Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register

[237] and the expenses were defrayed by the petitioners and their associates. Meantime, a determined opposition to any enclosure of the Common was manifested by many persons in East Cambridge, and by certain market-men and others residing in Arlington and elsewhere, among whom Col. Jeduthun Wellington was especially prominent, notwithstanding the weight of more than fourscore years. On their petition a town meeting was held, Oct. 8, 1830. The people assembled in the old Court House,— the usual place of meeting; but so great was the concourse that they immediately adjourned to the meeting-house of the First Parish. After an angry and stormy debate, it was voted, by a majority of 169 against 119, to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the first and second articles in the warrant, to wit: “Art. 1. To take into consideration the expediency of petitioning the Legislature, at their next session, so far to repeal the Act passed in June last, authorizing certain persons therein named to inclose Cambridge Common, as to secure to the public the right to travel over the said Common by the roads heretofore laid out by competent authority. Art. 2. To see if the town will take any measures in relation to the proposed inclosure of Cambridge Common.” Another meeting was held, Nov. 1, 1830, when it was voted by a majority of 299 against 211, to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the question, whether the town will petition the Legislature so far to repeal the act authorizing the enclosure of the Common, as to “secure to the public the right to travel over said Common by the road passing by Dr. Hill's and the late Deacon Moore's¹ to the road leading to Canal Bridge,² and also the right to travel over said Common by the road heretofore called the Cambridge and Concord Turnpike.” Although the town thus declined to ask for even a partial repeal of the obnoxious act, it appears that individuals presented a petition to the General Court; for at a meeting of “the subscribers for enclosing and ornamenting Cambridge Common,” Jan. 11, 1832, it was voted, “to request the Hon. Judge Fay and Prof. Ashmun to attend before the Committee of the Legislature to defend the interests of the subscribers.” The appeal to the General Court being ineffectual, as a last resort a petition was presented to the County Commissioners; whereupon the town, voting by ballot, and by a majority of 343 against 111, appointed Judge Story, Judge Fay, and William J. Whipple, “to oppose before the County Commissioners, and otherwise, the petition of ”