Czytaj książkę: «Curiosities of History: Boston, September Seventeenth, 1630-1880», strona 2
II.
THE PUBLIC FERRIES
THE GREAT FERRY
The first settlers of Charlestown and Boston of course saw an immediate necessity for the establishment of ferries on both sides of them; so that, after considerable numbers had arrived, this became imperative, especially that across Charles River,—“the great ferry,” as it was afterwards called. This may be called the first public enterprise undertaken by the colonists. There was, no doubt, from the first, means of crossing the river furnished by individuals before any public action had taken place, just as was done by Samuel Maverick at Noddle’s Island, who was disposed and prepared to accommodate everybody that came along. Measures were taken for the establishment of the Charlestown Ferry soon after the arrival of Gov. Winthrop’s party at Charlestown. At a meeting of the Court of Assistants, holden at Boston, Nov. 19, 1630,—present the governor, deputy-governor, Sir Richard Saltonstall, Mr. Ludlowe, Capt. Endicott, Mr. Coddington, Mr. Pinchon, and Mr. Bradstreet,—“It is further ordered, That whosoever shall first give in his name to Mr. Governor that he will undertake to set up a ferry betwixt Boston and Charlestown, and shall begin the same at such time as Mr. Governor shall appoint, shall have 1d. for every person and 1d. for every 100 weight of goods he shall transport.”
The ferry was no doubt undertaken at this time by Edward Converse; and, probably as it did not then pay very well, in June 14, 1631, an order was passed, “That Edward Converse, who had undertaken to set up a ferry between Boston and Charlestown, be allowed 2d. for every single person, and 1d. apiece, if there be two or more.”
The lease to Mr. Converse, in 1631, was renewed Nov. 9, 1636, in form as follows: “The Governor and treasurer, by order of the general court, did demise to Edward Converse the ferry between Boston and Charlestown, to have the sole transporting of passengers and cattle from one side to the other, for three years from the first day of the next month, for the yearly rent of forty pounds to be paid quarterly to the treasurer: Provided, that he see it be well attended and furnished with sufficient boats; and that so soon as may be in the next spring he set up a convenient house on Boston side, and keep a boat there as need shall require. And he is allowed to take his wonted fees, viz., 2d. for a single person, and pence apiece, if there be more than one, as well on lecture days as at other times; and for every horse and cow with the man which goeth with them 6d., and for a goat 1d., and a swine 2d. And if any shall desire to pass before it be light in the morning, or after it is dark in the evening, he may take recompence answerable to the season and his pains and hazard, so as it be not excessive.”
The ferry was a great accommodation, of course, and could not be dispensed with. Johnson mentions it quite early in his “Wonder-Working Providence.” In speaking of Charlestown, the “neighbor of Boston, being in the same fashion, with her bare neck,” he says “there is kept a ferry-boat to convey passengers over Charles River, which, between the two towns, is a quarter of a mile over, being a very deep channel.” But at times, no doubt, the ferry proved troublesome and annoying. So that in the month of October, 1632, Mr. Winthrop records that “about a fortnight before this, those of Charlestown, who had formerly been joined to Boston congregation, now, in regard of the difficulty of passage in the winter, and having opportunity of a pastor, one Mr. [Edward] James, who came over at this time, were dismissed from the congregation of Boston.” This, it was said, was after a rather boisterous summer on the bay and harbor.
WINNISIMMET FERRY
At a General Court, holden at Boston, the 18th of May, 1631, there were present Mr. Winthrop, governor; Mr. Dudley, deputy-governor; Mr. Ludlowe, Capt. Endicott, Mr. Nowell, Mr. Pinchon, Mr. Bradford, assistants (at which the governor and lieutenant-governor were chosen),—“Thomas Willins [Drake gives the name as Williams] hath undertook to sett up a ferry between Winnisimmet and Charlestown, for which he is to have after three pence a person and from Winnisimmet to Boston four pence a person.” Mr. Savage, in a note to Winthrop’s journal, speaking of Samuel Maverick at Noddle’s Island, says, “Winisemet Ferry, both to Charlestown and Boston, was also granted to him forever.” He certainly did conduct a ferry on one or both these routes for a time.
Jan. 23, 1635.—“Thomas Marshall was chosen by general consent for ye keeping of a ferry from Milne Point [Copps’ Hill] vnto Charlestowne, and to Wynnyseemitt, and to take for his ferrying vnto Charlestowne, as ye ferryman there hath, and vnto Wynnyseemitt for a single psn six pence; and for every one above ye number of two, two pence apiece.” It is not probable that this ferry was continued for many years.
In December, 1637, Edward Bendall was “to keepe a sufficient ferryboate to carry to Noddle’s Island and to the shippes ryding before the Town: taking for a single person ijd. and for two 3d.”
GRANT TO HARVARD COLLEGE
In 1640, the Charlestown Ferry was granted to Harvard College, to the support of which the town had been annually contributing, and had received from the ferry fifty pounds for the year previous, 1639. This grant was continued, and, for nearly one hundred and fifty years before the bridge was built, it was a source of very handsome income to the institution. In 1644, it appears by the records of the town, William Bridge was appointed to keep the ferry in place of Mr. Converse, and “to have a penny a person for each that goes over, except they agree with him by the year, and two pence a person for each that goes over unseasonably.” When the bridge was built in 1785, the gratuity to the college was continued by the terms of the Act authorizing it; and the sum of two hundred pounds per year was paid to it in commutation of its claim to the ferry.
Johnson, in his “Wonder-Working Providence,” describes Boston as surrounded by the brinish floods, and as having, on the north-west and north-east, “two constant Faires, kept for traffique thereunto.” A ferry to Cambridge is spoken of in 1652; and in the fall of that year Mr. Cotton took cold in crossing it, and died soon after.
COMPLAINTS OF THE FERRYMEN
In 1648, “the ferrymen, Francis Hudson and James Heyden, state in a petition to the General Court, that the ferry never was less productive: that contrary to law disorderly passengers would press into the boats, and on leaving refuse to pay their fare; that some pleaded they had nothing to pay, and others that they were in the country’s service. And they further state, that the payment generally tendered was ‘usually in such refuse, unwrought, broken, unstringed and unmerchantable peag’ (wampum), at six a penny, that they lost two pence a shilling, being forced to take peag at six a penny and pay it at seven. They petition that if the Court intend ‘all soldiers with their horses and military furniture be fare-free,’ that they might be paid for it by the colony: that strangers, not able to pay, may be ordered to give in their names: that the ‘peag hereafter to us paid may be so suitably in known parcels handsomely stringed, and their value assigned, that it may henceforth be a general, current and more agreeable pay.’”
At a session of the General Court, at Boston, the 10th of the eight month, 1648, “For preventing ferry men’s Damage by Persons not paying, &c., it shall be lawful for any Ferry man to demand and Receive his due before his Boat put off from the Shore, nor shall he be bound to pass over any that shall not give satisfaction, & any Ferry Man may refuse any wampum not stringed or Unmerchantable and such persons whether Horse or Foot which are passage free by Order of the Court must show something sufficient for their Discharge, or else pay as others do, except Magistrates and Deputies, &c., who are generally known to be free.”
And again, Oct. 18, the Court ordered that “all ‘payable peag’ should be ‘entire without breaches, both the white and the black, suitably strung in eight known parcels, 1d., 3d., 12d., 5s., in white; and 2d., 6d., 2-6d., and 10s., in black.’ The Court also ordered that for transporting officers in the colony service, the ferrymen should be allowed £4 per annum for the past, and £6 per annum for the time to come.”
PEAG, OR INDIAN MONEY
“Peag,” or “wampum,” or “wampumpeag,” simply means stringed shells of a peculiar kind, or Indian money; and this, it seems, came early into use, as Hubbard says, “The people of New Plymouth, in the year 1627, began trade with the Dutch at Manhados, and there they had the first knowledge of Wampumpeag, and their acquaintance therewith occasioned the Indians of those parts to learn to make it.” Hutchinson thinks the New England Indians, prior to this time, had not “any instrument of commerce;” and speaks of the Narragansetts as coining money, making pendants and bracelets, and also tobacco pipes. There seems, however, to have been among the Massachusetts settlers some other kinds of money in use, as, in 1635, the court ordered that brass farthings shall be discontinued, and that musket-balls shall pass for farthings.
PENNY FERRY
Penny Ferry, across the Mystic River, where the Malden Bridge now is, was established by the town in April, 1640, when it was voted, “That Philip Drinker should keep a ferry at the Neck of Land, with a sufficient boat, and to have 2d. a single person, and a penny a piece when there go any more.” It was not a source of any profit to the town for many years.
In 1651, the Penny Ferry was granted for a year to Philip Knight, who appears to have had the income of it for taking care of it, he agreeing “to attend the ferry carefully, and not to neglect it, that there be no just complaint.”
In 1698, Judge Sewall makes the following entry in his diary: “February 19, I go over the ice and visit Mr. Morton, who keeps his bed. 21st, I rode over to Charlestown on the ice, then over to Stower’s (Chelsea), so to Mr. Wigglesworth. The snow was so deep that I had a hard journey—could go but a foot pace on Mystic river, the snow was so deep. 26th, a considerable quantity of ice went away last night, so that now there is a glade of water along Governor’s island, about as far as Bird island. 28th, a guard is set upon Charles River to prevent persons from venturing over on the ice for fear of drowning; and the ferrymen are put upon cutting and clearing the ice, which they do so happily, that I think the boat passeth once a day.”
CHARLESTOWN FERRY
The use of the ferry was confined to foot-passengers entirely at first; and afterwards, when larger boats were built, chaises were allowed, as the common riding or travelling vehicle of the time. It would seem that double tolls had been demanded on certain days; and in 1783, when the names of the ferrymen were presented to the town for approval, it was agreed, on their not taking double ferriage on those days, and their faithful promise to the same, to approbate them. It seems almost wonderful—but it is a fact—that this ferry was kept up as the sole means of communication, excepting the journey around through Roxbury and Cambridge, for more than one hundred and fifty years. It was over this ferry that the people came to Boston to assist in the fortification upon Corne Hill (Fort Hill) in May, 1632, and at other times for similar purposes. It was over this ferry also, on the 18th of April, 1689, that the troops came, in the time of the Andros Rebellion, to assist in maintaining the rights of the people at this early period in the history of the town. There were twenty companies in Boston, and it was said about fifteen hundred men at Charlestown that could not get over. Andros was imprisoned, the first charter of the colony dissolved, and Thomas Danforth came in as deputy-governor. On many other occasions during the long period of its continuance, and in cases of fire in Boston, the ferry had large duties to perform; and it is wonderful how it was ever made to answer its purposes for so long a time.
1741.—Oldmixon, in his “History of the British Empire in America” (“The History of New England,” as a part of it is called), says, “Charlestown, the mother of Boston, is much more populous than Cambridge, and exceeds it much in respect of trade, being situated between two rivers, Mystic River and Charles River, and parted from Boston only by the latter, over which there is a ferry so well tended that a bridge would not be much more convenient, except in winter, when the ice will neither bear nor suffer a boat to move through it. Though the river is much broader about the town, it is not wider in the ferry passage than the Thames between London and Southwark. The profits of this ferry belong to Harvard College in Cambridge, and are considerable. The town is so large as to take up all the space between the two rivers.”
In 1763, April, the running of a stage-coach was commenced between Boston and Portsmouth, N.H., once a week,—out on Friday, and return on Tuesday. It is said, that, “owing to the trouble of ferrying the stage and horses over Charles River, they were kept at Charlestown, at the sign of the Three Cranes.” The practice with this, and very likely other stage-lines, probably continued until the bridge was built.
The memorable night, April 18, 1775, when Paul Revere crossed Charles River, near the ferry, is of course well remembered. During the occupation of Boston Harbor by the British navy, the boats of the ferry were drawn up alongside the men-of-war every night at nine o’clock, and there was no passing after that hour; but it seems that Revere kept a boat of his own at the north end, and employed two men to row him across, “a little to the eastward where the ‘Somerset’ man-of-war lay.” He landed at Charlestown below the ferry, and says, “I told them what was acting, and went to get me a horse,” and then pursued his momentous ride to Lexington.
Imagine the continuance of this ferry, as the usual means of crossing the river between Boston and Charlestown, for a period of more than one hundred and fifty years! and all this time probably without the use of sails, as the stream at this point was very narrow and the currents very strong, and certainly without the power of steam, now so generally applied to ferries all over the country. There was, no doubt, in the winter season, a good deal of passing on the ice. The Winnisimmet Ferry, for many years prior to the introduction of steam, was operated by the use of large sail-boats for foot-passengers only.
It is said that the Indian name of Charles River was Quimobequin, and that on Capt. Smith’s map of 1614, it is called Massachusetts; and Hutchinson says, “Prince Charles gave the name of Charles river to what had been before called Massachusetts river.” Smith himself says he called it Charles River; still Hutchinson may be right.
III.
THE BOSTON CORNFIELDS
It will hardly be realized at the present time that Boston, or the peninsula which originally comprised the town, was ever occupied by cornfields, or, as one may almost say, was a cornfield. If there were cornfields, as we assume there were, the curious thing about them is, that we know so little of them; for it can scarcely be said that they hold a place in history. There are, in fact, no definite statements about them; and a mystery seems to hang over them as to where they were, who owned them, who cultivated them, and what was done with the harvest. Were they private property or public property? We have not been able to find in contemporary or subsequent history any account of the Boston cornfields that will enable us with certainty to answer this question. The fair inference from statements made, however, is, that they were to some extent both public and private property. Perhaps the first allusion to them to be found in any record is that in 1632,—and there could have been no corn planted in Boston earlier than 1631, unless by Blackstone,—and this allusion is in the name of “Corne Hill.” In 1632, May 24, “it was agreed to build a fort in that part of Boston called Corne Hill,” meaning what thereafter was called Fort Hill; and one historical writer, quoting the record, says a fortification was begun on “the corn hill;” and that was probably the only Corn Hill at that time. The question naturally arises, Why was it called Corn Hill? and the almost necessary answer to the question is, Because it was where corn was grown.
There can be no doubt that it became necessary, as early as possible, for the settlers to seek means for their future subsistence. The stock and supply of provisions brought over were, no doubt, for a time and under certain regulations, a common stock; and possibly some of Gov. Winthrop’s party had supplies of their own in addition thereto. But, at all events, prudence and self-preservation required immediate attention to the cultivation of the soil and the raising of corn and other grains.
In 1628 (1629), before the arrival of Gov. Winthrop and his company at Charlestown, the place had been occupied by the Spragues, from Salem, under the direction of Mr. Graves, an agent of the company; and one of the first things they did was “to model and lay out the form of the town, with streets about the hill,” which was approved by Gov. Endicott. They next “jointly agreed and concluded that each inhabitant have a two acre lot to plant upon and all to fence in common.” The same year Mr. Graves wrote to England, “The increase of corne is here farre beyond expectation,” showing that it had been grown, and most probably in the common cornfield; for it is afterwards said that Thomas Walford “lived on the south end of the westermost hill of the East Field.” Another vote was passed the next year, 1630,—probably before the arrival of Gov. Winthrop,—that each person “dwelling within the neck, shall have two acres of land for a house plot, and two acres for every male that is able to plant.”
In the months of June and July, 1630, Gov. Winthrop and his party arrived at Charlestown, after a passage by some of the ships of seventeen or eighteen weeks, many of them sick of the scurvy. “The multitude set up cottages, booths and tents about the Town Hill;” and it is said “provisions were exceedingly wasted, and no supplies could now be expected by planting; besides, there was miserable damage and spoil of provisions at sea.” Many of the party died,—some two hundred before December,—and others started out for other locations; and finally in September, 1630, by the invitation of Mr. Blackstone, the larger part of Gov. Winthrop’s party crossed the river to Boston. This year there was a scarcity of corn, as will be seen by the following extract from Hutchinson’s history:—
“In August, 1724, John Quttamug, a Nipmug Indian, came to Boston, above 112 years of age. He affirmed that in 1630, upon a message that the English were in want of corn, soon after their arrival, he went to Boston with his father, and carried a bushel and a half of corn all the way on his back; that there was only one cellar began in town, and that somewhere near the Common.”
Wood, in speaking of Boston in 1639, says, “This place hath very good land, affording rich cornfields and fruitful gardens,” which, no doubt, were in existence years before he wrote his book. In 1635, it was voted, “Each able man is allowed two acres, and each able youth one acre to plant.” Provision of some sort on the subject was no doubt made before this time, and gradually reached the regulation here recorded. In 1633, great scarcity of corn is mentioned by Winthrop, as he says, “By reason of the spoil of our hogs, there being no acorns, yet the people lived well with fish and the fruit of their gardens.”
Almost as a natural consequence of what has now been said, in March, 1636, we find that provision was made “for having sufficient fences to the Cornfielde before the 14th of the next second month (April); that for every defective rod then found, five shillings penalty;” and it was further provided, “The field toward Rocksberry to be looked into by Jacob Elyott and Jonathan Negoose; the Fort Hill, by James Penn and Richard Gridley; the Mylne field, by John Button and Edward Bendall, and the New Field by John Audley and Thomas Faireweather.”
Thus it will be seen, if the rule adopted was carried out, that there were four or more large cornfields in Boston, and that the principal work of the people for a time was the raising of corn. At a later period parcels of corn were occasionally presented or sent to the governor by the Indians, who had their cornfields before the English people arrived. In fact, it is recorded in the next month after the arrival of Winthrop, that so much provision had been sold to the Indians for beaver, that food became scarce; and in October, 1630, a vessel was sent to the Narragansetts to trade, and brought home one hundred bushels of corn. In May, 1631, corn in Boston was ten shillings a bushel, as probably much was required for planting at this time. In August, 1633, a great scarcity of corn was reported; and in November, the next year, a vessel arrived from Narragansett with five hundred bushels of Indian corn. It is very clear that corn was very early, and for some time, the great dependence of the settlers.
In Plymouth Colony, in 1630, the salary of the messenger of the General Court was thirty bushels of corn. In 1685, the secretary’s wages was fifteen pounds a year, payable in corn at two shillings per bushel. In 1690, “one third the Governor’s salary ordered to be paid in money, the rest in corne.”
In 1637, April 16, “all the fences and gates to be made up. Sargeant Hutchinson and Richard Gridley to look after the Fort Field; John Button, James Everett and Isaac Grosse, in the Mill Field; Wm Colburn and Jacob Elyott on the Field next Roxburie.” Again, in 1640, March 30, “To look to the fences: Richard Fairbanks and William Salter the field towards Roxbury; Benj. Gillam and Edmd. Jacklyn, the Fort Field; Wm. Hudson and Edward Bendall the New Field; Mr. Valentine Hill and John Button, the Mill Field.”
Dr. Shurtleff, in his “Topographical and Historical Description of Boston,” enumerates five fields as follows, and speaks of them as ungranted lands: “The land around Copps’ Hill, was known as the Mylne Field, or Mill Field; that around Fort Hill, the Fort Field; that at the Neck, the Neck Field, or the Field towards Roxbury; that where Beacon Hill Place now is, Centry Hill Field, and that west of Lynde Street, and north of Cambridge, the New Mill Field, or the New Field.” And to show that these were not waste lands or pastures, the writer enumerates the various pastures for cattle, besides the privileges at Muddy Brook and Winnisimmet, as follows: “Besides the fields there were many pastures, so called: Christopher Stanley’s was at the North End, covering the region of North Bennet Street, between Hanover and Salem Streets; Buttolph’s was south of Cambridge Street; Tucker’s, in the neighborhood of Lyman Street; Rowe’s, east of Rowe Street; Wheeler’s, where the southerly end of Chauncy Street is; Atkinson’s, where Atkinson Street was a few years ago, and where Congress Street now is.” And besides these he names Leverett’s on Leverett Street; Middlecott’s on Bowdoin Street; another on Winter and Tremont Streets, and, as he says, “a very large number of other great lots.”
And strange to say, in all this history, contemporary or modern, in only a single instance, so far as we know, are these fields or any one of them spoken of as a “cornfielde,” and that is in the order of 1636, above quoted. There is, however, one other reference to them made, in 1657, in the body of instructions prepared for the selectmen to guide them in the discharge of their duties: “Relying on your wisdom and care in seeking the good of the town, we recommend that you cause to be executed all the orders of the town which you have on the records,” &c., “as found in the printed laws under the titles Townships, Freeman, Highways, Small Causes, Indians, Cornfields,” &c., which would assuredly show that there were cornfields in the town, distinct from pastures or waste lands, undoubtedly laid out and divided among the people, as already indicated, for their special cultivation.
If, as we believe, the “fields” enumerated were cornfields, and cultivated in the manner suggested,—at first one field, and year by year, as necessity should require, a new field added,—there would naturally become, among a people situated as they were, a necessity for a granary for the storing and preservation of their crops. Consequently, in the enumeration of public buildings in Boston at a later period, we find mentioned “a public granary.” The burying-ground on Tremont Street, known as the Granary Burying-Ground, was laid out on land taken from the Common in 1660, and, of course, took its name from the granary, which was built soon after on what was afterwards Centry Street, and now Park Street. Shurtleff says the land was first taken for the purpose, and “then, when the need came, a building, eighty feet by thirty feet, for a public granary, was erected, and subsequently, in 1737, removed to the corner, its end fronting on the principal street (Tremont). It stood until 1809, when it gave place to Park Street Church.” So that, though latterly for some years used for another purpose, the granary stood in Boston for more than one hundred and forty years. It is described as a long wooden building, and was calculated to hold twelve thousand bushels of corn.
In 1733, it would seem that corn or other grain continued to be grown in Boston, as in October of that year it was determined to erect a granary at the North End, “not to exceed £100” in cost. In the records of the selectmen, it is called a meal-house, and John Jeffries, Esq., and Mr. David Colson, two of the selectmen, were to contract for the work on a piece of land near the North Mill, belonging to the town.
So that at what time the cultivation of corn ceased in Boston, it is impossible to tell; but it would seem, from the necessity for a new granary in 1733, that it must have continued for considerably more than a hundred years after the settlement of the town.
