USA > Massachusetts > Franklin County > Ashfield > History of the town of Ashfield, Franklin County, Massachusetts from its settlement in 1742 to 1910 > Part 6
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).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35
Chileab Smith Ebenezer Smith
Chileab Smith Jr
Reuben Ellis
Moses Smith
Heber Honestman
Richard Ellis
Mathew Ellis John Ellis
To his exolency the governor and his Honnorable Counsel and The great and Jenoral Cort We the subscribors belonging to the neighboring Towns of Huntstown and being Sensoble in some mesore of the destressed condition of the people of Hunts Town and the great importance of haveing Them incoridged and soported in their Town They being situate in the front tear of Dearfeild Hatfeild and Hunts town and their scattoring veligaes which are very deserving on account of the indends and answer their request which we think evidently reasonable to all that are aquented with their destreesed surcomstances and their hard service in defence of themselves and Their contry which hath yet bin don upon their one cost without any reward from their contry
68
HISTORY OF ASHFIELD
Note that Chileab Smith son and John Elis are not yet quite of age but are good soldyers able bodyed every way able to do the work of solders and have don it this sommor being expert with guns beyend som that are of full age.
The Persons that now live in Huntstown are Twenty nine in number. The Persons that are scattered away from Huntstown for want of Protection are 54. The whole number is eighty Three.
Note. that Three of the subscribers do not now live in Hunts- Town by reason of the war but Thare are others that have not had opertunity to get thare hands to this paper that we have reson to think want protection as much as we.
Thomas Phillips
Moses Smith
Wetherel Wittium
Reuben Ellis
Mathew Ellis
Richard Phillips
Moses Smith ivn. (jun.)
In the House of Rep. July 8, 1756
Read and Noted, That his Hon. the Lieut. Gov. be desired to give direction to Col. Israel Williams that he order a suitable number of Forces destined to Scout on the Western Frontier for ye Protection of the Petitioners and Inhabitants of sd. Place as he shall Judge necessary.
Sent up for concurrence
T. Hubbard Spkr.
It does not appear that anything definite was done in answer to the petition until April 7, 1757, when a Resolve of the Court directs among other fort assignments that "ten men and no more including one sergeant " be sent to Huntstown, the pay to be four shillings a week and forty pounds paid for every Indian scalp.
Lieut. John Hawks of Deerfield was under Colonel Williams in command of the outlying forts north and west of Deerfield. He kept a diary of his doings and reports, which has been preserved by his descendant Frederick E. Hawks of Greenfield and pre- sented by him to the P. V. M. A., at Deerfield. In this Colonel Hawks says under date of April 19, "In ye afternoon enlisted soldiers for the frontier and staid at Deerfield enlisting and
69
PROGRESS, INDIANS, WHY ASHFIELD?
stationing, 14 for Northfield, 14 for Greenfield, 14 for Colrain, S for Falltown, 4 for Charlemont, 3 for Huntstown, and on the 13th of May went to Huntstown to see where the fort should be."
As both the forts in Huntstown had been built, Colonel Hawks' errand probably was to decide at which fort the men should be stationed.
July 8, Colonel Williams received an order to send a guard of nine men to Huntstown. They were sent under command of Sergeant Allen. The fort had already been built that season, and is well described by Dr. Shepard. It stood about twenty rods north of the house where Mr. Asa Wait now lives, and included Mr. Chileab Smith's house which stood just east of the present highway and extended easterly to the low ground to include the spring. A guard was probably here until the close of the war in 1759. Nathan Chapin, one of this guard, improved his time and opportunity by marrying Mary Smith, daughter of Chileab. He was the ancestor of the present Chapins in town, a Revolutionary soldier, and will be further noticed.
Another smaller fort was built, half a mile south, for the protection of the Phillips and Ellis families and others. A lady now living in this town remembers hearing her great grandmother relate how the family used to go down and spend the night at the fort for greater security from the Indians. The site of this fort with the well near it may still be seen in the pasture south of Church and Broadhurst's. The records of the old Baptist Church for 1756 say, "They continucd in the town and kept up the Publick Worship of God on the first day of the week continually."
By the foregoing dates it will be seen that the settlers were really absent but a few months. About the timc the guard was sent to Huntstown, guards were also stationed at the two forts in Charlemont and at two forts in Colrain. Scouts were also continually scouring the woods westward, and any sign of the enemy was quickly reported to the settlements, and with all these precautions the inhabitants felt a sense of partial security. At any rate, work in the settlement went on and some Proprie- tors' meetings were held during the war.
70
HISTORY OF ASHFIELD
September 10, 1760, a Proprietors' meeting was held at the house of Mr. John Victory in Huntstown, at which it was voted to purchase a law book for the use of the inhabitants and to hold the future meetings at Huntstown, Ephraim Marble, Clerk. Previous to this, only one meeting had been held here; that in 1754 with Daniel Alden for Moderator. The meetings had usually been held in Hadley or Hatfield. The next meeting was held at the house of Ebenezer Belding, when it was "voted to have a suit with Deerfield if it be necessary." March 25, 1761, at house of Thomas Phillips "Voted to rase a tax of thirty shil- lings on each Right for laying out and mending roads," also, "Voted to procure a Bull for the use of the Inhabitants, and that Moses Smith provide and keep a Boar." Also "to raise six pence on each right to purchase a law book and that Nathan Chapin be a committee to effect the same."
About this time it is recorded that there were nineteen fami- lies here. The next meeting was held at the same place on May 20, and a committee of three men from Deerfield was chosen to say how much Chileab Smith shall be paid for sawing boards. Also voted to sue for the clerk and treasurer's books then at Hatfield. The next meeting was at the house of Richard Ellis, and it would seem that a good delegation from Hatfield was present, for Reuben Belding was chosen Clerk and Obadiah Dickinson Treasurer, both Hatfield men. Voted "That the place of holding future meetings be at the house of Zachariah Billings in Hatfield." December 9, at the last named place, it was voted "to direct Reuben Belding to require Ephraim Marble to deliver up the Proprietors book." It would seem that the Hatfield and Hadley people bought largely of the Rights in Huntstown, consequently could control more votes in a Proprietors' meeting than the actual settlers. The meetings were continued in Hatfield for three years.
In 1763 another division of lots of one hundred acres each was made, mainly in the southeasterly part of the town, the rest scattered. Lot No. 1 of this division was the School Lot and extended easterly to the banks of South River near Blakesley's
71
PROGRESS, INDIANS, WHY ASHFIELD?
Mill to Deerfield Line; Deerfield claiming up to this line at that time.
It has been seen that in order to cover expenses and "bring forward the settlement, " numerous assessments had been made on the rights. Many of these taxes had not been paid, therefore in 1763, a committee was chosen to sell at public "vendue " the lands held by the delinquents, sufficient to pay the taxes thereon. This was done at several times in 1763-4. This land sold at prices varying from one and a half to six shillings per acre, according to the situation. The buyers were mostly the settlers; but some land was bought by new men just coming in. Prob- ably nearly one thousand acres were sold.
Much trouble had arisen in laying out lots on the borders of the town, because it was not certainly known just how far out Huntstown extended. In July, 1762, at a meeting in Hatfield, Obadiah Dickinson, Reuben Belden and Nathaniel Kellogg were chosen a committee to "Prefer a Plan to the Great and General Court for confirmation of the Township of Huntstown so called, and also that the Committee be directed to act further as they shall think proper." The line next to Deerfield was very uncertain and there had been trouble ever since the first settlement. In 1741, Deerfield put in to the General Court a Plan of its township which Huntstown claimed cut off several thousand acres of its lands. The fight between the two town- ships before the General Court continued for years, sometimes with a good deal of bitterness. On one occasion the Huntstown petitioners say that when they remonstrate with their Dcerfield neighbors, all the satisfaction they get is "Clear away as fast as you can and we will come and occupy it." Mr. Sheldon says the trouble was, the river was crooked. The grant of Deerfield extended from the Connecticut River ninc miles west into the woods. If the Deerfield men measured from a point in the nearest crook, they would of course carry Huntstown to the westward. The above committec presented their petition before the General Court January 25, 1763, saying that in 1741, Deer- field had put in a plan of that town which was accepted by the General Court, but which cut off several thousand acres from
72
HISTORY OF ASHFIELD
Huntstown; that in 1742, Huntstown put in a petition for an Equivalent on the west, and adjoining province lands; that an Act to that effect passed the House, but by some accident did not pass the Chair. They say that the bounds of the town- ship are unknown and ask that a Committee be appointed to define them, especially between Huntstown and Deerfield. A committee was therefore appointed and after visiting the prem- ises, and hearing both sides, their report came up before the General Court June 18, 1765, and the vote is recorded as follows:
In the House of Representatives. A plan of the Township of Huntstown taken by Eleazer Nash, Surveyor and Chainmen on Oath, bounded as follows vizt beginning at a Maple Staddle and heap of Stones marked thus 9x which stands in Deerfield West line 420 perch from their southwest corner on the course North 19° East, and from the aforesaid Maple, runs North 19º East 2180 perch to a Hemlock tree marked 9x and a heap of Stones. Thence West 17º North 650 perch. Thence West 3º South 1615 perch to Hatfield Grant, The same being Mayhew's Northeast corner. Thence South 1050 perch. Thence East 22º South 1714 perch and closed to the first boundary. Contains 23040 acres, Surveyed August 1st, 1764, one Rod in thirty allowed for sag of chain.
Voted that the said plan be accepted, and the Lands therein delineated and described be Confirmed to the proprietors of the said Hunts Town their Heirs and Assigns.
This decision and Plan of the Committee placed the southeast corner of the township over a mile further south. It also moved the northeast corner the same direction and distance. It moved the line between Deerfield and Huntstown over one hundred rods to the east, taking so much of what Deerfield had claimed. Thesc corners, also the north line of the town, were probably the same as at present. Some of the lots before this were laid over into No Town (Buckland) and had to be "removed" afterwards. If subsequent measurements were correct on the north line, Mayhew's Corner was farther west than the present northwest corner. The west and south lines next to Plainfield and Goshen have been considerably changed from this Plan.
On June 19, the next day after this Plan was accepted by the General Court, the House Journal says, "A Bill for erecting a
73
PROGRESS, INDIANS, WHY ASHFIELD?
New Plantation called Huntstown in the County of Hampshire into a town by the name of was read three several times and passed to be engrossed." In the Council the next day, the bill was read the first and second times "into a town by the name of - The next day, June 21, the same, "incorporated into a town by the name of Ashfield," read a third time and passed to be enacted. So it seems that the name was not decided on until the very last stages of the bill, quite probably it was supplied by the Governor and Council without outside suggestion.
It does not appear from the records that any petition was sent in for the incorporation of the town; it was probably brought before the General Court on the motion of some member. It appears by the record that the bill went up to the Governor and Council and to its last stage with no name for the town inserted.
During the nine years Bernard was governor, from 1761 to 1770, thirty-nine towns were incorporated, of which twenty- eight were named by him. At this time Lord Thurlow of Ash- field, England, was very prominent in England and in hearty sympathy with Governor Bernard in his feeling toward the colonies. With his penchant for naming towns, and with the opportunity given him at the last stage of the bill, there can be little doubt that Governor Bernard filled the blank with Ashfield in honor of his English friend. There has been much speculation as to the origin of the name of our town. A note found in Mr. Ranney's papers shows that he favored this explanation. An old history of the state, speaking of this town, says it was named after Lord Thurlow of Ashfield.
An Act for Erecting The New Plantation called Huntstown, in the County of Hampshire, into a Town by the name of Ash- field.
Whereas it hath been represented to this court that the erecting the plantation called Huntstown into a town, will greatly contribute to the growth thereof and remedy many in- conveniences to which the inhabitants and proprietors may be otherwise subjected,-Be it enacted by the Governor, Council and House of Representatives,
[Section 1] That the plantation aforesaid, bounded as follows;
74
HISTORY OF ASHFIELD
viz*, cast by Decrficld; south, partly by Narraganset Town- ship Number Four, and partly by province land; west partly by province land, and partly by Bernard's and Mayhew's and Hatfield land; and north, by province land; more particularly described in a plan of said township, confirmed in the present session of the general court,-be and hereby is erected into a town by the name of Ashfield; and that the inhabitants thereof shall be invested with all the powers, privileges and immunities which the inhabitants of the towns within this province do enjoy.
And be it further enacted,
[Sect. 2.] That Thomas Williams Esqr., be and hereby is empowered to issue his warrant, directed to some principal inhabitant of said town, to notify and warn the inhabitants of said town, qualified by law to vote in town affairs, to meet at such time and place as shall therein be set forth, to chuse all such officers as are or shall be required by law to manage the affairs of said town.
And be it further enacted,
[Sect. 3.] That all taxes already raised for settling a minister, or that may be raised for his support, for building a meeting house, clearing and repairing roads, be levied on the several proprietors of said plantation, according to their interests, until the further order of this court; and that said inhabitants and proprietors of said town procecd by the same rules, in levy- ing and collecting said taxes, as proprietors in new plantations are obliged by law to observe. [Passed June 21.]
At the centennial celebration in Conway in 1867, Rev. Charles Rice in his Historical Address says:
There was much controversy with Huntstown, now Ashfield, concerning the western boundary. Twice the Deerfield and Conway men got the worst of the matter in law and were com- pelled to draw in their lines. They never felt easily as to the way the business was settled and unquestionably we ought to believe they were wronged.
We do not see how our good Conway neighbors can lay up anything against us for this, for the old Province Laws for 1765 detail fully how a disinterested Committee appointed by the General Court thoroughly investigated the matter and made the report as recorded.
CHAPTER III
ROADS, MEETINGHOUSE, BAPTIST TROUBLES
As can be seen by consulting the Plan of lots, spaces were left for roads between different tiers of lots, but very often they could not be used as they were located, and had to be laid out in different places. The first record of a road laid out in Hunts- town is found in the old Hampshire records at Northampton, Court of Sessions, 1754.
We met at Deerfield, began at the east path, south from the top of Long Hill, which leadeth out to the old sawmill, and in said path until it comes to the path turning out northerly, com- monly called Huntstown road, and on said road as it was marked by the town of Huntstown, and now commonly traveled, until it comes unto the west side of Deerfield bounds, and from thence in the northern road unto Thomas Phillips' house in Hunts- town, and from thence as the road now goes to the west side of said Phillips' lot, and from thence in a straight line to Richard Ellis' new house, from thence as the path now goes unto Meeting House hill [Bellows Hill], unto a beech tree with stoncs around it, near Heber's fence, the whole road to be ten rods wide.
What was laid out probably followed nearly the old road through what is now Conway to Conway village, then over Baptist Hill to the Totman and Pfersich neighborhood, then to Thomas Phillips' house at the north end of Lot No. 46-now Mr. Kendrick's pasture, then westerly to a point near the saw- mill then just built near the present Bear River bridge, then south to where Mr. Lanfair now lives, then west up past where Mr. Joshua Hall now lives to the top of the hill. In the map in the Ellis book the dotted line marked 00 should go from 48 westerly to 6, instead of northwesterly to 35.
In 1761 the Proprietors laid out a road beginning where this left off at the top of the hill, then going southwesterly past the house of John Nightingale across lots Nos. 13 and 14 around the west side of Mill hill to the corn mill, thence past the house of Withere 1 Wittium to lot No. 18, then along No. 18 to the east
76
HISTORY OF ASHFIELD
and west road laid out in the original survey which was nearly what is now the main street of the village. This road can easily be traced at present. The same day a road was laid from the sawmill on Bear River northerly, probably as far as No Town.
It will be remembered that by the conditions of the Grant, the petitioners must "Settle a Learned Orthodox Minister and build and finish a Convenient Meeting House for the Publick Worship of God." It seems that it was originally contemplated to place the meetinghouse at the north end of No. 47, next to the ministerial lot No. 24, south of where Church and Broad- hurst now live, but in May, 1743, it was voted that "when built it be built on the Southing end of Lot No. 7 or Southing end of Lot No. 1," (on Bellows Hill). Then April 4, 1744, voted "that as there is great expectation of a war with France ye building of a Meeting House be suspended at present." November 12, 1753, voted to raise £50 to build a meetinghouse under charge of former Committee. May 20, 1761, voted that the committee chosen to expend the money for building the meetinghouse, and to pitch a place where to set it still be the committee for the same. December 9, 1761, voted that they will as soon as con- venience will admit proceed to build a meetinghouse and that it be under the direction of a committee appointed for that purpose. Obadiah Dickenson, Nathaniel Kellogg, Reuben Belding, John Sadler, Major Fuller, Ebenezer Belding and Phillip Phillips were chosen that committee "to carry on the affair to the best advantage for the proprietors, and complete the same so far as to set it up and cover it and glas it and lay the floor. The dimensions of the house to be 35 feet in length and 45 feet in breadth." Also voted that "the former place of setting the meeting house be revoked, and that the meeting house that is to be set up in Huntstown be set up on the 13th lot, on the north end as near to the highway as convenience will admit." (A few rods south of the former location.) October 27, 1762, voted that "the Dimensions of the Meeting House be 48 feet in length and 36 in breadth." June 22, 1764, voted to raise £20 for roads if needed -- remainder for materials for meet- inghouse. December 11, 1765, meeting at inn of Joseph
77
ROADS, MEETINGHOUSE, BAPTIST TROUBLES
Mitchell (east side of Bellows Hill). Voted to "raise £60 in order to go forward with building a meeting house and to go forward with building a meeting house next spring and set it up as soon as it conveniently can be." July 13, 1766, voted "not to revoke the vote to set the meeting house on the northerly end of Lot No. 13, and not to choose a new committec." During the summer of 1767 the frame of the house was erected on Bellows Hill, but there was evidently opposition to the location. New settlers were already locating in the village and to the south and west of it, and it was felt that very soon this site would be outside of the center of the increasing population. By the last section of the Act of Incorporation it will be seen that the town independently of the Proprietors was interested in the meetinghouse and on August 10, 1767, at a town meeting it was voted "not to concur with the Proprietor's votc to cover the meeting house where it stands." November 4, 1767, at the inn of Joseph Mitchell it was voted to adjourn to the house of Samuel Lillie (near the present cemetery by the village) at 8 o'clock the next morning, then adjourned back again to inn of Joseph Mitchell at 11 o'clock where it was voted
That with regard to ye meeting house, Notwithstanding the Proprietors did at their meeting ye 7 of July 1762 vote that ye meeting house be set at ye North end of ye Lot No. 13 first division, where ye frame now stands; Sd Proprietors and many of ve Inhabitants being apprehensive it does not stand in a suitable place to accommodate ye town, Voted: That they will move the Meeting House Frame to ye Northerly end of Lot No. 18, 1st Division, Viz. About forty rods from ye North end thereof where we have this day set up stakes for the front of ye house fronting ye road that leads to Capt. Fullers. Voted, To make application to Mr. Sam! Anable of Bernardston in pulling down the Mceting House.
There was still another attempt to obstruct this removal. In a warrant for a town meeting to be held November 12, 1767, one week after the Proprietor's final vote, was an article "To see if the town will choose a Committee and Impower them to Put a Stop to these proceedings in Puling down the Meeting House Frame til further order of the town," but it appears the
78
HISTORY OF ASHFIELD
vote did not pass. The place designated for the meetinghouse and where it was subsequently sct was in what is now the cemetery, the front of the building being near the burial lot of Mrs. Henry Hall.
The work, however, progressed slowly. August 17, 1768, voted "to raise £5 on cach right and to choose a committee to go for- ward with the mecting house." February 8, 1769, votcd that "the committee chosen at ye last meeting to build ye Meeting House have Power to hire ye Work done by the great."
In January, 1771, the Proprietors mct at the meetinghouse the first time for a meeting.
The matter of the controversy between the Baptist and Con- gregational churches alluded to by Dr. Shepard is of such im- portance as to deserve more than a passing notice here and we can do no better than to quote largely from a paper read by Mr. Charles A. Hall before the P. V. M. A., February 26, 1907, "In regard to Chileab Smith and his fight for the rights of the Ash- field Baptists. "
[In his pamphlet entitled "An answer to many slandcrous reports cast on the Baptists at Ashfield, (Printed in Norwich by Robertsons and Trumbull, for the author, 1774-Reprinted by W. Mckinstry, Censor Office, Fredonia, N. Y., 1865, for Quartus Smith of Stoekton, N. Y., grcat gransdon of the author) " Chileab Smith says, "My father died when I was four years old, but my mother instructed me in things of religion and taught mc how to live." He passed through many heart-breaking religious experiences as he grew up but at last "was delivered out of spiritual Egypt, and the cry of my soul to the Lord was what will you have me to do?" He went and joined himself to a church in Hadley, which he says, "I found out afterwards was wofully fallen or else never was in good standing." His objec- tion to this church was "that they did not pretend to require a person to be converted in order to join the church but take them in when under the power of a carnal mind, which the Scripture saith is enmity against God and is not subject to his law, neither can be." He went to the Association carrying his
79
ROADS, MEETINGHOUSE, BAPTIST TROUBLES
principles in writing with him. He described first the true Church of God, and secondly the church in Hadley. "Its members not living stones but dead in trespasses and sins, so that if a person is no better than is required to be a member of their church he must perish eternally." The Association told him he was wrong, so he "went home and withdrew from that church in a public meeting. Some were for dealing with me but finally they let me alonc. Not long after this I removed to Huntstown, (1750)-now called Ashfield." He found the in- habitants of Huntstown rather indifferent about religious matters. He says he was concerned about the spiritual welfare of his children, his neighbors, "and also for mankind universal." He says, "After thinking a long time about the matter I was showed the duty and obligation I was under to let the light which was lighted up in my soul shine before others and not to hide it under a bed or a bushel, which gained a resolution in my mind to declare to others if they would hear me-the truths which lay on my mind and let come what will." So he called a meeting for religious worship and "when the time camc therc came together almost all there were in town to hear."
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.