Worcester County, Massachusetts - By P. Emory Aldrich, I,l.d, 1889 (part 2 of 2)

Again, in 1851, the owner of the fee brought suit against an inhabitant of the town who had entered upon the one hundred acres, and taken stones from the quarry thereon for building purposes. In this case the court decided that the terms of the grant by the aforesaid vote included the right to get stone for the use of the inhabitants, not merely for buildings, in the narrow and restricted sense of that word, but for all those structures and purposes for which such material, in the progress of time and the arts, may be made useful. In this sense it would not be a violation of the right to appropriate the stone to the building of fences, bridges, arches, culverts, drains, curb-stones, monuments in cemeteries, and to the various ornamental uses to which it is usually applied. The erection of public buildings by the town in its corporate capacity, or of houses and stores by persons not resident in Worcester, to be occupied and improved by the inhabitants, would be for the use of the inhabitants, and so within the fair intent of the grant. But the use of the stone for building purposes, without the limits of Worcester, by inhabitants of other towns, is clearly a violation of the right. The court adds, that the grant of the right to the stone carries with it, as a necessary incident, the right to enter and work the quarry, and to do all that is necessary and usual for the full enjoyment of the right, such as hewing the stone and preparing it for use.'

The right secured by that vote, passed more than one hundred and fifty years ago, was of comparatively little value for many years, but the extraordinary growth of Worcester in population and wealth, and the consequent increase in the demand for building material, has rendered the quarries on Mill Stone Hill a mine of wealth to the city and its inhabitants.

From 1740 the town increased slowly but steadily in population and wealth until 17G3. But few events, however, occurred during that period, the record of which comes properly within the scope of this chapter.

Worcester, in common with other New England towns, was more or less involved in aud affected by the wars between England and other European countries, as has already been stated, and especially in and by those which prevailed, with intervals of peace that were little more than truces, between England and France, from the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, to that of Paris, in 1703, a period of fifty years. During what was known in this country as the French and Indian War, extending from 1754 to 1763, Worcester furnished soldiers every year for the English armies of defence or conquest, and in all four hundred and fifty-three men, besides those who enlisted in the regular army.

In 1754 the voters of the town were called upon to vote on a question relating to the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors : not, indeed, upon the question whether licenses for selling such liquors should or should not be granted, but whether the consumers of liquors, sold by unlicensed sellers, should pay the duty thereon.

A bill was passed by the General Court requiring every householder, when called on by a collector, to render an account, under oath, of the quantity of such liquors used in his family, not purchased of a licensed person, and to pay the duty thereon. Governor Shirley refused to give his assent to the bill ; but instead of vetoing it outright, he had it printed and submitted to the consideration of the people. The voters of Worcester gave a unanimous vote against the bill " relating to the excise on the private consumption of spirituous liquors being passed into a law," and instructed their Representative, John Chandler, " to use his utmost endeavor to prevent the same." To understand tliis peculiar transaction, it should be remembered that the Provincial Legislature used, from time to time, to pass " acts for granting unto His Majesty an excise upon spirits distilled, wines," etc., the act providing that the excise should be paid by taverners and other persons licensed to sell the same. Such an act, for instance, was passed December 19, 1754, and the money collected under the act was to be used in lessening the debt of the province and for no other purpose. One section of the act provided that every person consuming or using in his or her house, family, apartment or business any distilled spirits or wine, " except they purchased the same of a taverner, inn-holder or retailer in tliis province and in a less quantity than thirty gallons, shall pay the duties " prescribed by the act. As the negative vote of Worcester above referred to was given September 2, 1754, and this act was passed December following, it is evident the voice of Worcester did not prevail to prevent the passage of the act. There is another fact connected with that vote of the town worthy of notice, as showing the custom of the people, at that early day, of giving their Representative instruction as to his legislative duties. The last section of the act above referred to would hardly be adopted at the present day as a part of a prohibitory or license law. It was as follows : "That none of the clauses in this act, respecting persons being obliged to render an account of the spirituous liquors aforesaid, shall extend, or be deemed or construed to extend, to his excellency, the governor, lieutenant-governor, president, fellows, professors, tutors and students of Harvard College, settled ministers and grammar school m.isters in this province."

In the fall of 1755 eleven persons came to Worcester, or rather were sent here, to be provided for by the town authorities. They were strangers, and spoke a foreign language. Some were old and some young - they were of both sexes. They were apparently an inoffensive folk, willing and able to work for their own support, except one aged pair, who were past labor, and were taken care of by a young girl of seventeen.

These eleven persons were a small detachment of many thousand involuntary exiles from their native land. They were, in short, a small part of the thou- sand Acadian exiles who had been forced by the military power of England to leave their pleasant homes "on the shores of the Basin of Minas," and had recently been landed in Boston, and distributed thence among the several towns of the Province by a committee appointed for that purpose. Why this forcible removal of the inhabitants from Acadia, by direct command of the British Government, should be characterized, as it is, by one of our local historians, as the darkest blot on our history is not very clear, unless he means that this Province, being then a part of the British Dominions, was a participant in the guilt of an act of cruelty which it had no power to prevent. It is true that the forces employed to drive these unoffending people from the homes they had built, and which they passionately loved, were commanded by Gen. John Winslow, a relative of Gov. Winslow, of Plymouth ; but he was an officer in the British army, and acted upon orders emanating from the head of that army, and not upon any orders from the Provincial Government. It is also true that in the army commanded on that occasion by General Winslow there were many soldiers from Massachusetts, and among them were seventeen from Worcester. But all these things combined are not sufficient to render Massachusettj* or New England responsible fur an act which admits of no justification ; for it was an act quite beyond theircontrol. And while we may agree with the historian, as he declares that " 1 know not if the annals of the human race keep the record of sorrows so wantonly inflicted, so bitter and so perennial, as fell upon the French inhabitants of Acadia, or have our sympathies deepened and intensified for the suflerers in reading the enchanting lines of Longfellow's ' Evangeline,' yet there are explanations which can be made that would, perhaps, mitigate the severity of the judgment, which the reader, without the explanations, is ready to pronounce upon the actors in a transaction which drove a whole people into exile, and from which they were never permitted to return." But all that remains that is pertinent to be said in this connection is that the small number of these exiles who were sent to Worcester were treated by the inhabitants with great kindness, and that they, ndiile dwelling here, continued to pursue" their industrious and frugal habits and mild and simple manners." And some of the oldest among them having died, as it is said, broken-hearted, the remnant, after the lapse of twelve years from their first coming to Worcester, returned to their countrymen in Canada."

During the years 17G4, '65 and Gti several attempts were made in the Legislature for the formation of a new county from the northern part of Worcester County and the western part of Middlesex. These projects were vigorously and successfully opposed by Worcester and other towns in both counties. At the same time a petition from Lancaster was presented to the Legislature asking to have that town made a half-shire ; but this attempt, like those for a new county, failed. In relation to the removal of some terms of the court to Lancaster, the people of Worcester again exercised the right of instructing their Representative and directed him " to use his utmost endeavor to prevent the removal ;" also to procure another term of the Superior Court in Worcester. The courts were not removed, nor was any additional term established in Worcester at that time.

J 9. A brief sketch of the history of Worcester from 1763 to 1783, a period of twenty years, will complete this chapter. It will be recollected that the last war between France and England, ending with the treaty of Paris in 1763, left England mistress of all the northern and Atlantic portions of North America ; and the colonies were relieved from that state of almost incessant hostility by which they had been harassed so long as the French remained in possession of Canada. To the ordinary observer of coming events, this condition of afi'airs would seem to promise a long period of peace and prosperity. But, on the contrary, the colonies were engaged in actual war, or in preparation for it, most of the time during the twenty eventful years from 1763 to 1783. And there was a signal fulfillment of the prediction of the sagacious French statesman, who, when he heard of the entire cession of Canad^ to England, said : " England will ere long repent of having removed the only check that could keep her colonies in awe. They stand no longer in need of her protection ; she will call on them to contribute toward supporting the burdens they have helped to bring on her, and they will answer by striking oft" all dependence." The then late war in which England had been engaged doubled her national debt, and upon the return of peace, Parliament entered upon a series of unjust measures for taxing the colonies, which were at once met on the part of the colonies with vigorous resistance, and which finally issued in the war of independence. Worcester, although having within its borders a large and influential body of loyalists, was yet one of the earliest and most persistent of all the towns in the colony in its opposition to the oppressive acts ot Parliament, and in the prosecution of the war when the appeal was taken from the discussion of principles to the arbitrament of the sword.

The instruction of the town to its Representative in the General Court in May, 1767, are significant of the state of feeling among the citizens at that time, and of their clever apprehension of the rights of man in general, and of their own particular rights.

1. That you use your influence to maintain and continue that harmony and good will between Great Britain and this province which may be most conducive to the prosperity of each by a steady and firm attachment to English liberty and the charter rights of this province, and that you willingly suffer no in- vasions, either through pretext of precedency or any other way whatever ; and if you find any encroachments on our charter rights, that you use your utmost ability to obtain constitutional redress.

2. That you use your influence to obtain a law to put an end to that unchristian and impolitic practice of making slaves of the human species in this province, and that you give your vote for none to serve in his majesty's council who, you may have reason to think, will use their influence against such a law, or that sustain any office incompatible with such, and in such choice prefer such gentlemen, and such only, who have distinguished themselves in the defence of our liberty.

The fourth instruction is upon quite a different subject and yet it had reference to the means of preserving liberty- - -it reads as follows ; That you use your endeavor to relieve the people of this province from the great burden of supporting so many Latin grammar schools, whereby they are prevented from attaining such a degree oi English learning as is necessary to retain the freedom of any State. tJ. Take care of the liberty of the press. The town records furnish plenary evidence that Worcester, during the ten or twelve years preceding the commencement of hostilities, in 1775, constantly and resolutely resisted the enforcement of all acts of Parliament passed in violation of tlie great principle for which the Colonies so steadily contended, that there should be no taxation without representation.

In the spring of 1774 an event occurred which exhibited in a striking manner the strength of popular feeling against any and all measures which the people believed tended to destroy or impair the safefiuards of their rights. Parliament had passed an act the object of which was to make the judges of the Superior Court (the highest court in the Colony) dependent on the crown and independent of the Colonial Legislature. Whereupon, after ineffectual negotiations with Governor Hutchinson, the Legislature resolved "that any of the judges who, while they held their offices during pleasure, shall accept support from the crown indejieudent of the grants of the General Court, will discover that he is an enemy to the Constitution, and has it in his heart to promote the establishment of arbitrary government." Chief Justice Oliver, of that court, was the only one of the judges who chose to defy popular sentiment by declaring that he had accepted His Majesty's bounty, and could not refuse it without royal permission. After this declaration was made public, it was reported that the chief justice would be present and hold the April term of the Superior Court in Worcester (1774) ; whereupon the grand jurors summoned for that term, with Joshua Bigelow, of Worcester, at their head, addressed a communicati(m to the justices of the court, in which they say : " We, the subscribers, being returned by our respective towns to serve as jurors of inquest for this court, beg leave humbly to inform your honors that it is agreeable to the sense of those we represent, that we should not empannel, or be sworn into this important office, provided Peter Oliver, Esqr., sits as chief justice of this court ; and we would further add, that our own sentiments coincide -perfectly with those of our constituents respecting this matter ; so to whatever inconvenience we expose ourselves, we are firmly resolved not to empannel, we are first assured that the above gentleman will not sit as a judge in this court." They then give the reasons for their conduct, all having relation to the unfitness of the chief justice to sit as a judge in consequence of his disloyalty to the Colony and his subserviency to the crown. The result was the jurors were not impaneled until they received assurances that the obnoxious judge would not preside over them.

This action by the grand jurors was taken under the advice of the American Political Society, as it was called, and which during the two years of its existence from December, 1773, exercised a controlling influence in the town and county. It was, in fact, a self-constituled vigilance committee. At the annual March meeting, 1774, a committee, appointed to take into consideration the acts of the British Parliament forraising revenues from the Colonies, presented a report, which was adopted by the town. That report, which is quite too long to be copied here, goes over the whole ground of controversy between the Colony and the mother country, and points out the measures that should be adopted to preserve the rights of the Colonies against the encroachments of Parliament and the crown.

The royalists of the town, with Colonel Putnam as their leader, opposed the adoption of the report and accompanying resolutions, and being defeated, fortythree of their number presented a petition for another meeting to be held on the 20th of June following, hoping to rally their associates in sufficient numbers to rescind the patriotic resolutions of the March meeting. But they were again defeated, and the very able report which had been prepared by the distinguished and eloquent counselor, Colonel Putnam, was rejected or refused all consideraton. But the Tory town clerk nevertheless entered the report on the town records, and which he was shortly thereafter compelled by a vote of the town to expunge so effectually that the blackened pages of the record are to this day illegible.

The signers of the petition for the June meeting were glad of an opportunity to express their penitence for having signed a petition so at variance with the popular will. Timothy Paine, of Worcester, and Colonel Murray, of Rutland, were compelled by the demands of the people to resign what were known as the mandamus commissions which they had accepted from the crown. The courts acting under royal authority were suspended in Worcester in September, 1774, in obedience to popular sentiment, and

A convention of all the Committees of Correspondence was held in Worcester September 21, 1774 ; it assumed legislative powers, and during the interregnum between the suspension of the royal authority and the establishment of constitutional government the orders of that convention were obeyed as laws. In a convention of the blacksmiths of the county, held in Worcester November 8, 1774, among other resolutions one was adopted which would be quite appropriate to a convention of modern boycotters, " and in particular," say the patriotic blacksmiths, " we will do no work for Tim. Ruggles, of Hardwick, Jolin Murray, of Rutland, and James Putnam, of Worcester, Esqrs. ; nor for any person cultivating, tilling, improving, dressing, hiring or occupying any of their lands or tenements."

But, notwithstanding the bold and apparently uncompromising spirit of the people, yet it is perfectly apparent, upon a careful study of their whole course of conduct, that they acted entirely on the defensive until the actual commencement of hostilities by the British troops, sent here to overawe the people, and, finding that that could not be done, resort was had to the force of arms.

In March, 1775, a company of minute-mea was formed in Worcester, and were trained under that veteran soldier. Captain Bigelow, so that when the call "To arms to arms! the war is begun!" was heard in the streets of Worcester on the 19th of April, this company was in " a short time paraded on the green, under Capt. Timothy Bigelow ; and after fervent prayer by Rev. Mr. Macarty they took up their line of march " to the seat of war. The history of Worcester during the eight years from 1775 to 1783 i.s largely of a military character, and does not fall within the purview of this chapter.

Soon after April 19, 1775, some of the royalists of Worcester left their homes here and took refuge in Boston. Those who remained were summoned before the Revolutionary tribunal and made to give assurances that they would not leave the town without the consent of the selectmen. Some having violated their parole, two were arrested and sent, under guard, to the Congress at Watertown; the remaining royalists were disarmed, having refused to vindicate the sincerity of their pledges by joining the American troops.

The Declaration of Independence was received in Worcester July 14, 1776, and was read by Isaiah Thomas, the patriotic editor of the Spy of that day, from the porch of the Old South meeting-house, to an enthusiastic assembly of his fellow-citizens. The first anniversary of the Declaration was celebrated in Worcester July 8, 1777, by the ringing of bells, the firing of cannons and illuminations at night.

the vote of Worcester was largely in the negative. Great distress prevailed among the people in 1779-80 in consequence of the depreciation of the currency and the high prices of all the necessaries of life. At a town-meeting in August, 1779, resolutions were passed severely denouncing " regraters in the public markets, forestallers and engrossers of the produce of the country." One of the resolutions declared " that whoever refuses to sell the surplus of the produce of his farm, and retains the same to procure a higher price by means of an artificial scarcity, is very criminally accessory to the calamities of the country, and ought to be subjected to those penalties and disabilities which are due to an inveterate enemy." Is not that doctrine equally applicable to the heartless speculators, " regraters, forestallers and engrossers " of the necessaries of life in our own times? In May, 1780, the Constitution prepared by a convention of the people was submitted to them for ratification and was accepted. Worcester disapproved of the third article of the Bill of Rights relating to the support of religious worship, on the ground that it would interfere with the rights of conscience. It is singular that the same people at the same time should object to the twentieth article, conferring upon the Legislature only the power of suspending the execution of the laws, and this objection was placed on the ground that the article placed too great a restriction on the executive department.

Upon the question as to the manner in which royalist refugees should be treated, the judgment of AVorcester was emphatic and stern. It was "voted" Slay 19, 1783, " That, in the opinion of this town, it would be extremely dangerous to the peace, happiness, liberty and safety of these States to sufler persons of the above description (refugees) to become the subjects of and reside in this government; that it would be not only dangerous, but inconsistent with justice, policy, our past laws, the public faith and the principles of a free and independent State, to admit them ourselves or have them forced upon us without our consent."

But not withstanding this severe condemnation of the forgiveness of enemies, some of the refugees, who had been banished for life and threatened with death if they returned, were allowed to come back and live in peace in their former homes during the first generation after the close of the war.

And long since the healing influences of time have done their perfect work, and the descendants of loyalists and patriots are living in the towns of their ancestors, side by side, on terras of amity and perfect equality.