seen service in the Northern army. After the capture of Burgoyne, the Americans replaced their old-fashioned ordnance with the more modern and effective cannon captured from the enemy, and the discarded field-pieces were many of them given to officers in the American army. This old cannon was stored for many years in Gen. Mattoon's barn, and was used in Fourth of July celebrations as well as in celebrating other events of less patriotic interest. It was destined to play an important part in a neighborhood quarrel of which more will be related in succeeding pages. As high sheriff of Hampshire county, Gen. Mattoon officiated in 1806 at the execution of Halligan and Daly at Northampton, for murder and highway robbery. This was one of the. first executions in Hampshire county. While on a visit to Boston in 1816, in connection with his duties as adjutantgeneral, he caught a severe cold which settled in his eyes and soon resulted in total blindness. He built the house at East Amherst now owned and occupied by O. P. Gaylord; it was, at that time, esteemed one of the finest residences in the village. During the closing years of his life Gen. Mattoon drew a pension as a revolutionary soldier. He died, Sept. 11, 1843, aged

88 years.

In the Hampshire Gazette of Aug. 29, 1832, appears the following list of Revolutionary soldiers from Amherst who applied for pensions :

Prominent among the opponents of the Revolution were the Rev. David Parsons, Simeon Strong, Esq., Josiah Chauncey, John Field, and three members of the Boltwood family, Ebenezer, Solomon and William. Of David Parsons and Simeon Strong brief biographical sketches have already been given. Josiah Chauncey was for many years a leading man in the community. The son of Rev. Isaac Chauncey, for many years. pastor of the church in Hadley, he was born Nov. 14, 1716. In 1758 he was appointed justice of the peace, holding that office until the outbreak of the war of the Revolution. In 1760 and 1762, he represented Hadley, South Hadley, Granby and Amherst in the General Court. From the "Memorials of the Chaunceys", edited by William Chauncey Fowler and published in 1858, the following is copied :

"Josiah Chauncy, youngest son of the Rev. Isaac, was born Nov. 4, 1716. He resided in Hadley precinct (Amherst) before 1737. He, with his two brothers, Richard and Charles, having, in their father's family, enjoyed more than common advantages, and, taking a leading part in public affairs, must have had great influence in giving a character to the infant town of Amherst. He, if any one, was the Father of the Town. He was for a considerable time usually moderator of the

public meetings; was for a long time justice of the peace; town clerk; selectman; assessor; Representative to the General Court. In 1755 he was sent to the General Court to appear in behalf of the precinct in its petition to be set off a district; he went to Boston and secured the object of the petition. As a Justice of the Peace many important cases were tried before him. An aged lady, who remembered him well told me that there were frequently large collections of people assembled to witness the trials before Judge Chauncey. In the time of the Revolutionary War, he, like many of the leading men in the region, was suspected of being a Tory. They felt that the time had not come to take up arms against Great Britain. Rev. David Parsons, Judge Simeon Strong, Dr. Seth Coleman, and others, sided with Esquire Chauncey. Mr. Chauncey held no office during the war. But immediately on the declaration of peace he resumed his place at the head of affairs. He cultivated a large and excellent farm about half a mile south of the college now owned by Mr. Horace Kellogg. The remains of the fish-pond which he constructed are still to be seen. He was a professor of religion from early life. About the year 1802 he removed with his family from Amherst to Albany Co., now Schenectady Co., N. Y., where he died and was buried the same year."

John Field was son of Zechariah Field and was born in Hatfield, Jan. 12, 1718. He was a prominent man in the community and among the large property owners as is shown by Amherst's valuation list in 1770. In 1773 he was appointed by Gov. Hutchinson a lieutenant of militia, but gave up his commission the following year owing to the disturbances. incident to the outbreak of the war. He married, July 10, 1739, Hannah, daughter of Samuel Boltwood, by whom he had eleven children.

The Boltwoods were among the earliest settlers in the eastern part of Hadley, Samuel Boltwood being numbered among the "east inhabitants” in 1731, while Solomon came to the new settlement as early as 1737. They were men of note, prominent in public affairs and the name of Boltwood appears frequently on town and district records. In 1770, Solomon Boltwood was the largest property-owner in the district, his estate being rated at £228. William, son of Solomon, was commissioned a lieutenant and served in the French and Indian war. Solomon, brother to William, and his son Ebenezer, were among the earliest merchants, or "traders" as they were then called, in the east settlement.

CHAPTER XIV.

PROPOSED DIVISION OF AMHERST.-PETITION AGAINST A DIVISION.

The first meeting-house, completed in 1753, afforded at that time and for some years after ample accommodations for the worshipers who assembled there on the Sabbath, and the voters who gathered on town

meeting days. But owing to a considerable increase in population, the need of a larger meeting-house became apparent as early as 1771, when the question of building one began to be agitated. This question, innocent in itself, formed the basis of a controversy that was waged with bitterness for many years, whose echoes even now are heard in our town-meetings as the rights and privileges of the "center" of the town are placed in opposition to those of the outlying villages. It was a bitter struggle at the outset, and but for the sound common-sense displayed by the General Court, would doubtless have resulted in a division of the lands in Amherst into two parishes and later on two townships. A majority of the first permanent settlers had located near what is now the center village, and the meeting-house was set as near the center of population as could be conveniently. As new members were added to the settlement, the lands to the north and south and east were occupied, the population becoming more generally distributed over the territory comprised in the District. The voters and church-goers at the extremities of the District soon grew into a majority, a fact they were quick to appreciate and take advantage of. They needed a pretext for action, and this was afforded when the question of building a new meeting-house was broached. Their proposition was to divide the District by an east and west line through the center, the latter thus being placed at the extremity of the two new districts. At a meeting held Jan. 13, 1772, the proposition was submitted to the voters and passed in the affirmative. Legislative sanction was necessary in order to such a division of territory, but that some immediate benefit might be obtained it was voted, April 14, 1773, to build two new meeting-houses at the expense of the whole District. Of the 120 owners of real estate in the District when this controversy began, 70 were opposed to the division, but there were in addition some 25 legal votes living at the ends of the District, mostly farmers' sons, to whom their fathers conveyed small tracts of land that they might, in accordance with legal provisions, vote upon the question. This gave a majority to the divisionists, leaving the wealthy propertyowners at the center powerless as far as any action by the District was concerned. The natural recourse was an appeal to the General Court for a stay of proceedings and a hearing. The following petition was drawn up and forwarded to the General Court in May, 1773:

To his Excellency Thomas Hutchinson Esq. Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over his Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Day in New England and Vice Admiral of the same.

To the Hon his Majesty's Council and House of Representatives in General Court assembled at Boston on the 26th day of May A. D. 1773.

The subscribing Petitioners Inhabitants of the District of Amherst in the County of Hampshire.

Most humbly shew.

That the District of Amherst contains a Tract of Land nearly equal to seven miles in length and three miles in breadth taken together: That in the year 1735, a Precinct or Parish was erected there by the name of The Third Precinct of Hadley, in which town said lands then were. That in the year 1738 a Meeting House was erected, and in the year 1739 a Minister was settled there. That in the year 1759 the same Parish or Precinct was erected into a District by the name of Amherst, with some Inhabitants of Hadley Parish with their Farms annexed thereto. That your Petitioners are most of them inhabitants of the middle Part of the said District, whose Lands and Estates are adjacent to the said Meeting House on each side, and towards each end of the District, and that they and their predecessors were the first original settlers of the Parish of East Hadley. from which said Amherst was erected, who bore the principal part of the burden of beginning and bringing forward the settlement at first, of building a Meeting House, supporting the Ministry and all other charges; and have continued to bear the greater part of Expenses of every kind from the original settlement of the Parish to this day. That though they have long held a state of good agreement and harmony among themselves, and conducted their affairs both ecclesiastical and civil with great unanimity, yet are now in a most unhappy controversy with the inhabitants of the remote parts of the District respecting the building a Meeting House for Public Worship. That partly by reason of the Inhabitants who were admitted from Hadley Parish to be incorporated with Amherst at their own request, and because of their great distance from their own Meeting House, partly by reason of the increase of settlers in the remoter parts and near the two ends of the District, and partly by the methods used by the opposite party to multiply their votes, by transferring property from the father's List to the son's who tho' qualified according to the letter of the Province Law ought to every equitable purpose to be considered as having no property at all: Your Petitioners, though owning the greater part of the Property within the District, are yet in respect of their number of voters become a minor party, and being as they conceive oppressed and likely still to be oppressed by the strength of a prevailing majority, and being under necessity thereof to seek redress & Protection in Legislative Power, humbly beg leave to open and state their matters of complaint in the following manner (viz.)

That within two years last past the Increase of inhabitants made it needful to provide a new Meeting House for Public Worship: That on a motion for this purpose, the Inhabitants of the remoter settlements towards each end of the District united together in a Design of procuring the district (however small in its extent) to be divided into two Districts, so that the extremities of the two Districts should be at the present Centre, and your Petitioners on each side of the present Meeting House, to be at the remote or extreme parts of the two proposed Districts. This Proposal was brought before a District Meeting holden on the 13th Day of January A. D. 1772, and though opposed by your Petitioners, a vote was then passed for the proposed Division, That from a supposed insufficiency in the proceeding, the same matter was again brought before a District Meeting holden the 10th Day of March in the same year: and there being then an equal number of voters on each side of the question no vote was passed, That afterwards the Party for the Division entered into an agreement for effecting their purpose by procuring a Majority for erecting two Meeting Houses at the joint expense of the whole District before any Division should be made, or any new District erected, and to place them so as to subserve their design of a future Division towards the ends of the present, and in the middle of each proposed District, whereby they apprehended that your Peti

tioners overpowered by their majority, would be finally brought by compulsion to join with them in procuring such a Division, That pursuant to this design a meeting was holden on the 14th day of April last past, at which (having previously multiplied their votes in the manner above described) they procured a majority for erecting the two Meeting Houses: and a vote was accordingly passed, And tho' nothing as yet hath been done in pursuance of said vote, yet your Petitioners are threatened with the speedy execution of it, All which votes and proceedings, by attested copies thereof herewith exhibited will appear. On which state of facts your petitioners humbly beg leave to represent and observe: That the whole District of Amherst being of no larger extent than nearly as above set forth, cannot admit of having a new District erected therefrom in the manner contended for, without effecting the ruin of the whole, as neither of the two could be able to support public expenses: That the Division contended for is such for which no precedent can be procured, nor any reason assigned: That the very remotest of the Inhabitants have no further travel to the centre of Amherst than what is common to many of the Inhabitants of most of the Towns within the Province. And if any reason could be given for so extraordinary a measure, the same must hold and hold much stronger in almost every Town and District and produce Divisions and subdivisions throughout the whole. That your Petitioners think it most injurious to themselves to be dictated by an opposite Party in respect to their tenderest rights, and especially in matters relating to the Worship of God. That their opponents are unjustly endeavoring to compel them to join in societies wherein they have no disposition to join, and many of them to abandon their Parish, Church and Minister, to which they are most cordially united; and to be so incorporated together in each respective new formed society with those of an adverse Party, of opposite sentiments and exasperated minds: That each of the little, weak and already ruined societies must have nothing in prospect but to be if possible further ruined by increasing Confusion and Discord among themselves. That your Petitioners having acquired their Estates at a rate proportionate to the value of their present situation, may not, consistent with justice, have such privileges wrested from them. That confiding in the Equity of their cause, they would cheerfully have submitted it to the decision of the General Court: but that their opponents (either thro' diffidence of the success of their cause, or for some other reason to your Petitioners unknown) wholly declining to make any application to the General Court for a new District to be erected, have adopted the violent measure of forcing your Petitioners to contribute to the expense of the said two Meeting Houses, which purpose if executed they consider as a manifest oppression under colour of Law, and an high abuse of the Power vested in Towns and Districts by the Acts of this Province. That the vote whereof your Petitioners complain was procured by voters qualified by unfair means, as above expressed, and that your Petitioners having the property of more than half the Estate within the District, and who must therefore bear the greater part of the expense, the whole of which they should esteem to be worse than lost. Your Petitioners further beg leave to represent that during the whole controversy they have adopted every pacific measure; have never used any undue method to multiply their voters, choosing rather to want a majority than to procure it by unfair means. And now find all attempts of Accomodation to be in vain: and despairing of justice without the intervention of Legislative Power, Your Petitioners most humbly pray the attention of your Excellency and Honors to their unhappy situation. And though they are sensible that no division of Amherst can be made without great prejudice to the whole, and if