Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register

[27] said offence, and given order that it shall be recorded, and such as desire copies thereof may have the same.

John Haynes, Governor, Rich: Bellingham, John Winthrop, Tho: Dudley, John Humfry, Willm. Coddington, Willm. Pinchon, Atterton Houghe, Increase Nowell, Simon Bradstreete.¹

This Mr. Pratt was a physician in the New Town, or Cambridge, for several years. He and his wife were drowned near the coast of Spain in December, 1646, as related by Winthrop.² He was not the only dissatisfied person, though less cautious than others in expressing his feelings. As early as May, 1634, this spirit of dissatisfaction became so general among the inhabitants of the New Town, that they proposed to abandon their comparatively pleasant homes, and to commence anew in the wilderness. The ostensible reason for removal was the lack of sufficient land. The town was indeed narrow, but its length was indefinite. The limit of eight miles northwesterly from the meeting-house was not fixed until March, 1636; and it does not appear how far the land was previously occupied in that direction. But the westerly line of Charlestown was established, March 6, 1632-3; and it seems to have been understood that the whole territory between that line and the easterly bounds of Watertown was reserved for the use of New Town, however far those lines might extend into the country. But the people appeared impatient of such narrow limits. At the General Court, May 14, 1634, “Those of New Town complained of straitness for want of land, especially meadow, and desired leave of the Court to look out either for enlargement or removal, which was granted; whereupon they sent men to see Agawam and Merrimack, and gave out that they would remove, etc.” ³ Early in July, 1634, “Six of New Town went in the Blessing (being bound to the Dutch plantation,) to discover Connecticut River, intending to remove their town thither.” ⁴ In the following September, the same subject was again brought before the General Court. The record is very brief; but the particulars related by Winthrop are of so much interest that they may well be quoted in full:—