CHAPTER XIX.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

FIRST MEETING-HOUSE.

DURING the first years of their residence in Medford, our pious ancestors were not sufficiently numerous and rich to support a minister of the gospel; hence they joined the churches of

subject till about 1690, when the desire to build a meeting-house became strong and effectual. They worshipped in private rooms; and we find a vote of the town to "pay Thomas Willis thirty shillings for the use of his rooms for one year."

Jan. 17, 1693, we find the following record:

"At a general town-meeting of the inhabitants of Medford, being fifteen days warned, voted that there shall be a meeting-house erected, to be finished the first of October following, on the land of Mr. Thomas Willis, near the gate by Marble Brook, on a rock on the north side of Woburn Road. It shall be seven and twenty feet long, four and twenty feet wide, and fifteen feet between joints."

The committee to whom was intrusted this important work, "with full power to act therein," were Caleb Brooks and Thomas Willis, "to be joined by the selectmen, Joseph Hall and John Tufts." Owing to some obstacles, the house was not built at the time first specified; and the next movement towards it we find in a vote passed Sept. 13, 1695.

At this time "a subscription was opened, and one pound was subscribed by the following persons: Thomas Willis, Caleb Brooks, Stephen Francis, Stephen Willis, John Francis, John Whitmore, John Bradshoe [Bradshaw], Jonathan Tufts, John Hall, jun., Nathaniel Hall, Stephen Hall, sen., John Willis, Stephen Hall, Percival Hall, Ebenezer Brooks. Twelve shillings were subscribed by Eleazer Wier and Nathaniel Waite, and six shillings by Samuel Brooks." At this meeting, the town voted, unanimously, that "every person who refused to subscribe should pay twelve pence per head, and one penny on the pound, towards the building of the meeting-house."

Sept. 23, 1695, it was voted "to give sixty pounds for the erection and finishing of the house;" but on Nov. 4, 1695, the town took a new step, as follows: "The inhabitants, being now met and assembled, have voted and agreed to have a pulpit and deacons' seats made, and the body of seats and the walls plastered with lime." On account of these additions to the house, they agreed to give eighty pounds.

The meeting-house having been completed in May, 1696, five gentlemen-viz, Peter Tufts, John Hall, sen., Caleb Brooks, Stephen Francis, and Stephen Willis - were chosen "the committee to place the inhabitants in the meeting-house; the selectmen first to place the commit

tee."

The spot on which the first house stood is now occupied by a cottage, in West Medford, at the corner of High-street Court. This spot, consecrated by the prayers and worship of our ancestors, is about twenty rods east-north-east from the crotch of the two roads, one leading to Woburn, the other to Arlington.

The meeting-houses of this period were generally square, or nearly so. Some had spires, and were of two stories, with galleries. The one in Medford was nearly square, of one story, and without spire or galleries, but its windows secured with outside shutters. The roof was very steep, and the humble appearance of the house (twenty-seven by twenty-four) can be readily imagined; and, if it had been made with walls unplastered, its cost probably would not have exceeded sixty pounds. Twelve shillings were annually paid "for keeping the meeting-house."

Instead of pulpits, many houses had tables, from which the sermon was preached, and around which certain privi

leged persons, besides the deacons, were permitted, by a vote of the town, to sit.

The order of services was much like that now prevalent in Congregational churches, except that the Scriptures were not read, and there was no choir. The congregation sung, and the deacon's pitch-pipe was the only instrumental music allowed.

Baptisms were always administered in the meetinghouse; and, if a child had been born on Sunday morning, it was thought a fit offering of piety to have it baptized in that afternoon.

As pews were not tolerated at first, the town chose a committee "to seat the congregation." Although this committee was composed of the most judicious and popular men, their decisions were not always satisfactory. The rules laid down for seating the people were passed Nov. 30, 1713, and are as follows: "The rule to be observed by said committee, in seating of persons in said meetinghouse, is the quality of persons; they who paid most for building the house, they who pay most for the minister's support, and the charges they have been at and now do pay to the public." In 1703, there was so much heartburning at the placing of the people, that, in the true spirit of republican congregationalism, they rebelled, and chose a new committee to do the work over again.

The origin of pews seems to have been in a petition of Major Wade for liberty to build one.

"May 25, 1696: Major Nathaniel Wade shall have liberty to build a pew in the meeting-house when he shall see reason to do so." Nothing appears in the record to explain this "liberty;" and therefore we are left to set it down to our forefathers' charity, or submission to wealth, or traditional toleration of rank. As the major was the richest citizen, he had probably done most for the building of the house. But, although this liberty was granted to build when he "saw reason," the town was nervously careful to define the form of his pew, and to fix its exact position. One vote, on another occasion, directed the committee to see that "it should not go beyond the first bar of the window."

A grant subsequently made to another gentleman was accompanied with this condition, that "he must take into his pew one or two persons, not belonging to his family, whom the town may name."

March 6, 1699: Thomas Willis presented to the town, as a gift, a deed of the piece of land on which the meetinghouse was standing.

On the same day the town voted "to build a fore-gallery in the meeting-house, with three seats; said seats to be parted in the middle, one-half to be used by the men, and the other by the women." This custom of making the gallery-seats free, and of confining those on one side to the use of males, and the others to the use of females, continued in Medford until our day.

This "fore-gallery" became a cause of conflict between the two sexes. By the vote of 1699, the "women" were to occupy one side, and the "men" the other. Of course this just decision satisfied the gentler sex; and they enjoyed the boon till Jan. 31, 1701, when the town voted that men only should sit in the front gallery of the meetinghouse! This unexplained outrage on female rights roused into ominous activity certain lively members, whose indignant eloquence procured the call of another town-meeting within five weeks, when it was voted to reconsider the decision of the 31st of January, and thus put the matter statu quo ante bellum.

At the same meeting, Lieut. Peter Tufts, Ebenezer Brooks, and Stephen Willis, had leave granted them to build each a pew. This vote was strangely modified, with respect to one of these gentlemen, on the 3d of January, 1715: "Voted that the town will grant Mr. Ebenezer Brooks a pew in the part of their meeting-house joining to the minister's pew, and liberty to make a door into said pew on the outside of said meeting-house."

July 28, 1702: "Voted to give Ensign John Bradshaw fifteen shillings for sweeping the meeting-house one year, cleaning the snow away from the front-door, and shutting the casements."

Nov. 25, 1712: The town, for the first time, granted permission to one of their number to build a shed for his horse.

SECOND MEETING-HOUSE.

A new house was first proposed May 28, 1716, because the enlargement of the old would cost nearly as much as the building of a new one. The committee reported that its size should be "fifty feet long, thirty-eight broad, and twenty-seven feet stud." It was to have diamond-shaped

glass, and window-shutters, and was to cost four hundred and fifty pounds. In 1719 the subject again came up for more decisive action; and, on Feb. 9 of that year, they put the question in this form: "Put to vote, whether the town will build a new meeting-house forthwith. Voted in the negative."

A movement so full of interest to every family would naturally bring out some diversity of opinion in a widely scattered population. In order, therefore, to secure harmony in the best plan, they were willing to accede to what judicious and disinterested men might say was best. Accord

ingly, March 7, 1720, in a full town-meeting, they put the question thus:

"Whether the town will choose a committee of five gentlemen, from some of our neighboring towns, to give their advice, whether it will be most convenient for the town, at present, to build a new meeting-house, or to enlarge the old. And, in case said committee do advise to build a new meeting-house, then said committee to state a place as near the centre of the town as can be, which shall best accommodate the whole town for setting of said house."

This was "voted in the affirmative," and the meeting was then adjourned one week to March 14; but the time was too short for so much business. When, however, the meeting of the 14th took place, the town passed a vote supplementary to that of the 7th inst. ; and in these words are the records:

"At said meeting, put to vote, whether the town will abide by, and rest satisfied with, the advice and determination of the abovesaid committee, which shall be according to the vote above written. referring to building a new meeting-house or enlarging of the old, and also as to stating a place for said house. Voted in the affirmative."

This vote was passed after the town had chosen the committee, and had probably learned something of their views. The committee make their report; whereupon the town, Feb. 20, 1721, after nearly a year's delay and