid in full. But if so this must have \nbeen so recent that there would be some trace of it. \n\nThe rents were sometimes gathered by a collector \nwho went round for the purpose. Sometimes the \nwhole or part of them were given to the schoolmaster \nto collect for himself or take out in board. In one \ninstance in 1679 there being \" complaynte that many \nof the donations are remaining unpaid,\" the feoffees \nare directed \"to employ one as Bayle (Bailiff) to give \nnotice from house to house of the severall Donors of \n\n\n42 HISTORY OF KOXBURV. [PaRT L \n\nthe time and place of payment, and, in case of failure \nto make payment, to make distress according to the \noriginal agreement.\" No part of the agreement was \na dead letter, and, though some were for a while dis- \nsatisfied under it, it was the source of support for the \nschool for many years. \n\nThe Town seems determined, from the first, to fix \nthis school on a permanent basis. In 1662 a meet- \ning of the donors was called, and \"all the inhabitants \nand neighbors of the town willing to join in promo- \nting the good and benefit of the schoole\" were invited \nto be present. Warning was given to all the Donors, \nfrom house to house, and they met and chose new \nfeoffees. In 1666 a meeting was called, and \"after \nsome discourse it was thought convenient and a mat- \nter most tending to peace and love to propound the \ncase to the whole town, that opportunity might be to \nas many as thought good of the town to come in and \njoyn in this work and to help bear the charge so as to \nhave the privilege of the school — or else that they \nwould present a better way and we would join them.\"' \nThe meeting then adjourned, and, at the adjournment^ \n\" after much discourse spending the day, the meeting \nwas orderly dissolved and nothing was done.\" \n\nA petition dated 20th of od month 1669, signed by \nJohn Eliott and Thomas Weld, was presented to the \ngeneral court, reciting that — • \n\n\" Whereas the first inhabitants of Roxbury to the number of \nmore than sixty families, well nigh the whole town in those days, \nhave agreed together to lay the foundation of a Grammar_^ school, \nand for the maintainance thereof have by a voluntary donation \ngiven a small rent forever out of their several habitations and \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 43 \n\nhomesteads as appears in the records of our school book and \nhave settled a company of feoffees — to gather and improve \nthe said rents,\" \n\n\"2d, whereas by divine providence our first book and charter \nwas burned in the burning of John Johnson's house, it was \nagain renewed in this form and manner as we do now pres- \nent it, yet by reason of the death of sundry of the donors and \nthe alienations of tenements we are under this defect that some \nof the hands of the donors are not unto this 2d book personally \nwhich were to the first : nor are they attainable being dead ; \n\ntherefore our humble request is that the Honored Court im- \n\npower the FeofTees to receive and gather the same, as if the \nnames of the donors were written with their own hands. \n\n3d, They also pray that, whereas there is a parcel many \n\nyears since given to our school and it is by annexing a sched- \nule to the will of the deceased donor touching a clause in his \n\nwill which was not put in when the will was proved the \n\nschedule and the school's title to the lands may be ratified and \nconfirmed.\" \n\nThis petition was referred. The committee reported that \"in \nthe year 1645 there was an agreement of the then inhabitants of \nRoxbury for the laying of a foundation for a school {obscure) that \nthe school {obscure) hath been carried an end {obs.) on that foun- \ndation and that there hath not been any other foundation (obs.) \n\nbeen made We find also that several of the inhabitants do \n\nstrongly oppose the way proposed and that hath been in practice, \nyet do not find, that they proposed any other effectual way : but \nsome of them desirous, that this may be altered (0^5,) yet they \ndeclared, that they feared that, if the way that hath been {obs.) \nbe wholly waved they should have no school at all {obs.) and for- \nasmuch by the endeavours we have used to persuade them to a \nmutual agreement we find not any desirable effect, nor that the \ntemper of those opposing the former foundation is encouraging \n(ois.) we conceive that the petitioners desires be granted {obs.) \nthat the present feoffees and their successors {obs.) be confirmed \nand empowered to collect former subscriptions and so to take \nothers {obs.) and that those whose names are not in this book \n{two witnesses upon oath appearing to prove they did assent to \n\n\n44 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [ParT I. \n\nthe way of the book) be obliged and their heirs and assigns as if \ntheir names had been thereto : we also conceive that the land of \nLawrence Whittemore be confirmed to the best use of the Town \nin being settled upon the free school.\" \n\nAnd the following act was passed at a general \ncourt holden 11:3: 1670. \n\n\"Whereas certain of the Inhabitants of Roxbury, out of a Re- \nligious care of their Posterity, and their good education in Liter- \nature, did heretofore sequester and set apart, certain sums of \nmoney amounting to twenty pounds to be paid annually unto cer- \ntain feoffees and their successors, by the said Donors or FeofTees \norderly chosen for the sole and only behoof of benefit and set- \ntlement of a Free School in the sd. Town of Roxbury : Obliging \nthemselves, heirs, Executors and Assignees : together with their \nHouses and Homesteads, for the true and full performance of \ntheir respective Obligations — all which doth fully appear by \ntheir agreement bearing date the last of August one thousand \nsix hundred forty-five ; in which agreement the original donors \nwere wisely Suitors to the General Court for the establishment \nof the premises According to which a petition was ofTered in the \nname of the present FeofTees to the General Court holden at \nBoston, May 19, 1669. In answer of which the Court impow- \nered a committee to take cognizance of, and return the Case to \nthe Court, which accordingly was done as appeared by their re- \nturn dated May 19, 1670. After serious consideration whereof, \nthe Court doth hereby order and enact, that the said agreement \nmade and signed by the Donors of the said Sum of Money the \nlast of August 1645 Be, by our Authority, ratified and estab- \nlished to all Intents, Ends and Purposes therein specified, both \nwith respect to the orderly choice and power of the FeofTees, as \nalso for the Time and manner of payment of the said sums of \nmoney distinctly to be yielded and payed by the Donors of the \nsame, according to their respective subscriptions, and in case of \nrefusal of payment of any part of the said sums of money to \nwhich subscription is made or consent legally proved, that the \norderly distress of the FeofTees upon the respective estates \nobliged shall be valid for the payment of any such sums of \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 45 \n\nmoney so refused to be payed : As also this Court by their au- \nthority doth settle and determine the lands of Lawrence Whitta- \nmore with all the rents and arrearages that have or may arise \nfrom thence from time to time, to be received and improved by \nthe said Feofiees to the use, behoof, and benefit of the Free \nSchool in Roxbury, which said FeofTees are hereby empowered \nfor the ordering of all things for the settlement, and reparation \nof the School house, choice of masters and orders of the School. \nTo improve all donations either past or future, for the behoof, \nand benefit of the said School, without any personal or private \nrespects, as also the ordering of twenty acres of arable land, ly- \ning in the great lotts, which hath been in occupation of the said \nSchool about twenty years, as also that if for the necessity and \nconvenient future being of a School master there be necessary the \nfuture levying of any further sums of money, that the said \nDonors be absolutely and wholly free from any such levy or im- \nposition those only being accounted Donors who are possessors of \nor responsible for the said sums of money according to subscrip- \ntion, and the said Feoffees to be always responsible to the Court \nof Assistants and Donors for the faithful discharge of their trust, \nprovided there be constant provision of an able Grammar-schoole \nmaster, and the school-house is settled where it was first intend- \ned. And may be accommodable to those whose homesteads were \nengaged towards the maintenance thereof, and in case there be \nneed of further contribution that the levy be equally made on all \nthe inhabitants excepting only those that do by virtue of their \nsubscription pay their full proportion of the annual charges.\" \n\nThe Free School continued under this act until the \nact of January 21, 1789 was passed, incorporating the \nTrustees of the Grammar School in the easterly part \nof Roxbury. Prior to 1789 there were two bodies \nthe Feoffees under the old charter, who had the gen- \neral charge of the school and its property, and the \nTrustees who were appointed to the care of the prop- \nerty given by Thomas Bell. \n\n\n46 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nThis school has be(3n very richly endowed. Most \nof the gifts were made at an early day and must be \nhere noticed. \n\nThe \" School land\" is named in various places from \nabout the period when the school was founded, but to \nwhat it refers cannot be determined. \n\nThe first donation, of Samuel Hugburne, has been \nalready noticed. \n\nLawrence Whittamore, the \" ancient christian,\" \nwhe died in 1 644, left his property to the free school. \nThe ancient charter confirmed the title of the school \nto it ; it indicates also the question there was about \nit. Of the real estate given by him there was one \nlot on Stony River of about four acres, and another of \nabout ten acres then described as \" on the hill in the \npond lots,\" and now known as the \" pond hill lot.\" \n\nAbout 1660, John Stowe gave three acres in the \ngreat lotts *'to clear his house.\" \n\nIsaac Heath, by his will, 1660, 19th of 11th, nam.es \nhis \" part in ye 4000 acres\" which he gives, \" to ye \nschoole in Roxburie.\" His proportion was a large \none as he had, according to the account rendered in to \nthe court, in 1643, 256 acres of land. \n\nThomas Bell gave all his property here, which was \nlarge, to the school. His will was dated January 29, \n1671, and proved at London May 30th, 1672. A \ncopy has lately been procured from the office in En- \ngland. An extract is recorded in the ancient book \nbelonging to the first parish, which is as follows : \n\n\"Imprimis, I give unto Mr. John Eliot, minister of the Church \n\" of Christ and People of God at Roxbury in New England and \n\n'=' Isaac Johnson whom I take to be an officer or overseer of or in \n\n9 \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 47 \n\n\" said Church and to one other like Godly person now bcarir>g \n•' office in said church and their successors the minister and other \n\" two such head officers of the said Church at Roxbury as the \n\" whole church there from time to time shall best approve of suc- \n\" cessively from time to time forever all those my messuages or \n\" tenements, lands and hereditaments with their and every of \n\" their appurtenances situate, lying, and being at Roxbury in \n\" New England aforesaid in parts beyond the seas to have and \n\" to hold to the said officers of the said Church of Roxbury for \n\" the time being and their successors from time to time forever, \n\" in trust only notwithstanding, to and for the maintainance of a \n\" schoole master and free school for the teaching and instructing \n\" of Poor Men's children at Roxbury aforesaid forever and to be \n\" for no other use, intent, and purpose whatsoever.\" \n\nThere was some difficulty about the rents fixed on \nthese lands afterwards. A question also arose out of \nthe form of the devise, and at the general court May \n27, 1677— \n\n\"In answer to the petition of the FeofTees of the free school of \nRoxbury settled heretofore by order of Court in Town Street, \nthe General Court having heard and seen the pleas and eviden- \nces in the case, doe, upon mature deliberation, judge that the de- \nclared intent of Mr. Thomas Bell both in his life and at his death \nin his will was the settlement of his estate in Roxbury upon that \nfree school then in being at his death in said Town.\" \n\nThe bequest of personal property by Thomas Beli \nwas considerable in amount. The real estate which \nhe devised to the school has already become of great \nvalue. In his day it was a large estate. He was \none of the wealthy men of the town. Bell was a \ngenerous man and one of a liberal mind. He is the \nHarvard of our Free School. \n\nIn the petition of 1643, he signs as owner of 166 \nacres. The present surveys of land left by him do \n\n\n48 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nnot vary for from this amount. His homestead was \nin what in those days was one of the best localities \nin town. The ancient mansion which stands at the \ncorner of Bojlston and School streets, was built on \nthe land he gave and nearly in the very spot where \nhis house stood. His lands extend from Stony River, \ntaking in this homestead, across School street and the \nturnpike, up to Back street. The beautiful, smooth, \nopen field of nearly eighteen acres, at the right of \nthe Dedham turnpike, on the brow of the hill, at the \ncorner of School street, as you go towards Boston, \nand the great orchard opposite are embraced in this. \nIn all there are about fitty-six acres in his home farm. \nThen upon Walk Hill street, about two miles and \nthree-fourths from Washington street is a lot, divided \nby Walk Hill street, of forty-seven acres. Upon \nBeach street, a little less than fifty rods from the \nturnpike, there are two lots, amounting to about forty \nseven acres. There is some other besides. Should \nthe rate of increase of Roxbury be no greater than it \nhas been for the last few years, Bell's gift alone \nwould, at the expiration of the present leases, say in \nthe year 1900, be an immense endowment for such \nan institution as the school. \n\nIn 1756, a petition was presented by the West \nParish concerning the donation of land by Bell at \nOxford. \n\nIn 1671, an old lease mentions \"three acres lately \nGiles Payson's\" and \"four acres of land lately be- \nlonging to John Stebbins.\" There is preserved a \ncopy of a deed from Giles Payson of \"three acres in \nthe great lots\" \"provided the schools forever remaine \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxburv. 49 \n\nfree and the donation of four sliillings, be forever \nquit.\" From the fact that John Stebins' name, or \nland, is not in the subsequent lists of those bable for \nrents, it is probable his grant was made on a similar \ncondition. \n\nSome time before 1674-5 Samuel Finch gave a \npiece of marsh, containing a little more than an acre, \nto the school. This appears from the oldest receipt \non file, of that date, which acknowledges the pay- \nment of ten shillings by James Frizzal for that marsh. \nThis marsh is at Gravelly Point, and is still owned \nby Roxbury School. \n\nIn 1660, the General Court judged it \"meet to \ngrant to the Town of Roxbury five hundred acres of \nland towards the maintainance of a free school.\" The \nland, however, does not appear to have been located \nat that time. In 1715, upon the petition of Stephen^ \nWilliams and others setting forth the facts, the gen- \neral court granted \"five hundred acres to the town of \nRoxbury towards the support of the free school.\" In \n1718, Nov. 4, the platt was returned by sworn sur- \nveyors and approved. The land was laid out in Ox- \nford, Mass. on Chabunagungamong pond. The plans \nare still in existence. \n\nCommittees were appointed from time to time, for \nvarious purposes connected with this land, from 1749 \nto 1790. Those relative to lotting out the lands, \npreventing waste, &c., &c., need not be here noticed. \nIn 1767 they voted to sell. In 1770, the committee \nreported that they had sold to Rev, Mr. Bowman of \nOxford, and Mr. Bellows for £223 : 10 : 00. In the \nsame year it was proposed \"whether to give ye in- \n7 \n\n\n50 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT L \n\nterest of the school money to ye inhabitants at ye \nWest end of the town and voted in ye negative.\" — \nFrom 1776 to 1788 a committee was appointed an- \nnually to take charge of the Oxford School money. \nIn 1790 the money was paid into the Town treasury \nand that is the end of it. \n\nIn 1683, Oct. 29, William Mead, by his will, gave \n\"unto the free school of Roxbury for the encourage- \nment of learning, all the aforesaid little tenement by \nme purchased, in case my beloved wife Rebeckah \nmarry not, my will is that after her decease the whole \n(obs.) shall be for the use of the aforesaid school and \nmanaged by the Feoffees of the said school for the \nbest advantage.\" This was known as Mead's Or- \nchard, and consists of about one acre and nineteen \nrods. It is on Warren street and was often reserved \nfor the school master's residence. \n\nGovernor Dudley is supposed to have given part of \nthe lot, where the old school house, that was sold, \nstood, opposite Guild Hall. Both he and his de- \nscendants made very large donations to the school. \n\nOther donations were made to the school besides \nthose that have been noticed. \n\nWith such bounties, it is no wonder that this school \nwas, very early, one \"of high character\" and \"the \nadmiration of the neighboring towns.\" It was said \nby Mather \"that Roxbury had afforded more scholars, \nfirst for the college and then for the public, than any \nother town of its bigness or, if I mistake not, of \ntwice its bigness, in all New England.\" \n\nAnd the Roxbury Free School, for the liberality of \nits objects, the great names that have been associated \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 61 \n\nwith it, and the actual good it has done, as well as \nfor its wealth, deserves an honorable place amongst \nthe institutions of the country. But these must be \npassed by now, whilst we turn over a (ew matters \nconcerning its early days. \n\nIn 1648, Isaac Morrill agreed to collect the school \nmoney and pay it over to the schoolmaster. \n\nThe first teacher named in the school records is \nMaster Hanford who agreed for twenty-two pounds \nper annum. \n\nThe 25th of the 9th month 1652, the feoffees \nagreed with Mr. Daniel Welde \"that he provide con- \nvenient benches with forms, with tables for the schol- \nlars, a convenient seate for the schoolemaster, a \nDeske to put the Dictionary on and shelves to lay up \nbookes, and keepe the house and windows and doores \nwith the chimney sufficient and proper and there \nshall be added to his yearly stipend due by the Booke \nthe rent of the schoole land being four pounds the \nyeare. He having promised the Feoffees to free \nthem of the labour of gathering up the particulars of \nthe contributions and they to stand by him in case \nany be refractory.\" \n\nThough our early law of the colony required each \ntown to provide a school master to teach children to \nread and write, and, when any towns should have a \nhundred families or householders, to set up a gram- \nmar school, there appears to have been none but this \nin Roxbury. \n\nIn 1668, the Feoffees made an agreement with \nJohn Prudden as teacher, for a year, the terms of \nwhich arc a little curious. Master Prudden \"prom- \n\n\n.32 IJISTOKV 01 IlOXLilKY. [pART I. \n\n\" ised and engaged to use his best endeavour, both by \n\" precept and example, to instruct in all Scholasticall, \n\" morall, and Theological discipline, the Children, (soe \n\" far as they are or shall be capable\") of the signers \n\" all A. B. C. darians excepted.\" \n\nAbout fifty persons signed the agreement. \n\nAnd the Feoffees, \"not enjoyning, nor leting the \n\" said Pruden from teaching any other children, pro- \n\" vided the number thereof doe not hinder the profiting \n\" of the fore-named youth,\" promised to allow Mr. \nPruden twenty-five pounds half on the 29th of Sept. \nand the other half \"to be payed on March 25, by \n\" William Parks and Robert Williams, their heirs or \n\" administrators, at the upper mills in Roxbury, three \n\" quarters in Indian Corn, or peas, and the other fourth \n\" part in barley, all good and merchantable at price \n\" current in the country rate, at the day of payment.\" \n\nIt was \"alsoe further added\" that \"if any other \n\" persons in the town of Roxbury shall for like ends \n\" desire and upon like grounds with the above-men- \n\" tioned, see meete to adde their names to this writing, \n\" they shalle enjoye the like priviledges.\" \n\nOne column of the subscribers was headed \n\"Grrtte.\" \n\nAt one time, probably about 1673, the Bell lands \nwere let to John Gore for twenty -one years, he \nagreeing \"to teach the school or procure a substitute, \nor pay £12 a year in corn, or cattle,\" &c. \n\nIn 1679, it was ordered that \"parents, &c., of \n\" children comeing to the school, whether inhabitants \n\" or strangers, shall pay four shilHngs a child to the \n*< master or bring half a cord of good merchantable \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 53 \n\n\" wood, except such as for poverty or otherwise shall \n\" be acquitted by the feoffees.\" \n\nIn 1724 it was ordered that parents, &c. shall send \nAsh. 6d. in money or two feet of good wood for each \nchild within ten days \"or the master to suffer no such \nchildren to have the benefit of the fire.\" \n\nIn 1735 the amount for each child was eight shil- \nlings or two feet of wood. \n\nIn 1665, the school house, probably the first, w^as \nrepaired by Capt. Johnson. But in 1666 it was com- \nplained of as out of repair. In 1681 one of the teach- \ners in a letter to one of the trustees says \" of incon- \n\" veniences, I shall instance no other, but that of the \n\" school house the confused and shattered and nastie \n\" posture that it is in, not fitting for to reside in, the \n\" glass broken and thereupon very raw and cold, the \n\" floor very much broken and torn up to kindle fires, \n** the hearth spoiled, the seats some burnt and others \n*'out of kilter, that one had as well nigh as goods \n\" keep school in a hog stie as in it.\" (This master \nwas evidently not restricted to morall, ecclesiasticall \nand theologicall discipline.) A new building was \nprobably built about this period. \n\nIn 1742, the old school house being much gone to \ndecay, the feoffees, \"with the help of many well dis- \nposed persons by way of subscription\" erected a new \nschool house. This was built of brick, of one story. \nThe second story was added in 1820. It was sold in \n1835. When they built the brick school house in \n1742 the \"Honl. Paul Dudley Esquire was pleased to \nbestow for the use of said school a good handsome \nBell.\" \n\n\n54 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nIn 1688, the school lands were let at auction for \nfive hundred years. This gave great dissatisfaction, \nand it was alleged that there was fraud in the sale. \nAbout 1716 a petition was presented to the council \nand the leases of Bell's land were declared to be con- \ntrary to the law and statutes of England and beyond \nthe power of the Feoffees. A suit or suits were \nbrought in court. Achmuty and Valentine were \ncounsel for the School, but Gore the defendant pre- \nvailed at last, after the case had been appealed and \nreviewed. These leases were finally all cancelled by \nagreement. \n\nIn 1728 the standard of admission was raised. In- \nstead of excluding only ABCdarians, the order provi- \nded that the master should \" not be obliged to receive \n\" any children for his instruction at the said school \n\" until such time as they can spell common easy En- \n*' glish words either in the Primer, or in the Psalter \n\" in some good measure.\" Latin was ordered to be \ntaught at least as early as 1674. \n\nIn 1765 the present house on the Bell place was \nbuilt. \n\nThe early income of the School, after receiving its \nvarious donations, may be seen by the following ac- \ncount. \n\n\"Roxbury, 7 April, 1731. \n\nThe profits or incomes of the Free School in Roxbury, taken \nthe day and year above written, -^-— _ \n\nImprimis. Mr. Bell's farm so called — \nEbenezer Gore's lease at ... . £30 00 00 \nEbr. Weld . . . Lease . . 7 00 00 \n\nZar.h. Smith's lease at 3 00 00 \n\nScarboro and Sam Williams (sold since & money let) 5 00 00 \n\n45 00 00 \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 55 \n\n\nOther school lands — \nJoseph Haggles \nJoseph Williams \nJoseph Warren \nJohn Stowe \nJames Frizzel \n\n\nGovr. Dudley's Donation £50 \n\n\nSubscriptions collected by \nMr. Dorr \n\n\" Saml. Williams \n\n*• Sumner \nMaj. Bowles \nDeacon Mayo \nJohn Williams \n\n\n6 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n4 \n\n10 \n\n00 \n\n2 \n\n10 \n\n00 \n\n2 \n\n10 \n\n00 \n\n10 \n\n00 \n\n16 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n3 \n\n00 \n\n00 \n\n2 \n\n02 \n\n00 \n\n1 \n\n16 \n\n03 \n\n1 \n\n08 \n\n00 \n\n1 \n\n04 \n\n00 \n\n0 \n\n19 \n\n00 \n\n12 \n\n08 \n\n45 00 00 \n\n16 00 00 \n\n3 00 00 \n\n8 01 11 \n\n72 1 11 \n\nThe whole amounts to 72 1 11 \nPaul Dudley. \nFrom the year 1645 when the Donors subscribed, to the year \n1734, including only ye year 1733, is 88 years. \n\n£ sh. D. \nThe amount of the subscriptions being 8 — 1 — 11 pr. ann. \n\n£ sh. D. \nbrings the subscribers to have payd 712 — 8 — 8. \n\nEach donor that pays \\2sh. pr. annum £ s. p. \n\nhas paid in the time above-mentioned 52 16 00 \n\nMr. Dudley seems in the above account to have \nbeen considering the wealth of the school, and the \nbest mode of securing its income. \n\nIt is difficult, oftentimes, to trace the old home- \nsteads. The following list of the Donors and estates \n\n\n56 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nwill be found a great aid and a sure guide. This ac- \ncount was made about the year 1700, no doubt for \nthe purpose of guiding in collecting the school rents. \nIt will be borne in mind that the names are given for \nthe different dwellings, or homesteads, not for the lots \nowned by individuals. This list gives, first, the \nnames of the original subscribers, and then, when \ntheir dwellings had changed hands, the names of the \noccupant in 1690 or 1700. To that time most of \nthem can be traced with little difficulty. \n\nThe sums in this list are in those in ye former. This was made \nafter Eliot's death in 1690. \n\n\nHis excellency ye gov. 00 12 00 \nMr. Thomas Weld (now Ed- \n\nmond) . . . 12 00 \n\nMr. John Eliot now . 12 00 \n\nCapn. Joseph Weld (now \n\nBrumfield) . . 12 00 \n\nHugh Prichard (now Pier- \n\n\npoynt) \n\n12 00 \n\nJoshua Hews (now Polly) \n\n8 00 \n\nJohn Gore \n\n8 00 \n\nJohn Johnson, now Bowles \n\n*1 \n\nWilliam Park, now Smith \n\n6 06 \n\n6 06 \n\nIsaac Morell \" Stevens \n\n6 00 \n\nIsaac Heath \" Bowles \n\n5 06 \n\nThos. Lamb \" Aspinall \n\n5 00 \n\nWilliam Denison \n\n*2 \n\nJohn Roberts, now Sumner \n\n4 00 \n\n4 00 \n\n*3 \n\nWilliam Cheney, now Thomas 4 00 \nJohn Watson, now Brumfield 4 00 \n\n*4 \n\nJohn Watson, \" Stodman 2 00 \nDanl. Brewer, now Daniel \n\nBrewer . . . 2 06 \n\nI.saac Johnson, now Seavcr 2 00 \n\n\nJames Astwood, alias Yung- \nman, now Stoddard 2 00 \n\nJohn Bowles, now Gary 2 00 \n\nGriffin Crafts, now Ruggles \nsecundus . . . 2 00 \n\nJohia Ruggles, now John \n\nRuggles sr. . . . 2 00 \n\nRobert Willyams now Stevens 2 00 \n\nJohn Scarborough, \" Samuell 2 00 \n\n*5 \n\nRichard Pepper, now Scar- \nborough . . . 2 00 \n\nHumphrey Johnson, now \nJ. Williams . . 2 00 \n\nRichard Woody, now Mr. \n\nWalter ... 01 08 \n\nRichard Woody jr. now Mr. \n\nWalter ... 01 08 \n\nJohn Woody, now Macarty 01 08 \n\nAbraham No well, now Ma- \ncarty . . . 01 08 \n\nEdmund Pason, now Hol- \n\nbrook . . . 01 08 \n\nRobert Gamblin, now Benj. 01 08 \nThomas Gardner, now Sam \nWilliams . . . 01 08 \n\n\nPart I.] \n\n\nHISTORY OF ROXBURY. \n\n\n57 \n\n\n[Robert Seaver in original] Edward Bridge . . 01 OU \n\n*7 Abram. How, now Isaac 01 00 \n\nEdward Porter, now Mac- Gowin Anderson, now As- \narty . . . . 01 03 pinwall . . . 01 00 \n\nChristor. Peak, now Dor 01 03 *10 : 11 : 12 : 13 \n\n*8 Robert Peper, now Pike 01 00 \n\nRichard Peacock, now Dor 01 00 *14 \n\nFrancis Smith, now John 01 00 Peter Gardner, now Cheany 01 00 \n\n*9. Lewis Jones, now Ruggles \n\nJohn Mays . . . 01 00 tertius . . .02 00 \nJohn Hemingway . . 01 00 \n\nIt will be seen that the chief difference in this is the reduced rent, \nwhich occurs as early as 1674 ; the addition of very few names ; and the \nomission of those who, from their gifts of land, had had their estates \nfreed from rent, or from some other cause, if there was any other, were \nexempted from payment of rent. \n\n*1 Thomas Bell's name was here on Ist list. \n*2 Philip Eliot's name was here. \n*3 George Holmes \" \" \n\n*4 Samuel Finch \" \" \n\n*5 Giles Payson \" \" \n\n*6 John Stonnard [but he did not sign ye original.] \n*7 John Levinz was here. \n*8 Samuel Morgan was here. \n*9 Thomas Ruggles \" «' \n\n*10 Arthur Gary C \") \n\n*11 Edward Bugby J Their names were here but thej' did not ' \n\nsign original themselves. f \n\n\n*12 Edward White \n\n\nL \n\n\n•13 William Levins \n•14 John Stebins. \n\nRobert Prentise [did not sign original.] \n\n\nJ \n\n\nThe following is a list of the earlier teachers of the school, \nwith the date when they served. \n\n\nPhilip Eliot . . . \n\nStowe, probably \n\nHansford . \n\nDaniel Weld . . \n\nMihill . . \n\nJohn Prudden \nJohn Hgwe \".'*:,; \nThomas Weld . \nThomas Bernard \nJoseph Greene . \nAndrew Gardiner \n\n\n1650 \n1665 \n1666 \n166S \n1673 \n1674 \n1680 \n1695 \n1698 \n\n\nBenjamin Thompson \nJohn Bowles . , \nWilliam Williams \nTimothy Ruggles \nEbenezer Williams \nIncrease Walter . \nRobert Stanton , \nThomas Foxcroft \nEbenezer Pierpont \nHenry Wise . . \nRichard Dana \n\n\n1700 \n1703 \n1705 \n1708 \n1709 \n1712 \n1713 \n1714 \n1716 \n1718 \n1719 \n\n\n58 HISTORY OF \n\n' ROXBURY. [r \n\nART 1. \n\nBenjamin Ruggles . \n\n. 1722 \n\nCoolidge . . \n\n1753 \n\nThomas Weld . . \n\n1723 \n\nJames Greaton . . . \n\n1756 \n\nEbenezer Pierpont . \n\n1726 \n\nJohn Fairfield . . \n\n1758 \n\nJoseph Mayhew . . \n\n1731 \n\nJoseph Warren . . \n\n1760 \n\nDavid Goddard . . \n\n. 1733 \n\nEbenezer Williams . \n\n1761 \n\nThomas Balch . . \n\n. 1734 \n\nBenjamin Balch . . \n\n. 1763 \n\nJohn Ballantine . . \n\n. 1736 \n\nSamuel Parker . . \n\n1765 \n\nStephen Fessenden . \n\n1738 \n\nOliver Whipple . . \n\n1766 \n\nNathaniel Sumner . \n\n. 1740 \n\nIncrease Sumner \n\n1768 \n\nJohn Newman . . \n\n1741 \n\nSamuel Cherry . . \n\n1770 \n\nJob Palmer . . . \n\n1743 \n\nWard Chipman . . \n\n1771 \n\nElisha Savel .... \n\n1744 \n\nJoseph Prince . . \n\n1772 \n\nDaniel Foxcroft . . \n\n1745 \n\nJohn Eliot . . . \n\n1773 \n\nEdward Holyoke . \n\n1746 \n\nBenjamin Balch . . \n\n1774 \n\nSolomon Williams . . \n\n1747 \n\nWilliams . . \n\n1774 \n\nMerriam . . \n\n1750 \n\nThomas Marsh . . \n\n. 1775 \n\nWilliam Gushing . \n\n1752 \n\nOliver Everett . . \n\n. 1776 \n\nCHAPTER V. \n\nTown Government. \n\nAt a court held in 1635, \"it was ordered that all \ntriviall things,\" &c. \"should be ordered in the towns.\" \n\nThe general laws of the colony belong to other \nworks. Only those acts are here noted which belong \nto the town, or matters recorded there. \n\nI have not been able to discover any trace of the \nfirst organization of the town government. The vote \nof the town passed about 1649, and which is still \nlegible that \"ye five men shall have, for ye present \nyeare, full power to make and execute such orders as \nthey, in their apprehension, shall think to be condu- \ncing to the good of the town,\" indicated that it was \not the simple form common in the colony, and that it \nwas distinct from the parochial or church government. \nThe jive men as they were called for many years, \nbeing styled selectmen afterwards, were chosen annu- \nally, by the bodj^ of the people, and had the general \ncontrol of town affairs. For a long time they were \nthe only town officers chosen. Though there seem \nto have been separate and distinct bodies to manage \nthe affairs of the town and those of the church, many \nmatters relating to parish affairs were transacted in \n\n\n60 HISTORY OF ROXHURY. [pART I. \n\nthe town meetings and are recorded in the town \nbooks, such as those relating to building, repairing, \nand arranging the meeting house, salaries for the pas- \ntors, and the like. The town was but one parish. \nThe business was not kept distinct. Very likely if \nthe church had been organized on the first settlement \nthat would have been the only government. \n\nThe colony law of 1631, forbidding any but church \nmembers from becoming freemen, shows that all had \nnot equal privileges. It is probable that all were not \nregarded as entitled to act in town affairs. In 1659, \nthe \" non freemen chose Edward Denison to clear \nwhether the non freemen may not have vote to choose \ncommissioners and hee to see this cleared the next \ngeneral court.\" \n\nSomewhat later, a question was raised as to the \nright of any but original proprietors or their heirs to \nhave a voice in the disposition of town lands. \n\nBut in general the records indicate that all matters \npromiscuously were brought before the whole body of \nthe people. \n\nIn 1652, orders for the town were drawn up. It \nwas then ordered \" by the body that they be entered \nin ye towne booke and from yeare to yeare, upon \nthat day when the body meete for choice of officers \nand selectmen (being concluded to be in January) to \nbe read over to the body which, if judged by the town \nto be for the town's good they shall remain in force \nfor the next yeare,\" &c. \n\nIt is further provided \" in case any person shall, \nat any time, find himself aggrieved or judge himself \nwronged by any order or carriage of the selectmen \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 61 \n\nsuch person shall first complaine to the said five men \nand seeke satisfaction of them, and if he can, have \nsatisfaction of them, and if not then to have liberty to \nappeal to the body to hear and decide the case but if \nsuch person complaine causelessly then he to pay \ndouble the fine imposed on him.'' \n\nIn 1664, three men were chosen \"to give the select- \nmen orders that may be thought of for the selectmen \nto consider and establish for the good of the towne.\" \n\nSome of the earliest fivemen, or selectmen, were \n\n1647— Captaine Prichard 1653— Philip Eliot \nLieut. (obscuTe.) Isaac Morell \n\nJohn {obscure.) Thomas Welde \n\nJohn Bowles Robert Willyams \n\nBrother Williams Edward Denison \n\n1650 Heath 1654— John Johnson \n\nGriffin Crafts Thomas {obscure.) \n\nDea. Eliot John Bowles \n\nEdward P. {obscure.) Edward {obscitre) \n\nThomas M. {obscure.) William Park \n\n1652 — John Johnson 1655— Edward Drayson \nJohn Ruggles Isaac Morell \n\nEdward Denison John Ruggles \n\nGriffin Crafts Griffin Crafts \n\nJohn Bowles John Pierpont \n\nThey attest the oldest records, where there is any \nattestation. \n\nIn 1665 the five men were allowed £5 per annum. \n\nIn 1679 the order providing for their pay was re- \npealed. \n\nIt was not till 1666 that the town \"voted to choose \na clarke for the year ensuing and so remaine till the \ntowne see cause to alter it. He is to keepe the \ntowne records and buy another booke and have every \nthing exactly transcribed by the aforesaid clarke un- \n\n\n62 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nIcssc such things as either are ridiklus or inconven- \nent,\" &c. and tliat the selectmen direct what be wrote \nin the town booke. \n\nEdward Denison was chosen the first town clerk. \nThe general laws for the government of the people \nwere enacted by the general court. Though in some \nrespects they would not do for our day, they still \n*' evince not only their acknowledged love of liberty \nbut a degree of practical good sense in legislation and \na bberality of sentiment far greater than have usually \nbeen ascribed to them.\" \n\nSome traces of these are found in town papers. \nIn 1669, 1671 and seven, persons were set on the \ngallows with a rope round their necks and suffered \ncorporal punishment. \n\nIn 1671 an Indian was executed and hung up in \nchains for murder. \n\nIn 1673, a youth of seventeen being convicted of \nthe horrible and abominable crime, and \" being very \nstupid and hard hearted was excommunicated, and the \nbeast was knocked on the head and slaine before his \neyes.\" \n\nExcommunication was a common punishment for \ndrunkenness and various crimes. \n\nIn 1668, the county bridge being presented, a com- \nmittee was appointed \" for the substantial erecting ot \n*' the bridge, with power to impresse men to that \n\" worke.\" \n\nOf the earliest town laws there are only a few \nscraps to be found on the decaying part of mutilated \nleaves. One of the earliest of these provides for pen- \nalties far taking rocks out of the highways, and leav- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxburv. 63 \n\ning holes in the road. Very careful regulations were \nmade for preventing fires, each person being obliged \nto provide ladders to the top of his house, &c. Oth- \ners relate to the feeding at large of cattle, swine, &c. \nIn 1656, a law was made prohibiting turkies from go- \ning at large, against which a most earnest protest \nwas entered. \n\nIn 1655, a bounty of 30 shillings was given for a \nw^olf's head. 1666, ten shillings were paid to John \nCrafts and Shubael Seaver for a wolf killing. \n\nThe town passed license laws quite early. In \n1653, leave was \" given John Gorton and Robert \nPepper to brew and sell penny beare and cakes and \nwhite bread.\" In 1678, the town voted \" that no \nwine nor liquors shall be sold at any ordinary in \nRoxbury,\" and that they would have but one ordina- \nry in town. In 1725, a fine was remitted to Widow \nSarah Pierpont for selling drink without license. In \n1730, Mr. Manser \"prayed ye towne to forgive him \nye fine laid on him for selling strong drink without li- \ncense and voted in ye negative.\" In 1734, it was \nearnestly recommended to the selectmen to have no \nmore taverns or retailers in the town than is abso- \nlutely necessary. \n\nThe town often passed laws regulating the prices \nat which grains \"should pass current.\" Thus in \n1667, they voted that men should pay and receive, \nIndian at 3 sh. a bushel, peas at 3 sh. 8 pence. \nBarley and Malt at 4 shillings and 6 pence. Rye at \n4 shillings. In 1672, Rye and Barley were 4 shil- \nlings, Peas 4 sh. 6d., Indian 3 shil. In 1689, Wheat \nwas 5 sh., Barley and Malt 3, 6. Indian 3 sh., Rye \n\n\n64 HISTORY OF ROXRURY. [I*ART I. \n\n3 sh., Peas 4 sh. They were generally received for \ntaxes. \n\nThe town was cautious to prevent being charged \nwith any stragglers, and early made a law that \"if \nany person admit or receive any person or inmate in- \nto his house and keepe them over one weeke with- \nout leave of the selectmen, he shall be fined 20 shil- \nlings, and the selectmen are appointed to speak with \nsome who have transgressed.\" And such warnings \nwere much more frequent than they now are. \n\nIn 1733, a by-law was made \"against running or \ngalloping horses in calash, chaise, chair, cart, slay, or \nsled in ye town from Boston line to William Jervis, \nor in ye road to ye lower county bridge by ye mills \nor round ye square by Saml. Williams,\" with a pen- \nalty of 10 shillings, and one half to the use of the \ntown's poor. \n\n\nCHAPTER VI. , \n\nTitles to Estates. \n\nAt a Court of Assistants, on Thursday, May 21, 1629 — \n\n\"The Court, taking into due and mature consideration how \nnecessary it will be that a dividend be forthwith made of land in \nthe London Plantation in New England both for the present ac- \ncommodation of the people lately gone thither, as well to build \nthem houses, as to enclose and manure, and to feed their cattle \non, have thought fit and ordered, that the Governor, Deputy and \nCouncil there shall make a dividend accordingly and allot unto \nthe several adventurers and others, as followeth, viz : \n\nThat two hundred acres of land be by them allotted to each \nadventurer for £50 adventure in the common stock, and so after \nthat rate, and according to that proportion, for more or less, as \nthe adventure is, to the intent they may build their houses and \nimprove their labors thereon. \n\nThat every adventurer in the common stock, or his servant for \nhim or on his behalf, shall make request or demand to the Gover- \nnor or Deputy and council, to have a proportion of land allotted \nunto him accordingly, and if, within ten days after such request \nor demand made, the same be not set out and allotted unto him \nthen such person or persons are, by virtue of this act, permitted \nand authorized to seat him or themselves, and build his or their \nhouses, and enclose and manure ground in any convenient place \nor places not formerly built upon or manured : provided that the \nland so made choice of by any such person or persons do not ex- \nceed in quantity the one half of the land which is to be allotted \nunto him or them by dividend, according to the order above writ- \nten ; with liberty also, when the first dividend shall be made, to \n9 \n\n\n66 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART I. \n\ntake his or their allotment of land as others do, in lieu of this, if \nin the mean time the first choice shall be disliked by them, or \nany of them. \n\nAnd for further explanation of this act, it is thought fit, that if \nthe plot of ground whereon the town is to be built be set out, and \nthat it be publicly known that it be intended for that purpose, that \nthen no man shall presume lo build his house in any other place, \nunless it be in the Mallachusetis Bay, and then according to such \ndirection as shalf be thought meet for that place. And in case \nhis allotment for building his house within the plot of ground set \nout for building of the town be not appointed unto him within ten \ndays after demand or request to the Governor or the Deputy and \nCouncil for the same, it shall be free for any, being an adventurer \nin the common stock, or his servant for him or on his behalf to \nbuild his house in any place within the said plot set out for the \ntown, and to impale to the quantity of half an acre for each £50 \nadventure in the common stock : unless a greater or lesser pro- \nportion be formerly determined by the Governor and Council, by \nwhich each builder is to be guided and directed. \n\nIt is further thought fit and ordered, that all such as go over in \nperson, or send over others at their own charge, and are adven- \nturers in the common stock, shall have lands allotted unto them \nfor each person they transport to inhabit the Plantation, as well \nservants as all others : which fifty acres of land, so allotted to \nservants and others is hereby ordered to be set to and for the use \nof his master or setter forth, being an adventurer in the common \nstock to dispose of at his discretion in regard the master, &;c. is \nat the charge of the said servant and others their transportation, \nwages and otherwise. But for such as being no adventurers in \nthe common stock shall transport themselves and their families, it \nis ordered that fifty acres of land shall be allotted and set out for \nthe master of the family, and such a proportion of the land more, \nif there be cause, as, according to their charge and quality the \nGovernor and Council of the Plantation there shall think neces- \nsary for them, whereby their charge may be fully and amply sup- \nported : unless it be to any with whom the company in London \nhave or shall make any other particular agreement, to which re- \nlation is to be had in such case. \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 67 \n\nAnd to the end every adventurer may the more safely and \npeaceably enjoy their said lands allotted unto them or chosen by \nthem, and the houses they build thereupon, as abovesaid, it is \nthought fit and ordered by this court, that conveyances shall be \nmade thereof unto each particular man for the land he possesseth, \nijp the Company's name, and the common seal of the Company to \nbe thereunto afRxed by the Governor and Council there, at the \ncharge of the Company, which common seal is by this court \nthought fit and ordered to be committed to the charge and keep- \ning of the Governor for the time being and in his absence to his \ndeputy there.\" \n\nThis was the law for the division of lands in the \ncolony. But titles in the early times of the colony \nwere not granted, transferred or evidenced with the \nsame formality as now. Although it is questionable \nwhether a mere note of a proprietary, or the body of \nthe town, without any deed or location in pursuance \nof such vote, would pass lands to an individual at this \nday, \"it is well known that almost all the titles which \nhave been derived from proprietors of townships have \nnothing better to depend upon than a vote recorded \nin the proprietor's books : and where ]X)ssession was \ntaken in conformity to the vote, and transmitted by \nthe grantee to his heirs or assigns, titles so acquired \nhave been respected and maintained in our courts of \nlaw.\" \n\nSuch is the language of the Supreme Court of this \nState. And, considering the many causes to render \nthe records of this town for the first few years imper- \nfect, they could not reasonably be expected to be more \ncomplete than we find them. It is doubtful whether \nany town has more perfect ones, in respect to titles. \n\nBy the colony act of 1634, it was provided that \nthe constables and four more of the chief inhabitants \n\n\n68 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART I. \n\nof every town, to be chosen by all the freemen there, \nwith the advice of the next assistants, shall make a \nsurveying of the houses, backsides, cornfields, mowing \ngrounds, &c. Sic. of every free inhabitant, and shall \nenter the same in a book with the several bounds, and \ndeliver a transcript thereof into the court wdthin six \nmonths, and the same so entered and recorded, shall \nbe a sufficient assurance, &c. &c. and the like course \nshall be taken for all such as shall be hereafter en- \nfranchised, &c. \n\nThe practice in division of land seems to have been, \neither for the court to grant land for individuals, or, \nwhat was more common, for the settlers themselves \nto take up lands for the first few years, till the incor- \nporation or grant of a town, and after that time for \nall grants to be made by the towns. \n\nThe following extracts from the colony records con- \ntain the earliest matters concerning the grant to the \nTown. \n\n1636. Ordered, that all the rest of the ground lying betwixt \nDorchester bounds and Boston bounds shall belonge to the \ntowne of Roxbury easterly of Charles River except the property \nof the aforesaid townes which they have purchased of particular \npersons. Roxbury not to extend above eight miles in length \nfrom their meeting house. \n\n1637. Four thousand acres were granted to Roxbury. \n\n1640. The four thousand acres to be set out in four places at \nthe most. \n\n16th of 3d m. 1638. Report of men appointed to certify bounds \nbetween Roxbury and Dedham, (together with the lands pur- \nchased by Dedham.) \n\nDrew \" an equal line of division by marked trees and stakes \nfrom S. E. side of Roxbury bounds by a straight N. W. line run- \nning until it touch upon Charles River. Furthermore, in consid- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 69 \n\neration of some streightness at the Westmost end of Roxbury \nbounds by reason of the course of the River it is mutually agreed \nthat a portion of meadow shall belong unto Roxbury which join- \neth towards the northeast upon Roxbury and bounded to the S.E. \nby certain marked trees from the line of division aforesaid, (com- \nprehending a narrow strip of upland) unto a point of upland on \nthe bound of the marsh and from thence by the Nmost point of a \nlittle hillock of upland in the marsh straight on to the River. \n\nEdw. Alleyn, \nGeo. Alcock, \nJohn Oliver; \n\nThe boundary of Roxbury and Dedham was long \nunsettled. In 1650, a committee was chosen to ne- \ngotiate about it. But it was not finally adjusted till \n1697. \n\n1639, 11th mo. \" A committee having full authority from the \nTown to end all controversee concerning ye line of partition be- \ntween Boston and Roxbury, at Muddy River, concerning which \nsome doubt hath been made, have agreed that the trees marked,\" \n&c. \"be the bounds.\" \nWill. Colbron, ) John Gore, x \n\nWill. Tynge, > Boston. Joseph Weld, / jj^j^j^y \n\nJacob Eliot, ) John Johnson, ( •'\" \n\nWillm. Parke, ^ \n\nTo the Honor'd Court assembled at Boston. \n1643, 8 mo. Whereas it pleased this honored court some three \nyears since to grant unto {obsmre) certain farmes and the place \nappointed where they should lye, which was between Sudbury, \nDedham and Watertown, but soe that the bounds of Dedham \nwere not layed out therefore it pleased this court to grant them \na tyme to lay out their bounds, which being past, ye humble pe- \ntition is that this court will now be pleased to appoint men to lay \nout ye farmes according to the former grant, &c. \n\nTho. Dudley 416 \n\nWilliam Tomson 200 \n\nRich. Browne 200 \n\nIsaac Heath 256 \n\n\n70 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT 1. \n\nOn ihe foregoing is this Joseph Weld 278 \n\norder. Richard Parker 436 \n\n\" Dedham has 3 wks. for to John Johnson 100 \n\nsettheir bounds. Then Rox- Joshua Hues 288 \n\nbury to have the residue of Isaac Morrill 204 \n\ntheir 4000 acres belveen William Park 181 \n\nWatertovvn, Sudbury and Thos. Bell 166 \n\nDedham,\" &c. &c. Mr. Thomas Weld 353 \n\nPhilip Eliot 333 \n\nSamuel Hugb.^ 177 \n\n, Gorg Holmes 162 \n\nJohn Gore 188 \n\nGorg Alcock 242 \n\nWilliam Denison 267 \n\nJohn Stow 253 \n\nWilliam Kane 400 \n\n* This is doubtless contracted for Hugburne. \n\nThe earliest trace met with, of any thing relative \nto the town grants, is in a deposition of William \nCurtis, aged 73, taken in 1666, which states he \" was \nappoynted by ye towne to be a measurer to lay out \nseverall parcels of land that was granted to sundry in- \nhabitants and amongst them a piece of meadow grant- \ned to John Compton, then an inhabitant of Roxbury. \nIt was bounded south and east all along by the brooke \nand north by land of John Freeborne.\" These names \nare early ones. Compton was a freeman in 1634. \nThe fact that the deposition of an old man was re- \nquired to be taken shows that the allotment was an \nancient one. Probably the lots surveyed were among \nthe earliest town grants. On the first page of Town \nRecords (almost illegible) is a vote to allot to those \nwho pay town rates out of the town lauds not dis- \nposed of. (1647.) \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 71 \n\nThe town continued, for many years, to make \ngrants to individuals, without compensation, and on \nthese many titles in the town depend. They are \ngenerally entered with little formality, often giving \nmerely the number of acres, without any boundary. \nIn several instances conditions are annexed to the \ngrants, so that on breach of those conditions the land \nwill revert to the town. \n\nIn 1648, a grant of six acres was made to William \nLyon, afterward six to George Brown, six to John \nStebbin, and so on to others, forming, when all col- \nlected together, a long list, extending over nearly a \nhundred years, which is too long to be here inserted. \nIn some, the locations can be traced, but not in many. \n\nIn 1655, a grant was made to Tobias Davis of six \nor seven acres for a corn mill and fulling mill. \n\nIn 1675, the clay pitts were granted to Ralph \nHemingway. \n\nThe grant to John Grosvenor at the bridge and \nold mill was \"for liming leather, in fee, and not to \nsell but for said use and to be forfeit if it damage the \nwater for cattle or man.\" \n\nJoseph Peak had a grant at Hog's Bridge \"for \ndressing wash leather.\" \n\nA grant was made to Moses Draper near Stony \nRiver bridg-e, by Dedham road, for a blacksmith's \nshop, to him and his successors, for this use and no \nother. \n\nSome of these grants are on condition that the lots \nbe built on within a certain period. \n\nQuite a list of those who lived on the street can \nbe formed from the grants of lands \"back of their \n\n\n72 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. PaRT I.] \n\nhouses to the brooke,\" Smelt Brook or Town \nBrook. \n\nThe town vote for all the inhabitants to render in \nan account of their lands to be recorded and a tran- \nscript of the record to be returned into court, which \nwas the origin of \"The Ancient Transcript,\" written \nby Goodman Denison and certified by the five men, \nhas been already given. \n\nThis transcript would probably be deemed sufficient \nevidence of title. The only difficulty in tracing titles \nby it is the want of courses and distances, the mere \nnames of abutters being given, because of the lands \nhaving been divided in several allotments, each per- \nson owning many lots in various parts of the town. \nThe homesteads, however, may be traced, and with \nsufficient pains, probably most of the lots. \n\nIn 1662, the town voted that no more land be \ngiven away, but that it be kept for the town's use. \nThis vote, however, was not observed. \n\nIn 1692-3, the selectmen were directed to consult \nauthority and obtain their judgment concerning the \nright proprietors of the common lands. Some claim- \ned that they belonged to the first proprietors and not \nto the body at large. \n\nThe Town had various grants of land made to it \nby the Legislature. Some have been named. \n\nIn 1733, there was a vote of the town to get the \ngeneral court to lay out \"the balance of the 4000 \nacres because Dedham shortens us.\" \n\nIn 1736, the records were inspected and directions \ngiven -to the representative concerning that grant. \n\nIn 1715, on petition of Stephen Williams and oth- \n\n\nPart J.] history of roxburt. 73 \n\ners, 500 acres were granted to the town towards sup- \nport of the free school. \n\n1683. was granted from Massachusetts a tract seven \nmiles square at Quatosset, called also \" the grant of \nland in the Nipmuck country,\" from the Indian tribe \nof that name. This w^as afterwards called New Rox- \nbury, and is now Woodstock in Connecticut. It w-as \nat first supposed to be in Massachusetts. The grant \nwas on condition of settling within two years, and \n\" maintaining amongst them an able and orthodox \ngodly minister.\" \n\nThe selectmen first sent out three men, (John Rug- \ngles, John Curtis and Isaac Morris, as appears by the \nbills paid them,) who reported that \" at Seneksuk and \nWapagusset the lands afforde encouragement for set- \ntlers,\" and then the town provided a field and allow- \ned' any men to go to view the lands, at their own \ncharge. In 1685, the town \"voted cleare to treat \nwith Mr. Stoughton and Mr. Dudley, guardians to \nJosiah, grandson of Chickatabut, the well known sa- \nchem, to obtain the Indian or natives right.\" In \n1687-8, the town paid Jos. Dudley £10 for the pur- \nchase of the natives right to the township. \n\nIn order to settle this place, the town voted that \n\" if thirty men should hand in their names to the se- \nlectmen to settle them, they shall have one half of \nthe whole tract in one square at their selection, the \ntown to assist said planters and settlers with £100, to \nbe paid in small sums in five years, and to be laid out \nin public buildings as the old town ot Roxbury shall \ndetermine, the rest of the inhabitants to have the re- \n\n\n10 \n\n\n74 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nmaining half\", and the settlers to be free from the rate \nto raise the £100.\" \n\nThe affairs of this place fill the records for quite a \nnumber of years. The lands were finally divided in \nproportion to each man's head and estate, the castle \nsoldiers and troopers being added, and all such as \nwere over sixteen years of age. The allotments and \ndivisions are given at length in the Roxbury records, \nwhich contain the first history of the town. Very \nmany of the inhabitants of Woodstock are descended \nfrom the first settlers of Roxbury. \n\nThis copy of a letter from the selectmen of Wood- \nstock to those of Roxbury, may be worth preserving. \n\n\" 1694, Dec. 18. Gentlemen, we understand by \n\" Capt. Chapen that you are dissatisfied upon a re- \n\" port that ye town had preferred a petition to ye \n\" Hartford Court, designing to wrong you. As you \n\" desire to be informed whether it was a town's act \n\" or particular men's act, we can assure you it was \n\" by no town voate or act, nor yet by order of the \n\" selectmen. It was done by some particular per- \n\" sons. And we do not know that they intended you \n\"any harm. \n\n\" This with our love and service to you is from \n\" your loving friends, \n\nBenj. Sabins, \nJohn Butcher, \nJohn Carpenter, \nEdwd. Morris, \nJohn Holmes.\" \n\n\nCHAPTER VII. \n\nMiscellaneous. \n\n1636. The Roxbury people worked on the forti- \nfication at Cornhill. (Boston.) \n\n1646. \"This year, about the end of the 5th \nmonth, we had a very strong hand of God upon us, \nfor upon a suddaine, innumerable armys of catterpil- \nlars filled the country all over all the English planta- \ntions, which devoured some whole meadows of \ngrasse, and greatly devoured barley, being the most \ngrown, and tender corne, eating off all the blades \nand beards, but left the corne, only many ears they \nquite eat off by eating the green straw asunder below \nthe eare, so that barley w^as generally half spoiled ; \nlikewise they much hurtwheate, by eating the blades \noff, but wheate had the lesse hurte because it was a \nlittle forwarder than barley, or harder and dryer, and \nthey lesse meddled with it. As for rye, it was so \nhard and near ripe, that they touched it not. But \nabove all grains they devoured oats. And in some \nplaces they fell upon indian corne and quite devoured \nit, in other places they touched it not. They would \ncrosse highways by 1000. \n\nMuch prayer there was made to God about it, and \nfasting in divers places, and the Lord heard, and on a \n\n\n76 HISTORT OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nsuddaine took them all away again in all parts of the \ncountry, to the wonderment of all men. It was the \nLord, for it was done suddainely.\" \n\n1646. \"This winter was one of the mildest we \never had ; no snow all winter long ; nor sharp weath- \ner. We never had a bad day to goe preach to the \nIndians all this winter, praised be the Lord.\" \n\n1647. The same yeare \"a greate sicknesse epi- \ndemical did the Lord lay upon us, so that the great- \nest part of the towne was sick at once, whole fami- \nlies .^^sick, young and old, none escaping, English or \nIndian. \n\n\" The nature was a cold, &c. \n\n\" God's colds are teaching. This epidemicall sick- \nnesse of cold doth rightly, by a divine hand, tell the \nchurches what their epidemical spirit disease is. — \nGod help us to see it: and to have such colds in the \nheight of the heat of summer, shows us that, in the \nheight of the means of grace, peace, liberty of ordi- \nnances, &-C., yet may we then fall into malignant \ncolds, apostacys, and coolings. And this is remarka- \nble that, tho few died, yet some died, and those w^ere \nthe choycest flowers and most gracious saints.\" \n\n1661-2. \"A synod at Boston. The questions dis- \ncussed were — \n\n1. Who are the subjects of Baptism. \n\n2. Who according to Scripture ought to be a con- \nsociation of churches and what is the name of it.\" \n\n1662. \"It pleased God this spring to exercise the \ncountry with a severe drought, but some were so rash \nas to impute it to the sitting of the Synod. But God \nwas pleased to bear witness against their rashness. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 77 \n\nFor no sooner was the Synod met, June 10, but they \nagreed to set the next day apart to ask God's favora- \nble presence and to ask rain ; and the day following, \nGod sent raine from heaven.\" \n\n1663. Jan. 26, an earthquake occurred. \n\n1664. Nov. 17, a comet was seen and its position \nis described. March 11, another comet was seen. \n\n1665. Another earthquake is spoken of. \n\n1666. The town paid for diet and attendance of \na lame Indian £1 : 6 sh. \n\nThe same year, they paid \"for match and bullets \nfor the town, also for bisket and the Indian's bed,\" \n&c., and further \"for ringing ye bell, expenses about \na lame Indian and for soldiers that were pressed to \nthe castle.\" \n\n1 667. \"1 1 th month 4th day. There were strange \nnoises in the air, like guns, drums, vollies of greate \nshotte,\" &c. \n\n1667. \"12th month 29th, appeared a coma, or \nblazing stream, which extended to a small star in the \nriver Eridamus, but the star was hid by reason of its \nproximity to the sun.\" \n\n1668. The town paid for \"carriage of the Greate \nGunne and for warders on election.\" \n\nThis year the inhabitants were prohibited digging \nany more clay at Boston Gate. The reason was that \nthe town was indicted that year for digging up the \nhighway at the gate and paid for it. \n\nThere was the shock of an earthquake felt this \nyear. And in the 3d month, 16th day, prodigies \nwere seen in the heavens the night before the Lord's \nday. \n\n\n78 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [l*AKT I. \n\n1678. The small pox raged terribly. \n\n1688. The town chose Samuel Ruggles and Na- \nthaniel Holmes representatives, and instructed them \nto do \"what they can to establish a government for \nthe present as the general assembly shall think for \npublic good.\" But afterwards they voted that \"they \ndesire the Governor, de})uty and assistants sworn in \n1686 to remain.\" \n\n1691. *'The old Watch House\" is named \"in the \ntowne street,\" and provision was made for a new one \non the meeting-house hill, and another at the plain, \nand the town granted to John Howard \"the old \nWatch House, &c., fifty foot back towards the brook, \nfor that he will build the new one, he to dig for foun- \ndations, &c., and to lay a good substantial wall of \nstone two feet thick, in clay, and pointed within and \nwithout, walls to be six feet high by thirteen feet \nlong by eleven feet wide inside and a brick chimney \nat one end, and cover the roof with deal boards and \nshingles, and to provide a stout door and lock and \nkey.\" But the town did not build this. A new one \nwas built on the town street and another at the plain, \na few years after. \n\n1693. Edward Weld was chosen clerk of the \nmarket. \n\n1696. The Representatives to general court were \npaid 18 pence a day in money or corn at the rate. \n\n1681. The town paid Ensign Davis four shillings \nand six pence for work about the meeting house and \n\"cage.\" The cage was then common for punish- \nment, but has given way to houses of correction, &:c. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxrury. 79 \n\nor jails. The word jail is said to be derived from \nthe old name of the cage. \n\n1631. Wheat meal cost fourteen shillings a bushel, \npeas eleven and sixpence, &c. \n\n1633. There was a scarcity of corn, but people \nlived well with fish and the fruits of their gardens. \n\n1634. Corn was four shillings the bushel, some \nat three, and some cheaper. \n\n1634. Cattle were high. A good cow 251. or \n30/. A pair of bulls or oxen 40/. Corn was five \nshilHngs a bushel. Carpenters had three shillings \nthe day. Board was nine or ten shillings. \n\n1643. There was a long cold and wet time, and \nit caused a great scarcity of corn, and in ev^ery town \nmany families had to live on fish, muscles, &c. \n\nIn 1640-1, there was a change in public affairs in \nEngland, which so affected things here that a cow \nwhich the year before was worth 20/. could not then \nbe sold for more than 4/. or 5/., and nobody could \npay his debts. This caused the colony to send out \nagents, of whom Mr. Weld was one. \n\nIn 1 645, in a deed from John Stonehead to Thomas \nDudley, two oxen are valued at 15/. ready money. \n\nIn 1646, a cow brought 4/., a cow and calf 6/., a \nyoke of oxen 14/. ; English wheat was worth four \nshillings a bushel, peas three shillings eight pence, \nrye three shillings six pence. \n\nIn 1651, a cow was worth 5/., a yoke of oxen 16/. \na horse 16/. \n\nIn 1658, a cow was worth 31. to 4/., a yoke of oxen \n10/., a horse 13/., Indian corn was at two shillings \n\n\n80 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT 1. \n\nper bushel, malt at four shillings, butter was five \npence a pound, cotton cloth sold for three shillings. \n\nIn 1683, a cow brought 2/. to 3/., sheep 5 shillings \na head, butter three pence. \n\nIn 1658, twelve acres of land on Stony River was \nworth 48/., land at Gravelly point was held at 50/. \nper acre. \n\nIn 1661, land at Roxbury Gate (next Boston) was \nvalued at 61. an acre. \n\nIn 1668, nine acres, \" as you go to Boston,\" was \nvalued at 100/., and four acres at Pine Island at 40/. \n\nIn 1683, six acres of pasture on the south side of \nthe Great Hill was worth 24/., four acres of marsh in \nthe Island at 38/., two of fresh meadow at Bare \nmarsh, 8/. \n\nIn 1697, thirteen acres of plow land in the calve's \npasture was worth 120/. \n\nWampumkeage, or Wampum, is frequently named \nin the old lists of estates. \n\nPeople were well supplied with arms. For in- \nstance, in the parlor of Isaac Morrill, were hung up a \nmusket, a fowling piece, three swords, two belts of \nbandoleers, a pike, a half pike and a corslett. \n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. \n\nAncient Localities. \n\nVarious localities are constantly named and referred \nto in ancient documents. Some of these will be \nfound useful in tracing out titles and estates. \n\nBoston Gates were at the line. Boston Neck ex- \ntended from this line one mile and thirty nine yards \nto the fortification, built of brick, with a ditch, where \nthere were two gates, one for foot passengers and one \nfor carriages. They were originally for defence. \nThose at Roxbury line were probably of similar char- \nacter, though less strong. \n\nClay Pits. These were near the street, where the \ntown's people used to dig clay for various purposes. \nThey were East of Roxbury-street and North of Dud- \nley-street. In 1675 the town granted them to Ralph \nHemingway. An indictment was once found for dig- \nging up clay at Boston gate. \n\nThe Landing Place. Some care must be taken \nnot to be misled by this name. There were two land- \ning places. When what is now the empty basin and \nthe back bay was full, the town had one on the north \nof the meeting house hill. The other was at the \npoint that extends down to the wharf, afalJie mnutj^-nf \n\n\nU \n\n\n82 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nGravelly Point, was the point that runs out into \nthe bay at the mouth of Stony River, towards Cam- \nbridge. \n\nBass Point, is a name met with for the few first \nyears. \n\nMills. A water mill was built at Roxbury, in \n1633, by one Dummer. I have seen two depositions \ntaken in perpetuam, in 1702, of William Gary, then \naged 75, and John Ruggles sr. aged 70, in which they \nsay that they remember that fifty years before then \nthe tide mill was \" Baker's Mill,\" and so called, and \nthat father Baker bought a piece of land for gravel on \nthe other side of the creek, and that ever since their \nremembrance Thomas Lamb and his successors had \nenjoyed the lane towards the mill, maintaining a \ngood and sufficient gate somewhere in the lane. This \nwas in the east of the town. Traces of a mill still \nremain near Parker street. In 1684, the interest of \nThomas Baker (the son of John) \" in the irons, \nstones, land and privilege of the old tide mill in part- \nnership,\" was valued at £15. \n\nIn 1655, leave was granted to John Johnson and \nothers to set down a mill, &c. in or near the place \nwhere the old mill stood, provided they maintain a \ncart bridge sufficient for the town. \n\nIn 1656, liberty was granted to John Pierpont for \nsetting a Fulling mill on Stony River. \n\nIn 1663, an \"old mill\" is named which stood on \nStony River, near the place where the Providence \nrailroad crosses Tremont road, and is now known as \nWait's milL»,. \n\nThere was a very ancient mill built to grind for \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 83 \n\nRoxbiiry and Boston, (i. e. Brookline or Muddy River, \nthen part of Boston,) which stood at the northeast \ncorner of Jamaica pond, at the outlet ; many old pa- \npers are met with relative to it, and the drawing off \nthe pond. Farther up in town was a saw mill, on \nSaw Mill Brook. \n\nMuddy River, was the water which still stands in \nBrookline, near the Punch Bowl. \n\nStony River, is the stream that runs by Wait's mill, \nand the corner of Centre street, under Hog's bridge. \nThere was a weir here in 1631. \n\nSmelt Brook, runs under the roads at the foot of \nDudley and Washington streets, between Guild Hall \nand the Universalist church. Mr. Young, the com- \npiler of the Massachusetts chronicles, probably came \nout some hot dusty afternoon to find it, and not seeing \nany thing like it there, concluded it must be the \nbrook \"between the town and Dorchester;\" but, \nthough it is hid by the great thoroughfares that pass \nover it, it was once a considerable stream, and there \nwas once a large watering place there. This was al- \nso once known as \" The Brook,\" and the \" Town \nBrooke,\" &c. The stream that divides the town from \nDorchester was called \" Dorchester Brooke.\" \n\nSaw Mill Brook, is the stream you first cross as \nyou come from Spring street church towards the Plain, \nby the upper road. \n\nThe Great Hill, is now known as Parker's Hill, as \nwell as by its ancient name. \n\nThe Great Pond, is Jamaica Pond. \nClapboard Hill, is the name of the large hill in the \nsoutii part of the town, between Muddy pond and \n\n\n^' \n\n\nS4' ^ HisrORT OF ROXBURY. pART I.] \n\nFlaggy meadow. It was also known as \"Flax Hill.\" \nOne might think there would be little danger of such \nplaces being forgotten, and that there could hardly \nbe any question about their identity ; but as long ago \nas 1728, the dejDOsitions of some Connecticut people \nwere taken to fix the location of this hill. The pres- \nent name is said to have been given from some clap- \nboards having been burned there. \n\nWalk Hill, still bears the ancient name. On an \nold plan I find the name of Pig's Walk. There was \na hill which for the first fifty years was called Pig's \nHill. It may be the same. \n\nThe Training Place. The Old Training Place is \nnamed in the Ancient Transcript. In 1631 the court \nordered that on the first Thursday of every month \nthere should be a general training of captain Under- \nbill's company at Roxbury and Boston. This must \nhave been a famous place in those days. Training \nmeant something then. The Training field was east \nof the street, or Roxbury Street, and contained seven \nacres or more, extending along where Warren and \nWashington streets unite. The Town had only a \nright in it for training. In 1762 they sold that to \nJoseph Weid. \n\nThe Common lay south of the road leading to Dor- \nchester. \" Common Lands\" are, however, not to be \nconfounded with this. They are often named in an- \ncient deeds, and refer to lands in the several divisions \nwhich had not then been allotted. Twenty eight \nacres of the Town Common was sold to Joseph Wil- \nliams in 1763, for £1431 16 shillings. The wood \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxburt. 85 \n\nthen sold for £1787 osh. 2d. Fifty four acres were \nsold in 1812. \n\nRemington^ Paradise, was on the road to Brook- \nline, near what is now called Parker Street. This \nname occurs in 1653, and was given for the owner. \nThere is a place there still known by the name of \nParadise. \n\nSpring; Street was named in 1690. \n\nJamaica Plain. The following account of this \nname is given by the late pastor of the church at the \nPlain. \"Jamaica Plain, from its proximity to the \npond, was originally called ' Pond Plain.' How it \nchanged its name has never been really ascertained. \nThere are many legends upon this inquiry, but none \nof them entirely satisfactory. One is, that it was so \nbaptized in consequence of gentlemen from Jamaica \nspending their summers there ; which circumstance, \nif true, midit at once account for it. But it cannot \nbe ascertained, that any other than Timothy Penny, \nEsq. who came to this country not earlier than 1767, \never had a residence here ; whereas Hugh Thomas, \nApril 7th, 1677, ninety years previous, conveyed his \nproperty for the benefit of a school ' to the people at \nthe Jamaica end of the town of Roxbury.' \n\n\"' Another more probable, but not altogether satis- \nfactory account is, that a gentleman by the name of \n\n, from some unknown cause, disliking his wife, \n\nquitted London, informing her that he was going to \nJamaica on business. Hearing nothing from him for \na very long period, she at length embarked for Ja- \nmaica, in expectation of finding him there. But, to \nher great surprise, she could not learn that he had ev- \n\n\n86 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nor been at the Island. And a vessel from that place \ngoing direct to Boston, she took passage, arrived safe, \nand having frequently related the circumstance, at \nlength obtained accidental intelligence that an En- \nglishman had for some time past been residing with a \npoor family in Roxbury, ' at the Pond Plain ;' where, \nmost unwelcomely to himself, she actually found him. \nThe story of his saying he was going to Jamaica, was \nso often and ludicrously told, that the inhabitants de- \nrisively, at first, called it Jamaica Plain, which name \nit has since retained. \n\n'•' The last, and to me most probable account 1 have \nheard was, that the Indians, who at that time were \nnumerous here, used frequently to go to the street in \nRoxbury for rum, and having accidentally met with \nsome Jamaica spirit, that greatly pleased them, they \nwould afterwards inquire for it, saying \" Indian love \nJamaica ;\" in consequence of which, the retailers cal- \nled them 'Jamaica' folks or Indians; from which cir- \ncumstance, the name became gradually familiar, and \nall the inhabitants of this part of the town at length \nacquired the name of 'Jamaica' Plain people, instead \nof Pond Plain, as they had been usually called be- \nfore.\" \n\nBut it seems hard to say which of them is most im- \nprobable, or to see what basis of fact the two last ac- \ncounts, or the last especially, have more than the first. \nIf it is certain that gentlemen from Jamaica did not \nmake this loveliest of spots their summer residence in \n1677, it is Just as certain that there was no poor fam- \nily for a nameless London gentleman to live with ; \n\" all the people of Roxbury were very rich,\" and this \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 87 \n\nladj who was never heard of before or since, would \nhardly have named it Jamaica, from all the concern \nthat place had in her affairs. Furthermore, it does \nnot appear that the Indians here were numerous, at \nany time, or that they used to go often to the street \nfor rum. It is altogether likely from Eliot's princi- \nples and influence and care for the natives, and the \npersons who traded in town, that Roxbury Street was \nthe last place an Indian would go to for any thing of \nthe sort. \n\nThe name was well known in 1677. It was writ- \nten Jamaco, Jemaco, and Jameco. The name Jama- \n00 End was used. \" Pond Plain\" does not appear to \nhave been the earliest. \n\nWeedy Plain was at the west part of the town. \nSquirrels Delight^ was near Quenecticote lane, by \nJamaica pond, towards Brookline. \n\nPine Island, was towards Dorchester, in the bay ; \n\" on the river that leads to Dorchester tide mill,\" \nwhere the magazine is. \n\nThe Wolf Traps were towards Dorchester. \nThe Foxholes were west of Back or Walnut street. \nTotmayi's Rocks, or Tatman's, were near the cor- \nner where the pump stands at the corner of Centre \nand Cross streets. The name was from John Tot- \nman, who lived there. \n\nThe Calves^ Pastures were on the road to Dor- \nchester. They embraced some marsh land. \n\nThe Thousand Acres were next to Dedham, and \nare explained in connection with the town's bounda- \nries. \n\nGamblin''s Endj was near School street, near Stony \n\n\n8P> HISTORY OF ROXIUIRY. [PaRT I. \n\nRiver. The nam(; was j)rol)ahIy given from Robert \nGainblin, who lived next to Thomas Bell, on what is \nnow School street. \n\nThe \" Salt Panns''' were at the east end of the \ntown, towards the bay next Dorchester. \n\nThe Nooks, are very often referred to in old docu- \nments, and often create perplexity. I find the name \nwas used for certain points of land, or knolls, that \nmade out into the meadows near the streams, and the \nnooks next Dorchester and those on Stony River are \nnamed. The name now conveys quite a different \nidea. \n\nRocky Swamp it is hard to identify. Several roads \nin different parts of the town lead to \"Rocky Swamp.\" \nThe chief one extended from what is now known as \nTommy's Rock, up to Stony River, through the val- \nley. The road from Philip Eliot's, through Gamblin's \nEnd, led to Rocky Bottom. \n\nPritcharcVs Island was a marsh, at the mouth of \nStony River. From an old deed executed by five of \nthe chief men ot the town, as \" atturneyes\" of Hugh \nPritchard, granting to a large number of individuals \nvarious portions of this marsh, it appears that this is \n\" an island now, by reason of the creeke that hath \nbeen digged between the same and the land of John \nJohnsons,\" and with the land, part of this creek was \ngranted. \n\n<' Black Neck\"*^ is a name which occurs, the place \nis not known. \n\nHaehurn's Nec^. In 1694, the town voted \"that \nthe lane which goeth out of the highway to the tide \nmill and leadeth downe toward Gravelly Point, be- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 89 \n\ntween the land of the heirs of Mr. Samuel Danforth \nand those of Mr. Haeburn, commonly called Mr. Hae- \nburn's Neck, should be lajed open from the said high- \nway to the tide mill,\" &c. \n\nDudleys Neck, was north of the road leading to \nBrookline. \n\nBear Marshy or Bare Marsh. The highway \\f hich \nled \" from the Dedham road at Policy's,\" (the corner \nat Mr. Stephen M. Welds',) \" by Mr. John Welds,\" \n(the street now South street,) led to a bear marsh, \nwhich was off at the south of the Plain, towards Dor- \nchester and Milton. It embraced the meadows upon \nthe head waters of Stony River. \n\nMeeting house Hill is where the first church stands.. \nMeeting house Lane is that part of Washington street \nwhich leads up to it \n\n\n12 \n\n\nCHAPTER IX. \n\nAccounts of the first settlers, their families, residences, <^c. \n\nThis contains every name in the town to the year \n1650, so far as they are recorded in the various rec- \nords of births, deaths and marriages of the town, and \nthe first parish. \n\nGeorge Abbot married Mary Chandler, Dec. 12, 1646. This \nis probably the one named by Farmer as having come from York- \nshire and settled in Andover in 1647, and married Hanna \nChandler. \n\nMr. George Alcock came with the first company to Roxbury in \n1630. He was deacon of the church and representative to the \nfirst General Court in 1634. His son John, who was born in \nEngland, came out with his father, and graduated at Harvard \nCollege in 1646. He was a physician. Deacon George had \nson Samuel, born 1637, April 16. His homestead of five acres \nwas south of Governor Dudley's, fronting east on the highway, \nand west on the meeting house common. He died December 30, \n1640. He had a brother Thomas, who was one of the first men \nin Dedham. His sister married Edward Porter. \"When the \npeople of Rocksbrough joyned to the church at Dorchester until \nsuch time as God should give them opportunity to be a church \namong themselves, he was by the church chosen express to be a \ndeacon to regard the brethren at Rocksbrough.\" \"He made two \nvisits to England upon just calling thereunto.\" \"He lived in a \ngood and godly sort and left a good savor behind him, the poor \nof the church much bewailing him.\" \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 91 \n\nJohn Alcock had twins, Ann and Sarah, born May 26, 1650. \nJoanna died 1649, August 5. In 166S, Doctor Alcock bought a \nhouse and eighteen acres, close to the church, of John Pierpont. \n\nHennj Archer married Elizabeth Stow, in 1639. She was \ndaughter of John. Henry Archer may have been the one at \nIpswich, in 1641. \n\nJames Astioood came in 1637. His wife was named Sarah. — \nHe had James, born Nov. 29, 1638 : John, born Sept. 20, 1640, \ndied March 15, 1644 : John, born March 7, 1641 : Joseph, born \nNov. 19, 1643: Joseph, Nov. 10, 1644: Sarah, born Jan. 10, \n1646 : Mary, born Dec. 21, 1647. He was dismissed to Boston. \nHis homestead, was next to Philip Eliot's, west of Stony River, \nand contained four acres. After his death in 1654, his estate \nwas declared insolvent. \n\nThomas Baker, whose wife was Elizabeth, had children, John : \nSarah, wife of Jabez Jackson : Marya, wife of Roger Adams : \nElizabeth, born Oct. 2, 1641 : Joseph, born Feb. 24, 1647: his \nhouse lott of one half an acre was next the land belonging to the \nmill which he owned— he died in 16S3. His will says he was \n\"old and blinde.\" His father was John Baker, who was freeman \nin 1634. \n\nGregory Baxter, freeman in 1631 ; had Bathesbie, born June, \n1632 : Abigail, born Sept. 1634 : John, born Dec. 1, 1639. \n\nThomas Bell came in 1635, was made freeman in 1636 ; he \nhad Sarah, born 1640 : John, born 1643, died 1643, 4th month. \nHis homestead was on School street, then the road to Gamblin's \nend. His old house was torn down in 1765, and the present one \nbuilt in 176S, at the corner of Boylston street. His will is dated \nJanuary 29th, 1671, and was proved May 30, 1672. He left \nRoxbury, had letters of dismission in 1654, and died in England, \nbut will be remembered as long as the free school endures, for he \ngave to it all his property here, a bequest which, at the time was \na very great one, and which, with its accumulations, now renders \nthis institution one of the most richly endowed in the country. \nA few more such would have made this school a college. \n\n\n92 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART 1. \n\nGeorge Brand married Malhew Heath in 1643, his house lot \nof one-half an acre was bounded \"one side on Stony River, and \nevery way else on the common.\" \n\nDaniel Bruer, or Brewer, was freeman in 1634 ; he had a son \nNathaniel, born May 1, 1635: Sarah, born March 8, 1638.— \nAnother son of his died in 1646. His son Daniel graduated at \nHarvard College in 1687, and was a minister at West Springfield. \nHe died in 1689, at the age of 84. George Brewer died, 1646. \n\nEdward Brigge, or Bridge, or Bridges, was freeman in 1639 ; \nhe had Thomas, born May 31, 1638. He died in 1683, aged 82. \nHe lived on the Dorchester road, west of George Holmes', where \nhe had eight acres. \n\nJohn Bowles, or Bowelis, was freeman in 1640, He was for a \nlong time one of the most important men in town afTairs, being \none of the feoffees of school, and often one of the five-men. He \nwas ruling Elder of the church. In 1689-90, he was Speaker \nof the Court. He lost his wife, Dorothy, in 1649. In 1649, he \nmarried Elizabeth Heath. He died in 1691. He had a daugh- \nter Elizabeth, 1650. \n\nJohn Burrell, whose wife was Sarah, had a daughter Sarah in \n1634. \n\nThomas B7imsiead, whose wife was Susan, brought two small \nchildren, Thomas and Jeremiah. Anna was born Jan. 20, 1639, \nHannah in 1641, Mary in 1642, Gerard in 1643. He was dis- \nmissed to Boston, and died 1677. \n\nEdward Bugby, or Boogby — Joseph, born June 6, 1640. An \ninfant born and died, 1642. His property in 1668 was invento- \nried and appraised at £336 : 06 : 06. . The home lot of three acres \nwith his house, which was on the right of the way to the great \nlotts was valued at £100. \n\n' Robert Buriiet lost a child in 1642. \n\nEdward Blacksley, a widower, died in 1637. His daughter \nSarah died in 1638. \n\nJerauld Bourne had Jerauld, born August 6th, 1643. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 93 \n\nAjin Brahrook, an old woman, died May 20, 1648. \n\nArthur Gary, which may have been also written Gary, had \n\nson Samuel born Sept. 22, 1638. He died in 1666. He had \n\nother children, William and Nathaniel. His wife's name was \nFrances. \n\nWilliam Chandler came in 1637, He brought with him from \nEngland his wife Hannah, and four small children, Thomas, \nHannah, John and William. He was made a freeman in 1640, \nand died, the next year, of consumption, \" a godly christian.\" \n\nEdmund Chamberlain married JMary Turner in 1646. The \nBame name occurs in Chelmsford. \n\nRichard Chamberlain owned a house and half an acre next \nRev. Jno. Eliols. The same name is found at Braintree. \n\nSamuel Chapin. His wife was Sisly. His name is met with \nat Springfield. \n\nTllUiam Chase came in 1630, and brought with him his son \nWilliam. He removed to Sciiuate, and afterwards to Yarmouth. \n\nBenjamin Child. His name occurs in 164S. He had land in \ntown and his name is in the Transcript, but he belonged to \nMuddy River. In 1672, he was one of those there who contri- \nbuted for building the church. His wife Mary was admitted to \nthe church in 1658. \n\nWilliam Cheany, Cheney, or Cheny, came in 1635, with his \nwife Martha, and his children, Mary, Martha, John, and Daniel ; \nbad a son, John, born Sept. 29, 1639 : Mehitable, born June 1, \n1643 : Joseph was born June 6, 1647. He died in 1666, aged \n63. His property amounted to £SS6: 01 : 04. \n\nJohn Carman came in 1631, with Florence, his wife. His son \nJohn was born in 1633, Caleb in 1639. \n\nJames Clarke. His children, Elizabeth and Mary, were bap- \ntized June 8, 1645 ; Martha, born April 25, 1648 : Hanna, born \nDec. 23, 1649. \n\n\n94 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\n« \n\nRobert Cole came in 1640, with the first company. He was \none of the two that were chosen in 1632, from each town, to con- \nfer with the assistants, &c. He was made freeman in 1631. He \nremoved, probably to Ipswich. , >^ \n\nPhilip ^orey married Mary Scarboro, Oct. 1, 1647. \n\nStocMale Coddington. His wife, \"an antient woman, not of \nthis church,\" died in 1644. \n\nWilliam Coy married Grace Newell, Sept. 14, 1644. \n\nGriffin Crafts was son in law of John Euggles. His son \nJohn's birth, July 10, 1630, is the first recorded in the town. — \nMary, was born Oct. 10, 1632: Abigail, March 18, 1634 : Samuel, \nDec. 12, 1637 ; Moses, April 28, 1641. He was lieutenant, rep- \nresentative from 1663 to 1667, five years, and often selectman \nand concerned in Town aflfairs. His descendants are numerous. \n\nWilliam Curtis, with his wife Sarah, was here March, 1632-3, \nwhen he was a freeman. They brought, from England, with \nthem, Thomas, died 1652; Mary, John, and Philip. They had \nborn here, Hannah ; Elizabeth ; and IsaaQ, born 1642. Their old- \nest son William came out the year before them. \" He was a \nhopefuUe schoUar, but God took him in 1634.\" His homestead \nof ten acres was bounded south on Stony River, north on R. Pep- \nper, west on J. Ruggles and John Totman, east on George Brand. \nThis has never been alienated from the family. It is now occu- \npied by Mr. Isaac Curtis, the sixth in lineal descent (the oldest \nof each generation having borne the same name) from William's \nyoungest child. It is the old place just beyond the railroad cros- \nsing on the right of Boylston street as you go towards the Plain. \nOne of his descendants in 1721 bought a horse and negro and set \nup farming, and was the first man who carried vegetables to town \nin a cart, instead of panniers. \n\nJohn Banc married Ann Chandler in 1643, and died 165S, \nleaving his wife and children, Francis, Elizabeth (How) and \nJohn. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxhury. 95 \n\nWilliam Davis was here in 1642, had son John, born Oct. 1, \n1643 : Samuel, born Feb. 21, 1644. His wife died, 1658. He \ndied in 16S3, aged 66. John and William died in 1706. \n\nTobias Davis married Bridget Kinman in 1649, and died in \n1690. He had a daughter Sarah, born Feb. 10, 1646. His first \nwife, Sarah, died in 1648. \n\nWilliam Denison was freeman in 1632. He brought over his \nwife, and sons Daniel, aged about 20, Edward and George, \nyounger. He was a representative in 163-5, to the general court. \nIn 1646, he lost his wife. He died in 1653, \"an old man.\" He \nwas one of those dismissed in 1637, for their opinions. \n\nDaniel Denison, his son, was a famous man in those days. — \nHe married Patience Dudley, a daughter of Thomas, the Gover- \nnor, at Newtown, and joined the church there, and went to Ips- \nwich. He was a military man, and held almost all ranks, up to \nMajor General. He represented the town for many years in the \ncourt, was one of the assistants for twenty-nine years, and for \ntwo years a speaker of the house. He died in 1682. \n\nEdward Denison was disarmed in 1637, made freeman in 1648. \nHe married Elizabeth Weld in 1641. Had Elizabeth, born Aug. \n8, 1642. A child named for John died in 1643 ; John was born \n1644; Edh^rd died 1645; Josejih died 1649 ; Jeremiah born in \nDec. 1647, died in May, 1649. He was a representative three \nyears, and died in 1668. He lived on Stony River. His estate \nwas valued at £1227:05:00. \n\nGeorge Denison was born in 1621. In 1647 he was a captain \nin Roxbury. He was a freeman in 1648. He is named as \" a \nyoung soldier lately come out of the wars in England.\" He mar- \nried Bridget Thomson, 1640. His wife died 1643. He had a \ndaughter Sarah, born March 20, 1641, and Hannah, born May \n20, 1643, and a son John, born July 16, 1646. He removed to \nStonington. In Philip's war he was a bold and distinguished \nleader. In 1676, with sixty-six volunteers and one hundred \nChristian Indians, he slew seventy-six of the enemy without the \nloss of a man, and took prisoner Quanonchet, the Narragansett \nIndian, whom his Indians beheaded. \n\n\n96 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT 1. \n\n\"Old Mother DenUori\" came in 1632, and died in 1645. \n\nHenry Dingham married Elizabeth Alcock in 1641. \n\nMr. Richard Diovimer was the one who built a mill soon after \nthe settlement of the town. He is said to have been a very rich, \nand very benevolent man. He removed to Newbury. He was \nhere in 1632. \n\nRev. Samuel Danforth was born in England in Sept. 1626, \nand came to this country in 1634, with his father Nathaniel. He \ngraduated at Harvard College in 1643, was ordained minister of \nthe church September 24th, 1650, and died November 19th, 1674, \nat the age of 48. He was teacher from the time when he gradu- \nated till his settlement. In Mr. Dunsler's account is one item of \n£56 \\3sh. 8d. paid Samuel Danforth, as Reader and Fellow, for \nsix years. He was one of the Fellows, in the College Charter of \n1650, and seems always to have taken deep interest in its wel- \nfare. \n\nIt is said that he \" wrote as a scholar,\" and \" was very afTec- \ntionate in his manner of preaching, and seldom left the pulpit \nwithout tears.\" He was learned in the sciences and theology. \nThat part of the diary of the Pastors which he wrote indicates the \ninterest he took in astronomy, by its frequent descriptions of the \nappearances of various phenomena, and of the situations and \nmovements of heavenly bodies. He published an account of the \ncomet of 1664, which probably led Mather to mention that \" his \nastronomical composures saw the light of the sun.\" From 1664 \nto 1670, the diary is filled with descriptions of prodigies, earth- \nquakes, comas, &c. His election sermon in 1670 was published. \n\nIn 1657, Mr. Danforth bought of Anthony Stoddard and wife \nthe estate which formerly belonged to Capt. Joseph Weld, for \nwhich he paid £180. \n\nMr. Danforth married the daughter of Rev. Mr. Wilson of Bos- \nton, in 1651. They had twelve children, some of whom were \ndistinf^uished. He was honored with a Latin epitaph, viz: \n\nNon dubium, quin eo' iverit, quo stellae emit \nDanforthus, qui stellis semper se associavit. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 97 \n\nThomaa Dudley came over in 1630, in the Arabella, with Win- \nthrop. He did not settle here at first, though he came quite early \nand settled in the town, and his family have been amongst its \nmost prominent citizens. He was born in 1674, at Northampton, \nin England. His father, captain Roger Dudley, was \" slaine in \nye warres,\" in battle, when Thomas was very young. \"But God \ntook him up when he was forsaken, and stirred up some special \nfriends who took care of him in childhood.\" \n\nIt is said that some unknown person left him £500, and that a \nMrs. Pufroy, a widow, noted for her piety and works of charity, \ntook an interest in him, and by her care he got some little educa- \ntion, and was taught Latin and grammar. \n\nHe was afterwards page to the Earl of Northumberland, in \nwhose family he learned \" courtship and whatever belonged to \ncivility and good behaviour.\" \n\nHe then became clerk to Judge Nichols, a connection by his \nmother. In this position he acquired some knowledge of the law. \nWhen only twenty years old, he had become well known about \nNorthampton, for his wit, mettle and spirit, and Queen Elizabeth \ngave him a captain's commission. He raised a company of eighty \nmen and went over to France under Henry IV. In 1597, he was \nat the siege of Amiens, but the treaty being concluded before he \nhad had any fighting, he returned home. \n\nAt this time there were several eminent Puritans preaching in \nthat neighborhood, whom he often heard. Under their influence \nthe character of Dudley was fixed, and some new elements were \ndeveloped in it which changed its aspect altogether. His high \nspirits showed themselves in his religious zeal. \n\nSoon after this he became steward to the Earl of Lincoln, The- \nophilus, whose affairs he managed for about ten years. The \nEarl's affairs were much involved. There were heavy debts up- \non the estates, and a great deal of business to be done which re- \nquired not only energy and activity, but labor, prudence and \njudgment. In this office Dudley met with complete success, as \nis shown by the situation of the Earl's affairs when he left him, \nand by the fact that he always retained the esteem and respect of \nthe family. He was the executor of Johnson, the Earl's son in \nlaw, \n\n13 \n\n\n9S HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I, \n\nBut his desire for a less laborious business, together with his \nreligious opinions induced him to hire a place at Boston, where \nhe could be under Mr. Cotton, with whom he became very inti- \nmate. He did not remain long here, however, before at the pres- \nsing call of the Earl of Lincoln, he again consented to take the \nmanagement of his affairs, and he remained with him till he came \nto New England. \n\nThe first connection of Dudley with the Massachusetts colony \nwas when the Boston men promised \" to adventure £400 in the \njoint stock of the company, but aftei wards that ten persons at least \nshould underwrite £25 each, and to adventure themselves £250, \nand to provide able men to send over to manage the business.\" \nHis name first occurs at the meetings of the general court towards \nthe last of that year. In October he was chosen one of the com- \nmittee for the planters. In December he was chosen one of the \nundertakers. He was chosen one of the assistants, and when \naboard the Arabella, at the last meeting held in England by the \ncompany, it being found that Humphrey who had been chosen \ndeputy Governor could not come, Dudley was chosen deputy \nGovernor in his place. \n\nHe was then about fifty-six years old, but very strong in body \nas well as mind. He had amassed some property, and, what was \nof more moment, had had his character developed and nerved by \nlong and varied experience, and by the very life that would seem \nto be the fittest path for one to take who was to enter upon the \nduties that were before him. Till his death he was one of the \ngoverning minds of the colony. He always held one of the high- \nest offices. \n\nDudley brought with him to this country his wife Dorothy and \nhis children, Samuel, born in 1606, a minister, who married \nMary Winthrop ; Anne, the wife of Governor Bradstreet ; Pa- \ntience, wife of General Denison ; Mercy, wife of Rev. Jno. Wood- \nridge ; another who married Major Keayne ; and Dorothy. \n\nHe first went to Newtown, which is now Cambridge, it being \nagreed that the town and settlement should be there. But whea \nthat arrangement was broken up, he went to Ipswich ; but he re- \nmained there only a short time, and from that place came toRox- \nbury, where he settled, and the family still remains. He built \nupon the west side of Smelt Brook, just across the watering place, \n\n\nPart L] history of roxbury. 99 \n\nat the foot of the hill where the road that runs up to the first \nchurch, joins the Town Street. His house was nearly opposite \nthe apostle Eliot's, and stood where the Universalist meeting house \nnow stands. His old well is now there. There was a breast \nwork thrown up on the same place in the revolution. \n\nWe may judge of Dudley's character from his course in. the \ncolony. In April, 1632, he left, one day, before the court was \nover, and sent in a letter of resignation, which the governor and \nassistants refused to receive. In May, they had a meetmg to \nconsider the matter. Dudley then said that he resigned to keep \npeace, for he felt bound in conscience to speak his mind freely \nand that gave offence, and he had moreover the right to do so \nwhen he pleased. The governor and some others then took him \nto do for some bargains he had made with some poor men of his \ncongregation, to whom he sold seven and half bushels of corn be- \nfore the harvest, to receive ten for it after, which they argued was \noppressive usury, within the meaning and letter of the statute. \nDudley held it was lawful, and he and the governor had high \nwords, and finally he told the governor plainly, if he had thought \nhe had sent for him to his house to give him such usage he would \nnot have come there, and that he never knew any man of under- \nstanding, of any other opinion, and if he thought otherwise of it, \nit was his weakness. The Governor then charged him with ex- \ntravagance, in wainscotting and adorning his house, in the outset \nof their settlement, alleging that they needed all funds and the \nexample was bad. Dudley replied he only put on the clapboards \nin form of wainscot, and he did it for warmth, &c. They finally \nheld that he could not resign, and he continued in office. In Au- \ngust, again, when complaint was made of the governor for remov- \ning his house from Watertown, Dudley showed his character. \nHe began by asking what authority the governor had more than \nany assistant save to call meetings, and affirmed that he had \nnone. But the governor giving a reply that he had, that wound- \ned Dudley ; he told the governor that if he was so round, he \nwould be round too. The governor bade him be round if he \nwould. He sprang up in greaf^rage and fury. The governor \ngrew hot also, and it was with difficulty they were pacified by \nthe interference of mediators. Then Dudley asked by what au- \nthority the governor removed the ordinance and built a fort at \n\n\n100 HISTORV OF ROXIitJKV. pART I.] \n\nBoston ; by what right he lent powder to Plymouth ; or gave the \nWatertown people leave to erert a weir on the river ; by what \nright he licensed Ratclif and Gray to stay in the colony, and why \nhe did not collect fines. The governor answered all these char- \nges. He also recriminated. Such scenes show what Dudley \n\nwas. \n\nIn 1634, Dudley was chosen Governor, and was Governor for \n\nthree years, in 1634, 1640, and 1645. He was deputy thirteen \ntimes. In 1635, he was chosen one of a commission to frame a \nbody of laws for the colony* In 1643, he was appointed commis- \nsioner to frame articles of confederation between the colonies. \nIn 1644, he was chosen Major General. \n\nHe lost his wife in 1643. In 1644, April 14, he married Kath- \narine Hugburne, who had considerable property. \n\nDudley was a thrifty man, and, though somewhat advanced in \nyears, a very enterprising one. He became one of the largest \nland holders. He was a trading, money getting man. From the \nnature of the securities met with, and the records of the levies he \nmade, we may suspect there was some truth in the charges \nagainst him, and that he really was somewhat hard and prone to \nusury. The court granted to him in 1632, two hundred acres of \nland on the west side of Charles river, over against the new town, \nand in 1634, five hundred acres about the falls, on the east side \nof Charles river. There he started the mills, and made money \nout of them. In 1636, they granted to him a thousand acres, \n\" wherever it may hinder no other plantation.\" In 1640, his \npart of the four thousand acres granted to Roxbury, being 460 \nacres, was made 500, and set out to him on Concord river. \n\nHe died in 1653, July 31, on the Lord's day, at night, in his \n77th year. His property was valued at £1560:10:01. We \nfind, in his inventory, bandoliers, corselets, &c. some Latin books, \nsome on law, some that indicate a taste for literature, and many \n^n the doctrines of religion he espoused. \n\nAt the lime when the new lights of that day appeared, he was \nmost earnest in his opposition to them. He even accused Cotton \nof wavering and called him to account. He would have made a \ngood persecutor at any time. He seemed disposed to deny all \ntoleration to others, exactly in proportion as he had himself once \nneeded it. He did as men of btrong passions are apt to do. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. lOl \n\nWhatever cause he did espouse, had his whole heart. Whatever \nhe was against, found him a good hater. \n\nHe was a man of great spirit, energy and force of character. \nHis experience had been long, varied and great. His resources \nand powers were fully developed. The station he had held must \nhave given him a degree of cultivation, of taste and manners, \nsomewhat, to say the least, above most of the colonists, though \nnot so great as Winthrop's. He was well versed in the details \nand management, as well as the principles, of business. His \nmind was cultivated, and his judgment mature and practised. \nHis knowledge of the law was good, and served him and the new \ncolony well. There is reason to suppose he drew the agreement \nfor the Free school. The clause binding the estates is in his \nhand. Though not a polished writer, he was, by no means a \nbad one, as his letter to the Countess of Lincoln, which is a treas- \nure for other merits besides its literary ones, shows. He is said \nto have been no mean poet. It is certain that one of his daugh- \nters was a highly respectable one. As he had for so many years \nsuch controlling influence in public affairs, perhaps it is not too \nmuch to say that the State is a monument to his knowledge, his \njudgment, and his principles. \n\nAllusion has been made to one prominent trait of his charac- \nter, his religious zeal. He was a genuine puritan, stern and de- \nvoted, asking no quarter for his own opinions, and giving none \nto others; not merely esteeming religious concerns important be- \nfore all others, but so constituted that whenever religious affairs \npresented themselves they absorbed all others. Even in his will, \nhe says, \" I leave this testimony behind me for the use and ex- \nample of my posterity, and any others upon whom it may work, \nthat I have hated and do hate any false way in religion, not only \nthe old idolatry and superstition of popery, which is wearing \naway, but many more late, being much worse, the more horrible \nblasphemies and errors of late sprung up in our native country, \nand secretly received and fostered here more than I wish they \nwere.\" \n\nAn epitaph, which is ascribed to him, may serve to illustrate \nthis trait in his character. It will also show with what show of \njustice any body could charge him with being a poet. \n\n\n102 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nDimme eyes, deafe eares, cold stomach shew \n\nMy dissolution is in view. \n\nEleven times seven years lived have I, \n\nAnd now God calls, I willing dye. \n\nMy shuttle's shut, my race is run, \n\nMy sun is set ; my deed is done ; \n\nMy span is measured ; my tale is told ; \n\nMy flower's faded and grown old ; \n\nMy life is vanished ; shadows fled ; \n\nMy soul's with God ; my body dead. \n\nFare well, dear wife, children and friends, \n\nHate Heresy. Make blessed ends. \n\nBear Poverty. Live with good men. \n\nSo shall we meet with joy agen \n\nLet men of God in courts and churches watch \n\nO'er such as do a toleration hatch, \n\nLeast ye ill egg bring forth a cockatrice, \n\nTo pay you all with heresy and vice, \n\nIf men be left and otherwise combine \n\nMine epitaph's I died no libertine.\" \n\nLibertine meant Familist. Heresy meant what heresy always \nmeans to him using the word. He whose blood does not curdle \nat the fierce, cold, self-conceited, bigotry of the man, will at least \npity the folly, the weakness, the lack of christian charity of the \ntime. Yet, there can be no doubt that piety mingled in his con- \nvictions. His intolerance was no cloak. His hatred of gospel \nlibertinism was sincere and conscientious. \n\nHe was one of unbounded hospitality, entertaining strangers, \npoor English and Indians. He gave liberally. If he drove a \ngood bargain, he was a man of exact justice. \n\nIt is said there was on his tomb in the grave yard at the corner \nof Eustis and Washington streets, a leaden plate that had an epi- \ntaph upon it, which was torn off and run up into bullets in the \nrevolution. The epitaph was this : \n\n\"Here lies Thomas Dudley, a lusty old stud, \nA bargains' a bargain and shall be made good.\" \n\nf There must be some doubt whether it is genuine, but it indi- \ncates what was the estimate of his character. Indeed, all who \nspeak of him, unite in praising his ability, integrity, and love of \niu.stice, and more especially his \"hatred of disorder, and his \n\n\nPart l.] history of roxbury. 103 \n\nantipathy to all heresy and corrupt doctrine.\" He was styled \nthe \"antient, honored and trusty soldier of the truth.\" He was \nupright, and honest, and fearlessly spoke his own opinion in the \nface of all men. \n\nOne of the clergy, Nathaniel Kogers, wrote this anagram in \nhis honor. It is worth preserving as showing the fashion of the \nday. \n\nTHOMAS DUDLEY. \nHold, mast, we dy. \n\nWhen swelling gusts of antinomian breath \nHad well nigh wreck'd this little bark to death. \nWhen Oars gan crack, and anchors, then we cry \nHold firm brave mast, thy stand, or else we die. \nOur orth'dox mast did hold, we did not die ; \nOur mast now roU'd by th' board (poor bark) we cry. \nCourage, our pilot, lives, who stills the waves, \nOr midst the surges still his bark he eaves. \n\nHe wrote, also, the following Latin Epitaph : \n\nHeluo librorum, lectorum bibliotheca \n\nCommunis, sacrae, syllabus historiae, \n\nAd mensam comes, hinc facundus, rostra disertus, \n\nNon cumulus verbis, pondus acumen erat, \n\nMorum acris censor, validus defensor amansque, \n\nEt sanae, et canae, catholicae fidei. \n\nAngli-Novi Columen, summum decus, atque senatus, \n\nThomas Dudleius conditur hoc tumulo. \n\nAnother of them is worth noticing for a different reason. \nIn Eliot's diary'it is said that about the 16th of the 5th month, \n1645, some nameless author sent to Dudley, then governor, this \nanagram. \n\nTHOMAS DUDLEY. \nAh ! Old, must dye. \n\nA deaths head on you you would not weare ; \nA dying head you on your shoulders beare. \nYou need not one to minde you you must dye. \nYou in your name may spell mortalitye, \nYoung men may dye, but old men they dye must \nLord it can't be longr } , ^ . . ,„ . \n\n'Twill not be long ° i^'^\"'' y°» t\"\"^\"\" *^ '^^'*- \n\n\n104 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nBefore you turne to dust ! Ah, Must, Old ! dye ! \nWhat shall younge doe when old in dust doe lye, \nWhen old in dust lye ; what shall New England doe ? \nWhen old in dust lye, it's best dye too. \n\nEliot was guilty of doggrel. This is in his vein. And it is \nhard to see why he should have questioned the best reading of a \nline, or noticed such a thing at all, or written it out at length, un- \nless it was his own. \n\nBesides the children named already, Thomas Dudley had a \ndaughter Deborah, born 1645, and Joseph, born Sept. 23, 1647, \nwho was afterwards governor of the colony, M. P., &c. \n\nThe descendants of Dudley have been amongst the first men \nin the country. \n\nMr. John Eliot, the next person whose name we meet, was the \ncounterpart of Thomas Dudley. He was born at Nasing, in \nEssex, England, in November, 1604. \n\nAll that is known of his early life is that he was trained up \nunder the care of pious parents, and that, as he says \"his first \nyears were seasoned with the fear of God, the word and prayer.\" \n\nHe received a thorough education at Jesus College in the \nCambridge University, where he took a degree in 1622. He \nthere laid the basis of a thorough knowledge of the original lan- \nguages of the Bible and of great theological learning. He was \nparticularly fond of philological studies, and became a critical and \nan accurate scholar. \n\nAfter leaving the University, he was engaged as teacher in a \nschool kept by Mr. Hooker, the eminent divine. There, no \ndoubt, he got the ideas which brought him to New England.— \nHe always said that \"the days he spent with Hooker were a rich \nblessing to his soul.\" It was \"in the quiet sanctity of Hooker's \nhousehold,\" that his spiritual life was kindled into that expansive \nenergy which led him with unalterable purpose to the service of \nGod.\" \n\nHe came over in the Lyon, which arrived November 3d, 1631, \nand immediately joined the church at Boston. There he \"exer- \ncised.\" He continued there till his removal to Roxbury. The \nBoston people desired him to become their Teacher, and labored \nall they could, with him and the church at Roxbury, to induce \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxburv. 105 \n\nhim to accept their call, but, regarding himself bound to his \nfriends at Roxbury, he could not be prevailed on to decline their \ninvitation, and he was dismissed to Roxbury. He was ordained \nTeacher of the first church, November 5th, 1632. Rev. Thomas \nWeld had been invested with the Pastoral care, in July preceding. \nft is generally said that Mr. Weld was settled after and under \nMr. Eliot, as his colleague. But this is a mistake. In October, \n1632, Eliot was married to the lady to whom he had been es- \npoused before he left England, and who came on the year after \nhis arrival. \n\nThough Eliot was young when he began his work here, and \nhad had little, if any, knowledge of the world, he, as well as \nDudley, had had just that education which best fitted him for the \nlife he had to lead. Dudley was advanced in life, was guided by \njudgment, prudence, and his will. Coming to find an asylum \nfor his opinions, professing to hate heresy and intolerance, he \nwas himself most bigoted and intolerant. Eliot listened to noth- \ning but the call of conscience. He cared for all men, but himself \nleast. He set earnestly about a work, from which he could have \nhoped for neither fame, influence, or any worldly advantage. — \nThe best that can be said of Dudley, is, that he was well fitted \nfor the political service of that early day, Eliot had before him \nthe work of a christian missionary. \n\nEliot has been known to the whole world for his public labors, \nand these we will first consider. Great, as must have been the \nlabors of his parish in those days, they did not deter him from \nundertaking greater labors than any other man ever accom- \nplished. In the first place he set about learning the Indian lan- \nguage. It is said that he learned this in two years so that he \npreached in it. But this statement seems to be improbable in \nitself. Without book, or teacher, he had to grope his way from \nthe unintelligible sounds of the barbarous natives, into the mys- \nteries of a language that it would be no easy thing to master \nwith all the helps of learning. He had first to learn to under- \nstand the common talk. Then he had to learn the fit analogies \nto express what he had to teach, for which they had no words, \nbut which he must still teach in the language of the natives. — \nAnd he had also to study the Indian and reduce it to some sys- \ntem, to study its laws scientifically, as well as to learn the words, \n14 \n\n\n106 HISTORY OF ROXBURT. [pART f. \n\nby memory, in order to reduce il to a written tongue. It is said \nhe took Job Nesutan into his family to learn the language. It is \nmuch more probable that he had been studying the language for \nseveral years. Amongst the deaths recorded in town is one, in \n1646, of \"an Indian who had lived ten years with the whites,. \nand could read.\" From our knowledge of Eliot, we cannot help \nbelieving that Eliot taught, and learned of this person. He was \nno man to stand idle ten years, with the tools for his work \nbefore hira. \n\nThere were many Indians in the vicinity of Roxbury, and very \nIfkely many within the town, though but rare traces are found of \nthem. Eliot first went to preach to them at Nonantum, October \n28th, 1646. He preached there again on the eleventh, and again \non the twenty-sixth of November, in the same year. The whole \nproceedings of the meetings are still preserved. After prayer and \na discourse, the Indians put such questions as suggested them- \nselves, such as these. How he knew Jesus Christ ? Whether the \nEnglish ivere ever ignorant of Christ ? Whether Christ coidd \nunderstand prayers in Indian ? How the ivorld came to be full \nof people, if all men were drowned in the flood ? Why sea ivater \nivas salt and river water fresh ? These and many more were put \nat the difTerent meetings. They are curious and interesting as \nthev show the operation of men's minds and of the religious sen- \ntiment. But they are too voluminous for the limits of this sketch. \nThe accounts of the meetings were sent to England and soon af- \nter published and excited great interest. \n\nIt was a maxim with Eliot that the Indians must be civilized in \norder to their being christianized. Accordingly, he took the \ngreatest pains not only to teach them the truths of Christianity, \nbut to show to them the benefits of the various arts known to the \nEnglish, and to urge them to industry, good order, and good gov- \nernment. He looked to their physical comfort. \" Cleanliness\" \nhe considered \" next to Godliness.\" On the organization of a \ntown at Natick, a simple code of laws was agreed upon, which in- \ndicate at once the habits of the natives, and the aim and obstacles \nof Eliot. They punished 1st, idleness, 2d, licentiousness, 3d, \ncruelty to women, 4th, vagrancy, 5th, looseness in dress, 6th, fil- \nthiness in person. These were, no doubt, made by Eliot. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 107 \n\nBefore, or about the time when Eliot commenced his labor at \nNonantum.he had visited the Indians at Dorchester mill, but was \nnot well received by them, though they afterwards desired him \nto preach to them. He began with those in his immediate vicin- \nity. The next year, he went to Concord to preach, when he con- \nverted the chief and gained converts in the tribe. In 1648, he \nwent to a tribe on the Merrimac, in 1648 to Yarmouth, after- \nwards to Lancaster and Brookfield. It was his custom for many \nyears to preach to the Indians once a fortnight. In 1670 he made \na journey to the Indians at Martha's Vineyard. In 1673-4 he \ntravelled through the country of the Nipmucks, who inhabited the \nsouthern parts of Western Massachusetts and the North of Con- \nnecticut, preaching constantly and teaching them in their wig- \nwams. \n\nThe progress he made was not rapid. It may be judged of \nfrom the fact that, at the breaking out of Philip's war the whole \nnumber of christian Indians in the Massachusetts colony was \nabout 1150. The work was beset with difficulties. King Philip \ntold the Apostle, that he cared no more for his religion than for a \nbutton on his coat. Ninigret, the Narraganset sachem, when re- \nquested by Mayhew leave to preach to his tribe, told him to make \nthe English good first. There was great personal danger and \nhardship. On one occasion, the life of Mr. Eliot was threatened \nif he dared to visit a certain tribe, but he did not hesitate, saying, \n'\" it is God's work and I fear not,\" and he went, under the guard \nof his friends and some christian Indians. In one of his letters, \nhe says \" I have not been dry night nor day, from the third day \nof the week unto the sixth, but so travelled, and at night pull off \nmy boots, wring my stockings and on with them again, and so \ncontinue. But God steps in and helps.\" Gookin, a judge of the \nIndian Court, said he was afraid to go through the streets alone. \nEliot was not proof against all hardship. In 1657, he was \n** exercised by the sciatica, en^Mung much anguish and dolour,\" \nso that he could not preach for twenty weeks. \n\nYet he accomplished much. Under him the Indians became \nneat, and industrious. They began to leave their old habits and \norganize into civilized society. Several of their towns became \nquite thriving and respectable. In 1647, on Eliot's petition a \ncourt was established for the Indian tribe of Nonantum. The \n\n\n108 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART !. \n\nwarrant of Mr. Justice Waban, \" You, you big constable, quick \nyou catch urn Jeremiah OfTscow, strong you hold urn, safe you \nbring um, afore me Waban, justice peace,\" and his righteous \njudgment in the case, between the drunken Indians, \" tie um all \nup, and whip um plaintiff, and whip um fendant, and whip um \nwitness,\" have become equally well known, but the general good \norder and thrifty condition of the Natick Indians is proof enough \nof a wise administration of afTairs. Even the ridiculous warrant \nis equalled in brevity by one from the English court. \" To the \nMarshal, or his deputy. By virtue hereof you are required to \nlevy of the land of John Lamb to the value of £50 : 18, (and 2sh. \nfor this ex'on,) to satisfy the worshipful! Thomas Dudley for a \njudgment granted at the Court held at Boston the 6th month.\" \n\nIn 1647, there was a synod which the Indians attended. A ser- \nmon was preached in the Indian language, and after it they had \nan opportunity to put any questions that suggested themselves. \n\nIn 1650, the Natick Indians urged Eliot to allow them to form \na town. The Indian Town was organized the sixth of August, \n1651. The regular formation of a church was conducted with \ngreat caution, from conscientious fears lest the natives should be \nadmitted to communion without fit preparation. Repeated exam- \ninations were had, some of them public; and, in 1660, an Indian \nchurch was formed. \n\nIn connection with these labors, Eliot undertook and accom- \nplished others, designed to establish his work on a lasting basis. \nHe thought of making a translation of the Bible at least as early \nas 1649. In 1651, he had begun it. In 1661, the New Testa- \nment was published in Indian, and the Old Testament in 1663. \nHis labors for the Indians were the dearest objects of his heart. \nThe result he hoped for was one that it cheered his manly and \nbenevolent soul to think upon. He looked to the direct effect of \nhis own labors with the greater solicitude, because, having few \nto aid him, he could not but feel how much the success of his \nobjects depended on his own single arm alone. He had not \nmerely to write but to do much of the labor of printing also. In \na letter written concerning a second edition of the Bible, which \nwas published in 1685, he speaks of having only one person be- \nsides himself able to conduct the work. This was the Indian \nJames, who got the sirname Printer from his calling. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 109 \n\nIn speaking of this work, Edward Everett has said \"since the \n\" days of the Apostle Paul, a nobler, truer, and warmer spirit than \n\"John Eliot never lived ; and taking the state of the country, the \n\" narrowness of the means, the rudeness of the age, into consid- \n\"eration, the History of the Christian Church does not contain \n\" an example of resolute, untiring, successful labor, superior to \n\" that of translating the entire Scriptures into the language of the \n\" native tribes of Massachusetts, a labor performed under the con- \n\" stant burden of his duties as a minister and a preacher and at a \n\" time when his spirits began to flag.\" \n\nBut it seems to me that vast as was the undertaking, & however \ncommon patience might have broken under so long and wearisome \na labor, the literary toil of Eliot was not so great as his mission- \nary labors. In these, while he had few of the pleasures of study \nor learning, he had quite as much tedious drudgery, and he had \nalso to encounter danger, to endure excessive hardships, and what \nperhaps would be most trying of all, to withstand the attacks and \ncalumnies of the English, themselves. The feelings of many of \nthe English were hostile to his efforts. When the natives were \ncommitting depredations on their property, burning their villages, \nand murdering families all about, the English could not enter \nwith great sympathy into the feelings of Eliot. Besides this, \nEliot had the pain of seeing his best efforts thwarted, in a hun- \ndred ways, and the labors of twice as many years as it took him \nto translate the Bible, undone in a moment, by some cruel or im- \nprudent act on the part of his own countrymen. Such things as \nthese will damp and dishearten one who fears no danger and \nnever is tired with the severest labor. \n\nFor f()rty years, day after day, week after week, he continued \nhis visits to the Indians, not merely preaching, and holding \n\"talks\" with them, but going about amongst them every where, \nas the earliest code of laws proves, in the midst of every thing \nloathsome and revolting. His feelings must have been bitter \nwhen at the end of the war he found that more than half those \nwho had been numbered amongst the little body of his converts, \nhad renounced the faith, and taken up arms against the English. \n\nIn 1675, several captive Indians were brought to Boston. — \nEliot interested himself deeply in their behalf. Hit= diary shows \nhow warm was his sympathy. But the people looked at it with \n\n\nno HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART I. \n\njealousy, and nothing but respect for Eliot could have prevented \nforcible interference. It was a sore trial for him to see men \nruthlessly rooting out the truths he had planted, and to feel that, \nsuch was the state of men's minds, no one would again attempt \nto do what he had effected. \n\nIn 1675, is a note in his diary \"soone after the warre wh. ye \n\" Indians brake forth, the history wr. off I cannot, I may not re- \n*' late, the prophane Indians proved a sharpe rod to the English, \n\" and the English proved a very sharpe rod to the praying \n*' Indians.\" \n\nAfter the war was over, he records how the soldiers welcomed \nour Indians (the praying Indians) wherever they met them and \n*'led them to the ordinarys and made them drink, and bred them \n*' by such a habit to love strong drink, so that it was a terrible \n\"snare to us. They learned so to love strong drink that they \n\" spent all their wages and pawned all they had for strong \n*' drink,\" \"so that drunkenness increased, quarrelling and fating,\" \n&c. He then laments over the loss of their Bibles. \n\nThe translation of the Bible could not so severely tax all his \nenergies, as these labors. It certainly was attended with none of \nthe bitter discouragements he found in them. \n\nBesides the Bible, Eliot translated many other books into the \nIndian language. Baxter's Call, and the Psalter, were published \nin 1664, the Indian Grammar, in 1666, several editions of Cate- \nchisms and Primers, the \"Sound Believer,\" and some tracts, \nabout the same time. \n\nBesides his Indian books, Eliot wrote and published several \nEnglish ones ; in 1665, the \"Communion of the Churches ;\" in \n1672, the \"Logical Primer;\" in 1678, the \"Harmony of the \nGospels.\" \n\n\"The Christian Commonwealth,\" was also written by Eliot. — \nThis was a rare book and little known here till its recent publica- \ntion by the Historical Society. It probably appeared during the \nlatter part of Cromwell's government, or just before the restora- \ntion of Charles II, in 1660. In May, (the 22d) 1661, the Gen- \neral Court deeming sundry expressions therein, \"touching kingly \nGovernment in England, offensive,\" \"ordered that nil persons \nwhatsoever in this jurisdiction, that have any of the said Bookes \n{« thcirc Custody, shall on theire perrills, within fowerleen dayes \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. Ill \n\nafter publication hereof, cancel and deface the same, or deliver \nthem unto the next Magistrate, or to the Secretary, whereby all \ndivulgemeni and improvement of the said offensive Booke may- \nbe prevented,\" and Eliot's acknowledgement be copied and \nposted in Boston, Charlestown, Cambridge, Salem and Ipswich. \nHe acknowledged the lawfulness of the English government, \nand the error of such expressions as too manifestly scandalized \nthe Government by the King, as anti-christian, and that all forms \nof government deduced from Scripture, are of God. \n\nThe Christian Commonwealth was a form of government, \nwhich Eliot proposed to have adopted by the English Common- \nwealth. It was based on what he found in the Scriptures, and he \nthought that no one could deny it without derogating from their \n\" sufficiency and perfection.\" It was upon a similar plan that \nNatick was organized. The form proposed was for individuals \nto organize into tens, or tithings, tens into hundreds, and so up- \n_ wards, with rulers of tens, fifties, hundreds, thousands, &c. The \nseveral rulers in their jurisdictions were to be judges and cases \nwere to be carried from one court to another up to the highest \ncouncil chosen by the whole body. Each ruler was to expound \nthe law according to the Scriptures, and each was to superintend \nand direct those below him. The Supreme Council was to have \nsupervision of all. It was the highest court of law. It had the \npower of declaring war and making peace, and the power of reg- \nulating commerce, the arts, and religion. This he termed a Sin- \ngle Platform. But he contemplated the indefinite extension of \nthe plan so as to embrace any number, and provided for rulers of \nmyriads, ten myriads, millions, &c. He provided also for the \nchoice of Princes, in populous Nations where there are other civil \ndistinctions of societies, to take care of the good government of \nthe superior rulers under them, and be members of the Supreme \nCouncil, who should be chosen by the people over whom they \nwere to rule. For laws the Scriptures were to be the guide, be- \ning, as he said, \" the perfect system to guide all the morall actions \nof man either towards God or man,\" the rules whereof the Judges \nwere to apply to each man, guided \"by their wisdom and discre- \ntion, and a pure conscience.\" Each decided case would become \na precedent according to the principles of the common law. \n\n\n112 HISTORY OF ROXBURV. [PaRT I. \n\nThe work shows that he was, as he said, no Statesman, in the \ncommon acceptation of the term. It does not manifest any \nknowledge of the science of political government, and its various \nchecks and balancing powers. On the other hand it indicates, \nfor that day, a liberal mind. It does not, like the early laws of \nthe colony, for instance, copy the exact penalties of the Mosaic \ncode ; and unless limits are to be fixed, by construction, to his \nplan, where he has placed none, there may be found in this work \nthe statement of a principle higher than has ever yet been \nadopted by anj- government in the world, of the absolute harmo- \nny of all laws. Divine and human, that no enactments of man \ncan be binding which conflict with the laws of God. Govern- \nments have been based on the idea of the sacrifice of the rights \nof individuals, and men have had hardly time to study the \ntheory of securing to each, perfect protection. \n\nEliot has been censured for his retractions, as an instance of \nweakness. But, if the whole work be carefully considered, it \nwill be seen that he rather acknowledged that he had no desire to \npromote civil dissention, and did not desire that the strongest \nconstructions should be given to a few phrases as perhaps appli- \ncable to existing circumstances, but intended a general application \nof his theory, whilst he still insisted on the general proposition of \nthe legitimacy of Divine laws for human government. i\\Iuch of \nthe force of this will depend on the sense in which he intended \nto speak of the laborer against Antichrist, whether as against a \nsingle man, or for all noble works. \n\nThe inquiry which will most interest us, is how these labors of \nMr. Eliot were viewed and supported by his own people. And, \nthough no full account can be given of their labors with him, \nthere is evidence enough to show that they approved and aided \nhis efforts for the Indians. \n\nDaniel Gookin, the one who, next to Eliot, was most active in \nthis work, lived, for a time at Eoxbury. In one of his letters, \nEliot speaks of asking advice of one of the Elders of his church \non some matter of importance concerning the Indians. This, no \ndoubt, was Elder Heath. In a later letter he speaks of the great \nencouragement of the Ruling Elder. Another letter of that day, \nwritten by one interested in those matters, mentions Eliot's broth- \ner as a \"right godly and diligent person who useth to accompany\" \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 1 13 \n\nhim. This was Philip Eliot. In anolher letter, Eliot speaks of \n\" four of us\" going to the Indians. Very likely they were Gock- \nin, Heath, his brother Philip, and himself. In July, 1654, there \nwas a public examination of the Indians in Eliot's church at Rox- \nbury. There were several Indians who became members of his \nchurch. From these circumstances, and the unbounded love and \nrespect felt by the Roxbury people for BIr. Eliot as long as he \nlived, there can be no doubt that they did all in their power to en- \ncourage his work amongst the Indians. In several instances vis- \nits of the Indians to Roxbury are mentioned. \n\nAnolher circumstance is worth noticing. When the people of \nRoxbury came to take up lands, they selected their locations \namongst the praying Indians in the country then known as the \ncountry of the Nipmucks, at Manchage, now Oxford, at Chabun- \nakongkoman, or Dudley, Waanexit, Quatesset, and Wabquissit, \nthe present town of Woodstock in Connecticut, and other places \nwhere the Indians had been converted lo Christianity. This, cer- \ntainly, is a sure indication of the steady adherence of his fellow \ntownsmen, and their belief in the actual benefits of his missionary \nlabors. \n\nThe same thing may be inferred from the fact that he never, \nfor one moment, held any but the first place in the esteem and \nlove of his own parish, those who knew all he did, and the mo- \ntives that governed him. \n\nOf his labors in his ofRce very little can be told. But for near- \nly sixty years he remained with the parish, and always was be- \nloved by all. There is not a word that is not in his praise. A \nsingle anecdote, which was told by some of the ancient inhabi- \ntants of the town, shows what was the character that stamped it- \nself on their memories. \n\nHis charity was so great that his salary was often distributed \nfor the relief of his needy neighbors, so soon after the period at \nwhich he received it, that before another period arrived his own \nfamily were straitened for the comforts of life. One day the par- \nish treasurer, on paying the money due, which he put into a \nhandkerchief, in order to prevent Mr. Eliot from giving away his \nmoney before he got home, tied the ends of the handkerchief in \nas many hard knots as he could. The good man received the \nhandkerchief and took leave of the treasurer. He immediately \n15 \n\n\nn4 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT F. \n\nwent to the house of a sick and necessitous family. On entering \nhe gave them his blessing, and told them God had sent them \nsome relief. The sufferers, with tears of gratitude welcomed \ntheir pious benefactor, who, with moistened eyes began to untie \nthe knots in his handkerchief. After many efforts to get at his \nmoney, and impatient at the perplexity and delay, he gave the \nhandkerchief and all the money to the mother of the family, say- \ning with trembling accents, \" Here, my dear, take it; J believe \nthe Lord designed all for you.\" Whenever he is spoken of by \nany of them he is named in terms of more than common endear- \nment. \n\nIt could not have been otherwise. He worked only for good. \nHe was earnest and sincere. The great principle of active benev- \nolence governed him in all his acts. I have alluded to the pain \nwith which he saw the while men tempt the poor natives, whom \nhe had partly redeemed, back to their evil life. No one ever \nwept more bitterly than he did over the wrongs done to the red \nman. But his sympathies were awake to every thing humane. \nThe facts noted in his diary show his character, and they strike \none the more as they contrast themselves with such as Mr. Dan- \nforth records side by side with them. Danforth records the dates \nof earthquakes, ordinations, fasts, shipwrecks, the appearances of \ncomets and their positions, the weather, synods, accidents, and \ngossip in general. Eliot thanks God that the £12 : IS : 09 which \nthey raised to buy Edward Stowell out of Turkish captivity made \nup just the sum needed. He speaks of the attempts made to re- \nduce Southold and Southampton, \" because they stand for their \nliberty ;\" of the Sabbath School ; of \" the gracious gift of char- \nity from the friends in Dublin for such as died in the warr ;\" of \nhis visits to men, indians and whites, in prison, and on the scaf- \nfold. Every thing tells of his philanthrophy. \n\nIn his parish he always declined taking wine, quietly remark- \ning that it was an ancient beverage undoubtedly, but he believed \nwater was an older one. He utterly condemned the filthy use of \ntobacco.' He;:preached and prayed against wigs and long hair, \nand censured many fashions of the day as ridiculous. Some of \nhis biographers have set down his sentiments on these matters as \nwell as on war, temperance, and the treatment of the natives, to \nhis \" prejudices.\" But they condemn themselves more than they \n\n\nPart!.] history of roxbury. 115 \n\ncensure him. He considered what was just, and thought of the \nfoUies of fashion as they indicated and affected character. For \nhimself he saved, that he might be liberal. He never had but one \ndish at meal. He wore a leathern girdle. Yet, notwithstanding \nhis great private benevolence, with his small salary, he accom- \nplished very costly undertakings. \n\nWhen he could not preach, at the close of his life, he said to \nthe parish, \"I do here give up my salary to the Lord Jesus Christ, \nand now brethren, you may fix that upon any man that God shall \nmake a pastor.\" But the Society declined to receive it, saying \nthey deemed his presence necessary, whatever sum was granted \nfor his support. \n\n\" Mr. Eliot was peculiarly happy in domestic life. His wife \n\" was an excellent economist, and by her prudent management \n\" enabled him to be generous to his friends and hospitable to \n\" strangers. With a moderate stipend, he educated four sons at \n\" college.\" \n\nAs a preacher, Eliot was very eflfective and popular. His man- \nner was easy and pleasing, his voice sweet and clear, his style \nplain, and free from the conceit of the day. He always was ear- \nnest and spoke from the fulness of his own feelings. \n\nIn a publication of 1654, Eliot is thus noticed : \n\n\"Mr. Eliot, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Roxbury, in \n** New England, much honored for his labors in the Lord. \n\nGreate is thy worke in Wildernesse, Oh man, \nYoung Eliot neere twenty yeares thou hast \n\nIn western worlde with miccle toil thy span \nSpent well — neere out, and now thy grey havers gracest \n\nAre by thy Land Lord Christ, who makes use of thee \nTo feede his flock, and heathen people teach, \n\nIn theire owne language, God and Christ, to see : \nA Saviour their blind hearts could not reach, \n\nPoore naked children come to lerne God's mind \nBefore thy face with reverent regard. \n\nBlesse God for thee may theese poore heathen blinde, \nThat from thy mouth Christ's gospell swete have heard, \n\nEliot thy name is through the wild woods spread. \nIn Indian mouths frequents' thy fame, for why ? \n\nIn sundry shapes the Devills make them dread : \nAnd now the Lord makes them Iheir wigwam fly, \n\n\n116 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART 1. \n\nRejoice in this, nay rather joy that thou, \nAmongst Christs' soldiers hast thy name sure set, \n\nAlthough small gaine on earth accrew to you, \nYet Christ to crowne will thee to Heaven soone fet. \n\nYet the ''gray haired man\" had not \"spent his span well-neere \nout.\" For nearly forty years after that was written, did he keep \non in his work with the same energy, zeal and activity that he \nhad had when a young man. \n\nThere seems to be a fatality about the connection of whites \nwith the red men. It was thought that Eliot was founding a \ngreat work. But it failed and ended with him. The very last \ndescendant of the Natick town has gone. His code of laws was \ncondemned by his own friends, from the meanest fawning on \npower. His college never graduated so many as it took to plan \nit. His schools soon ceased. His books are rare curiosities. — \nEven the Bible, to which he trusted to bless millions, and to ele- \nvate a race of men, cannot be read by a single man in the whole \nworld. The Indians are driven away thousands of miles from \nthe spot where he believed they would live as civilized men. — \nEven in his own day he saw his converts melting away under \nvarious influences ; and now he seems to be esteemed by the \nworld as one of its good men : some, with Everett, associate \ngreatness with his name. Yet even his biographers speak of \nhim as \"the good old man,\" \"the pious heart,\" in the pitying tone, \noftener than in the true significance of those honorable words, \nand apply to his labors the eternal test of every thing but truth \nand nobleness, cui bono. Thus weighed, as we have seen, his \nlabors \"amount to\" nothing. He left a true life. \n\nYet Eliot was great, in the highest sense. To a heart run- \nning over with Christ-like love, to a spirit which, for untiring \nresolution, the world has never equalled, he added lofty and lib- \neral views. Could he but furnish to a tew about him the ele- \nments of knowledge, teach them the gospel, open paths for others, \nmake a grammar, write the language, found Indian schools and \ncolleges, print the Bible so that the natives could read it, teach \nthem the benefits of art and industry, organize their society and \ngovernment, he looked forward with the faith of a prophetic soul, \nto results which would put to shame all that most of the world's \n\"great\" men have done. He was more than a laborious mission- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 117 \n\nary, more than such as Penn. His works and plans show a \nmind of the highest order. Results, so called, are a fallacious \ntest of merit. The man must be weighed, independent of his \nsuccess. \n\nHow could Eliot be measured, for instance, with Thomas Dud- \nley. One was a public man, loaded with honors, a rich man, \"a \nzealous defender of the faith.\" The other went quietly to work, \nalmost alone, spending all he had, encountering danger and earn- \ning reproach. In their characters all is contrasted. One was a \nman of the world. The other was spiritual, living out what he \nused to say, \"Heaven is here.\" \n\nThe traits of character, which strike men most, in Eliot, are \nhis purity and spirituality, his ardor and resolution, his benevo- \nlence and humility. He vvas a Christian. He was complete \nand well balanced. About all he said and did, there is that re- \npose which seems to be characteristic of the works of a great \nsoul. In almost his last letter to England, as earnest as ever \nabout the Indian work, with which he is identified, he speaks \nwith perfect calmness of his death as \"drawing home.\" By con- \nsent of the world, Eliot has been named an Apostle. \"His mem- \nory is precious.\" \n\nHe lived nearly opposite Thomas Dudley's, on the other side \nof the Brook, just back of the spot where Guild hall stands. \n\nHe died May 20th, 1690, in his 86ih year, and was buried in \nwhat was called \"the minister's tomb,\" in the first burial place, a \ntomb which was built by subscription partly, and to which the \nfamilies of the ministers had some right. \n\nThe foUoioing is the record in the book of the first Church, in his \noivn hand. \nMr. John Eliot he came to N. E. in the 9th month, 1631 ; he \nleft his intended wife in England, to come the next year. He \nadjoyned to the Church at Boston and there exercised in the ab- \nsence of Mr. Wilson, the pastor of the Church, who was gone \nback to England for his wife and family. The next summer, Mr. \nWilson relumed, and by ye time the Church at Boston was in- \ntended to call him to office, his friends were come over, and set- \ntled at Rocksbrough, to whom he was first engaged that if he \nwere not called before they came, he was to be joyned to them \n\n\n118 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nwhereupon the Church at Rocksbrough called him to be Teacher \nin the end of the summer, and soon after, he was ordained to the \noffice in the Church. Also, his wife come along with the rest of \nhis friends the same time, and soon after their coming, they were \nmartied, viz: in the 8th month, 1632. Hannah, his first born \ndaughter, was born the 17th day of 7th month. Anno, 1633: \nJohn, his first-born son, was born 31 of 6th, 1636: Joseph, born \n20th, 10th, 1638: Samuel, born 22d of 4th, 1641: Aaron, born \n19th of 12th, 1643 : Benjamin, 29ih of 11th, 1646. \n\nPhilip Eliot, the brother of John, came in 1635, freeman in \n1636. He was a man of influence in the town, being often se- \nlectman. He was feoffee of the school property, commissioner \nfor government of the town, deputy, several years a representa- \ntive, and for a long time deacon of the church. He died in 1657, \nthe 22d of the 8th month. The church records thus give his \ncharacter. \"He was a man of grace and very faithful, lively, \nuseful and active for God.\" In the school records, or history, he \nis not named as teacher, but, from the documents, it appears \nthat he was chosen a teacher of the free school. His property \nwas appraised in 1658 at £810 : 01 : 10. His will provided that, \nafter the death of his widow Elizabeth, Richard Withington of \nDorchester, John Aldis of Dedham, and John Smith of Dedham, \nshould make division of his property in right of their wives. He \nlived west of Stony River. \n\nJohn Evans. \n\nJacob Eliot, senior. In 1661, an inventory was taken of his \nproperty, in which he is spoken of as \" formerly deceased.\" It \nnames \" Jacob Eliot, jr.\" \" mares and colts at Brantry with Fran- \ncis Eliot,\" and a \" mare at Sudbury.\" \n\nMargery Eliot died in 1662, worth £294 : 19 : 08. \n\nSarmiel Finch was made freeman in 1634. His wife was Mar- \ntha. He lived near Hugh Pritchard. \n\nMr. Joshua Foote had house and four acres next to Thomas \nWeld's. \n\nRobert GamhUrujr. came in 1632, and brought with him John \nMayo, the son of his former wife. Hi? wife's name was Eliz- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 119 \n\nabeih. His father settled in Concord. He settled on Stony Riv- \ner, just North of Thomas Bell's. The children born to him here \nwere Elizabeth, born June 24, 1634; Joseph, born March 14, \n1636; Benjamin, born 1639; Mary, born March 6, 1641. He \nwas made freeman in 1634, and was a person of some weight in \ntown concerns. Gamblin's End, no doubt, took its name fromi \nhim. One of his daughters married Isaac Chenery. \n\nMary Gamlin, a maid servant, daughter of Robert Gamlin, sen- \nior, came in 1632, and died in 1633. \n\nArthur Gary, or Gery, (see Gary,) had a house with five acres \nnext to William Heaths. He died in 1666. \n\nWilliam Gary had a homestead of five acres, west of Stony \nRiver. \n\nThomas Garner, or Gardner, married Lucy Smith, 1641, had \nAndrew, born March 5, 1641 ; Thomas, born 1645 ; Abigail, \nborn Feb. 15, 1645, died 1649 : Mary, born April 9, 1647; Pe- \nter, baptized Sept. 8, 1650. He died July 15, 16S9. \n\n\" Our aged Sister'' Gardner, died 1658. \n\nPeter Gardner, or Garner, married Rebecca Groote in 1646 ; \nhad son Peter, June 24, 1647; Rebecca, baptized Nov. 9, 1647. \n\nSamuel Garner and Lieut. Samuel Garner, are named in the \nrecords as slain by the Indians in 1676. Samuel was son of Pe- \nter. \n\nMr. John Gore was freeman in 1637. His son John was born \nin England, May 23, 1634. Obadiah was born here June 27, \n1636, and died, 1646; Abigail, born Aug. 5, 1641, died, 1642; \nAbigail, baptised May 5, 1643; Hannah, born May 5, 1645; \nObadiah, baptised, 1649. His homestead of four acres, was west \nof Stony River, and bounded on the way leading to the landing \nplace and tide mill. He died in 1657. The children of his who \nwere then living, were John, Mary, Samuel, Abigail and Hannah. \nJohn was clerk of the writs in 1632. Governor Gore was of this \nfamily. \n\n\n120 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART I. \n\nJohn Gorton, whose wife was named Mary, died, 1636. He \nhad six acres called the \"Wolf's Trapp,\" east of the Dorchester \nroad, bounded on William Parke's and William Cheney's. His \ndaughter Mary died Aug., 1636. He had Mary, born 1641; \nSarah, baptized Jan. 4, 1643; Mary, baptized July 6, 1646. \n\nDaniel Googan had daughter Elizabeth in 1644. \n\nJohn Graves came in 1633, freeman, 1637. His wife was Ju- \ndith Alward. They were married in 1635. They had Hannah, \nborn 1636. They brought five children. He died in 1644, \nleaving Jonathan, John, Mary, and Samuel, The will of John \nGraves, junior, is recorded in 1646. \n\nOld Mrs. Graves died in 1644, aged 80 years. \n\nRichard Goade married Phebe Hews in 1639. Children, John \nand Hannah, baptized 1643. Hannah, born 1641 ; Mary, born \nJune 23, 1644 ; Phebe, born March 12, 1646; Joseph, born Sep. \n21, 1647, died, 1648. He had a homestead of three acres on \nthe Dorchester road. \n\nThomas Griggs married Mary Green in 1640. His former \nwife died in 1639. He died in 1646. \n\nSamuel Hagborne, or Hugburne, or Haeburne, had children, \nElizabeth, born April 24, 1635 ; Samuel, born 1637 ; John, born \n1640 ; Hannah, born Jan. 5, 1642. He lived East of the Street \nnow Roxbury Street. He died in 1642, the 24th of the 11th \nmonth. He was a rich man. In his will he provided that ten \nshillings per annum should be paid to the free schoole of the \ntowne, when they should set one up, out of the neck, then and \nlong afterwards called Hagburne's or Haeburne's neck, and ten \nshillings out of the house and home lot. His \"widow\" is named \nin the Church records. \n\nJohn Hale. [Name alone.] \n\nMargery Hamviond, a maid servant, came in 1632, and was \nmarried to John Ruggles. \n\nHanchet, the same name probably as Hansett, married Eliza- \nbeth Perrv in 1644. Had son, Thomas, in Oct., 1645 ; Samuel \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 121 \n\ndied, 1646 ; Hannah, one born in 1647 — another born Oct. 14, \n1649, died, 1649. \n\nRobert Harris, married Elizabeth Boffer in 1642, had child \nElizabeth, born 1644, and Timothy, baptized July 9, 1650. \n\nWilliam Heath came in 1632, and brought five children, Mary, \nIsaac, Martha, Peleg, Hannah. He was freeman in 1632-3, and \nrepresentative to the first general court, and for six years. He \ndied in 1652, an \" able, godly and faithful brother,\" His first \nwife (and daughter Mary) were named Speare. \n\nIsaac Heath was made freeman in 1636, was representative in \n1637-8. An infant child of his died in 1641. His house was \nwest of the road that led from Boston to the meeting house. He \nwas ruling elder, and brother to William. He was one of the \nchief men in town. \n\nIsaac Heath, (probably a son) was made freeman in 1652, mar- \nried Mary Davis in 1650, had son, Isaac, born 1655. He lived \non Stony Eiver, and had four acres there, bounded West on high- \nway on the hill. \n\nIsrael Heath was a representative in 1636-7. \n\nPeleg Heath was freeman in 1652. \n\nWilliani Healey was here in 1647. He had a house and mill \nlot of three acres, bounded South on the highway, North on Hugh \nPrichard, (who lived east of the road to Brookline) West on the \nway to the landing place. Elizabeth was born Nov. 9, 1647 ; \nSamuel died 1646. \n\nRalph Hemingway, or Hemenway, \" a man servant,\" married \nElizabeth Hews in 1634, and was made freeman the same year. \nHis daughter Mary died April 4, 1634. He had children, Mary, \nborn May 1, 1635 ; Samuel, born June, 1636 ; Ruth, born Sept. \n21, 1638; John, born 1641 ; Joshua, born 1643: Elizabeth, born \nMay 31, 16.35; Mary, born April 7, 1647. He lived at the East \nend of the town. His death is recorded in 1699, He seems to \nhave been active in town affairs. \n16 \n\n\n122 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT f. \n\nJoshua Heu-es, or Hues, came in 1633, married Mary Goldstone \nin 1634. He had Joshua, born and died in 1639, and it is said \nanother Joshua in 1639 ; Mary, born Dec. 29, 1641 ; Joshua, \nborn 1644. \n\nWilliam Hills, a man servant, came in 1632, freeman in 1634, \nmarried Phillis, daughter of Richard Lyman. They removed to \nHartford, Conn. \n\nThomas Hills, a man servant, came in 1633. \n\nGeorge Holmes had a son Nathaniel, born 1639, who was af- \nterwards a representative in 16S9, and a daughter Deborah, born \nand died in 1641 ; and an infant, in 1642 ; another Deborah died \n1646. His homestead of five acres was North of the way to Dor- \nchester Brook, next to Thomas Pigg's. \n\nAhram How had children, Isaac, born June 24, 1639 ; Israel, \nborn 1644; Deborah, born Sept. 4, 1641. His wife died 1645. \nHe died in 1683. \n\nIsaac Johnson was made freeman in 1635. In 1636 he mar- \nried Elizabeth Porter. He had children, Elizabeth, baptized Dec. \n25, 1637 ; John, born Nov. 3, 1639 ; Joseph\", born and died 1645 ; \nMary, born April 24, 1642 ;' Nathaniel, born 1647; Isaac, born \n1648. He was a representative, and captain of the artillery com- \npany. Captain Johnson and five other captains were killed by \nthe Indians at the taking of fort Narragansett, Dec. 19, 1675. \n\nJohn Johnson, freeman in 1631. He was generally in public \nlife. He represented this town in the first general court, and for \nfourteen years afterwards. He was a military man also, and was \n\" appoynted surveyor generall of all ye armyes.\" The public \nstores were placed in his house, and it was when that was burnt \nand blown up that the town records were destroyed. He died \nSept. 29, 1659, leaving £660. He kept tavern. Many public \nmeetings were held at Brother Johnson's. \n\nEdward Johnson owned a house and two acres or more joining \nthe clay pits. \n\nHumphrey Johnson married Ellen Cheney in 1642. They had \na child, Mehiiable, 1644 ; Martha, Sept. 12. 1647. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 123 \n\nLewis Jones had daughter, Phebe, born 1645, she died 1650. \n\nThomas Lamb came in 1630, and brought his wife Elizabeth, \nand two children, Thomas and John. He had also Samuel, born \n1630, and baptized at Dorchester ; Benjamin, born 1639 ; Caleb, \nborn 1641 ; Joshua, born 1642. He lost his wife in 1639, and \nmarried Dorothy Harbittle in 1640. His sons went to Spring- \nfield and Watertown. He died in 1646, and left £112 : OS : 01. \nHe had a homestead of eighteen acres, betwixt the meetinghouse \nand Stony River, adjoining the loU of Isaac Heath and John \nJohnson. \n\nJohn Leavens, or Levinz, came in 1632, freeman in 1634. In \n1639 he married Rachel Wright. They had John, born 1640; \nJames, born 1642 ; Peter and Andrew, born 1644 ; Peter, one of \nthe twins, died 1644 ; Rachel, born Aug. 1646, He lived on the \nDorchester road, where he had a lot of seven acres and house. \nHe died in 1647, 15th, 9th, \" an ancient godly christian.\" His \nfirst wife Elizabeth died Oct. 10, 1638. \n\nV/illiam Leicis came over in 1630, and was a proprietor of \nCambridge and admitted freeman in 1632, but returned to En- \ngland and was married there. He had two sons born in England, \nJohn, born Nov.' 1, 1635 ; Christopher, born 1636. Lydia was \nborn here 1640 ; Josiah, born 1641. He lived next to William. \nHeath's. \n\nWilliam Lyon came in 1635, married Sarah Ruggles in 1646. \nJohn was born 1647, April 10 ; Thomas, baptized Aug. 8, 1648; \nSamuel, June 10, 1650. \n\nRichard Lyman, freeman in 1633, came in 1631, and brought \nPhillis, Richard, Sarah and John. \" He was an ancient chris- \ntian, but weak. He went to Conecticot, and met great affliction \nfor going near winter,\" lost his cattle, &c. He died in 1640. \n\nJohn Mathew had children, Gertham, born 1641 ; Elizabeth, \nborn 1643. He is said to have removed to Springfield, and died \nin 1684. \" Being convict of notorious drunkenness and not hold- \ning remorse, he was excommunicated.\" \n\nRobert Mason, his wife was buried in 1637. \n\n\n124 HISTORY OF ROXBORV. [pART 1. \n\nJohn Mayo, son of Robert Gamblin's wife by a former husband, \ncame in 1632, \"but a child.\" He married Hannah Graves. His \nsister was \" a very gracious maiden.\" \n\nJoh7i Mayes had a house and lot between Thomas Bells and \nRobert Gamblins, on Stony River. \n\nPhilip Meadows married Elizabeth Ingulden in 1641, They \nhad a child, Hannah, born 1642. \n\nThomas Meakings married Elizabeth Talston. She died in \n1650. The same year, Sister Meakings, the old woman, mother \nto brother Meakings, died. Thomas had daughter Hannah, born \nMarch 13, 1647. \n\nMr. John Miller, a preacher, came to this country in 1637- \nHis daughter Mehitable was born here in 1638, and Susannah in \n1648. He went afterwards to Rowley, where he was minister, \nand held various offices. He died in 1663, at Groton. \n\nIsaac Morell was born in 1588, and came out in 1632 ; he was \nfreeman in 1632-3. He had the following children here, viz : \nIsaac, born Nov. 27, 1632, died Jan. 31, 1633; Hannah, born \n■ Sept. 12, 1636 ; Abram, born 1640. Elizabeth his daughter died \nin May, 1638. Sarah, a daughter of his, married Davis, and \ndied in 1648. He had two houses and two forges. In 1720, \none of these belonged to Samuel Stevens, his great grand son. \nHe died in 1661. His will names his children Catharine (Smith,) \nand the wife of Daniel Bruer. \n\nJames Morgaine married Margery Hill in 1640. His son John \nwas baptized Sept. 30, 1645. Hannah, born July 18, 1642. In \n1651 he was here. \n\nAbraham Newell came in 1634, and brought with him Ruth, \nGrace, Abraham, John, Isaac and Jacob, One of his daughters \nmarried William Toy. He died in 1672, at the age of ninety- \none. \n\nRobert Onion. A child of his died in 1642. His wife, Mary, \ndied 4th, 2d mo., 1643. \n\nEdmund Parker married Elizabeth How in 1647. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 125 \n\nNicholas Parker, with Ann, his wife, came in 1633 and brought \nMary and Nicholas : Joanna was born in 1635. They removed \nto Boston. \n\nWilliam Parker had children, Theodore, born July 26ih, 1637; \nHannah, born August 28, 1639, died 1646 ; John, born June 30, \n1645. \n\nDeaco7i William Parke came in 1630 : \"was one of the first \nin the Church at Rocksbrough.\" He afterwards married Martha \nHolgrave, of Salem. Martha was born May 2, 1641; Sarah, \nbaptized Nov. 19, 1643 ; John, a son of his, died in 1646, not a \nyear old ; Deborah died in 1649, the 14th of 6th month. He \nlived on the North side of the road to Dorchester. He was rep- \nresentative of the town for thirty-three years, often selectman, \nand a man of influence. \"He was a man of pregnant under- \nstanding and useful in his place.\" He died in 1685. \n\nGiles Pason, or Payson, came in 1635, married Elizabeth \nDowell in 1637. They had children— Elizabeth, born in 1639, \nand died, 1639 ; Samuel, born Nov. 7, 1641 ; Elizabeth, born \nFeb. 14, 1644 ; Sarah, born July 16, 1648. He was a man who \nheld town offices often. He died in 1688. His homestead of \nfive acres was on the Dorchester road. He was deacon. \n\nEdward Payson, a man servant, married Ann Parke in 1640. \nShe died in 1641, and, the next year, he married Mary Eliot. — \nHis children were Marah, born Sept. 22, 1641 ; John, born June \n11, 1643; Jonathan, born Dec. 19, 1644; Ann, born April 26, \n1646 ; Joanna, born 1649. He had afterwards a son Edward, a \nclergyman of Rowley, whose descendants are numerous. \n\nJoseph Patching married Elizabeth Ingulden in 1642. \n\nChristopher Peaks, freeman in 1635, married Dorcas French \nin 1636. They had Jonathan, born Oct. 17, 1637, Dorcas, born \n1639 ; Hannah, born Jan. 25, 1642 ; Joseph, born Feb. 12, 1644. \nHe died in 1666. An infant died 1647. \n\nRichard Peacock had Samuel in 1639 ; Caleb, March 1, 1641. \nHe died at Boston in 1691. \n\nWilliam Perkins lost a son William in 1639. Another of the \nsame name was born in 1641. \n\n\n126 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. PaRT I.] \n\nJohn Perry was freeraan in 1633. His son John was born in \n1639. He died in 1642. His heirs occupied his place of two \nacres on Heath's Lane, on the South side, and East of the high- \nway leading from it. Besides John, he had Elizabeth, born Jan. \n25lh, 1647 ; Samuel, born March 1, 1640. \n\nRobert Pepper married Elizabeth Johnson, March 14, 1642. \nShe died in 1643. He was made freeman in 1643, and was at \nSpringfield as early as 1645. His children were Elizabeth, born \nMay 25, 1645; John, born April 8, 1647; Joseph, born March \n18th, 1649. His homestead of two acres was West of Stony \nRiver. He died in 1682. In 1675, Robert Pepper was captured \nby the Indians on his way to Northfield. \n\nJohn Pettit. [Only his name occurs.] \n\nThomas Pigge was here in 1634, and made freeman that year. \nHis wife was named Martha. They had a daughter Martha in \n1642. He died at Dedham in 1644. His homestead of three \nacres was on Dorchester Brook, between land of George Holmes \nand Ralph Hemingway. His children named in his will, are \nThomas, John, Henry, Saray, Mathew, Mary. \n\nChristopher Pickett married Elizabeth Stowe in 1647. \n\nJohn Pierpont was son of John, who came from England, and \nsettled in Ipswich. He had five children, John, who died with- \nout issue ; James, called in an old agreement, \"a student in ye \nliberall arts,\" who was a preacher, and settled in New Haven ; \nJoseph, who had no children ; Ebenezer ; Benjamin, who died \nwithout children ; and Experience. A daughter Thankful was \nborn Nov. 26, 1649, and died Dec. 16, 1649. John was grantee \nof the will in 1655, and died in 1682, at the age of 64. He prob- \nably came to Roxbury about the year 1648, when he bought John \nStowe's place on the hill. \n\nEdivard Porter came in 1636, and brought with him John, \nabout three years old, and William, about one year. His daugh- \nter Elizabeth was born Dec. 25, 1637 ; Hannah, born October 18, \n1639; Mary, born 1642 ; Joseph, born 1644 ; Deborah, born \nApril 26, 1646. Had homestead of thirty acres. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 127 \n\nWilliam Potter married Judith Graves in 1646. \n\nJohn Polly died in 1690. His homestead ofeighten acres was \non the way to Beare Marsh. He had twins, Mary, and Sarah, \nborn June 2, 1650. \n\nValentine Prentice \"came to this land in the year 1631, and \njoined the church in 1632. He brought but one child, his son \nJohn, and buried another at sea. He lived a godly life, nnd went \nthrough much affliction by. bodily infirmity, and died, leaving a \ngood cup of gentleness behind him.\" His wife Alice, after his \ndeath, married John Watson. \n\nWilliam Pynchon, commonly called the founder of Roxbury, \ncame in 1630, and was one of the first foundation of the church. \nHe brought with him his wife, who died soon after they came, \nand his children Ann, Mary, John, and Margaret. After some \nyears he married Mrs. Frances Samford of Dorchester, a grave \nmatron of the church. When so many went to plant Conecticot, \nhe also went with others, and settled at a place called Agawam. \nMr. Pinchin, as he is called in the account, went to the \" Conec- \ntico\" to better his estate by trading with the Indians, and they \nengaged particularly in the beaver trade, till the \" merchants en- \ncreased so many that it became little worth, by reason of their \nout buying one another, which caused them to live on husband- \nry.\" He was dismissed to the Winsor church, till they should \nform a church themselves. This was in 1636. \n\n\" Afterwards he wrote a dialogue concerning justification which \nwas printed anno 1650, stiled the meretorious price, a book full \nof errors and weaknesse and some Heresy, which the general \ncourt of Massachusetts condemned to be burnt, and appointed Mr. \nNorton, the teacher at Ipswich, to refute the errors contained \ntherein.\" It is said by a clergyman of this day who seems to \nendorse the judgment of the court, that \" the grand error of this \nbook consisted in regarding the sufferings of Christ as merely \n' trials of his obedience,' and of course it was the first heretical \nwork on the Atonement that was written in this country.\" The \ngreat and general court, to show they had not forgotten the les- \nsons taught them in England, and as if they were a body cleri- \ncal, drew up and passed a very long and virulent Protest, \"to sat- \n\n\n128 HISTORY OF ROXBURt. [pART 1. \n\nisfy all men that the court did alierly decline and detest it as \nerroneous and dangerous.\" They ordered the book to be burned \nby the executioner in the market place immediately after Lecture, \n(the lime when they used to hang men,) summoned Pynchon to \nappear, and promised to \" proceed with\" him if he did not retract \nand give full satisfaction by another book to be printed here and \nin England. He did make some explanation or retraction in \nMay, 1651 and he appeared before the court again in the fall of \nthat year. But the court suspended its sentence, and Pynchon, \nprobably fearing what might come from them, returned to En- \ngland. He well knevv what it was to encounter heresy-haters of \nthe school of Dudley. The colony had furnished him some les- \nsons. He fled for safety from their persecution to the place \nwhence persecution had driven them. \n\nHe died in England, at Wraisbury, in October, 1662, aged 72 \nor 74. \n\nPynchon was highly esteemed at the time the colony came \nout. He was chosen assistant in 1628. He was one of the most \ninfluential men in settling the colony. He was at one time its \nTreasurer, and was esteemed for his piety, learning, integrity and \nability. \n\nHis daughter Anna married Henry Smith, son to Mrs. Samford \nby a former husband, \"a wise and godly young man,\" who went \nto Agawam. Margaret married captain William Davis. Mary \nmarried Mr. Edward Holyoke, son of Mr. Holyoke of Lynn, \"Mr. \nPynchon's antient friend.\" \n\nI can find no trace of the place of Mr. Pynchon's residence. \n\nThomas Eaiolings came with the first company in 1630. He \nbrought his wife Mary, and his children, Thomas, Mary, Joan, \nNathaniel and John. He removed to Scituate. \n\nJohn Remington, had lot on the Brookline road. \n\nEdioard Riggs, freeman in 1634, married Elizabeth Rooke «♦ \n163^; she was buried October, 1635. Lydia was buried in Au- \ngust, 1633 ; Elizabeth, buried May, 1634, and John in October, \n1634. The death of Elizabeth, wife of Edward Riggs, is record- \ned in 1669. \n\nThomas Room married Hannah Rowe, April 15, 1644.. \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 129 \n\nJoh7i Roberts catne in. 1636 and brought his wife Elizabeth, his \naged mother and his children, Thomas, Edward, Eliza, Margery, \nJane, Alice, Lidia, Ruth and Debora. \"He was one of the first \nfruits of Wales.\" He died in 1650. \"Old mother Roberts,\" the \nWelchwoman, died in 1646, aged one hundred and three. \n\nJohn Buggies, or Ruggells, a shoe-maker, aged 44, and his \nwife Barbara, aged 30, came in the Hopewell, in 1635, in the \nmonth of April. \"He joined the Church soon after his coming. \nHe was a lively Christian, known to many of the Church in Old \nEngland, when they met socially together.\" He was made free- \nman in 1637. He brought his son with him. In the list of pas- \nsengers, there are named John Ruggles, aged 2, and John Rug- \ngles, aged 10. One of them was probably the son of Thomas. \nJohn lived beyond Stony River, on the Brookline road. His \nwife died 11th mo., 1636. He died 6th, 8ih mc, 1664. He left \nthree sons, John, Thomas and Samuel. His estate was £343. \n\nThomas Ruggles, an elder broihei of John, came in 1637, with \nMary, his wife. He was made freeman in 1639. \"They were \nboth children of a godly father. He was as well known as his \nbrother.\" He brought over with him his children, Sarah and \nSamuel. His first born child died in England. His second, \nnamed John, was brought out as a servant to Philip Eliot. — \n\"Thomas had a great sicknesse the first year, but God recovered \nhim.\" He died in 1644, \"a Godly brother.\" \n\nJohn Ruggles, \" the son of Thomas,\" married Abigail Crafts \nin 1650, January 24, died Sept. 15, 1658. He had sons John, \nThomas and Samuel. \n\nSamuel Ruggles, another son of Thomas, and brother of the \npreceding, had two or three acres on Pond hill. He married \nHannah Fowles in 1657. He was a representative of the town. \nHis wife Hannah and two children died in 1669. \n\nJohn Ruggles, had a son John ; his wife was Mary ; he was \nbrother in law to Edward Bridges. One John Ruggles was \nfreeman in 1632. \n\nJohn Scarboro wdiS freeman in 1640. An infant of his named \nJohn, died in 1642. Hannah, born Dec. 3, 1643. He bad also \n17 \n\n\n130 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\nSamuel, born Jan. Jan. 20, 1645. He was slain the 4th of the \n9th month, 1646, \"charging a great gunnee.\" \n\nRobert Seaver, freeman in 1637, m-arried Elizabeth A Hard in \n1634. He had children, Shubael, born Jan. 31, 1639 ; Caleb, \nborn 1641; Joshua, born 1641 ; and Nathaniel, baptized Jan. 8, \n1645. His wife died in 1656. He died in 1682. His home- \nstead was on the River. \n\nEdmund Sheffield married Mary Woody in 1644. John was \nborn in 1644= \n\nJohn Smith married Catharine Morrell in 1647. \n\nAbraham Smith. \n\nFrancis Smith. Andrew, his son, died in 1639. He had a \nhouse and three and an half acres towards Dorchester. \n\nRobert Starkweather. Elizabeth was baptized in 1643 ; Lydia, \nborn June 23, 1644. \n\nMartin Steblins married Jane Green in 1639. His daughter \nHannah was born in 1640; Mary, born Feb. 1, 1642; Nathaniel, \nborn March 22, 1644. \n\nJohii Stebbins married Ann Munke in 1644. \"She was so vio- \nlent of passion, that she ofTered violence to her husband, which \nbeing of such infamy she was cast out of church.\" \n\nJoh7i Stozt^e brought his wife Elizabeth and six children, Thom- \nas, Elizabeth, John, Nathaniel, Samuel, Thankful. He was \nmade freeman in 1634, and was a representative in 1639. His \nwife died in 1638. His son Samuel graduated at Harvard in \n1645. He died in 1643, \" an old Kentish man.\" \n\nJohn Stonehard, (or Stonnard) died in 1649. He was here in \n1645, when he made a mortgage of his house and lands, which \nwas discharged, in the margin of the record, in 1646. \n\nThomas Stoive married Mary Gragg in 1639. In 1648 he had \nremoved to Concord. He owned two houses and sold them to \nJohn Pierponi for £110. \n\nHus;h Thomas had a place on the road leading to Brookline. \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxbury. 151 \n\nThomas Thome. His children, Desire and Truth, were bap- \ntized March 22, 1644. . ^. \n\nPhilip Tory married Mary ScarboroUn 1647. Joseph was \nborn July 2, 1649. -i-VM.'^^>3 \n\nJohn Totman. His son Jabesh was born Nov. 19, 1641. His \nhouse was on the highway leading to the pond, beyond William \nCurtis'. \n\nWilliam Toy married Grace Newell in 1644. \n\nJohyi Trumhle, freeman in 1640, probably went to Rowley. \n\nJohn Turner had a daughter Elizabeth in 1647. Goodwife \nTurner died 8lh 7ih mo. 1647. \n\nWilliam Vassaile was a gentleman of good circumstances in \nEngland, and one of the assistants. He came out first in the \nLion, in 1630, but returned to England and came back — \nand settled in Scituate, where he owned an estate known as \nBelle Neck. He again returned to England, but came back in \n1635, in the Blessing, to this country, and from thence he went \nto Barbadoes, where he died. He brought with him in 1635, his \nwife Anna, and Judith, Francis, John, Margaret and Mary. — \nThough a member of the Church, he is said to have been op- \nposed to the ways of our Churches, and \"a busy and factious \nspirit.\" Just before Vassaile went to England in 1646, Rev. Mr. \nCotton preached at the Thursday Lecture in Boston, and said if \nany person should carry any writings or complaints against the \npeople of God, to England, it would be as Jonas in the ship, and \nadvised shipmasters, in case any storms should arise, to search \nand see if they had not such in some trunk, or somewhere, and \nif they found any to cast it overboard. A storm did arise, and \nan old woman applied to Vassaile to see if he had any Jonas, \nand he told her he had only a petition of people to Parliament \nthat they might enjoy their liberties as English subjects. She \ninsisted on finding the Jonas, and was at last shown a copy of a \npetition presented to Court at Boston, and threw it overboard. \nBut it is said the storm did not abate as was reported. They \nhad storms after, and the genuine petition was not thrown over, \nbut a mere copy. \n\n\n132 HISTORT OF ROXBURT. [PaRT I. \n\nSamuel Wakeman came in 1631. He was one of the first \nfoundation of the church. His only child died at sea on the voy- \nage hither. \n\nThomas Watermcm lost his wife Ann in 1641. He died in 1676. \n\nDorcas Walker died in 1640. \n\nJohn Watson, married Alice Prentis, widow of Valentine \nPrentiss, in 1634. They had children, John, horn January, \n1634 : Joshua, born Aug. 1637, died 1639 ; Dorcas, born 1639 ; \nCaleb, born 1641 ; Mary, born May 2, 1643. Farmer supposes \nhe may have removed to Cambridge, but it was more probably his \nson who went there. He died in Roxbury in 1693. \n\nMr. Thomas Welde, or Weld, the first pastor of the first church, \nreceived the degree A. B. at Trinity College in Cambridge Uni- \nversity in 1613, and A. M. in 1618. He arrived in this country \nJune 5lh, 1632, in the William and Frances. He had been a \nminister at Sterling, Essex, England. He was chosen pastor of \nthe first church. After many importunings and days of humilia- \ntion by those of Boston and Roxbury, to seek the Lord for Mr. \nWeld's disposing, the advice of the Plymouth people being \ntaken, he resolved to set down at Roxbury, and entered on his \nduties in July, 1632. He is sometimes named as colleague to \nMr. Eliot, and settled afterwards. But he was first settled. In \nthe list of ministers Master Weld is Pastor, Master Eliot, Teach- \ner. The duties of Pastor were, \" to exhort and to rule. The \nteachers were to instruct in knowledge and also to rule.\" \"Many \nwere esteemed excellent teachers whom they would not invest \nwith the pastoral care.\" \n\nNo account of the first pastor is given in the church records. \nMr. Weld, however, took a conspicuous part in the affairs of the \nday. It is said that he was amongst the most active and bitter \nin the cruel persecution of Anne Hutchinson. In 1637, she was \ncommitted to his custody. He was one of the most influential \nmen at that period, and was, of course, looked to for his position \nand learning. No doubt his ovvn honest opinions and principles \nled him to take an active part in the religious controversies. It \nwas a time when men made a boast of their own bigotry and in- \ntolerance. But it is hard to conceive how men of his stamp \n\n\nPart l.J history of roxbury. 133 \n\nshould so soon have forgotten why they ca'-Tie to this country, or \nhow they could ever have been guilty of offering violence to oth- \n. ers for difference of opinion, unless there be in human nature a \nproneness to retaliation. But the censures that belong to the \ntime must not be visited upon the man, except in so far as he, be- \ning above others, ought the more to have been above their errors \nand follies. The Massachusetts colony has on its early history \na stain, which, more than any other, all would erase. But there \ndoes not appear to have been any thing else that should be \ndeemed a blot on the character of Mr. Weld. \n\nThe church prospered under the united labor of Mr. Weld and \n\nEliot. \n\nIn 1640-1, the colony thought advisable to have agents in En- \n\n•.. gland, and they chose three clergymen to go, Hugh Peters, Mr. \n\n■■ Weld, and Mr. Hibbins, of Boston. \" The governor moved the \n\n• church for him, and, after some time of consideration, they freely \n\nyielded.\" He went by way of Newfoundland, where he preached \n\nto the seamen on the Island, and got a passage from that Island \n\nto England in a fishing vessel. \n\nIn 1646, Weld was dismissed from his agency, but he did not \n\nreturn to New England. He was afterwards settled as minister \n\n; at Gateshead. He went to Ireland with Lord Forbes, but return- \n\n.V- ed again to England. He is named amongst the ministers eject- \n\nf edin 1662. The lime of his death is uncertain. \n\nMr. Weld published, in 1664, \" a short story of the Eise, Reign \nand Ruin of the Antinomians, Familists and Libertines, that in- \nfected the churches of New England.\" He was the author of \nsome other tracts. He aided Eliot and Mather in the New En- \n•glaod version of the Psalms. \n\n■■• Whilst in Roxbury, Mr. Weld lived East of the Town street. \nIn Eliot's letters to England we find him soliciting aid to enable \nhim to purchase Weld's library, from which it may be inferred \nthat he was well supplied with literary tools. \n\nMr. Weld's children were John, who was a minister in En- \ngland ; Edmund, who graduated at Harvard in 1650; Thomas, \n. who married Dorothy Whiting in 1650, and was made freeman \nin 1654, chosen clerk of the writs in 1666, and was, several \nyears, a representative, and a man of influence in town. Mr. \nWold may have had other children. \n\n\n134 HISTORY OF ROXBUIIY. PaRT I.] \n\nThe children of his son Thomas, through whom the family \nhere traces its descent, were Samuel, who died in 1653; Thomas, \nborn 1653 ; Samuel, born 1655 ; John, born 1657, died 1686 ; \nEdmund, born 1659; Daniel; Dorothy; Joseph; and Margaret. \nThomas owned the Training Field. \n\nJoseph Weld, was made freeman in 1636. He was brother to \nthe first minister. His son Edmund was born July 14th, 1636. \nHis wife Elizabeth died in 1638. In 1639, he married Barbary \nClap. They had children, Sarah, baptized Dec. 21, 1640 ; Dan- \niel, born Sept. IS, 1642, and graduated at Harvard College, 1661, \nstudied divinity, and died at Salem ; Joseph, baptized and died \nin 1645; Marah, born 1645: Thomas died Sept. 9, 1649. He \nhad other children. \n\nJoseph Weld was captain, representative from 1636, for five \nyears. He was a rich man and kept store on the street. His \nproperty was valued at £2028 : 11 : 03. He died the Sih of 7th \nmonth, 1646. His widow married Anthony Stoddard of Boston. \nSarah married John Ffranck of Boston, and Marah married \nComfort Starr. \n\nJohn Weld, was born in England, Oct. 28, 1623, and came to \nNew England in 1638. He was made freeman in 1650. He \nwas son of the preceding, and had a brother Edward. He mar- \nried Margaret Bovven in 1647. His son Joseph was born June \n6, 1649, and died when only seventeen days old ; another child \nof the same name was baptized Sept. 13, 1650. His house was \nnext to Robert Seaver's land, bounded on the brook and the high- \nway to Bare Marsh. He died Sept. 20, 1691. \n\nDaniel Weld was admitted freeman in 1641. He was admit- \nted to our Church in 1651, being recommended from the Church \nat Braintree. His wife Alice died at Braintree in 1647. In \n\n1654, he was chosen by the town \"to record births and burialls,\" \nand in 1654, clerk of the writs. He had a son Benjamin in \n\n1655. A daughter of his was born at Braintree in 1643. He \nsettled at first on the Street, where he had a lot of three quarters \nof an acre on the East side of the Street, next to the Training \nfield, between Eichard Woody's and Thomas Weld's, but he af- \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 135 \n\nlerwards bought a place of John Rawson. near Stony River \nBridge, where he died July 22, 1666, at the age of 81. \n\nHis will, which was executed but a few days before his death, \nnames his wife Ann, Joseph and Belhial, also Timothy Hyde, a \nchild of his wife. \n\nDaniel Weld was Teacher of the School. \n\nLaurence Whittamore came with his wife, in the Hopewell, in \nApril, 1635, freeman 1637. His wife died 13th of the 12th \nmonth, 1642. He died the 18th of 7th month, 1644, \"an antient \nChristian of SO years of age.\" I find no other trace of him, \nsave in connection with the Free School, to which he gave all \nhis estate, which is now very valuable. \n\nRobert Williams, who is said to have been of Welch origin^ \ncame from Norwich, England, and was admitted freeman in \n1638. His wife was named Elizabeth. They had a son Isaac, \nborn Sept. 1, 1638 ; and Stephen, born Nov. 28, 1640. Another \nson, Samuel, who was afterwards deacon, was born before, in \nEngland. Thomas was born afterwards. Robert, it is said, is \nthe \"common ancestor of the divines, civilians and warriors of \nthis name who have honored the country of their birth.\" His \nhomestead of five acres was towards Dorchester. Some of his \nestate remained in the hands of his descendants till 1826. Rob- \nert Williams was one of the most influential men in town afTairs. \n\nHamiah Wilson died 12th of 9ih, 1645. \n\nThomas Willson came 4th month, 1633, and brought children, \nHumphrey, Samuel, Joshua. Debora was born 1644, and Lidea \nin 1636. \"He was a familist afterwards, but repented.\" He re- \nmoved from Roxbury. \n\nNathaniel Wilso?i married Hannah Crafts in 1644. They had \ntwins, Hannah and Mary, in 1647. \n\nEdivard White had son Zattariah, born 1642 ; Samuel, born \nFeb. 27th, 1644. \n\nRichard Woody, freeman 1642, married Frances Dexter in \n1646. His son Thomas died in 1650. His house was next the \n\n\n136 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [PaRT I. \n\ntraining place, between Mr. Eliot's and Daniel Weld's. He died \nin 1658. \n\nJohn Woody died in 1650. \n\nNicholas Woody had twins, Mary and Sarah, born Dec. 26th, \n1642. \n\nThomas Woodford, man servant, came in 1632, married Mary \nBlatt, maid servant, who came out the same year. They re- \nmoved to Hartford, Conn. \n\nNearly all the original emigrants to this country, had gone by \nthe year 1700. \n\nIn 1646, \"died Eghor, an Indian who had lived ten years with \nthe English, and could read.\" \n\nThe same year, died \"Nan, Mr. Weld's captive Indian, he \nwas hopeful.\" \n\n\nCHAPTER X. \n\nGeneral Vieiv of the Town. \n\nHaving thus noticed the first generation of the in- \nhabitants of the town, let us see what was the gen- \neral appearance of the town in those early days. \nThough there is no account of the first year or two, it \nis easy to imagine what it must have been during that \ntime. The first settlement was upon the bay which \nlies to the south of Boston neck, and which was long \nknown as Roxbury Bay. \n\nNo record is preserved of the first laying out of the \ntown. There probably was no allotment of lands to \nthe very first comers. After that, the lands were sur- \nveyed and set out regularly. \n\nIn 1633, three years after the first arrival, we have \nthis description of the town ; \n\n*' A mile from this town, (Dorchester) lieth Roxberry, which is \n\"a fair and handsome counlry-lown, the inhabitants of it being \n•' all very rich. This town lieth upon the main, so that it is well \n\" wooded and watered, having a clear and fresh brook running \n\"through the town, up which, although there come no alewives, \n\" yet there is great store of smells and therefore it is called \n\" Smelt Brook. A quarter of a mile to the north side of the \n\"town is another river, called Stony River, upon which is built a \n\" water mill. Here is good ground for corn and meadow for cat- \n\" tie. Up v%-eslward from the town it is something rocky ; \n\" whence it hath the name of Roxberry. The inhabitants have \n\n18 \n\n\n138 HISTORY OF ROXBURY. [pART I. \n\n\"fair houses, store of catlle, im[)a!ed corn-fields, and fruitful gar- \n\" dens. Here is no harbor for ships, because ihe town is sealed \n\" in the bottom of a shallow bay, which is made by the neck of \n\"land on which Boston is built; so that ihey can transport all \n\"their goods from the ships in boats from Boston, which is the \n\" nearest harbor.\" \n\nThe first buildings were probably upon what was \nthen called and is still known as the Towne Streete, \nor Roxbury Street. It was near a good stream of \nwater. The neck, with a bay on each side, was a \nfavorable position for defence. \n\nThe dwellings gradually extended to tlie point ; \nacross the brook, and towards Dorchester, and up in \nthe direction of Warren and Walnut streets; and \nround, by the old road over the hill by the first church, \nto the mill on Stony river, and on to Muddy river; \nand further up into the centre of the town, towards \nDedham, and into the country between Dorchester \nand Dedham roads. The other streets, then most \nfrequented, such as the road to Gamblin's End, Que- \nnecticot lane, that to the mill at the great pond, have \nnow become quite retired. Some, like that frcm the \nPlain towards Brookline, West of the great hill, \nhave long been closed. \n\nIn those days the highwajs wvre \\vX for pasturage, \nby the year. For many years, a |:eint on the street \nwas known as \" Boston Gales.\" The way '• leading \nto the landing place.\" was fenced across to keep in \nthe cattle. A pair oC bars stcod at the entrance of \nthe way to the '^ Calves Pasture,\" which is n(.w a \ngreat highway towards Dorchester, and also the road \nleading to Bare mar.vh, and Kocky swamp. Indeed, \n1 believe that was the case with all the roads in town. \n\n\nPart I.] history of roxbury. 139 \n\nThe town used to fix the rent by vote at the annual \ntown nipptiiig, and the constahh's collected it. \n\nIll 1635. a hiw was p:issed that no person should \nlive beyond half a mile from the meeting house. \n\nThe following petition, which was made before \n1643, indicates that most were within that distance, \nwhich was proper for defence. \n\nThe humble petition of some of ye inhabitants of Roxbury, to \nthis honored Court. \nWherens, it has pleased this honord court to make a whole- \nsonse law for this country, that none should build above half a \nmile from ye meelina house, and we partly out of ye necessity \nof the situation of our town, wh is so narrow, and inlarged but \none way. and partly out ol ignorance of ye law, have builded \nsomewhat farder than is by this law allowd, among such neigh- \nbors as were to be built before this law was maide, we doe hum- \nb\\\\- petiiion ye favor of this honord court that sd action might not \nbe oflTensive, but yt wee might have allowans to continue the sd \nhabitations, wh we cannot possibly alter without removing from \nvp town, there being noe place neare ye meeting howse to re- \nceive us. And thus entreating your favor, we leave you to the \nguidans of the blessed God, and rest Your humble petitioners, \nRalph Jasper Gun, \n\nGary Robert Seaver, \n\nAbraham How, \nJohn Tatman. \nConsidering ye necessity of the request of these brethren, we \nwho have the disposeing of the lowne affairs doe joyne wh them \nto make this humble request to this honord court, \n\nThomas Lambe, \nJoseph Weld, \nJohn Johnson, \nWilliam Perkins, \nJohn Stow. \n\nNo order appears on this petition. It is not known \nwhen the law was repealed, or that it ever was. It \n\n\n140 HISTORT OF nOXBURY. [PaRT L \n\nis certain that, within a very few years, there were \nmany who lived more than the prescribed distance \nfrom the church. \n\nFrom the beginning, the chief roads in the town \nseem to have been regularly laid out, though very \nmany of the highways in the town were ways of ne- \ncessity, and formed as convenience required. \n\nIn 1652, the five men with a committee of three \nmore were appointed for setting and staking out high- \nways, with full powers to settle all matters concern- \ning them. \n\nIn 1656, \" the same day for stakeing out of all the \n\" hiewayes, in towne, there was a committee chosen \n*' and fully impowered by the same, to settle matters, \n\" concerning all hiewayes, according to the towns act \n'■'\"when the land was laid oiit.^^ \n\n1658. Griffin Crafts had \" leave to set up a gate \non Muddy River lane to keepe off the presse of cattle.\" \n\nFrom 1650 to 1662, several cases show that not \nonly the breadth and direction, but even the very ex- \nistence of some of the highways had become ques- \ntionable. \n\nBy a town law, each man was entitled to a high- \nway to his own house. \n\nIn 1661, the town let the \"feede of the lane to \nthe landing place to Robert Pierrepoynt, for fower \nshillings per annum, provided none of the inhabitants \nare to be prohibited to lett their cattle feede as they \ngoe to and fro for clay, or upon other just occasions, \nthey feeding only in the lane, and whilst they are \nthere necessarily employed, and in the cart, and not \notherwise.\" \n\n\nPart l.J history or roxburt. 14t \n\nThe town passed various acts to have the high \nwa_ys examined, but without effect till in 1663, it ap- \npointed five men, and \"for their encouragement\" \ngave them four shillings a man for this service, and \nlaid them under a penalty of two pounds ten shillings \nif they did not finish the work by the first of January \nnext. Accordingly a survey was had, and report at \nlength was made that year, which is the one that is \nto be examined concerning the highways in existence \nat that time. \n\nAmongst the roads four rods wide, were that to \nMuddy River, (Washington street ;) Quenecticote \nLane, (Perkins street ;) the road from Heath's Lane \ntowards Dedham, (Centre street ;) the road from \nJohn Stebbin's orchard, by Edward Bugby's, to the \nend of the great lots next Gamblin's End, and so to \nRocky Swamp; the way to the great lots and fresh \nmeadow, (Walnut street ;) the way to Brantry, \n(Warren street ;) from Hugburne's Corner to Boston, \nand that from Eliot's Corner to Dorchester Brook, \n(Dudley street and Eustis street.) \n\nThose that were two rods, were that from Pier- \npont's to the landing place, (Parker street. East of \nBrookline road ;) that from Mrs. Remington's, back \nof Ruggles and Eliot, to Dedham Highway, (Parker \nstreet,) over the Hill ; that by Peleg Heath's into \nDedham highway, by Jacob Newell's ; that from El- \nder Heath's by Stony River, to Gamblin's End, \n(School street;) that from Gamblin's End to the \nPond lots, (Boylston street ;) from John Leavin's \nheirs to Dead Swamp ; from the way that leads from \nthe Boston road by the burying place to the road \n\n\n142 HISTORY OF KOXBURY. [PaRT 1. \n\nfrom Roxbury to Dorchester, (Eustis street;) from \nthe Training Place, next Dorchester road, down to \nthe Salt Panns, and that landing place, (Davis st. ;) \nfrom Giles Payson's to Robert William's and into \nBrantry Way ; bom Mr. Adam's to the mills ; and \nthe way to Baker's iMill; and the way to Gravelly \nPoint, (Riiggles street.) \n\nIt is needless to speak of the religious character of \nthe people. As for the education of the town, we \nhave already seen that am})le })rovision was made for \nit. Most of the people were of good, and some of \nthem of eminent families and of considerable cultiva- \ntion. Roxbury sent many to Harvard College. — \nThough the space of time does not seem very long \nthat has elapsed, one is surprised, in the old lists, to \nfind how few books they had. And yet, education \nmay have been as well attained, for comparison of our \ntimes with those of the ancients, might almost lead \nto the conclusion that sound learning decreased w'nh \nthe multiplicity of books. Thus Thomas Dudley, \nwho was a vast reader, (heluo librorum) had in his \nstudy less than fifty volumes. Amongst them were \nLivius, Camdeni Annales, Abstract of the Penal \nStatutes, Peirce Plowman, Apology of the Prince of \nOrange, Cotton's bloody tenets washed. Cotton's \nholynesse of Church members and Commentary on \nthe Commandments, &c. \n\nDaniel Weld, a \"schollar,\" had in Bibles and other \nDivinity Books, £4. \n\nIt has already been remarked that the people were \nwealthy, and some account has been given of various \nestates. It must be borne in mind, however, that \n\n\nPart I.] histort of roxbury. 143 \n\nestimates are not to be made by the standard of the \npresent day. As late as \"1678, in New York, which \nthen liad less than three hundred and fifty houses, a \nmerchant worth £1000 or £500, was deemed a good \nsubstantial merchant, and a planter worth half that \nsum, was accounted rich.\" Judged by the mark of \nthat day, Koxbury had a great nuuibcn- of very opu- \nlent citizens. \n\nIn 1634, the town is thus described : \"situated be- \n\" tween Boston and Dorchester, being well watered \n*' with coole and pleasant Springs issuing forth the \n\"Rocky-hills, and with small Freshets, watering the \n\" Vallies of this fertill Tow^ne, whose forme is some- \n\"what like a wedge double pointed, entering be- \n\"tweene the two foure named Townes, filled with a \n\"laborious people, whose labours the Lord hath so \n\"blest, that, in the roome of dismall swamps and \n\" tearing bushes, they have very goodly Fruit-trees, \n\"fruitfull fields and gardens, their Heard of Cows, \n\" Oxen and other young Cattell of that kind about \n\"350 and dwelling houses near upon 120. Their \n\" Streetes are large, and some fayre bowses, yet have \n<' they built their Howse for Church-assembly desti- \n\" tute and unbeautified with other buildings. The \n\"church of Christ is here increased to about 120 \n\" persons,\" &c. \n\nThe emigration to New England ceased almost \nentirely about 1640. Though a few came over from \nthe old countries after that time, yet most of the new \nsettlers in Roxbury, came from other parts of this \ncountry. \n\n\n14i. HISTORT OF ROXBLRT. PaRT I.] \n\nSome of the original residents removed to other \nplaces, as did many of their descendants. Several \ntowns were founded by Roxbury citizens. \n\nMann, in his Annals of Dedham, states that \"the \n\" original founders of Dedham came from Watertown \n«'and Roxbury,\" in 1635. \n\nIn 1636, the time of the emigration to the Con- \nnecticut, a colony \"from Roxbury (the principal of \n\" whom were Mr. William Pynchon, and one John \n\" Bur, a carpenter,) settled, at least laid the founda- \n\" tion of a plantation, called by the Indians, Aga- \n\" warn, but named by the English afterwards Spring- \n\" field, in rembrance of Mr. Pynchon, who had his \n\" mansion house at a town of that name, near \n*' Chelmsford, in Essex.\" Many went to various \ntowns in Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, \nwhere there are many of their descendants. \n\n\"In 1667, liberty was granted for erecting a new \nplantation or township, at a place about thirty or \nforty miles West from Roxbury called Mendon, and \npeopled by some that removed from thence. There \nwas another like grant the same year at Brookfield, a \ncommodious place for entertainment of travellers, be- \ntwixt the Massachusetts and Connecticut, situate \nabout twenty-five miles from Springfield, towards \nBoston; the liberty had been granted before in 1660, \nbut it was renewed this year, six or seven families \nbeing settled there, the grantees having forfeited \ntheir first grant.\" \"These two last named villages \nwere erected in an unhappy hour, for before ten years \nwere expired, they were utterly ruined and destroyed \n\n\nPart 1.] history of roxburt. 145 \n\nby the Indians, and not one stick left standing of any \nbuilding erected there.\" \n\nIn Niles' history oi the Indian and French wars, \nit is said \"Deserted Mendon was this same winter \n(1674) laid in ashes.\" \n\nIn 1683, the town accepted the grant, which was \nmade to them that year, of a tract seven miles square, \nat Quatosset, in the country of the Nipmucks. This \nwas, soon after, called New Roxbury, and is now the \nTown of Woodstock, in the North-east part of the \nState of Connecticut, near Dudley, in Massachusetts. \nSome of the localities in Woodstock still bear the old \nnames of places in Roxbury. This township was \nbounded by Woodward and Gaffeny's line, and was \nafterwards found to be in Connecticut. \n\nThe first settlers of Woodstock were, as has been \nremarked, all from Roxbury, and the records of the \nfoundation, settlement, titles, division, and the first \nsettlers of the place are preserved, very full and mi- \nnute, in Roxbury. But the history cannot be given \nhere. \n\nIn 1668, Worcester was granted to Daniel Gookin \nand others. \n\nOxford, then \" a tract eight miles square in the \nNipmug country,\" was granted to Joseph Dudley and \nothers in 1682. \n\nWoodstock was named from \" its nearness to Ox- \n\" ford, for the sake of queen EHzabeth, and the nota- \n\" ble meetings that have been held at the place bear- \n\"ing that name in England.\" \n\nIn 1686, several native Indians conveyed to Joshua \nLamb, Nathaniel Paige, Andrew Gardner, Benjamin \n19 \n\n\n146 HISTORY OF ROXBURr. PaRT I.] \n\nGamblin, John Curtis, Richard Draper, Samuel Rug- \ngles and Ralph Bradish, \" a tract of land eight miles \nsquare near the English town of Wooster.\" This is \nthe present town of Hardwicke. The original deed is \nstill preserved in Roxbury. The price paid was £20. \n\nDudley, in this state, was granted to and named \nfor governor Joseph Dudley. He got also the Indian \ntitle. \n\nAncient plans, letters from these towns, deeds, &c. \nare found in Roxbury. \n\nBesides those towns which were founded and set- \ntled by Roxbury, others had some of their chief set- \ntlers from Roxbury; such as Scituate, Braintree, \nNewbury, and several others in Massachusetts and \nConnecticut. \n\nThus Roxbury was not only abundantly prosperous \nherself, but was the worthy parent of a very respec- \ntable and somewhat numerous progeny, of towns. \n\n\n/ \n\n\nValuation of Roxbury. The valuation \nmade by the assessors this year is as follows : \n\nReal estate $10,714,800 \n\nPersonal estate ... .4,857,400 \n\nTotal $15,572,200 Polls -380^. \n\nThe rate of taxation is $7 SO on $1000, the \nsame as last year. \nThe valuation of 1854 was — \n\nReal estate $9,472,400 \n\nPersonal estate 3,896,800 \n\nTotal $13,369,200 Polls 3833. \n\nThe increase in valuation for 1855 is $2,203,- \n000. [Norfolk County Journal. \n\n\n","title":"The history of Roxbury town","updated_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.318316Z","urn":"urn:lemay:boston:document:the-history-of-roxbury-town","version":1,"withdrawn_reason":null},"urn":"urn:lemay:boston:document:the-history-of-roxbury-town","version_history":[{"change_note":"accessioned from the Internet Archive, item historyroxbury00elli","changed_by":"archive-ingest 0.1.0","recorded_at":"2026-09-05T09:59:01.612372Z","version":1}]}