"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 galleryseats 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 meeting-house! 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. When the history of the "women movement " of our day shall be written, we commend the above fact to their biographer.

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

and

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, a liberty to make a door into said pew on the outside of said meeting-house." This was the first grant of the kind, and we should hope it would be the last; for to see the outside of a meeting-house thus sliced up into little private doors, surely could not add much to its beauty or its warmth.

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. "A merciful man is merciful to his beast." If horses think, what must they have thought of the early settlers?

We have dwelt on these minute details, because they only can give the true history of our early ancestors. These little facts tell great truths. They show us how much our fathers did with the scantiest means; and, better than all, they prove to us that the noble Anglo-Saxon Puritans who settled these shores could not be seduced by poverty to abate a tittle of their high-minded integrity, or their jealousy of power, or their Christian enthusiasm.

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 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, in 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. Accordingly, 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 record:

"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 various indefinite activities, come to the question of this report of the committee. The record is as follows:

"Put to vote, whether the town doth accept of the result of the committee, referring to a meeting-house in Medford, as a perfect result according to the votes of said town. Voted in the negative."

It does not appear what were the grounds of objection to the result of the committee; but the vote above, of Feb. 20, drew forth the following protest from the Westenders:

"We, the subscribers, do enter our dissent against the town's proceedings in the above-written vote (of the 20th of February), for the following reasons; to wit:

"1. That, at a meeting legally convened, March 14, 1720, the town did make choice of a committee of five gentlemen, to advise and determine the affair of the meeting-house in said town, as may at large appear by said votes referring thereto; and did also bind themselves, by a vote, to abide by, and rest satisfied with, the advice and determination of said committee.

"2. The gentlemen chosen by the town as a committee, being met at Medford, April 2, 1720, after consultation upon said affair, drew up a result, under all their hands, and publicly read and declared the same to the town, or those of them then present.

"3. That said committee, by their result, did oblige the inhabitants of the West End of the town to procure the land for erecting a new meeting-house upon, at their own cost and charge; and also to remove all encumbrances, as expressed in said result.

"4. That we, the subscribers, have, in obedience to said result, procured the land and removed the encumbrances, as above said, at our own cost and charge; and, for these and the like reasons, we enter against said vote as being illegal and unjust.

As this subject created local or territorial interests, it was prudently thought best not to force any measure relating to it. More than a year elapsed before any decisive action was taken. July 19, 1722, voted "to build a meeting-house according to the advice and determination of the honored committee chosen and empowered by the town to state that affair, and in the same place which said committee stated and ordered in the result."

This vote immediately called forth a protest from the Eastenders, in the following words :

"We, the subscribers, do enter our dissent against the vote abovesaid, referring to the building of a new meeting-house, for the reasons following; to wit: first, it is wholly contrary to the warrant granted for said meeting; and also, it being contrary to a former vote of the town.

men.

"JOHN BRADSHAW, Select-
THOMAS TUFTS,
JOHN WILLIS.
JOHN RICHARDSON.

BENJAMIN WILLIS.
BENJAMIN PARKER.

JOHN BRADSHAW, jun.

NATHANIEL HALL.
JOHN GRATTAN.
JONATHAN BRADSHAW.
PETER SECCOMBE.

JOHN HALL.

THOMAS WILLIS.

PETER TUFTS."

This difference of opinion, running longitudinally east and west, destroyed not the harmony of the town in other things; but served only to postpone action, and wait the leadings of Providence. More than two years elapsed before we find the following vote: "To place the new meeting-house either on the north or south side of the country road, on a piece of land belonging to John Bradshaw, jun." This spot was afterwards rejected. More unanimity began now to prevail in this matter; and a committee was chosen whose wisdom and impartiality harmonized every thing. The spot selected was on the south side of the country road, near "Marble Brook," four or five rods south-east of the bridge now across that stream, which afterwards took the name of "Meetinghouse Brook," and retains it to this day. The land was owned by that self-made and thrifty farmer, Mr. John Albree; and on the 10th of January, 1726, the town voted to give fifty-five pounds for one acre, and to appropriate three hundred and sixty pounds for the building of the house. The committee appointed to determine the size and shape of the house were "Thomas Tufts, Esq., Captain Ebenezer Brooks, Mr. Peter Seccombe, Mr. John Richardson, Captain Samuel Brooks, Mr. John Willis, Mr. William Willis, Lieutenant Stephen Hall, Mr. John Francis, Mr. Benjamin Parker, and Mr. John Whitmore." They reported that "it would be proper for this town to build a meeting-house fifty-two feet large, thirty-eight feet wide, and thirty-three feet posts." This report was accepted, and the same committee empowered to build the house.

Every thing now went on harmoniously; and we can easily imagine the appearance of the new house,-more than twice as