History of Essex County, Massachusetts : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Vol. II, Part 227

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton) ed
Publication date: 1888
Publisher: Philadelphia, J. W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1672

USA > Massachusetts > Essex County > History of Essex County, Massachusetts : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Vol. II > Part 227

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

house, about ten rods north of the southern entrance of the present park, till near the close of the last century. The whipping-post formed a part of the stocks. It was about twelve to fifteen inches in diam- eter, and set in the ground at an angle of abont forty- five degrees. The offender was secured upon the upper side of this post, and lashes were given by a " cat" of stout leather thongs. In 1860, Mrs. Steb- bins. an old lady of eighty-two, distinctly remembered

1921

HAVERHILL.

seeing a man whipped, who broke into Mr. Dunean's When they had once fixed upon a spot for a per- store, about the year 1784. His loud outeries made a deep impression upon her mind. Moses Wingate had a reminiscence of a more cheerful character. He remembered the whipping, by Sheriff David Bradley, of an offender, who afterwards serenely offered to " take as many more for half a pint of rum."

In 1649, the town of Newbury endeavored to entice away Job Clement, the tanner, by an offer of a free- hold, if he would carry on his trade there for four years, letting the shoemakers of that town "have the first proffer on the forsaking of his leather, mak- ing as good pay as others." He, however, remained in Haverhill.

Good settlers were always welcome, and skilled workmen were frequently offered a bonus to come. In 1650 the town granted John Hoitt, of Ipswich, three- fourths of an aere of land and the "elay pitts," on condition that he became an inhabitant. These elay pits were in the West Parish, near the land of George Corliss, and are still known by that name. The first colonists imported briek, and it was naturally an object to have briekmakers resident. Chase thinks the pits were dug, and perhaps worked, before Hoitt came, but that can only be a conjecture.

John Clement and Stephen Kent planted orchards about this time. The first is believed to have been a little north of Linwood Cemetery, probably under the shelter of the neighboriug hills, and the second where Samuel W. Ayer formerly lived.

manent home it was discovered that land in so many localities, far separated, was a serious inconvenience. Changes, therefore, were made, tending to enable each man to bring his parcels nearer together. But it was many years before this could be accomplished and anything like symmetrical farms could be formed. It is no wonder the attention of the people was so much taken up at the town-meetings by frequent ap- plications for leave to make exchanges and for ap- proval of them. The mode of making grants in the beginning, caused so many inconveniences and per- plexities, the real wonder is they did not all lose their heads together.

At the request of the town, the General Court ap- pointed Henry Palmer, Thomas Davis and Job Clements to " end small causes," and also appointed and empowered Robert Clements to give the oath of fidelity. The town also petitioned the Court " for the graunt of an iland lying in the Rivur Merrimae agaynst some part of their towne, contayning about 20 or 30 acres." Their request was acceded to, "unless Mr. Ward or any other shall make any eleare title from this court within three years to the sayd iland."

The town directed that the name of every free- holder should be kept in the town's book, and that he should attend town-meetings, when lawfully warned; and having "lawful warning he is to come within half an hour after the meeting is begun, and continue till sunset if the meeting hold so long, under the penalty of half a bushel of Indian corn or the value of it." Three years before, John Ayer, Sr., and James Fiske had been fined "for not attending the town-meeting, in sea- son." In 1659 it was ordered that if a town-meeting was publicly warned on a lecture day, it should be considered a sufficient notice. The lecture was at first weekly, afterwards monthly, and it was almost as obligatory to attend meeting on that day as on the Sabbath itself.

Two barns were built on the land afterwards known as the " Common," by Bartholomew Heath and Joseph Peasley. This indicates good progress in agriculture. In this year there were forty freemen in town, of whom nineteen had taken the oath of fidelity. The year previous the town had chosen Thomas Hale con- stable, not the first in the town, but probably the first chosen by the town. At this time, also, began the first of the many changes of land. January 7, 1649, we learn from the records, there had been complaint by some who had had land out in the plain (east of The great ox-Common had been laid out before 1650, and in 1651 it was ordered that it " shall be for the use of them who live upon the east side of the mill brook, and for as many as will join with them." " They that live upon the west side of the mill brook shall have liberty to have an ox-Common westward for them, and as many as will join with them, which common is to be laid out in a convenient place, as shall be judged meet by the major part of the town." the village), that it was "not fit for improvement." Probably a portion of it, having now been cultivated for several years and being originally light, began to show signs of exhaustion. The town gave them liberty " to lay it down " and take up land in some other place. In 1650, Hugh Sherratt, Bartholomew Heath, James Fiske and John Chenarie, laid down their land in the plain, and had " it laid out over Little River, westward." But about this time Joseph Pease- ley had leave to lay down his land over Little River At a meeting January 1, 1651, it was agreed that those who had land in the plain or below it, " butting upon the great river, should have liberty to make use of the bank next to the river for a fence for the space of four years: and also such as have land over the little river, west, should have the same liberty so far as Thomas Hale's lot." and to take up in the plain, and Samuel Gild also chose in the plain. After this, there were many such changes. Some of them were doubtless due to mere caprice ; but, probably, the larger portion, to more substantial reasons. The settlement was regarded as a success, and began to assume an appearance of stability. Men began taking their families away from An instance of the supervision the town intend- the village and building their houses elsewhere. ed to exercise over new-comers is to be found in the

1922

HISTORY OF ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.

vote of that year : "agreed that James Pecker should be an inhabitant with us, and that he shall have a four-acre lot (house-lot) with accommodations propor- tionable to it, which lot is to be bought of Bartholo- mew Heath for eight pounds. James Pecker doth promise to come and be an inhabitant with us by June, 1653." He probably came accordingly, dying in Haverhill, in 1696. The only children of his recorded, were four daughters, but there were male citizens of the name here long after. James Pecker kept a tavern for many years, and, when he died in 1657, his widow succeeded him. About 1760 Matthew Soley had it for a little while, and then Jeremiah Pecker carried it on. Bartholomew Pecker, a native of Haverhill, was a good Revolutionary soldier, said at one time to have been a member of Washing- ton's Life Guards. He loved New England rum too well. That be presented himself to Washington's notice on his visit to Haverhill in spite of vigorous opposition, that his old chief recognized him, saying : "Bart, is this von?" and gave him a gold piece, is apparently as authentic as any other incident of that memorable occasion. "Pecker Street " and " Pecker Hill," will always preserve the name of the graceless veteran whom his townsmen were ashamed of.

In this year George Brown and Daniel Hendrick were appointed to lay out the highway between Hav- erhill and Salisbury, and Theophilus Shatswell to join the men from Rowley, and lay out a road be- tween that town and this. The last was not approved by the County Court at Ipswich till 1686.

Up to this time there had been no saw-mill, and the people were compelled either to hew all the boards and planks used for building or else to bring them from Newbury; in either case, the inconveni- ence was great. There was plenty of timber, plenty of water-power and an ardent desire for a saw-mill of their own. December 1, 1657, it was voted that a saw-mill should be "set up by Isaac Cousins and such others of this town as shall join with him : the town and they agreeing upon terms, viz: that they shall not make use of any timber within three miles of the meeting-house : Item-That all timbers with- out the compass of three miles from the meeting- house should be free for the use of the saw-mill : they paying the twelfth hundred to the use of the town in general. Item-That the town for their use shall have boards and planks at three shillings per hundred for such pay as is merchantable. The town also reserv- ing to themselves a liberty to make use of what tim- ber they stand in need of, though it be without the three mile compass from the meeting-house." De-

cember 15, 1651, " Granted by the major part of the inhabitants that Isaac Consins shall have a sixth part of a saw-mill or mills : and that Mr. Clement ( Robert), Job Clement, Stephen Kent, William White and Theophilus Chatswell shall join with him, together with any others that they shall agree with, provided that Mr. Coflin (Peter Coffin, of Exeter) have liberty

to have a sixth part of it, if he come to be an inhab- itant of this town. This mill is to be set up upon the river, called Thomas Hale's river " (Little River at Winter Street).

This grant was more explicit than that made two weeks before, naming all the parties recognized and the location. They were to set up the mill by April, 1653. They had liberty to set up a second mill by April, 1654-" If they set them not up by these times above mentioned, then this grant is to be disannull- ed. .. . The proprietors have power, if they see cause, to remove one or both these mills up or down the river."

December 16, 1651, " voted and granted by the in- habitants that there shall no saw-mill be set up while these forementioned saw-mills are going." At the same time a committee was chosen to lay out ground for the use of the saw-mill " for a Pen," to be " re- turned to the town when the saw-mills are done." A six acre house-lot, with all accommodations propor- tionable, " was granted to the above mentioned Isaac Cousins, provided he lived in town five years following his trade of a smith." Three hundred and six acres had now been laid out in house-lots, or accommoda- tion grants.

Three days had thus been spent in adjusting the most important matter of a saw-mill. Cousins was a black- smith, as we have seen, the first in the town. He did not, however, fulfill the conditions of his grant, and in 1653, it was transferred to John Webster, upon similiar terms. John Webster came from Newbury, and returned there after four years. His brother, Stephen, a tailor, removed from Newbury to Haverhill soon after, and is supposed to have been the ancestor of all the Websters of Haverhill and the many emi- grants of that name.

A lot of land not exceeding four-score acres, was also granted to the proprietors of the saw-mill as long as they kept it in use. This lot was on the west side of Little River or Sawmill River, as it then be- gan to be called.

In 1656 the town voted to cancel all these grants and privileges, if the present saw-mill or some other did not cut boards enough for the town by midsummer. In 1658 all former grants and privileges were de- clared forfeited, and Thomas Davis, one of the owners of the mill, John Hutchins and Daniel Hendricks were granted the privileges appertaining to the old mill if they put up a mill and supplied the town with- in twelve months. But no mill was built, and the next year the voters declared the privilege for- feited.

Notwithstanding all these difficulties Daniel Ladd and Theophilus Shatswell, in 1659, having received liberty from the town in consideration of five pounds a year, built the first saw-mill upon Spiggot (Spicket) River, now in Salem, N. II.

The old saw-mill at Little River was still a source of disquietude. The town had more than once de-

1923

HAVERHILL.

clared the privileges forfeited, but the mill owners came to nothing, and the fact probably was that more seem to have paid little attention to sueli de- mills were needed. crees.

In 1660 a committee was chosen to request the ex- ecutors of Mr. John Clements to repair the mill or " desert the place." If they refused the committee were to "force them by law." Probably the mill was repaired, for in 1664 the owners of the saw-mill were allowed the use of one hundred acres to pasture their oxen, paying an annual rent of "100 boards."

When, in 1669, the bridge over Little or Sawmill River was out of repair, it was considered that " the present saw-mill owners were engaged to do it; " yet when Thomas Davis, in open meeting, said, "I will not," a committee was chosen to " compound the mat- ter with Davis and to build a new bridge." The in- habitants were all called upon to contribute propor- tionally of their labor towards constructing it.

September 17, 1669, a special meeting was called about a corn-mill, " the town being wholly destitute of any. Andrew Greeley, in whose hands the mill was, being about to carry on a mill at the East Meadow River, upon the motion and desire of the town, did promise to take the frame down at the Lit- tle River & bring it up & raise it at the place where the former mill was (Mill Brook) ; many of the in- habitants at the same time promising to allow him freely some help towards the taking the frame down and raising it again."

was voted "that John Haseltine or any other man have liberty to build a mill to grind corn in the town of Haverhill, either upon the west river, called the saw-mill river, or upon east meadow river."

In 1675 the town voted to proseente the owners of the saw-mill for not keeping their agreement. This

In 1678 Richard Bartlett, of" Almsbury," by unani- mous vote, was " granted the privilege to set a saw- mill in Haverhill, on the North Meadow River," on condition that he should pay the regular rates (taxes) : "deliver at our meeting-house 1000 merchantable per year, " should sell to the Ilaverhill people at three shillings per hundred, and secure the town from any damages recovered by present saw-mill

In 1665 additional grist-mill accommodations were owners on account of the new mill and damages to needed. "The corn-mill now in Haverhill is not meadows. sufficient to answer the town's end for to grind the Five years later it was voted to allow Joseph Kingsbury, Samuel Hutchins, Robert Swan, Jr., and Josiah Gage to build a saw-mill on Merries Creek be- low the bridge. Guided by past experience, the town expressly reserved the right to allow others a similar privilege on the same stream. town's corn," and a committee was chosen to confer with John Osgood and Andrew Greeley, its owners, " to know whether they will maintain a sufficient mill or mills," or to agree with others. Bartholomew Heath and Andrew Greeley agreed with the commit- tee "to repair the mill that now is by September At the same meeting, 1683, it was proposed to Andrew Greeley to build another corn-mill, which he refused to do, "and declared before the town that he knew there was a necessity for the town to have another corn-mill, & that he was not at all against their having of one set np, provided it he set upon any other brook or stream." Whereupon Stephen Dalton " propounded for liberty to build a corn-mill," which request was granted. next, and if this mill proves insufficient to answer the town's end, then to build another by September fol- lowing," and so to maintain sufficient corn-mills with skillful millers, good mill-stones, storeroom tor bags, " with lock and key, & also we do engage not to grind for any other town or towns to the hindrance of any of the inhabitants of Haverhill." In consideration of all which the town agreed, November 4, 1665, that Heath and Greeley should have land " in the street on In 1684 William Starlin was given leave to set up a corn-mill at Fishing River, with reservation of the right to allow any others to put up mills on the same stream. The town granted Starlin ten acres of land " for encouragement." Starlin, in 1697, deeded it to Thomas Dustin. both sides of the brook at the end of Michael Emer- son's lot, to set another mill on or any other place on the town's land." Also that the town would not give leave to any others to set up any mill upon the town's land.

For years, negotiations were pending with ditfer- ent persons-Andrew Greeley, Nathaniel Whittier, Joseph Peasley and Peter Patie-about building a grist-mill at East Meadow River. It was finally erected, soon after 1696, at a place afterwards long known as Johnson's mill about one-fourth of a mile from the mouth of the stream, by Samuel Currier and Joseph Greeley, to whom the town allowed the use of ten acres of land.

In 1705, John Swan and Jonathan Emerson, were granted the privilege of setting up a grist-mill, on Little River. This is supposed to have been built midway between the mouth of the river and the Winter Street bridge.

At the next annual meeting, John White was al- lowed to build "a fulling mill on Mill brook, near his own dwelling-house." This was the first mill of that kind.

We hear very little more about saw and grist-mills.

But the trouble continued, and March 6, 1671, it At last the land had rest. Probably natural com-

petition took care of the whole matter ingthe end.

In 1651, it was voted " that all the meadows shall be laid out by the 12th of June next, to each man his proportion according to his house lot." It was also " ordered that Hugh Sherrat, Theophilus Satch- well, Bart Ilcath, James Fiske, and Daniel Ladd,

1924

HISTORY OF ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.

Acres

shall view the upland that is fit to plough, by the last of March or the tenth of April next, and that they bring in their intelligence to the town by that time." It was further ordered, "that all the undi- vided land after all the meadows and second division of plough land is laid out, shall remain to the same inhabitants the proprietors of the three hundred and six acres, to every one according to honest and true meaning, all commons remaining in general to them."

The last was a vote of great importance in the history of the town. It had been settled more than ten years, and the title from the Indians to the in- habitants of Haverhill had been made about ten years before. The town was fairly prosperous, and new settlers had' come ; more were likely to do so. The new comers would in a short time outnumber the pioneers. Now that a division of all the mea- dows and a second division of plough land was about to be made, the question evidently arose to whom will belong the large quantity of land (commons) that will still remain undivided. Shall it remain to such as have participated in previous di- visions, namely,-the proprietors of the three hund- red and six acres of house-lots, accommodation grants, or shall it be regarded as the estate of all the inhabitants, whoever they may be, now or here- after ; whether fairly or unfairly, the town by the above vote, expressly and clearly declared that the commons should "remain" and be the property of the then proprietors of the house-lots. In after years, when the population had much increased, such a vote could not have been carried. Its vali- dity was indeed stontly contested and with a good deal of plausibility. There was much wrangling, a good deal of rough and tumble fighting and many law-suits. The "proprietors," as the lot holders and their successors came to be called, organized them- selves, kept records and held their meetings for many years. They made many grants, but probably their expenses absorbed the proceeds. In other towns also, similar controversies raged for years, but the victory generally remained with the proprietors or commoners, as may be observed at Salisbury at the present time where the "Commoners " are asserting their title to the beach without dispute.

The second division of plough land was made June 7, 1652. The division commenced at the head of Pond Meadow, and extended north, east and west. The lot-layers received for their services two pence an acre or ten shillings each. Forty-one persons received a share in the division, each having " his proportion either in quality or quantity of his lot, according to the discretion of the lot-layers."

Following are the names of those who received a share in this division, or as the records have it, "The lots or draughts for the second division of plough land, with the number of each man's acecom- modation."

Acres

1. John Davis. .6

2. James Fiske .. 4

3. Matthias Bulten. 6

4. Bartholomew Heath

5. Abraham Tyler .. 4

6. John Ayer, Sr ... 27. George Bronne .. 10

7. Henry Palmer. 9

8. Edward Clarke .. 4

9. Robert Clement 7

10. Hugh Sherratt .12

11. John Woodin 4

12. Thomas Perry 5

13. Thomas Whittier. 71/2

14. Stephen Kent. 221%

15. Juseph Peaseley. 12

16. John Ayer, Jr. 8

17. Thomas Linforth 6

18. Richard Littlehale 4

19. Isaac Cousins.

40. John Clement. ...*

20. William White ... -1 41. James Davis, Sr. .. 10

21. John Eaton 10

22. Daniel Hendrick

23. Thomas Davis.

24. Richard Ormsbie 5

25. Robert Ayer. 5

26. Henry Savage .. 4

28. William Hollridge 5

20. Mr. John Ward. 8

30. George Corlis.

31. Theophilns Satchwell.

32. John Williams J

33. Jolin Chenarie. 4

34. James Pecker. 4

35. Thomas Ayers. 9

36. Samuel Gild 10

37. Daniel Ladd. 6

38. James Davis, Jr.

39. Job Clement.

In the second division of meadow land, made in 1653, there were forty-eight lots drawn. About the same time the island just below the village was divided intoforty-five lots. The names and the bounds of each man's lot are given in the Commoner's Book of Re- cords, but entered there under the date of 1727.

A third division of upland, or plowland, was also ordered to be laid out; this was situated west and north of West Meadow, in the West Parish.

Only three Estates equalled the valuation of two hundred pounds, and received, according to the vote of Nov. 6, 1643, a house lot of twenty acres, the limit allowed-those of James Davis, Steven Kent and John Hutchins. John Hutchins' valuation indeed, was four hundred and eighty pounds, but he got no more land for the excess over two hundred pounds.

In 1650, the General Court passed a law forbidding any person whose estate did not exceed two hundred pounds, to wear any gold or silver lace or buttons great boots, silk hoods, ribbons or scarfs, under a penalty of ten shillings. In 1653, the wife of John Hutchins was presented to the court for wearing a silk hood ; " but upon testimony of her being brought up above the ordinary way was discharged." But the wife of Joseph Swett being also presented at the same time and for the same offense, was fined the ten shillings, not being qualified by estate for such vanities. In 1664, the General Court remitted to John Hutchins, late constable of Haverhill, a sum for corn collected for taxes and burned up while in his hands. Stephen Kent, notwithstanding his con- siderable property, was not always a satisfactory citizen. In 1652, he was fined in the County Court, at Hampton, ten pounds " for suffering five Indians to be druncke in his house and one of them wounded."

He petitioned the General Court for relief without avail, for it was ordered "that Stephen Kent within one month shall pay the said tenne pounds to the selectmen of Haverhill, who shall therewith satisfy for the cure of the Indian." He petitioned then to have the fine reduced, but without succes,. The tine was a heavy one, but the harboring and debauching

1925

HAVERHILL.

of the Indians was a serious offense, for which Kent, a few years later, would have suffered more than a pecuniary penalty. Hedoubtless has given his name to Kent Street, near the old ferry.

Matthias Button was a Dutchman who came to . Salem with John Endicott in 1628. He was in Ipswich in 1639, and came to Haverhill about 1646. In 1662, William Simmons who had been the ferry- man for five years previous, was voted "the overplus in the constable's hands of the country rate, to satisfy him for the curing of Matthias Button." This is the first mention ofa doctor on the records, although as has been said, Joseph Peasely is reported to have practised medicine, probably among his neighbors. Button was an uneasy creature. He first lived in the village, then west, then east of it, and finally was living in a thatched honse near the present residence of Mr. Thomas West, where he was burned out in 1671. In 1663, he had married; Elizabeth Duston. Ilis son, Daniel, as is supposed, was in Lothrop's Company-the Flower of Essex-and was killed at Bloody Brook by the Indians Sept. 18, 1675. Button gave to Rev. Thomas Cobbett, (minister at Ipswich about thirty years) some of the facts communicated by him to Increase Mather, concerning the early troubles with the Indians. Button died in 1672 very old.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Essex County, Massachusetts : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Vol. II, Part 227

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton) ed Publication date: 1888 Publisher: Philadelphia, J. W. Lewis & Co. Number of Pages: 1672

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton) ed
Publication date: 1888
Publisher: Philadelphia, J. W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1672