Chapter 14: civil History.
Although Cambridge was early abandoned as the seat of government, it maintained from the beginning a prominent rank among the towns in the Colony. It was designated, before the establishment of counties, as one of the four towns in which Judicial Courts should be held. Having until that time exercised the whole power of the Colony, both legislative and judicial, the General Court ordered, March 3, 1635-6, “That there shall be four courts kept every quarter; 1. at Ipswich, to which Neweberry shall belong; 2. at Salem, to which Saugus shall belong; 3. at Newe Towne, to which Charlton, Concord, Meadford, and Waterton shall belong; 4th, at Boston, to which Rocksbury, Dorchester, Weymothe, and Hingham shall belong. Every of these Courts shall be kept by such magistrates as shall be dwelling in or near the said towns, and by such other persons of worth as shall from time to time be appointed by the General Court, so as no court shall be kept without one magistrate at the least and that none of the magistrates be excluded, who can and will intend the same.” 1 And when the Colony was divided into counties, May 10, 1643,2 the courts continued to be held in Cambridge, as the shire-town of Middlesex. As “the business of the courts there is much increased,” it was ordered, Oct. 19, 1652, that two additional sessions should be held for that county in each year, both at Charlestown. These courts were continued for many years, and a court house and jail were erected in that town. At a later date, courts were established and similar buildings erected in Concord, and also, at a comparatively recent day, at Lowell. All these places were regarded as “half-shires” ; but the County Records were never removed from Cambridge, as the principal shire, except as follows: During the usurpation of Sir Edmund Andros, he appointed Capt. Laurence Hammond of Charlestown to be Clerk of the Courts and Register of Probate [211] and Deeds, who removed the records to Charlestown. After the revolution and the resumption of government under the forms of the old Charter, Captain Hammond denied that the existing courts had any legal authority, and refused to surrender the records which were in his possession. The General Court therefore ordered, Feb. 18, 1689-90, “that Capt. Laurence Hammond deliver to the order of the County Court for Middlesex the records of that county; that is to say, all books and files by him formerly received from Mr. Danforth, sometime Recorder of that County, as also all other books of record, and files belonging to said county in his custody.” 3 A year afterwards, Feb. 4, 1690-1, the Marshal General was directed to summon Captain Hammond to appear and show cause why he had not surrendered the Middlesex Records; and on the next day, he “peremptorily denying to appear,” the General Court ordered the Marshal General to arrest him forthwith, with power to break open his house if necessary.4 The records were at length surrendered. Again, at a town meeting, May 11, 1716, an attempt was made to reclaim missing records: “Whereas the Register's office in the County of Middlesex is not kept in our town of Cambridge, which is a grievance unto us, Voted, that our Representative be desired to represent said grievance to the honorable General Court, and intreat an Act of said Court that said office may forthwith be removed into our town, according to law, it being the shire-town in said county.” 5 By the records of the General Court it appears that on the 8th of June, 1716, Colonel Goffe complained that no office for the registry of deeds was open in Cambridge, being the shire-town of Middlesex; the Representative of Charlestown insisted that his town was the shire; and a hearing was ordered.6 A week afterwards, June 15, “upon hearing of the towns of Cambridge and Charlestown as to their respective claims of being the shire-town of the County of Middlesex, resolved that Cambridge is the shire-town of said County. Read and non-concurred by the Representatives.” 7 The case between the two towns being again heard, June 13, 1717, it was resolved by the whole court, that “Cambridge is the shire-town of the said county;” 8 and on the following day it was voted in concurrence “that the public office for registering of deeds and conveyances of lands for the County [212] of Middlesex be forthwith opened and kept at the shire-town of Cambridge.” 9 This order was immediately obeyed. I have not ascertained when or where the house was erected in which the judicial courts were first held in Cambridge. It seems to have been burned in 1671. In the Court Files of that year, is a document commencing thus: “At a County Court held at Cambridge, 4 (8) 1671. After the burning of the Court House, wherein was also burnt the Court Book of Records for trials, and several deeds, wills and inventories, that have been delivered into Court before the fire was kindled,” etc.10 The Court afterwards passed this order: “Upon information that several Records belonging to this County were casually burnt in the burning of the house where the Court was usually kept, this Court doth order that the Recorder take care that out of the foul copies and other scripts in his custody he fairly draw forth the said Records into a Book, and present the same to the County Court, when finished: and that the Treasurer of the County do allow him for the same.” 11 The first Court House of which we have any definite knowledge, was erected, about 1708, in Harvard Square, nearly in front of the present Lyceum Hall.12 It appears by the Proprietors' Records that “at a meeting of the Proprietors of Cambridge, orderly convened, the 26 day of January 1707-8,—Voted, That the land where Mr. John Bunker's shop now stands, with so much more as will be sufficient to erect the Court House upon (to be built in this town), be granted for that end, in case a Committee appointed by the Proprietors do agree with Andrew Bordman and John Bunker for building a lower story under it . . . . Deac. Nathaniel Hancock, Jason Russell, and Lieut. Amos Marrett, were chosen a committee to agree with said Bunker and Bordman about building under the said house.” The Committee reported, Feb. 9, 1607-8: “Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment, we, the subscribers above mentioned, have agreed with and granted liberty unto the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman to make a lower room under the said [213] house (which we apprehend will be about thirty foot in length and twenty-four foot in width), the said lower room to be about seven or eight foot stud, betwixt joints, with a cellar under the whole of the said house; the aforesaid lower room and cellar to be for the use of the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman, their heirs and assigns forever, excepting an entry through the middle of the said lower room, of about six foot wide, and a stairway for passage into the said Court House, or chamber, as the committee for building the same shall see meet; the remainder of the said lower room and the whole of the said cellar to be for the use and benefit of the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman, their heirs and assigns, forever, as aforesaid. It is the true intent and meaning of this agreement, that the said John Bunker and Andrew Bordman shall, at their own cost and charge, build the cellar and lower room aforesaid, and finish the same up to the girts, and keep so much of the said buildings as appertains to them the said Bunker and Bordman, viz., up to the girts aforesaid, in good repair, at all times, on penalty of paying treble damage that the upper room may sustain by reason of the said Bunker and Bordman's neglect in causing their part of said building to be kept in good repair,” etc. The County Court had previously “Ordered, that there be allowed out of the County Treasury towards the erecting a suitable Court House for the use of the County in the town of Cambridge, thirty pounds, the one half thereof to be paid at the raising and covering, and the other half at the finishing of the same; the said house to be not less than four and twenty foot wide and eight and twenty foot long, and of height proportionable.” 13 This house, diminutive as its proportions now appear, was used by the courts for about half a century. But in 1756 the Court of Sessions appointed a committee to provide better accommodations, either by enlarging and repairing the old house or erecting a new one. Whereupon the town, Nov. 2, 1756, declared by vote its willingness to pay its customary proportion of the cost of a “new Court House, to be erected, of such model and dimensions, and in such place in the town, as the Committee of said Court shall judge most suitable and commodious: provided the materials of the old meeting-house now about to be taken down, be given and applied (so far as they shall be wanted) to that use, together with the town's proportion of the present Court House.” On the 29th of the same month, the Proprietors voted to grant land, “not exceeding one [214] quarter of an acre, whereon to erect a new Court House,” the place to be determined by a joint committee of the proprietors, of the town, and of the Court of Sessions. At length a lot of land, where Lyceum Hall now stands, was purchased of Caleb Prentice, who conveyed the same Nov. 5, 1757, to William Brattle, Andrew Bordman, and Edmund Trowbridge, for the use of the town of Cambridge, and county of Middlesex, “for erecting and continuing a Court House upon forever hereafter.” On this lot a house was erected, more spacious than the former, and was occupied by the courts more than half a century. An attempt was afterwards made to erect another edifice in the centre of Harvard Square; and the Proprietors voted, June 14, 1784, “to give and grant to the town of Cambridge, for ever, so much land adjoining to the land on which the old Court House stood (which was nearly opposite to where the present Court House stands), as shall be sufficient to make up a piece forty six feet square; . . . . including and surrounding the land on which the old Court House stood (which was thirty feet by twenty-four feet), for the purpose of erecting a building to keep the County Records and hold the Probate Courts in.” 14 It does not appear, however, that any such building was erected. An ineffectual attempt was also made in 1806 by prominent men in Cambridgeport to induce the County to erect a court house on the easterly side of what was long called the “meeting-house lot,” bounded by Broadway, and Bordman, Harvard, and Columbia streets. Andrew Craigie and his associates were more successful. Having given ample grounds, and erected a court house and jail at an expense of $24,000, as related in chapter XIII., they were rewarded by the removal of the courts and records in 1816 to the edifices prepared for them, where they remain to this day. The old Court House having been abandoned by the County was used for town and parish purposes until April 19, 1841, when the town quitclaimed all its right and interest in the house and the lot (containing about ten perches) of land on which it stood for the nominal consideration of one dollar, to Omen S. Keith and others, in trust for the use of the proprietors of the Lyceum Hall to be erected on the premises; provided, nevertheless, that the grantees “do and shall forever grant and secure to the town the right of the inhabitants of the first Ward in said Cambridge to the use of the Hall for all necessary meetings of the voters in said Ward.” The old Court House was soon afterwards removed to Palmer Street; it still remains, being occupied for secular purposes. [215] The earliest notice which I have found of a place of imprisonment in Cambridge is contained in the following report, preserved in the Middlesex Court Files:—
On the other side is endorsed,—
[216] In October, 1660, the County Court ordered, that the House of Correction, or Bridewell, should be used as a prison for the County, until further provision be made. Such provision was made by the erection of a jail17 before Aug. 26, 1692, when it was ordered by the Court, “that the County Treasurer take care that their majesties Goal at Cambridge be repaired, for the comfortable being of what persons may be committed forthwith.” 18 It was also ordered, Dec. 14, 1703, “that an addition be made to the prison at the west end thereof, of eighteen foot square, with studs conformable to the old house.” A dozen years later, the old part of the prison became so unsatisfactory, that the Court appointed “a committee to agree with carpenters and other workmen to erect and build a good well-timbered house in Cambridge for a Prison, for the accommodation of a keeper, to be thirty-six foot long, and for width agreeable to the foundation of the old Goal or Prison, two storeys high, fifteen foot stud, with a stack of chymneys in the middle, to be done and finished workmanlike, as soon as may be conveniently effected. . . . . Further ordered, that Coll. Edmund Goffe, the present Sheriff, repaire [217] the chymneys in the new Goal, and what also may be needfull for the reception of and securing of criminals.” Until 1720, the “Common” extended to Linnaean Street, and included also a few acres, lying in a nearly square form, at the northwesterly corner of Linnaean Street and North Avenue.19 This extreme point of the Common was set apart as a “Place of execution,” or “Gallows lot,” as it was more familiarly called. And after the Common was reduced to its present size, and the lots in this square fronting on the streets, had been granted to individuals, about one acre in its extreme northwesterly corner was reserved for its former use, until trials, and imprisonments, and executions were transferred to East Cambridge.20 It was entered from North Avenue through a bridleway or passage, between Lancaster Place and Arlington Street, now called Stone Court. The names and the number of the wretched convicts who suffered the extreme penalty of the law at this “Place of execution,” are unknown to me. One horrible example, however, was recorded by Professor Winthrop, in his interleaved Almanac, under date of Sept. 18, 1755: “A terrible spectacle in Cambridge: two negroes belonging to Capt. Codman of Charlestown, executed for petit treason, for murdering their said master by poison. They were drawn upon a sled to the place of execution; and Mark, a fellow about 30, was hanged; and Phillis, an old creature, was burnt to death.” The “Boston Evening Post,” of Sept. 22, states more particularly, that “the fellow was hanged, and the woman burned at a stake about ten yards distant from the gallows. They both confessed themselves guilty of the crime for which they suffered, acknowledged the justice of their sentence, and died very penitent. After execution, the body of Mark was brought down to Charlestown Common, and hanged in chains on a gibbet erected there for that purpose.” Dr. Increase Mather, in his diary, printed in the first volume of the “Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society,” page 320, says that on the 22d of September, 1681, “there were three persons executed in Boston,—an Englishman for a rape; a negro [218] man for burning a house at Northampton; and a negro woman who burnt two houses at Roxbury, July 12, in one of which a child was burnt to death. The negro woman was burnt to death, —the first that has suffered such a death in New England.” It is devoutly to be hoped that the woman who thus expiated her crime at Cambridge, in 1755, was the last “that has suffered such a death in New England.” “Ye have the poor with you always;” and the judicious relief of their wants is an important but often a very perplexing duty. For several years, as will be related in chapter XV., the church assumed this duty, and made suitable provision for the destitute and distressed. It does not distinctly appear at what time the management of this charity passed into the hands of the town. The earliest reference to this subject which I find on the Town Records is under date of June 29, 1663: “Jane Bourne [or Bowen] making her complaint to the selectmen, that she can find none in the town that is willing to entertain her to their service, and craving their favor that she may have liberty to provide for herself in some other town, with security to such as shall so-entertain her,—the Townsmen do grant her request in manner following, viz., so as that she place herself in some honest family; and in case she stand in need of supply, or the town whither she shall resort do see reason to return her again upon the town, she shall be still accepted as one of the poor of this place; and this is to be understood and taken as binding to the town for one year next after the date hereof, any law, usage, or custom, to the contrary, notwithstanding.” Again, under date of April 8, 1672: “The terms of agreement of the selectmen with Thomas Longhorne for the keeping of William Healyes child, as followeth: That the said Thomas Longhorne is to bring up Hanna Hely, daughter of William Healy, born in the year 1671, providing all necessaries for her of food and clothing in the time of her minority and suitable education meet for one of her sex and degree; and for his satisfaction, he is to be allowed out of the Town Rate five pounds a year for five years; and if she should die before those five years be expired, or it should be provided for by any of its friends before that time, then he is to have no more than for the time he keep it, after five pounds per annum; only forty shillings of said pay is to be made in cash, or, if not, then so much in other pay at money price.” In like manner, for more than a hundred years after this date, provision appears to have been made for the poor, in private families, [219] under the supervision of the selectmen. At length it was determined, March 15, 1779, to purchase a house in which they might be gathered together, and their wants be more systematically supplied. Accordingly, “the committee who were chosen at the last Town Meeting, March 1, 1779, to purchase a workhouse for the poor of the town, reported that they could purchase of Deac. Samuel Whittemore a suitable house for that purpose. Voted, That said Committee purchase the house and land belonging to said Whittemore, take a deed for the same for the town, and that the Treasurer be directed to give security for the same, or hire the money to pay for it. Voted, that the Selectmen take care of the said house, and appoint some discreet person as Overseer.” The estate consisted of a dwelling house and twenty-five square rods of land on the northeasterly corner of Brighton and South streets, and was conveyed to the town by deed dated March 29, 1779. For some reason this estate proved unsatisfactory; and the town voted, March 1, 1785, “that Mr. Caleb Gannett, Stephen Dana, Esq., Capt. John Walton, Deac. Aaron Hill, and William Winthrop, Esq., be a committee to inquire whether there is any person who is desirous to purchase the house and land belonging to the town, situate near the causeway, which was bought for a workhouse and almshouse, and what price it will fetch; and they are also to inquire whether another place can be purchased in the town that will answer for said purposes, and upon what terms it can be had.” The committee having been authorized so to do, reported, March 6, 1786, that “they sold the house at public auction for £ 19, 10s.; they afterwards sold the land for £ 37, 10s., both amounting to £ 57.” They had also received an offer from the heirs of Abraham Watson of a house and about five acres of land for the sum of £ 60. This estate21 was on the southwesterly corner of North Avenue and Cedar Street, and was conveyed to the town by deed dated March 9, 1786. The committee reported, June 12, 1786, “that an house is nearly finished and will be ready within a few days for the reception of the poor,” and recommended that it “be called the Poor's House;” also that there “be chosen and appointed, as soon as may be, five persons, distinct from the Selectmen, to be Overseers of the Poor,” who should have the general charge of the house, and provide all necessary “food, fuel, clothing, and medicine, proper for” the occupants, and tools and materials necessary to their proper employment; [220] that the Overseers should “appoint a suitable person to be Warden of the Poor's House,” who should “cause his family to lead their lives and behave at all times soberly, quietly, decently, orderly, and regularly; particularly he shall cause them to attend the public worship on Sundays as often and generally as conveniently may be;” and he “shall endeavor to form the paupers under his care to habits of economy, frugality, temperance, sobriety, and industry; particularly he shall keep them employed in such useful and profitable labors as they may be respectively able to perform, within doors or without doors, having regard to their different sexes, ages, bodily strength, former habits of life, and all other circumstances, with the approbation of the Overseers;” and that they should also appoint a suitable physician, and employ all necessary servants. The Warden should be required to pay all the earnings of the paupers, monthly, to the Overseers, who should pay the same, half yearly, to the Treasurer, drawing on him for the funds necessary to defray all charges; and the Treasurer should keep a separate account of all such receipts and payments. Finally, “the Overseers of the Poor shall from time to time make such regulations, not inconsistent with these general regulations, the laws of the Commonwealth, or the principles of humanity and benevolence, as they may judge fit for the better ordering of the Poor's House and the affairs of it; which regulations so by them made shall be binding until the expiration of the year for which such Overseers shall be chosen, or until they shall be by them revoked.” This report was accepted; and Dr. William Kneeland, Mr. Jeduthun Wellington, Deac. Aaron Hill, Mr. Ebenezer Stedman, and Mr. Edward Jackson, were thereupon elected as the first “Overseers of the Poor, distinct from the Selectmen.” In this house, and under such regulations, the pauper establishment was admininistered until 1818, when a new Almshouse was erected in Cambridgeport. By deed dated April 2, 1818, Jonathan L. Austin and Benjamin Austin conveyed to the town about eleven acres of land, being the whole square bounded by Harvard, Norfolk, Austin, and Prospect streets, except one house lot, previously sold, at the corner of Norfolk and Austin streets, “measuring 100 feet on each of said streets, 100 feet on the westerly side, and 78 feet on the northerly side.” The Overseers reported to the town, Nov. 2, 1818, that they had sold the old Almshouse to Jonathan Fowle, for $454.50, and had erected [221] on the lot purchased of the Austins a brick house22 55 feet long, 36 feet wide, about half three stories high, and the other half two stories high, with accommodations for sixty persons, and had removed the paupers into it. A code of Rules and Regulations, an Address by Royal Makepeace, on behalf of the Overseers, and a Sermon delivered in the Almshouse by Rev. Dr. Holmes, in September, 1818, are entered at full length on the Records of the Overseers of the Poor. The new location of the Almshouse did not prove satisfactory; and a desire for further change was soon manifested. As early as Nov. 14, 1831, a Town-house having been erected on the northeasterly corner of the square, a committee was appointed by the town “to cause the Almshouse lands to be surveyed and laid out into proper streets and building-lots, and to ascertain what the same may be sold for; also to ascertain for what sum a suitable spot of ground for an Almshouse may be purchased, and a proper and suitable Almshouse erected thereon.” During the night preceding July 30, 1836, the Almshouse, together with the outbuildings, was utterly consumed by fire, and one of its wretched inmates perished. The order for surveying the Almshouse lands was renewed, Aug. 22, 1836; and it was further ordered, that the building-lots be offered for sale at auction. Meantime, the town voted, Aug. 8, 1836, “that the Overseers of the Poor be authorised to make such temporary provision for the support of the Town's Poor, and such of the State's Poor as are not of competent health to labor, by hiring a building, or otherwise, as they may consider for the interest of the town.” The Overseers accordingly hired a spacious house, originally designed for a tavern, on the northerly side of Main Street, nearly opposite to Osborn Street, which was occupied until a new Almshouse was erected at Riverside. The town purchased, Dec. 9, 1836, of Amos Hazeltine, for $5,600, eleven and a quarter acres of land, bordering on Charles River, and extending from Western Avenue nearly to River Street, together with two acres and three quarters on the opposite side of Western Avenue, extending from the river to Putnam Street. A committee reported in April, 1838, that a [222] brick Almshouse had been constructed on the first mentioned lot, at an expense of $7,490.90; and the paupers were again placed in a comfortable habitation. Within a few years afterwards, a desire was manifested to abandon this pleasant spot, which had attained a greatly increased marketable value, and to try the experiment of farming on a larger scale. Accordingly the city purchased, Aug. 7, 1849, of Samuel Smith and Spencer Cook, for $12,000, about thirty-two acres of land, situated partly in the northwesterly corner of Cambridge and partly in the southwesterly corner of Somerville, and erected a stone Almshouse of the size and fashion then prevalent. The cost of the whole establishment was reported by a committee to be,—for the land, $12,000; for the house, $32,970.69; for fences, furniture, etc., $3,000; total, $47,970.69. The house was formally placed in the custody of the Overseers of the Poor, April 3, 1851, with much congratulatory speech-making, in presence of a large assembly of citizens, and the paupers were transferred to their new home. When this house was erected, its magnificent proportions were considered necessary for the accommodation of the large number of State paupers then under the charge of the city. Shortly afterwards, the Commonwealth adopted a new policy, erected State Almshouses, and withdrew its paupers from the care of cities and towns. Complaints were uttered, that the erection of so large a house for so few inmates was unnecessary, and involved an extravagant outlay of money. But such complaints are no longer heard; partly, because the increase of city paupers has kept pace with the rapidly increasing population, until the house is nearly if not altogether filled; and partly, because the citizens have become accustomed to expenditures so much more unnecessary and extravagant, that this has dwindled into comparative insignificance. The old Almshouse (together with the land) was sold, May 22, 1851, to Little & Brown, publishers and booksellers, for $24,000; they converted it into an establishment for the manufacture of books, and erected many additional buildings. Subsequently the larger part of the estate became the property of H. O. Houghton & Co., by whom it was further embellished and rendered famous as the seat of the Riverside Press. Ordinaries, or houses of public entertainment, were established at a very early period. The General Court ordered, March 4, 1634-5, “that no persons whatsoever shall keep a common victualling house, without license from the Court, under the penalty [223] of xxs. a week.” 23 The power of granting licenses “to keep houses of common entertainment, and to retail wine, beer, &c.” was transferred to the County Courts, May 26, 1647, “so as this Court may not be thereby hindered in their more weighty affairs.” 24 Various laws were enacted, regulating such houses, notably in 1645;25 yet so necessary were they considered, that the town of Concord was presented by the grand jury, June 19, 1660, “for not having a common house of entertainment,” and was “enjoined to present a meet person to be allowed at the next Court at Cambridge for that employment, on penalty of 5l., and to pay costs of Court, 2s and 6d.” Great caution was manifested in the appointment of grave and respectable citizens to keep ordinaries and to sell intoxicating drinks. The first person licensed by the General Court, Sept. 8, 1636, “to keepe a house of intertainment at Newe Towne,” was Thomas Chesholme26 a deacon of the church, and afterwards Steward of Harvard College. He was also licensed “to draw wine at Cambridge,” May 13, 1640.27 His dwelling-house was on a lot at the northwest corner of Dunster and Winthrop streets, adjoining the lot on which the first meeting-house was erected; so that the first church edifice and the first tavern in Cambridge stood side by side; and from all which is known of Deacon Chesholme's character, it may be confidently believed that he permitted nothing to be done in the one which could bring disgrace upon the other. The first person “allowed to sell wine and strong water” in Cambridge, March 12, 1637-8,28 was Mr. Nicholas Danforth, a selectman, a representative in the General Court, and one of the most active and honored citizens. He resided on the northerly side of Bow Street, near Plympton Street, but died about a month after the date of his license. The next year, May 22, 1639, “Mr. Nathaniell Sparhawke was permitted to drawe wine and strong water for Cambridge.” 29 He also was [224] a deacon of the church, and resided on the easterly side of Brighton Street, about midway between Harvard Square and Mount Auburn Street, in the house formerly owned and occupied by the Reverend Samuel Stone. We come next to the establishment of an ordinary which was long known as the “Blue Anchor Tavern.” Dec. 27, 1652, “The Townsmen do grant liberty to Andrew Belcher to sell beer and bread, for entertainment of strangers and the good of the town;” 30 and the County Court granted him a license, June 20, 1654, “to keep a house of public entertainment at Cambridge.” Mr. Belcher was a trustworthy man, occasionally employed by the General Court to perform important duties. He was respectably connected; his wife was daughter of Mr. Nicholas Danforth and sister of Deputy Governor Thomas Danforth; their son, Andrew Belcher, Jr., was a member of the Council, and his son, Jonathan Belcher, was Governor of Massachusetts and of New Jersey. It does not appear where he first opened a “beer and bread” shop, or a “house of public entertainment;” but on the first of October, 1671, his son Andrew, then residing in Hartford, Conn., purchased of Sarah Beal, widow of Deacon Thomas Beal, an estate at the northeast corner of Brighton and Mount Auburn streets, where the sign of the Blue Anchor was soon afterwards displayed. Mr. Belcher was licensed for the last time in April, 1673, in which year he probably died. In April, 1674, license was granted to his widow Elizabeth Belcher, and afterwards from year to year until she died, June 26, 1680. She was succeeded by her son Andrew Belcher, who was licensed in 1681 and 1682.31 In September, 1682, Capt. Belcher sold the estate to his brother-in-law Jonathan Remington, who performed the duties of host until April 21, 1700, when he died, and was succeeded by his widow, Martha Remington, daughter of the first Andrew Belcher. The Belcher family ceased to be inn-holders May 12, 1705, when the widow and children of Captain Remington sold to Joseph Hovey the estate “near the market-place, commonly called and known by the sign of the Blue Anchor.” Joseph Hovey retained the house only four years, and then sold it to his brother John Hovey, who died in 1715. His widow Abiel Hovey [225] received license for two years, and then married Edmund Angier, who conducted the business until April 4, 1724, when he died and his widow Abiel again assumed charge of the house; she married Isaac Watson, Aug. 27, 1725, in whose name business was transacted about four years, when it passed into the hands of John Hovey, son of the former owner. In November, 1731, the General Court authorized the Court of Sessions to grant (out of the usual season) to Joseph Bean, late of Boston, “a license to keep a Tavern in Cambridge, in the house of Mr. John Hovey, which he hath lately hired, and has for many years past been used as a house of public entertainment.” On the 23d of April, 1737, Mr. Bean bought of Nathaniel Hancock an estate on the westerly side of Brighton Street, about midway between Harvard Square and Mount Auburn Street, to which he transferred the sign of the Blue Anchor; and for nearly a century afterwards it was a famous Tavern. Mr. Bean sold the estate, Jan. 26, 1749, to Ebenezer Bradish; Mr. Bradish died in 1785, and his son sold it, Feb. 29, 1796, to Israel Porter, who is well remembered by many now living, and who died May 30, 1837, aged 99, according to the town record. A part of the tavern-house remains standing, though much changed in appearance.32 John Jackson kept a public house near the northwesterly angle of Brattle Street and Brattle Square, probably from about 1672 until 1695, when he was succeeded by Capt. Josiah Parker, who purchased the estate in 1699, and was an inn-holder as late as 1725, and perhaps until he died in July or August, 1731.33 [226] Another tavern, somewhat famous for many years, stood on the southerly side of Mount Auburn Street, about midway between Brighton and Dunster Streets. It seems to have been first opened in 1726, by John Stedman, grandson of Robert Stedman, the former owner of the same estate. He was succeeded, in 1728, by his widow, Sarah Stedman, and she, in 1734, by her son Ebenezer Stedman, who died Sept. 13, 1785, aged 76. Time would fail me should I attempt to enumerate and describe all the inn-holders who have flourished in Cambridge. During the first century after the foundation of the town, licenses were granted to the following named persons (and perhaps others) besides those who have already been mentioned:— Daniel Champney, 1691. William Russell, 1696-1715. Samuel Phipps, 1707-1709. Elizabeth Phipps, 1710-1712. Edward Marrett, 1709. Susanna Stacey, 1709, 1713-1715. Hannah Stacey, 1712, 1716-1724. Ruth Child, 1713-1715. Samuel Robinson, 1714-1720. John Smith, 1715-1717. James Ingham, 1716-1720. Samuel Smith, 1716-1735. James Cutler, 1718-1735. Thomas Thompson, 1721-1724. Elizabeth Thompson, 1725. Thomas Brown, 1721. William Bond, 1722-1724. Peter Oliver, 1727-1729. Joshua Gamage, 1729-1731. Daniel Champney, Jr., 1730-1733. Thomas Holt, 1730-1731. Thomas Dana, 1731-1735. William Bowen, 1732. Jonathan Starr, 1735. During the early part of the present century, the Davenport Tavern, at the westerly corner of North Avenue and Beech Street, was widely celebrated for the concoction of flip; and in [227] the easterly sections of the town the hostelries at the easterly corner of Main and Pearl streets, the westerly corner of Main and Douglass streets, near the westerly corner of Main and Moore streets, at the junction of Main Street and Broadway (and another a few rods farther eastward), at the junction of Cambridge and Bridge streets, and at the junction of Bridge and Gore streets, besides a generous local patronage, reaped an abundant harvest from the country teams engaged in transporting merchandise to and from Boston; which teams almost entirely disappeared immediately after the construction of railroads, and the inns did not long afterwards flourish. Besides innkeepers, the County Court licensed others to sell intoxicating liquors by retail. Among the names of such retailers, in addition to those who have already been mentioned, the following appear during the first century:— John Stedman, 1653-1686. William Manning, 1654-1686. Edmund Angier, 1674-1686. Samuel Andrew, 1684-1691. William Andrew, 1701. Mrs. Seeth Andrew, 1702-1703. Zachariah Hicks, 1704-1717. Martha Remington, 1705-1712. Jonathan Remington, 1713-1735. Nathaniel Hancock, Jr., 1707-1709. Mary Bordman, 1708-1714. John Stedman, 1717-1724. Sarah Fessenden, 1720-1735. Mary Oliver, 1731-1732. Edward Marrett, 1733-1735. Two of these retailers in their old age found it necessary to appeal to the County Court for relief; their petitions are still preserved on file, to wit:—
In addition to innholders and retailers, venders of beer and bread were licensed, one of whom, Andrew Belcher, has already been mentioned. Another was Mrs. Bradish, probably the wife of Robert Bradish,34 who resided on the westerly corner of Harvard and Holyoke streets, where the Holyoke House now stands. The following appeal to the County Court, without date, is in the handwriting of President Dunster, and is preserved in the files for 1654:—
From time to time the Court established a scale of prices for ordinaries:—
At a meeting of the magistrates and committee to take the Treasurer's account, Dec. 30, 1679; For the regulating of expenses at the County Courts, it is ordered that henceforth, for the juries, there shall be allowed in money,In the Proprietors' Records, 1635, it is stated that a large lot, originally designed for Richard Saltonstall, “is now to be entered the Market Place.” It was bounded northerly on Mount Auburn Street, easterly on Brighton Street, and southerly on Winthrop Street. This lot retained the name of Market Place more than two hundred years; but there is no evidence that any 35 [230] market house was ever erected thereon.36 It may have been used, long ago, as an open mart for the interchange of goods between producers and consumers; but even of this, no proof remains. Again, when Davenport & Makepeace, in 1805, laid out streets in the Phips Farm, a Market Place was reserved at the junction of Market Street and Broadway; but the time has not yet arrived for appropriating it to its intended use. In July, 1812, the first effectual movement was made for securing the long-desired accommodation. Premising that “a convenient market-stall, sufficiently capacious to admit meat and other articles to be exposed for sale, protected by a roof or covering from the rains and the sun, erected near the town pump in Cambridge, will be of general benefit,” twenty-four persons subscribed an agreement for the accomplishment of that purpose. The “town pump” stood near the centre of Harvard Square; and the Square was then much smaller than it now is, having since that period been enlarged on the northeasterly and westerly sides. On the westerly portion of this Square a building was erected, about thirty-four feet long and twenty-five feet wide, with posts, and rails around it, probably encumbering nearly the whole space granted for that use by the proprietors of common lands; namely, “a square piece, measuring forty-six feet on each side.” John Bowers engaged to erect the building for such price as should be determined by Deac. Josiah Moore, Deac. John Watson, and Mr. Thomas Mason. The referees reported, Nov. 5, 1812, that Mr. Bowers was entitled to $210.55, for labor and materials, and that materials had been furnished by subscribers, amounting to $38.39. They also estimated that it would cost $81.00 additional “to complete the coving, furnish posts and railings around the house, steps to each door,37 raising the earth around it, providing benches, cleaver, block, and additional hooks, painting the building, and procuring Dearborn's patent Balance, with a scale attached thereto, that will weigh from half a pound to five hundred and forty weight.” 38 [231] At their meeting, Jan. 11, 1813, the proprietors established several Regulations, the first three of which were as follows:— “1. No person occupying said market house shall be permitted to use or vend spirituous liquors therein, except on such public occasions, and under such restrictions, as the committee may hereafter agree to and direct. 2. That no fire be carried into or kept in the market house, and that no cigars or pipes be allowed to be smoked therein. 3. That no shell or other fish be permitted to be kept in said market house, at any season of the year.” 39 The first occupant of the market house seems to have been Joel Wellington, who paid rent for the quarter ending March 31, 1813; he also occupied it several years after April 1, 1814. The second occupant was Henry Greenwood, under a lease dated March 31, 1813, in which lease the committee of the proprietors reserved “one quarter part of said house,—viz., next to the balance and scale, for the purpose of accommodating those who may bring into the market, butter, eggs, or fowls, or any kinds of sauce; but no person shall be admitted to vend therein such articles of provision as are usually supplied by butchers.” The committee also reserved “the right of letting said market house on Wednesday and Thursday of Commencement week, without any deduction from the rent thereof.” And it is worthy of note, that, according to the Treasurer's account current, Israel Porter paid for the use of the market house on those two days and the intervening night, the sum of twenty dollars, while the whole rent of the house for the year, exclusive of those days, was only forty dollars. Afterwards, this reservation of two days was discontinued, and the rent was gradually increased to eighty dollars per annum, and taxes. A lease of the ground under and around the market house had been granted by the Proprietors of Common Lands, extending to [232] April 1, 1833. But at a town meeting, April 3, 1826, a Committee, of which Abraham Hilliard was chairman, submitted an elaborate Report concerning the respective rights of the Town and the Proprietors of Common Lands in and to several lots therein described, and concerning sundry encroachments on the public highways. The report recited the history of the lot on which the Market House stood, showing that, after it had been occupied about fifty years by a court house, it had remained open for public travel during a still longer period, from about 1760 to 1812, and that the town had thus acquired the right of passage over it as a public highway; which report was accepted, and arrangements were made to secure the immediate or future removal of all encroachments on any of the public highways in the town. At a meeting of the Proprietors of the Market House, March 5, 1827, “a deed was presented by a committee of the town of Cambridge, for the Proprietors to sign, thereby acknowledging that they have no right or title to the land whereon the market house now stands;” the proprietors refused to sign said deed, and voted, that William Hilliard, Levi Farwell, and Joseph Holmes be a committee for the purpose of ascertaining whether a suitable lot of land can be procured upon which to remove the market house, and upon what terms. After an ineffectual negotiation, lasting more than two years, resort was had to legal process. At the September term of the Court of Common Pleas, 1829, an indictment was presented by the Grand Jury against the Proprietors of the Market House, for keeping up and maintaining “a certain wooden building, extending in length thirty-four feet and in breadth twenty-five feet, with a cellar under the same, and with posts and railing on the sides thereof extending in length forty feet, standing upon the common and public highway in the town of Cambridge.” The case was continued from term to term until June, 1830, when the result is thus recorded: “And now, Asahel Stearns, Esq., Attorney for the Commonwealth in this behalf, says, the within named defendants having paid the costs of prosecution, and given satisfactory security for the removal of the nuisance within forty days from this seventeenth of June, 1830, he will no further prosecute this indictment.” In due time the building was removed, and the Square has since remained open and unobstructed. The enclosure at the corner of North Avenue and Garden Street is generally supposed to be the most ancient burial-place [233] in Cambridge. It was used for that purpose as early as January, 4, 1635-6, when it was “ordered, that the burying-place shall be paled in; whereof John Taylcot is to do 2 rod, Georg Steele 3 rod and a gate, Thomas Hosmer 3 rod, Mathew Allen 1 rod, and Andrew Warner appointed to get the remainder done at a public charge; and he is to have IIIs. a rod.” But at an earlier date, April 7, 1634, we find this record: “Granted John Pratt two acres by the old burying-place, without the common pales.” This evidently refers to some spot devoted to the burial of the dead, earlier than the one then in use. Its location is not certainly known, yet it is indicated with some degree of probability by two circumstances: (1.) The lot owned by John Pratt in 1635, was situated on the southerly side of Brattle Street, and on both sides of Hilliard Street. (2.) The “common pales” are supposed to denote the stockade which was erected in 1632, nearly, if not precisely in the line of the present Ash Street, and of which Dr. Holmes says traces existed when he wrote his History in 1800. It is not unreasonable then to suppose that “the old burying-place without the common pales” may have been at or near the westerly corner of Brattle and Ash streets, in the grounds now owned by Samuel Batchelder, Esq. A hundred years after the second burial-place was ordered to be “paled in,” the town enclosed it by a substantial stone wall, instead of the old wooden fence, or pales. The corporation of Harvard College contributed one sixth part of the expense, as appears by their Records under date of Oct. 20, 1735: “Whereas there is a good stone wall erected and erecting round the burying-place in Cambridge, which will come to about £ 150, and whereas there has been a considerable regard had to the College in building so good and handsome a wall in the front; and the College has used, and expects to make use of the burying-place as Providence gives occasion for it; therefore, Voted, that as soon as the said stone wall shall be completed, the Treasurer pay the sum of twenty-five pounds to Samuel Danforth, William Brattle and Andrew Bordman, Esq., a committee for the town to take care of the said fence.” After another hundred years, in his Preface to “Epitaphs from the old burying-ground in Cambridge,” 1845, Mr. William Thaddeus Harris says, “It is rather surprising, that, in this age of improvement, Cambridge should fall behind her neighbors, and suffer her ancient graveyard to lie neglected. Interesting as it is from containing within its limits the ‘tombs of the prophets,’ the spot is often visited by [234] the curious stranger; but it is to be feared that he as often leaves it with feelings of regret at its desolate appearance.” It should be added, that this “desolate appearance” has been almost entirely removed within the last thirty years, and, though not profusely ornamented, an air of quiet neatness now marks the spot. This ground, however, was of such limited dimensions, that in the course of nearly two hundred years the mouldering remains of some must have been disturbed, to give place to others. The increasing population of the two new villages in the easterly part of the town made the necessity urgent for additional room. Accordingly, at a Town-meeting, May 27, 1811, a committee was appointed “to contract for a piece of land in the most eligible situation, for a new burial-ground in Cambridgeport.” The Committee reported, August 5, that they had selected a spot, and they were empowered to purchase it. On the first day of January, 1812, Jonathan L. and Benjamin Austin, for $791.67, conveyed to the town two acres one quarter and twenty rods of land, bounded north by Broadway and east by Norfolk Street, with a right of way to Harvard Street by a passage forty feet wide. For more than half a century this ground was used as a public burying-place, chiefly by the inhabitants of Cambridgeport and East Cambridge. Meantime the beautiful cemetery at Mount Auburn was consecrated by solemn religious services, Sept. 24, 1831, and the less extensive but scarcely less beautiful and attractive Cambridge Cemetery was in like manner consecrated, Nov. 1, 1854. In one or the other of these cemeteries many of the inhabitants purchased lots, and reverently removed to a more quiet and secluded resting place the remains of their deceased friends. The ground, being comparatively disused for new burials, and divested of many treasures formerly deposited therein, gradually assumed a desolate and forlorn appearance, until a general desire was expressed to discontinue entirely its former use and to convert it into a public park. Application was accordingly made to the General Court for permission to effect the desired change; and on the 29th of April, 1865, it was “Resolved, that the city council of the city of Cambridge is hereby authorized, at the expense of said city, to remove the remains of the dead from the burial ground between Broadway and Harvard Street in Ward Number Two, in said Cambridge, to the Cambridge Cemetery, or such other burial place in the vicinity of Cambridge as the relatives and friends of the deceased may designate and provide. . . . . Said ground shall be surrounded by [235] suitable enclosures, and shall forever remain unused for a public street, unoccupied by any building, and open as a public park. In due time the work was accomplished; a suitable fence was erected, the ground properly graded, walks constructed, and trees planted, so that the park has already become ornamental to the city.” 40 Cambridge Common originally extended northwestwardly as far as to Linnaean Street, including all the land thus far between Garden Street and North Avenue. It was used for military parades and other public purposes, but especially for the safe keeping of the herd of cows, through the nights of the summer season, and was therefore called the Cow-common. In April, 1720, a survey was made for the purpose of division; but the work was not completed until 1724, when that portion lying northerly of Waterhouse Street was laid out into lots, which were assigned to individuals. The Common was thus reduced substantially to its present dimensions. It continued to be the property of the “Proprietors of Common lands,” until Nov. 20, 1769, when they “Voted, that all the common lands belonging to the Proprietors, fronting the college, commonly called the Town Commons, not heretofore granted or allotted to any particular person or persons, or for any special or particular use, be and the same is hereby granted to the town of Cambridge, to be used as a training-field, to lie undivided, and to remain for that use forever; provided nevertheless, that if the said town should dispose of, grant, or appropriate the same, or any part thereof, at any time hereafter, to or for any other use than that aforementioned, that then and in such case the whole of the premises hereby granted to said town shall revert to the Proprietors granting the same, and the present grant shall thereupon be deemed null and void, to all [236] intents and purposes, as if the same had never been made.” At a town meeting, March 3, 1828, the Selectmen reported that they had purchased for the town all the remaining rights of the Proprietors in the common lands, and had taken “a good and sufficient deed thereof, and caused the same to be recorded.” Before the Common was fully released to the town, a desire was manifested to embellish it and convert it into a pleasant park. At a town meeting, April 7, 1823, a petition was presented by William Hilliard and others for liberty, at their own expense, “to make certain improvements on the Common in said town, by setting out trees, fencing in certain parts, etc., not incompatible with the original grant to said town.” The petition was referred to a Committee, who having “matured nothing” were discharged at the next meeting. The matter seems then to have rested until June 5, 1830, when it was enacted by the General Court, “that Israel Porter, Stephen Higginson, Asahel Stearns, Joseph Holmes, and Francis Dana, with their associates, be and they are hereby authorized and empowered, at their own expense, and under the direction of two commissioners, to be appointed by the governor, with the advice of the council, to enclose such part or parts of the Common in Cambridge, in the County of Middlesex, as the said commissioners shall determine, due regard being had to the public convenience and necessity. And the said commissioners, after giving due notice to all persons interested, shall have power to make such alterations with respect to the direction of the roads by which the said common is traversed, as they shall see fit, and shall designate the portion or portions of the said common to be enclosed, by metes and bounds, and shall make report of their doings, under their hands and seals, and file the same in the Secretary's office as soon as may be convenient after the said service shall have been performed. And they are further authorized and empowered to level the surface of the ground, to plant trees, and lay out and make walks within said enclosure, in such manner as, with the approbation of the selectmen of the said town, they may think proper, leaving suitable and convenient avenues for the accommodation of persons who may have occasion to enter or pass over any part of said enclosure on foot. Be it further enacted, that the said enclosure shall be forever kept and appropriated to public use only, as a public park, promenade, and place for military parade; and no part thereof shall, on any pretence, be appropriated to any purpose of private use or emolument.” 41 The work was accomplished in due time, [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's42 to the road leading to Canal Bridge,43 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 [238] Jeduthun Wellington and others, for a highway to be laid out over Cambridge Common.” The history and result of this petition appear on the records of the Commissioners, January Term, 1835: “A petition of Jeduthun Wellington and others for a new highway across Cambridge Common was presented to the County Commissioners” at the May Term, 1832, and an order of notice was issued. The case was heard at the September Term, 1832, when after argument and due deliberation, the Commissioners “did adjudge and determine that they had no jurisdiction in the premises, and could not by law lay out and establish a public highway over and across said Common, as prayed for,” etc. “Whereupon the said petitioners applied to the Supreme Judicial Court of this Commonwealth for a mandamus upon said Commissioners, requiring them to exercise jurisdiction in the premises; and the said Supreme Judicial Court having refused to grant such writ of mandamus, it is now ordered, that said petition, which has been continued from term to term, to await the determination of the said Supreme Judicial Court, to this time, be dismissed.” Costs of Court were assessed upon the petitioners, who pursued this litigation no further. This result was highly gratifying and advantageous to the inhabitants of Old Cambridge, who thus secured in perpetuity, for themselves and their successors, a spacious and pleasant park, rich in historical recollections. It was here that Washington assumed the command of the American army; and here still flourishes the venerable elm, under which tradition says he stood, while his commission was read and proclaimed. Long may that monumental tree escape the ravages of the rampant vandalism which disgraces the present age. But the benefit thus derived was not without its drawback. The old proverb, that “every rose has its thorn,” was verified in this case. The fierce and angry contest, which gave to Old Cambridge its beautiful Common, indirectly transferred to Cambridgeport the public meetings of the town and the offices for the transaction of municipal affairs. The old Court House44 would not contain the multitude assembled on the 8th of October, 1830, and the meeting, according to a former custom, adjourned to the [239] meeting-house of the First Parish. It is understood that some members of that Parish expressed a natural unwillingness to have their house of worship used for the transaction of secular business, and especially for the indulgence and expression of angry passions. After the close of this unpleasant meeting, some of the citizens discussed the propriety of erecting a house sufficiently large to accommodate the voters, so that there might be no further occasion to use the church; and it very naturally occurred to them that if such a house should be erected, it would be well to place it where it would best accommodate the whole town.45 The result was the insertion of an article in the Warrant for the next town-meeting, Nov. 1, 1830, “to see if the town will erect a Town-house on the Almshouse lot, or some other suitable spot, as prayed for by John Cook and others.” This article was referred to a committee consisting of three prominent citizens in each section of the town, to wit: Samuel P. P. Fay, Royal Makepeace, John Cook, Stephen Higginson, Asahel Stearns, Levi Farwell, William Parmenter, Samuel S. Green, and Ephraim Buttrick. This committee reported, March 7, 1831, “that, having considered the subject, it is, in their opinion, expedient that a town-house should be erected on the easterly part of the almshouse lot in the parish of Cambridgeport, as more central to the population of the town than the present house, and that a house sufficient to accommodate the town may be built for a sum not exceeding $2,000: that when such house shall be finished, all town meetings should be held therein from and after that time.” The report was accepted; and Levi Farwell, Luther S. Cushing, and William Parmenter were appointed as a committee “to report a suitable location, prepare plans, and report estimates for a town-house.” At the next town meeting, April 4, 1831, the committee recommended that the town-house be erected at the northeasterly corner of the Almshouse lot,46 and presented a plan of an edifice, drawn by Asher Benjamin, and estimated to cost $2,505. The town accepted the report, elected a building committee, consisting of John Chamberlin, Luther S. Cushing, and William Parmenter, and authorized the Treasurer to pay the bills therefor, not exceeding the sum of $3,000. Subsequently an additional appropriation of $1,300 was made. The total expense, including $296.09 for furniture and $145.13 for fencing the lot, was $4,351.19. In asking for estimates, the [240] building committee inserted this specification: “The house is to be of wood, forty-six feet in front or breadth, and seventy-six feet long, with posts twenty feet and four inches high, and the roof one fourth of its base in height; on each end of the building, in addition to the aforesaid length, will be a portico, of six feet in width, consisting of six fluted Doric columns, with an entablature and pediment.” Internally, there was one principal hall, fifty-nine feet long, of the whole width and height of the building. At the rear, or west end, were two rooms, half the full height, each eighteen feet long and fifteen feet wide, with an entry between them: over which was another room extending across the whole, to which access was had by two flights of stairs from the principal hall. The town held its first meeting in the new house March 5, 1832, and all subsequent town-meetings were held in the same place. After Cambridge became a city in 1846, the Mayor and Aldermen assembled in the southerly small room,47 and the Common Council in the larger room above, until the evening of Dec. 29, 1853, when, in the midst of a furious snowstorm, the whole building was utterly consumed by fire. Fortunately, all the Records and other books and public papers were preserved, the larger and more valuable portion being removed while the flames were raging, and the remainder being afterwards found in the safe uninjured, except that they were discolored by smoke. After the destruction of this edifice, rooms for the accommodation of the City Government were obtained in the Cambridge Athenaeum, at the easterly corner of Main and Pleasant streets. This edifice was subsequently purchased and converted into the present City Hall. For the space of forty years after the erection of West Boston Bridge, Cambridgeport was an isolated village, separated from Old Cambridge by a belt of land half a mile in width, almost wholly unoccupied by buildings. East Cambridge was even more completely separated from the other two villages by the Great Marsh. In 1835, the heirs of Chief Justice Dana sold the tract of land now called “Dana Hill,” having laid it out into streets and lots; and they sold other portions of the same estate, in 1840, extending, on the northerly side of Harvard Street, as far westerly as Remington Street. Buildings were soon erected on this territory, so that, within a few years, Old Cambridge and Cambridgeport became one continuous village, and the original [241] parish line would not be observed by a stranger. East Cambridge also, though more slowly, approached Cambridgeport, especially on Cambridge Street; and an extensive system of improvement has been recently commenced, which promises to convert the northerly portion of the Great Marsh into dry land, and at no distant day to unite the inhabited portions of the two villages “along the whole line.” Meanwhile, it was natural, in the early days when the two new villages were struggling into existence, that a spirit of rivalry, sometimes attended by jealousy, should become manifest between each other and between both and the ancient town. Their interests were sometimes adverse. Sharp contests between Cambridgeport and East Cambridge, or rather between the large landholders in the two places, in regard to streets and bridges, have been mentioned elsewhere. The renoval of the courts and the public offices to East Cambridge, by the authority of the County Court, was a sore grievance to the people of Old Cambridge, and by no means agreeable to the inhabitants of Cambridgeport, whose access to the Court was easier before than after the removal. It was another grievance to Old Cambridge, that the municipal government should be removed from its time-honored seat to Cambridgeport; but this was approved by East Cambridge, because the new place was easier of access. On the other side, the new villages had long standing grievances, growing out of a real or supposed unwillingness of Old Cambridge to give them their full share of schools, streets, and other public conveniences. Especially in regard to streets, they frequently complained that they were required to pay their proportionate share of the expense of keeping all the old streets in repair, and at the same time to pay the whole expense of making and repairing the streets necessary for their own convenience, including those which were constantly used by Old Cambridge in passing to Boston. At the expiration of half a century after the erection of the bridge, many of those sources of mutual jealousy had disappeared, and time had at least partially healed the wounds occasioned by events which were beyond remedy. The new villages had become sufficiently strong to protect their own interests and to secure for themselves a fair and equitable proportion of public conveniences. At the same time, no one section was able to control or oppress the two others; and it does not appear that any desire to do so was cherished. Many of those who had been active in the early struggles had passed off the stage; a great majority of the inhabitants had become such since [242] those struggles ended; and although each may have had a natural desire to make his own particular dwelling-place pleasant and convenient, and may have cherished a generous spirit of rivalry, yet all had a common pride in the reputation of the whole town, and desired the prosperity of all its institutions. In the midst of this general harmony and peace, a desire for a division of the town was unexpectedly manifested by a portion of the residents in Old Cambridge, who presented to the General Court a petition, dated Dec. 15, 1842, as follows:— To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The undersigned inhabitants of the westerly part of Cambridge, being that part of the town usually called Old Cambridge, respectfully represent,—And wine and beer, &c., to be included in the abovesaid sums; and if any ordinary shall exceed the abovesaid order, it shall be at their own peril.
For their breakfast, one man, £ 0. 0. 4. For their dinner, one man 0. 1. 3. For their supper, one man 0. 1. 0. for the magistrates, For dinner, one man 0. 2. 0. For supper, one man 0. 1. 6. for the marshall and constables, one meal, 0. 1. 0.
That, in consequence of the rapid increase of population in those parts of the town being nearest to Boston, and called Cambridgeport and East Cambridge, the town in fact consists of three distinct and separate communities, which are generally known to the public by those names, and each of which has a Post Office recognized in the United States Laws by the said names of Cambridge, Cambridgeport, and East Cambridge; That the time cannot be far distant, when a division of the town, for the convenience of elections and other municipal purposes, will be deemed as necessary as it ever has been at any former period of its history, when the towns of Newton, Lexington, Brighton and West Cambridge were successively separated from the parent town of Cambridge. Your petitioners believe that the present is a favorable time for an amicable division of the town, and they therefore respectfully pray that the town of Cambridge may be divided, and that that part thereof lying westerly of Lee Street and a line drawn in the direction of said street northerly to the boundary line of Somerville, and southerly to Watertown Turnpike, and by said Turnpike to Charles River, may be incorporated as a distinct town, by the name of Cambridge.Legislative action was postponed until the next General Court, when a supplementary petition was presented, identical with the former, with slight verbal changes, except that the name “Old Cambridge” was proposed instead of “Cambridge.” The customary order of notice on both petitions was issued, requiring the town to show. cause why it should not be divided, and the inhabitants assembled Jan. 22, 1844: at which meeting it is recorded, that
The subject of the second article in the warrant [243] being under consideration, the following Preamble and Resolutions were adopted,—312 voting in the affirmative, and 73 in the negative: Whereas, it is understood that there are now pending before the honorable Legislature two petitions, . . . . praying for a division of this town; and whereas an order of notice . . . . has been issued and duly served on this town; . . . . and whereas the inhabitants of the town, in pursuance of a warrant issued by the selectmen, are now in town meeting assembled, to take into consideration the subject of the division of the town; and whereas, after full inquiry made and full discussion had, no person on behalf of the petitioners being able to show any good and sufficient reason for such division: therefore Resolved, that the division of this town, as prayed for in either of said petitions, or in any other manner, would be not only inexpedient, but greatly and permanently prejudicial to the true interests and the legitimate weight and influence of the town.A committee was thereupon appointed, representing the several principal villages, “to appear before the Legislature and oppose any such division of the town.” The case was earnestly contested, but the opposition was successful. The General Court, in the absence of any good reason for division, granted leave to withdraw the petition; and the town had rest for two years. At the March meeting48 succeeding this attempt to divide the town, for the purpose of obviating one of the difficulties in the administration of municipal affairs, a committee was “appointed to consider the expediency of combining the duties of sundry Boards of town-officers, imposing said duties upon a single Board, and paying to the persons performing said duties a reasonable compensation for their services.” This committee submitted a report, May 12, 1845, recommending “that the Boards of Assessors, Overseers of the Poor, and Surveyors of Highways be abolished, and the duties heretofore performed by those Boards be in future discharged by the Board of Selectmen; that the duties of Auditor of Accounts be transferred to the Town Clerk, who shall ex-officio be clerk of the Board of Selectmen; that the chairman of the Board of Selectmen be ex-officio a member of the School Committee; that the Selectmen be authorized and required annually to appoint some member of their Board to be Chief Engineer; and that the Selectmen and Town Clerk be reasonably paid for their services.” The report was recommitted, [244] with authority to revise and print. It came up for final action, Jan. 5, 1846, and its further consideration was indefinitely postponed. After the defeat of this measure, several citizens, before leaving the Town-house, being confident that some change in the method of conducting the public business was highly desirable, if not indeed imperatively necessary, signed a petition requesting the Selectmen to appoint a legal meeting, to see if the town would ask for a City Charter. Accordingly the inhabitants of the town met, Jan. 14, 1846, and “voted, that the Selectmen be instructed to petition the Legislature for the grant of a City Charter. Voted, that the Selectmen, together with Simon Greenleaf, Omen S. Keith, Abraham Edwards, Sidney Willard, Thomas Whittemore, Isaac Livermore, William Parmenter, Ephraim Buttrick, Thomas F. Norris, and the Town Clerk, be a Committee to draft a Bill in conformity to the preceding vote, and to use all proper means to procure its passage.” A renewed effort was made for a division of the town, while action on the petition for a City Charter was pending; but now, as before, a large majority of the whole town opposed the division. At a town meeting, Feb. 18, 1846, by the votes of 246 in the affirmative against 50 in the negative, it was “Resolved, that, in the judgement of this meeting, the true interest and glory of the town of Cambridge require that it remain undivided. Resolved, that we will oppose the division of the town, as prayed for, . . . . by all fair means. Resolved, that the Selectmen be requested to appear before the Committee of the Legislature to whom said petition has been committed, and to oppose the prayer of said petition, and to employ counsel, if they shall deem it expedient.” After a full hearing, the petitioners, as in the former case, had leave to withdraw their petition, and the town again escaped dismemberment. Before narrating the result of the petition for a City Charter, one more effort for a division may be mentioned. In January, 1855, a petition was presented to the General Court, short, but expressive and very remarkable: “To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled: Your petitioners pray that a portion of the westerly part of the City of Cambridge comprising Ward One49 be set off and incorporated into a town by the name of Cambridge, and that the [245] remaining portion of the territory of said City be called Cambridgeport, or such other name as may seem fit.” This was followed by a petition from certain inhabitants of the Third Ward, asking to be incorporated as a distinct town, but more modestly requesting that the new town might be called East Cambridge. On the 21st of February, 1855, orders of notice on these petitions having been read, it was ordered, by concurrent vote of the City Council, “That the Mayor be authorized to adopt such measures in opposition to the prayer of said petitions as he shall judge expedient; and that he be also authorized to employ counsel, if he shall deem it expedient.” It is proper to mention the fact, that when this vote to resist a division of the City was passed, the First and Third Wards, in which the petitions originated, had a clear majority of members both in the Board of Aldermen and in the Common Council. The petition from East Cambridge was not urgently pressed; but upon that from Old Cambridge an earnest struggle ensued.50 The opposition was again successful, and Cambridge remained undivided. Whatever excitement attended this contest speedily abated, and those who were most prominently active on either side cherished a spirit of mutual friendship and respect as aforetime. And now, after an interval of more than twenty years, it is not known that a desire for division is entertained in any section of the city. The petition for a City Charter was opposed by the citizens who desired a division of the town; but its advocates presented such satisfactory arguments in its favor that it was granted, and “An Act to establish the City of Cambridge” was approved March 17, 1846, containing a provision that it “shall be void, unless the inhabitants of the town of Cambridge, at a legal town meeting, called for that purpose, shall, by a majority of the voters present and voting thereon by ballot, determine to adopt the same, within twenty days after its passage.” Such a meeting was held March 30, 1846, when, according to the Record, “the polls having been opened at twenty minutes past ten o'clock, A. M., for the reception of ballots on the question whether the town will adopt the Act of the Legislature, passed on the 17th of March instant, entitled ‘An Act to establish the City of [246] Cambridge,’ and closed, agreeably to vote, at six o'clock, P. M., the result was ascertained to be as follows; whole number of ballots, 869; in the affirmative, 645; in the negative, 224; the majority in favor of adopting said Act being 421. Whereupon said result was announced by the Moderator, and proclamation made, that the Town of Cambridge, having accepted its Charter by the requisite majority of votes, as therein prescribed, had become a City.”
