History of Middlesex County, Massachusetts - citizen hylbom blog

acre upon all house-lots in the plantation. This
year they decided on erecting a meeting-house.
Unfortunately the site chosen was within the Indian
plantation. Although this land was subsequently
bought, there seems to have been sufficient provo-
cation given to the Indians to awaken the suspicion
that it was afterwards burnt by them in revenge.
Mr. Cyrus Felton says it is probable that at this
time three fourths of the land within a mile of the
meeting-house was covered with wood.
April 4, 1663, Anamaks, an Indian whose title
was probably disputed by other Indian proprietors,
sold to John Ruddocke and John Howe, for the use
of the town, " the laud that the meeting-house now
stands on — also the land for the highway on the
fore side of said meeting house, and so upon a
square of ten feet, round about the said meeting
House." The next month William Ward gave in
exchange for other land half an acre in front of it,
and it was ordered that the half-acre " surrendered
into the town's hands as before said, shall be for a
perpetual common or highway not to be taken or
otherwise disposed of without the consent of every
proprietor that liath town riglits." This half-acre,
it is thought, covered the ground on which the two
manufactories hi front of the High School Common
now stand.
For fifteen years there was fear throughout the
township. Tlie Indian community consisted of
about fifty persons. Their ruler's name was Onomog,
who was described by a contemporary as a
pious and discreet man. They had religious and
civil institutions like their white neighbors; em-
ployed a schoolmaster, a constable, and other offi-
cers. They had brought their land under cultivation,
and remained pacific under the vexatious encroachments
of the English settlers ; although they were
in 23art to blame for their annoyances, seeing they
were careless in fencing their fields. Their town
lying, as it did, in the heart of Marlborough, the
cattle wandered into it, and could hardly be pre-
vented by their owners. The Indians passively re-
tired about a mile into the interior of their land.
The celebrated General Gookin of Cambridge, from
whose account our knowledge is derived, ])roposed
to the English settlers to buy part of tliis land
from which they had retired, fence it with stone-
walls, and ou one part build a house for a school-
master, with a school-room under the same roof,
erecting a barn, and giving the teacher as his sal-
ary the use of the rest of the land. He also says
that at this time the English were backward iiIkhiI
HISTOIiY OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY.
employing a schoolmaster, availing themselves of
the law which exempted towns of less, than fifty
families from being compelled to engage a teacher,
although they wanted but a few families to make this
number. He suggested that if the Indian school
proposed were instituted they might send their
children to it, " being the most thrifty and facile
way they can take." This field was conveyed to
General Gookin by the Indians May 2, 1677. The
English town grew unchecked, though not rapidly.
Unhappily during this time the community was
agitated, indeed distracted, with internal dissen-
sions about both civil and ecclesiastical affairs.
They had to do, first, with the reliability of the
records and indirectly with the tenure of their lauds
secondly, with questions as to the support of the
minister and the desirability of organizing a church.
The public muid was apparently in a state of
chronic irritability; to raise a question, was to raise
a bitter dispute. Some light is thrown on this
period from subsequent sentences in a petition and
remonstrances to the General Court. The first
explains that their difficulties are of long standing,
arishig " partly from our own corruptions and the
temptations of Satan, hindering their own good
feelings in matters both civil and ecclesiastical,
which have been and are very uncomfortable to
them and their friends." Even this devout and
frank statement proved an irritant, — a denial fol-
lowing that any considerable difficulty existed, and
the declaration that they " never went about to de-
stroy the Town Book but only to rectify what was
amis in it " ; nor had they attempted " to root out
the minister." They vaunted the fact, that, in per-
sonal character and liberality to religious and secular
institutions, they were the equals of the jjetitioners,
and cdiirluilcil \\ith the caustic statement, "We are
willing, with our [)ersons and estates, to uphold the
Authority of the country, and do therefore desire
the liberty of the law which gives towns jrower to
iransad their own affairs.'" The appeal to the
General Court resulted (1675) hi the appointment
of a committee which indorsed the records. The
strife, however, was not allayed ; Thomas King and
others demanded the reopening of the case. The war
ensuing, the matter was not immediately pressed
but in October, 1679, the quarrel was practically
ended by the decisive action of a committee ap-
])()inted by the court to hear the complaints on
the sjjot. They censured the turbulent opposition
to the former decision, declared better provision
shuuhl be iiiailc for llic iiiii:islei-, and u'ave orders
;