USA > Maine > Cumberland County > Portland > The history of Portland, from its first settlement: with notices of the neighbouring towns, and of the changes of government in Maine, Part II 1700-1833 > Part 3
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 | Part 36 | Part 37
1 The names of the persons admitted under the votes above mentioned, are given in Appendix No. II. and will show the ancestors of some of the present inhabitants.
Mr. Smith in his journal says Sept. 1727, " people constantly flocking down here to petition for lots." p. 17.
3 March 1728, "The caballing party carried all before them, and get all the officers of their party *. " April 29. "Nothing but confusion in town. The caballing party broke among themselves." May 2, he says, " this week and the last, there has been a mighty stir and unwearied endeavors to overturn the caballing crew." He also remarks in this connection respecting some grants at Purpooduck, " that tive old improved places were given to some furious sparks, who alone would take them."
* The town officers chosen in March, were Benj. Larrabee, Benj. Ingersoll, Samuel Cobb, Samuel Proctor and John East, selectmen and assessors, and Samuel Cobb town clerk.
3
22
Controversy between Old and New Proprietors. [P. II
Munjoy title, and his brother John Smith of Boston, was also a large proprietor by the purchase of old claims. The degree of excite- ment which prevailed, cannot be conceived of at this day; it was car- ried into every`transaction, a town meeting held in May of 1728, chiefly to consider the selectmen's accounts, " after a wrangle all day," as Mr. Smith observes, " broke up in a flame as near fighting as possible.""
The old proprietors finding that they were overpowed in the town and that their pretensions were disregarded, next appealed to the legislature for redress. In their petition they complain that the government of the town had unjustly taken away their possessions, and pray that their title under the deed from Danforth of 1684, may be deemed good, and they be restored to their rights.2 Notice on the inhabitants was ordered, and the petition was referred to the next session. The consideration of the subject was postponed from time to time under an expectation that an adjustment would be made by the parties. In Dec. 1729, they both petitioned that it might be continued, as " there was a prospect of their differences being set- tled." Attempts were made to adjust the controversy. In Nov. 1729, an agreement was entered into between the town and Samu- el Moody and others, claimants of the Munjoy estate, by which that title was confirmed to them. In the April previous, Dominicus Jordan had been quieted, and a contract was made with him, by which he released to the town all the ancient claim of the Jordan family to land on the north side of Fore river. Jordan now entered heartily into the views of the new proprietors, was chosen on the committee to resist the claims of the old proprietors before the legis- lature, and in January 1730, was selected with John Perry, Joshua Woodbury, John East and Moses Pearson, " to hear the proposals
of the ancient proprietors." But a general arrangement could not at that time be effected, and in March 1730, the ancient proprietors procured a warrant from John Gray, of Biddeford, to call a meeting
1 Aug. 22, 1723, the town voted "that £150 of the £10 money lay in bank with the town treasurer, to be ready to defray the charges, to stand any law- suit against the claimers that pretend to lay claim to lands in Falmouth."
2 See this petition at large in App. III. The petition was read in town meeting Jan. 2, 1729, and the selectmen, B. Ingersoll, John East and Samuel Cobb, chosen to answer it. Nov. 14, 1729, Dominicus Jordan and Samuel Cobb, were chosen to go to Boston to answer the petition. Danforth's deed of 1631, may be found in the Appendix to the Ist part, p. 210.
-
-
C. 1.] Controversy between Old and New Proprietors. 23
of the old claimants to organize themselves into a propriety.1 Among the articles of the warrant, were the following : " to come to a reg- ulation of said meeting by every proprietor bringing in their claims, either by themselves or some meet person in their room, that so cach proprietor may have a legal vote in said meeting. 4th, to choose a committee to bring forward and defend the petition of said proprietors exhibited to the general court against the town of Fal- mouth, which is referred to the next May session.""
The other party also procured a warrant from the same justice, April 27, 1730, and held a meeting on the 13th of May following ; the principal article in their warrant was " to choose a committee to consider and examine the right that any person or persons have to the common and undivided lands aforesaid, and how much has been laid out to each proprietor to the intent that each proprietor's right or interest in said common and undivided land may be known and stat- ed, and to empower said committee to consider and examine the right that any person or persons have to any lands laid out to him or them or possessed or claimed by him or them and report their opin- ion."
The proceedings in each meeting were opposed by the adverse party, and the names of dissenters were duly entered by the clerks. The result was that a propriety was established distinct from the town, the interests and doings of which were forever conducted sep- arately, and recorded in books kept by their own clerk. The old proprietors had taken the advice of John Read, a respectable lawyer in Boston, who counselled them to collect as full a list as possible of all the old claimants, before they raised committees to sell lands or to prosecute trespassers, and that then after giving ample notice, it would be proper to sue trespassers and bring actions of ejectment against such as continued to withhold the possession of the common lands.3
1 This meeting was called under a statute passed 1713, for regulating com- mon lands, the first on the subject. An. charters 402.
2 The meeting was called by Edmund Mountfort, and held at the house of " B. Ingersoll, innholder," May 20, 1730. Ingersoll lived in what is now Ex- change-street. Nath'l. Jones was chosen moderator ; Thomas Westbrook, Joshua Moody, Nath'l. Jones, John Smith and Edmund Mountfort, the com- mittee to receive claims.
3 Mr. Read was chosen representative from Boston in 1730, and was the first lawyer ever sent to the house from that place. Hutch. 3, 401 p.
4
24 Controversy between Old and New Proprietors. [P. II.
The committee chosen by the old proprietors to prosecute their petition, made a renewed application to the legislature in Sept. 1730, urging their attention to the subject. A committee was immediately chosen to hear the petitioners, who in a few days made the follow- ing report, " We are humbly of opinion that the counterpart of the deed made by the Hon. Thomas Danforth, Pres. of the Prov. of Maine, bearing date July 28, 1684, to Capt. Edward Tyng and others in trust, be deemed and accepted as good and valid to the persons therein concerned, according to the true intent, purport and meaning thereof, and that it be received and recorded in the Secreta- ry's office in Boston accordingly." The legislature accepted the report so far as merely to authorise the deed to be recorded without expressing any opinion upon its validity.
This result of the petition did not settle the controversy, and suits were commenced which had a tendency to inflame the minds of the people still more. The sober and reflecting men in each party at length perceived the folly of a course which kept the town in the highest state of excitement, and retarded its growth and prosperity. They therefore labored to effect a compromise of the existing trou- bles, which was happily accomplished in 1732.1 By this auspicious event, the two proprieties were united together, and their proceedings were ever after conducted under the organization of May 13, 1730, in harmony.
1 The union took place in Sept. 1732 ; under date of Sept. 22, Mr. Smith says, "They finished the meeting to day, entirely to the satisfaction of every body. The new proprietors took in the old ones by vote, and others, all sign- ed articles of agreement. This was the happiest meeting Falmouth ever had. Thanks to God."
Mr. Freeman, in his extracts from Mr. Smith's Journal, has erroneously placed this transaction with others under the year 1739 ; he was misled by the leaves of the journal being placed between the covers of an almanac for that year. Several other events noticed in the same connection serve to correct the error.
The following is a copy of the agreement between the two parties referred to. "Articles of agreement made this day between the ancient and new proprietors of the common land of the town of Falmouth, in Casco Bay, as followeth to wit : whereas, some of said proprietors have gotten mnost of their lots laid out, and it being thought by many persons that the land clear of an- cient claims, will not hold out to compleat to each person the grants made by said town to them, therefore we agree that the grant of 100 acres to cach proprietor, to wit, old and new, shall be deferred until each proprietor hath gotten the other grants, made by said town to them laid out, provided the grantees desire the same, and take care to get the saine laid out of such as inny be with conveniency, viz. an acre lot or house lot, according to town vote, a 3 acre lot, a 10 aere lot, a 30 acre lot and a 60 acre lot, after which, the
1
25
C. 1.] Controversy between Old and New Proprietors.
This corporation has never formally been dissolved, although it is believed that at this time there are no common lands remaining. Nathan Winslow of Westbrook, was the last clerk; he died in 1826, and since that time no meeting of the proprietors has been held. In 1773, a committee of the proprietors, consisting of Enoch Freeman, Stephen Longfellow and Theophilus Bradbury, reported that the number of proprietors admitted to that period, was 207, to whom had been laid out 27,975 1-2 acres, 28 1-2 rods. Laid out to the signers of the Union, 141 3-4
" 104 acre men - 1,501
" persons not proprietors, 1,594 3-4
" for services and sold, - - 3,278 1-2 56
. 34,492 1-2 acres 84 1-2 rods.
After this report, several persons were admitted proprietors, and grants made to them as vacant lots were found. In 1784, many grants were made of flats on Fore-river. In 1806, a meeting was held to see, among other things, what the proprietors would do with the undivided land. A very few persons, among whom was the clerk, Mr. Winslow, took any interest in the management of the concerns during these latter days, and now that he is no more, it seems to have entirely closed its operations. His place as clerk has never been supplied.
remainder of the common land shall be divided to each proprietor, old and new, according to said town votes, to each proprietor a 100 acres, if it will hold out, and if not, by the same rule as far as it will go towards an 100 acres, excepting the 800 acres sold to Mr. Waldo, the 100 acres sold to Mr. Whee- ler, and the 200 acres sold to Mr. Pearson, which lands are to be made good and confirmed to the persons aforesaid ; and the money which said lands were sold for, shall be improved for the use of the proprietors aforesaid, all but what has been expended. And whereas the proprietors aforesaid petitioned the general court for an addition of lands to said town, and in case said petition be granted, the lands shall be divided as the lands aforesaid to old and new proprietors, agreeable to ye votes of said town and propriety. And whereas, there have been meetings held in the town by different parties, to the great detriment of the public good of said town, and to put a final end to those un- happy disputes, we consent and agree to combine and corporate into one body, and do allow and confirm the propriety which was settled the 13th of May, 1730, provided there be no votes in said propriety but that each propri- etor, viz. old and new shall have an equal share of said common land, and that it be divided according to the rules aforesaid, and that the persons hereafter mentioned be returned in said propriety as soon as can be with conveniency, that they may forthwith have their lands laid out if they see cause ; and it is farther agreed that all persons that have their land laid out on ancient property shall remove and take lots in the common and undivided lands in said town- ship ; to all above written we agree as witness our hands, dated in Falmouth, Sept. 4, 1732."
-
26
Character of the first Settlers.
[P. II.
CHAPTER 2.
Character of the first settlers-Samuel Moody-Benjamin Larrabee -Samuel Cobb-Samuel Proctor-Increase of population- Ferry-Indian war of 1722-Peace-Accessions to the popula- tion, Riggs, Sawyer, Westbrook, S.c .- Ecclesiastical affairs- Meeting-house built-Mr. Smith settled.
THE persons who revived the settlement of Falmouth, came from different parts of the country ; they were actuated by no common principle, and held together by no common bond, except that of self-preservation. It was a frontier post and few persons who were able to live in more secure places, or unless moved by an uncommon spirit of enterprise, would venture their persons and property in so exposed a situation. The first settlers were consequently poor, many of them were soldiers, " the cankers of a calm world," whom the peace of 1713, had thrown upon society, and who found a rest- ing place here. Mr. Smith, in his Journal, describes them with a very free pen, he says, "they had found wives on the place, and mere mean animals ; and I have been credibly informed," he adds, " that the men they engaged to come to them, were as bad as them- selves, having a design of building up the town with any that came and offered ; but the war coming on, purged the place of many of them."" Some allowance must be made for the prejudice of Mr. Smith against the early settlers who thronged here to the exclusion of the ancient proprietors, whose cause he seems to have warmly espoused.
At this distance of time, we cannot separate this reprobated class from those who are known to have been more respectable ; Mr. Smith has prudently left their names to rest in obscurity. Among the earliest of the new settlers were men of standing and worth, whose posterity continue to reside here and in other parts of the State. These were Samuel Moody, Benjamin Larrabee and James Mills, ' who came in 1716, and Samuel Cobb who came in 1717. Major Samuel Moody may justly be called the leader of the little colony ; he was son of the Rev. Joshua Moody, a celebrated preacher in
1 He refers to the war of 1722.
--------
27
C. 2.] Samuel Moody-Benjamin Larrabee.
Portsmouth, N. H. who died in 1697, and grandson of Wmn. Moody, one of the first settlers of Newbury, who came from England with his three sons Samuel, Joshua and Caleb, about 1634. Major Moody graduated at H. C. in 1689, and was for several years preacher at New-Castle, in N. H. previous to 1704. In 1695, he married Esther, daughter of Nathaniel Green of Boston, by whom he had two sons, Joshua and Dr. Samuel, active inhabitants of the town, and one daughter, Mary, married to Edmund Mountfort. In 1705, Major Moody had the command of 40 men, stationed at St. John's fort in Newfoundland, in 1709 he commanded the fort at Casco. While in this situation he had a correspondence with father Ralle, the French missionary at Norridgewock, and he became the organ of communication in several instances during the war between the Indians and our government. After the fort was dismantled, having had opportunities to become acquainted with the favorable localities of Falmouth, he concluded to fix his residence upon the Neck, to which he moved his family in 1716. His son Joshua graduated at H. C. the same year, and his second son was then pur- suing his studies at that institution. The acquisition of this respec- table family was of great importance to the prosperity of the infant settlement. It gave strength to its hopes, and afforded encourage- ment to others to select this as their place of residence. The confi- dence reposed in him by his townsmen and the government, may be inferred from the fact, that he was chosen one of the selectmen seven years, and placed in other responsible places in town ; he was also appointed by the government justice of the peace, at a time when that was truly a mark of distinction, bestowed as such, and not for a fee, and one of the justices of the court of common pleas for the county; this office he held at the time of his death, which took place April 5, 1729, in the 52d year of his age.
Benjamin Larrabee, the companion of Major Moody, and the second in command at the fort, was born in 1666. His father was one of the early settlers of North-Yarmouth, who, with others of the name, having been driven by the war of 1688 from that place, remov- ed to Lynn. Some of the family returned and occupied their former possessions where their posterity still remain. Captain Larrabee married Deborah, the daughter of John Ingersoll, one of our ancient settlers who had a large claim here, which circumstance probably
-
-
28
Samuel Cobb-Increase of Population. [P. II.
induced Larrabee to establish himself in this place. He died in 1733, aged 67. His son Benjamin born in 1700, was for many years an active and useful citizen, and left a numerous family, whose descendants still live among us ;' he also had a daughter Elizabeth, who married Joshua Cromwell, a settler here, but died in April 1725.
Samuel Cobb, another of our early settlers came from Middlebo- rough, in Plymouth colony in 1717, with his family. He was a ship carpenter, and was for many years an active and influential man in the affairs of the town, having sustained the offices of clerk, treasurer and selectman. He died in 1766, having had five sons and two daughters, viz. Chipman, Ebenezer, Samuel, Peter, James, Hope married to Benjamin Winslow in 1738, and Hannah married to John Swett in 1736.
These were some of the earliest settlers, to whom were soon added Samuel Proctor of Lynn, a son of the unfortunate victim of the Sa- lem tragedy in 1692. John Pritchard from Boston, and Nathaniel Winslow from Plymouth colony, and numerous other respectable adventurers, whose posterity now adorn the places which their fathers subdued.
Twenty families had already gathered upon the Neck as early as July 1718. After the government of the town was established, other settlers flocked in, and we find in February 1720, grants were made to 39 persons, the names of 27 of whom do not previously appear.2 The condition of these grants was, " that those who had not brought forward a settlement already, should do it upon their 60 acre lots within 12 months, and on their house lots within six months." Some of these persons never settled here, as Mackey, Langdon, Burroughs and Biard ; the others or most of them became residents. Accessions were continually making to the population,
1 Elizabeth, eldest daughter of the second B. Larrabee, was born 1732, and died in 1827, aged 95, widow of John Webb. Abigail, another daughter, never married, was born in 1747, and is still living (1832). Their father died in 1784.
2 The names of these 27 are Wm. Mackey, Jos. Langdon, Edmund Clark, Eben'r. Gustin, (son of John) Wm. Roberts, Andrew Biard, John Sawyer, Robert Burnells, Richard Richardson, Isaac Hoar, (son-in-law of Richardson) Edward Hales, Wm. Trumbull, Abrm. Ayres, Samuel Bucknam, George Bur- roughs, Daniel Ingersoll, Richard Jones, Eben'r. and Jonathan Cobb, (brothers of Samuel) Peter Walton, Simon Lovitt, Richard Babston, Benjamin York, Adam Mariner, Wm. Seavey, John Oliver and John East.
-------
-
C. 2.]
Ferry. 29
and those who were deemed suitable, were regularly admitted inhab- itants by vote of the town, and grants of land made to them.
Travellers from the westward who came to the Neck by land, were obliged to travel on the old shore route crossing all the rivers near their mouths, by ferries. It became important to place the ferry over Fore river under suitable regulation. In May 1719, the town granted " the privilege of keeping the ferry over old Casco river unto Mr. John Pritchard, for seven years next ensuing, upon consideration that he keeps a sufficient boat, and makes good ways down to low water mark, for the convenience of passengers landing. All to be done at said Pritchard's own charge, he attending to said ferry as the law directs." It was added, that " by reason of the difficulty of calling over the river the privilege of the ferry on Pur- pooduck side should be given to John Sawyer, he keeping a good canoe for the accommodation of passengers." The ferry landing on the Neck was at the point on the east side of Clay Cove, near Pritchard's house, on Purpooduck shore, it was near its present lo- cation. At the end of Pritchard's term, the privilege was granted to Benjamin Wright with the further condition that he should carry passengers to meeting free. In 1729, the Selectmen and the prin- cipal inhabitants of the town, joined in a petition " to our Superi- our Court of Common Pleas, now sitting in York," praying that the privilege might be granted to John Phinney, and also that he might be licensed to retail liquors.1 The ferry continued in that place until near the revolutionary war, when it was removed further west, not far from its present location. But long before this, the
1 They set forth their reasons as follows, "Whereas the town of Fal- mouth pursuant to the directions of this Honorable Court, did order and vote that the ferry over the Fore river should be kept at the point commonly called the ferry point, on the eastwardly side of the cove called Clay Cove, that being a place far more suitable and convenient for that business than any other place in the whole town, which place is now in the possession of one Mr. John Phinney, who has for some time past been at a considerable charge in keeping said ferry, purely to oblige such who requested that favour of him : and we are humbly of opinion that he is a man very suitable and capable to manage such business, and also a man of very just and sober conversation : we therefore very humbly pray this Honorable Court to confer the favour of keeping this ferry on said Phinney, for the same term of time that the town hath fixed it in that place, and we further presume to intreat this Honorable Court to permit the said Phinney to supply such as are in want with liquors till your next sessions, which favour, if granted, will lay under the greatest and most indispensable obligations of duty and thankfulness to this Hon. House, your very humble petitioners and servants."
4
-
30
Indian War of 1722. [P. II
travel had changed its direction, and the principal western route entered the Neck over Bramhall's hill, crossing Long Creek and Fore river at Stroudwater by bridges.1
The people had hardly become settled in their new habitations, before they were destined to encounter new troubles and difficulties from the Indians. The peace of 1713 was of short duration; the French whose missionaries were ever active among the children of the forest, observed with alarm that the English were pushing their settlements into the midst of these dark recesses and trenching rap- ' idly upon the territory over which the natives had been accustomed to pursue their game. They foresaw in this progress of English enterprise, the downfall of French power on the continent. To avert this result the Governor of Canada employed the influence of fathers Ralle and La Chasse to arouse the Indians from that re- pose into which they seemed inclined to settle and to stimulate them to jealousy and revenge. This is a serious charge against a civilized nation, but the evidence furnished by private letters from Vaudrieul the Governor of Canada and his agents, which fell into the hands of the English by the fortune of war, notwithstanding the different representations which Charlevoix and other French writers give of these events, leaves no doubt upon the subject.2
In 1717, at a conference held by Gov. Shute with the Indians at Arrowsic island, they distinctly stated their objections to the English settlements being extended beyond certain mills which were then erected on the Kennebeck, and to the construction of forts, estab- dished for the security of the inhabitants. At that meeting however, the treaty of 1713 was confirmed and the existing difficulties were apparently removed ; perhaps they really were so in the minds of the Indians themselves. But not so with the French ; the cause of alarm remained, and they consequently continued their exertions to animate their savage neighbors to a course of conduct which brought
1 The river was anciently forded by travellers on horse back above where the Stroudwater bridge now is : a bridge there was erected previous to 1738. Stroudwater is a village about three miles from the Neck ; it derives its name from Stroud, a village in Gloucestershire, Eng. situated on the river Frome, which at that place is called Stroudwater. Some of the settlers here, may have come from that place, perhaps Col. Westbrook himself, who lived there and whose name was very properly given to that part of ancient Falmouth, in the division of the town.
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.