USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Concord > History of Concord, New Hampshire, from the original grant in seventeen hundred and twenty-five to the opening of the twentieth century, Volume I > Part 17
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 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
1 Town Records, 20, 30. 2 Belknap, 228. 3 Ibid, 229.
153
THE TOWN OF RUMFORD.
name, and in behalf of the representatives of New-Hampshire, to establish the boundaries of the province ; but his private affairs re- quiring his return to America, he did, agreeably to his instructions, leave the business in the hands of Capt. John Thomlinson, mer- chant, of London; who was well known in New-Hampshire, where he had frequently been in the quality of sea-commander. He was a gentleman of great penetration, industry, and address ; and having fully entered into the views of Belcher's opponents, prosecuted the affair of the line, with ardor and diligence ; employing for his solici- tor," the capable and untiring Ferdinando John Parris.1 The two proved more than a match for the Massachusetts agents before the lords of trade, to whom the petition was referred. In 1733 Parris moved the question, "From what part of Merrimack river the line should begin ?" In 1734 the attorney and solicitor-general, to whom the question was referred, after hearing counsel on both sides, ex- pressed the opinion, " that according to the charter of William and Mary, the dividing line ought to be taken from three miles north of the Merrimack, where it runs into the sea." Copies of this opinion having been given to both parties, " the lords of trade reported, that the King should appoint commissioners from the neighboring prov- inces, to mark out the dividing line. This report was approved by the lords of council."2 Twenty commissioners having accordingly been appointed " from among the councillors of New-York, New Jer- sey, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia, of whom five were to be a quo- rum,"2 eight of the appointees-three from Nova Scotia, and five from Rhode Island-met at Hampton on the 1st day of August, 1737, "published their commission," and "opened their court." 2 New Hampshire, by her committee of eight,-four of the council, and four of the assembly,-promptly delivered her claim and demand in the following words : "That the southern boundary of said province should begin at the end of three miles north from the middle of the channel of Merrimack river, where it runs into the Atlantic ocean ; and thence should run on a straight line, west, up into the mainland (toward the South sea) until it meets his Majesty's other govern- ments. And that the northern boundary of New-Hampshire should begin at the entrance of Pascataqua harbor, and so pass up the same, into the river of Newichwannock, and through the same, into the farthest head thereof; and thence north-westward, (that is, north, less than a quarter of a point, westwardly) as far as the British dominion extends ; and also the western half of Isles of Shoals, we say, lies within the province of New-Hampshire." 3
But Massachusetts was not ready to proceed, and the court ad-
1 Belknap, 229. 2 Ibid, 239. 3 Ibid, 242.
154
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
journed for a week, to give her time. The court met on the 8th of August, according to adjournment. The claim of Massachusetts was presented by her committee of eleven-five of the council, and six of the assembly ; one of the latter being Henry Rolfe, of Newbury, so prominent among the proprietors of Penacook. The court having ordered copies of the respective claims of the two provinces to be drawn and exchanged, and having appointed as an additional clerk, Benjamin Rolfe, the capable son of Henry, and one of Rumford's most trusted citizens, adjourned till the 10th of August. The claim put in by Massachusetts was for " a boundary line, on the southerly side of New-Hampshire, beginning at the sea, three English miles north from the Black Rocks, so called, at the mouth of the river Merrimack, as it emptied itself into the sea sixty years ago; thence running parallel with the river, as far northward as the crotch or parting of the river; thence due north, as far as a certain tree, com- monly known for more than seventy years past by the name of Endi- cott's tree, standing three miles northward of said crotch or parting of Merrimack river; and thence due west to the south sea." This was the line noted in a previous chapter and steadily insisted upon through many years. On the northerly (or easterly) side of New- Hampshire, was claimed a boundary line, "beginning at the entrance of Pascataqua harbor; passing up the same to the river Newichwan- nock ; through that to the farthest head thereof, and thence a due northwest line, till one hundred and twenty miles from the mouth of Pascataqua harbor be finished." 1
When the commissioners came together on the tenth of the month, they had nine members in attendance; for Philip Livingston appeared from New York, and, " being senior in nomination, presided in the court." They also had the assemblies of both provinces near by, in accordance with the prorogation of the governor ; that of New Hamp- shire meeting at Hampton Falls, and that of Massachusetts at Salis- bury, five miles apart. The court then heard the case, which was closely and sharply contested. The points in debate were : Whether Merrimack river, at that time, emptied itself into the sea, at the same place where it did sixty years before ; whether it bore the same name, from the sea up to the crotch ; and whether it were possible to draw a parallel line, three miles northward of every part of a river, the course of which was, in some places, from north to south." 2 The contro- verted points in respect to the boundary line between New Hamp- shire and Maine, the latter then being a part of Massachusetts, were : " Whether it should run up the middle of the river, or on its north- eastern shore ; and whether the line, from the head of the river,
2 Ibid, 245.
1 Belknap, 243.
155
THE TOWN OF RUMFORD.
should be due northwest, or only a few degrees westward of north." 1 The judgment of the commissioners as to the northern boundary line of Massachusetts, or in other words, the southern one of New Hamp- shire, was alternative and dependent upon the answer to the ques- tion, " Whether the charter of William and Mary granted to Massa- chusetts all the lands which were granted by the charter of Charles the First." Since to this question they gave no answer, leaving that " to the wise consideration of His Most Sacred Majesty in his privy council," their judgment settled nothing. It merely suggested that, with an affirmative answer to the question, the claim of Massachu- setts should be affirmed : but that, with a negative answer, her claim should be denied ; or rather, that the claim of New Hampshire should be sustained except as to the initial point of the westward running line, which, instead of being "three miles north from the middle of the channel of the Merrimack where it runs into the sea," should be " three miles north from the southerly side of the Black Rocks," sit- uated three fourths of a mile farther north than the river's mouth as claimed by New Hampshire.
As to the northern (or eastern) boundary between the provinces, the court determined " That the dividing line " should " pass through the mouth of Pascataqua harbor, and up the middle of the river Newichwannock, (part of which is now called Salmon Falls), . . to the farthest head thereof, and thence north, two degrees westerly, until one hundred and twenty miles be finished from the mouth of Pascataqua harbor, or until it meets with His Majesty's other gov- ernments ; and that," furthermore, " the dividing line " should " part the Isles of Shoals " between the provinces.
It is not desirable for present purposes, to pursue the obstinate contention which ensued in England over the evasive decree of the commissioners, and which, for more than two years, was carried on before the board of trade and the lords of council, by the agents of the two provinces-Thomlinson and Parris, for New Hampshire, and Quincy, Wilks, and Partridge, for Massachusetts. It must suf- fice here to record the final decree of King George the Second in council, determining the long and vexatious controversy. This was made on the 5th of March, 1740, and entirely ignored the much mooted question, "whether the new charter" of Massachusetts "granted all the lands comprehended in the old." It was deemed equitable that the parallel line should extend at the distance of three miles north of the Merrimack as far as that river flowed from west to east, since, when the first grant was made, such was supposed to be its entire course. "But, as on the one hand, if by pursuing the
1 Belknap, 245.
-
156
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
course of the river up into the country, it had been found to have a southern bend, it would have been inequitable to have contracted the Massachusetts grant; so, on the other hand, when it appeared to have a northern bend, it was equally inequitable to enlarge it." 1 Therefore it was determined " That the northern boundary of the province of Massachusetts be a similar curve line, pursuing the course of Merrimack River, at three miles distance, on the north side there- of, beginning at the Atlantic ocean, and ending at a point due north of Pawtucket Falls ; and a straight line drawn from thence due west, till it meets with His Majesty's other governments." 1
Ilaving thus established the southern line without regard to the finding of the commissioners, the king affirmed their decree respect- ing the northern line. The royal determination as to the southern line gave to New Hampshire a tract of country, east of the Connecti- cut, "fourteen miles in breadth, and above fifty in length, more than" it "had ever claimed. It cut off from Massachusetts twenty-eight new townships between Merrimack and Connecticut rivers ; besides large tracts of vacant land, which lay intermixed ; and districts from .six of " its " old towns on the north side of the Merrimack." 1
Rumford, one of the townships cut off, was loyal to Massachusetts. It was but natural that its inhabitants should feel distrustful reluc- tance to fall within the untried jurisdiction of a province whose authorities had, in 1726, at the survey and allotment of Penacook lands, forbidden them the premises, and a year later had spread the township of Bow over the plantation itself, as an abiding, albeit as yet a latent, menace of evil. So, as early as the 11th of June, 1740, the disquieted "freeholders and inhabitants"-now, for the first time, exercising the right of choosing a representative to the general court-elected Benjamin Rolfe to serve in that capacity, and empowered him, in their name and behalf, "to prefer a petition to His Majesty, that they " might " be quieted in their possessions and remain under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Bay."2 In Massachusetts, amid the disappointment and chagrin felt over the royal decree, it was resolved to relieve the heavy blow, if possible, by sending a new agent to England, "to petition the King that he would re-annex to the Massachusetts government the twenty-eight new townships which had been cut off, and the districts of the six old towns. It was also thought prudent that the whole province should not openly appear in the affair ; but that petitions should be drawn by the inhabitants of these towns, and that the agent should be chosen by them." 3 Accordingly, at a town-meeting held in Rum- ford on the 26th of September, 1740, the inhabitants, being "in-
-
1 Belknap, 257. 2 Town Records, 55.
3 Belknap, 258.
1
-- -
157
THE TOWN OF RUMFORD.
formed that, by the determination of His Majesty in council respect- ing the controverted bounds between the province of Massachusetts Bay and New-Hampshire, they " were "excluded from the province of the Massachusetts Bay to which they always supposed themselves to belong, unanimously voted that a petition be preferred to the King's Most Excellent Majesty setting forth " their " distressed estate, and praying that " they might "be annexed to the said Massachusetts province." "Thomas Hutchinson, Esq.," was "empowered to pre- sent the petition to His Majesty "-the same having been signed "in the name and behalf of the town " by " Benjamin Rolfe, Esq., Town Clerk." And it was also provided that if the said Hutchinson should "refuse the service or otherwise be prevented from the same," the said Rolfe might make choice of some other suitable person.1 Thomas Hutchinson, afterwards governor of Massachusetts, went to England as agent, and there presented and urged the petitions; but finding " Thomlinson too hard an antagonist,"2 he failed in his mis- sion. For it was held "that it never could be for His Majesty's service to annex any part of his province of New-Hampshire, as an increase of territory to Massachusetts." 2
It remained "to run out and mark the lines." This work was mostly done early in 1741, and exparte by New Hampshire, for the Massachusetts assembly failed to join in appointing surveyors. " George Mitchell surveyed and marked the similar curve line, from the ocean, three miles north of Merrimack river, to a station north of Pawtucket Falls, in the township of Dracut."3 Richard Hazzen, a proprietor of Penacook, and the surveyor of its lands in 1726 and 1727, beginning at the Dracut station, marked the line thence west- ward, across the Connecticut river to the reputed eastern boundary line of New York, twenty miles east of the Hudson.
The return of the lines to the board of trade was one of Governor Belcher's last official acts; for the opposition which, from various motives, he had encountered during the boundary contention, at last proved too much for him. In 1741 he was removed from office, and was succeeded in Massachusetts by William Shirley, and in New Hampshire by Benning Wentworth, a son of the lieutenant-governor of a dozen years before. Thus the latter province secured what a majority of its people desired-its own governor, having no connec- tion with Massachusetts.
Rumford, in population, and in all the resources and advantages of an intelligent, industrious, well-ordered, and consequently thriving settlement, was the most important town in the valley of the upper Merrimack. Not the least among its advantages were the services
1 Town Records, 57-8. 2 Belknap, 258. 3 Ibid, 259.
158
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
of its first regular physician, Dr. Ezra Carter, who came hither from South Hampton, in 1740, to contribute by skilful medical practice to the welfare of his own community and of the neighboring region, and by general ability and popular qualities to become prominent in the civil affairs of his chosen settlement.
Rumford had Canterbury on the east and northeast, an original New Hampshire township, then extending to the "crotch " of the river, and sparsely settled. It had on the north, Contoocook, granted by Massachusetts in 1732, and containing twenty-five families.1 On the west lay New-Hopkinton, or Hopkinton, with a few settlers, -granted also by Massachusetts, in 1736, as " Number Five " in a line of townships extending from Rumford to Connecticut river, and somewhat overlapping the New Hampshire township of Bow, granted nine years before. Suncook lay along the south. Highways con- nected all the towns with Rumford, which was a center of dependence for certain wants of the new communities. Especially was this true of the first three. For the proprietors of Hopkinton contributed as early as 1737 twenty pounds for the opening of a highway to Rum- ford-a fact suggesting that Barachias Farnum's grist-mill was a con- venient necessity. And later, in the Indian War, the prominent res- idents of Contoocook and Canterbury, with some of Rumford, peti- tioned the governor, council, and assembly of the province, setting forth that they were " greatly distressed for want of suitable grist- mills," and praying that soldiers might be provided to enable Henry Lovejoy to maintain his garrison which he had been compelled to abandon together with his mill on the outlet stream of Long pond, " at a place," as the petitioners averred, "most advantageously situ- ated to accommodate the three towns."2 Rumford had eminently prospered under the old jurisdiction, but was now inevitably com- ing under a new, and the better the grace with which it should do so, the better it might fare. Wisely declining, in 1741, to elect a representative to the assembly of the Bay province, or to grant money " to enable Thomas Hutchinson further to prosecute the affair " of annexation thereto,3 it became the next year a New Hampshire dis- trict instead of a Massachusetts town.
NOTES.
The Suncook Ford and Ferry. It is said in the History of Pem- broke, pp. 94-95: " We think that till the ferry-boat was used in 1729, the river Suncook was forded somewhere south of the present Osgood or Turnpike bridge; and that the ferry-boat was put
1 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 186. 2 Bouton's Concord, 175-6.
3 Town Records, 3-4.
159
THE TOWN OF RUMFORD.
into the river in 1729, below the falls, in deeper water, where the banks are low, thus giving better opportunity to pass to and from the boat."
The "Eighty Acres " Division. The lots were laid off, sometimes, in different pieces, remote from each other. There were one hundred and seven of them. "Plans of them are preserved in the Proprietors' Records, Vol. III, with the roads and drift-ways reserved which ran through them." Bouton's Concord (Proprietary Records), 128.
CHAPTER V.
THE DISTRICT OF RUMFORD .- KING GEORGE'S WAR AND ITS INDIAN HOSTILITIES.
1742-1749.
New Hampshire was not slow in extending jurisdiction over her newly assigned territory. One step in that direction was the passage of an act bearing date March 18, 1742, entitled " An act for subject- ing all persons and estates within this province, lying to the east- ward and northward of the northern and eastern boundary of the province of the Massachusetts Bay (not being within any township) to pay a tax (according to the rules herein prescribed) towards the support of this government." This act provided that " all polls and estates ratable by the laws of the province," and situate as set forth in the title, should " be divided into certain Districts." One of these comprised " that part of Almsbury and Salisbury which by the settle- ment of the boundaries " fell within New Hampshire ; and another, that part of Methuen and Dracut in like situation ; while Litchfield, Nottingham-West [Hudson], Rumford, and a part of Dunstable, constituted four others.1
Under this law, with its additional enactments, Rumford, as one of the districts, was subjected to the payment of an annual province tax, and was also authorized to exercise usual town functions such as holding meetings of legal voters, choosing requisite officers, and rais- ing money to defray ministerial, school, and other municipal charges. The last annual meeting of Rumford as a town proper-though afterwards it was oftener styled town than otherwise-was held on the 31st of March, 1742, nearly a fortnight after the district act was passed, but almost a month before it fully went into effect. At this town-meeting, Ebenezer Eastman was chosen moderator, and Benja- min Rolfe town clerk, as they had uniformly been, at annual meet- ings, with a single exception in the case of the former, since the organization of Rumford as a town. Benjamin Rolfe, Ebenezer East- man, and Jeremiah Stickney were elected selectmen, and George Abbott was chosen constable. Choice was also made of the other usual town officers. Among the items of business transacted was a vote constituting " Edward Abbott, Deacon John Merrill, and Nathan- iel Abbott a committee to take care and build a school-house for " the
1 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 183.
161
THE DISTRICT OF RUMFORD.
"town, as they " should "in their best judgment think best-the said house to be built between the Widow Barker's barn and the brook by the clay pits." This vote was followed by another, to raise three hundred pounds " for defraying the ministerial charge, and for a school, and for building a schoolhouse, and for other charges of the town."1 The location of Rumford's first schoolhouse, the erection of which was thus provided for, is now uncertain ; but doubtless it was on the main thoroughfare, not far to the southward of the locality long known as "Smoky Hollow," through which ran the brook re- ferred to in the foregoing vote.
On the 27th of April, 1742, was held a meeting of the inhabitants of Rumford, notified by the committee appointed in the district act to call the first meetings in the several districts. The members of this committee of three,-namely, Richard Jenness of Rye, George Wal- ton of Newington, and Ebenezer Stevens of Kingston,-were present, and opened the meeting.2 The legal voters then chose, for modera- tor, clerk, selectmen, and collector,-these being the officers required by the new act,-the persons whom they had chosen in March as moderator, town clerk, selectmen, and constable. These being quali- fied by the committee, the organization of Rumford as a district was complete. In primary intention, this organization was a temporary expedient to secure a tax to the provincial treasury, and was to last only till the district should be incorporated into a town by a proper New Hampshire charter.3 Under it the selectmen were to assess the province tax at a proportional rate fixed by the general assembly, from a sworn inventory of polls and estates taken by the clerk ; and they were " to issue their warrant directed to the collector for collect- ing or levying the same." 4
The committee of organization found, in Rumford and the other districts, a cheerful acquiescence in the new order of things, and reported to the assembly that "the people " of the "towns " visited " were well satisfied and contented to be under the government of New-Hampshire, and were under no dissatisfaction upon any ac- count." 5 For the six years during which the district act remained in force, by renewals, the people of Rumford met the obligations which it imposed, and submitted to the taxation of the general court "even without being privileged with a representative in said court."6 In 1744 they sought such representation, and in legal meet- ing, held on the 11th of December, empowered Benjamin Rolfe, in their name and behalf, to petition the governor of the general court
1 Town Records, 64-66. 4 Prov. Papers, Vol. VI, 97.
2 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 186.
3 Town Records, 69.
5 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, 185.
6 Benjamin Rolfe's Memorials, June 27, 1744 and 1749; annals of Concord, 34-5-6.
12
162
HISTORY OF CONCORD.
to be allowed " to make a choice of some suitable person to serve for and represent them in every session of the assembly."1 The request was favorably received by Governor Wentworth, who, with the ad- vice of the council, directed, through the sheriff of the province,2 " His Majesty's writ " to the selectmen of the " district of Rumford " requiring them, " in His Majesty's name to notify the free- holders of said Rumford, qualified by law to elect representatives, to meet at the meeting-house on Monday, the 21st of January current at three of the clock in the afternoon, and then and there to make a choice of some suitable person to represent said district in general assembly to be convened and holden at Portsmouth on the 24th day of January," 1745. At the meeting held in compliance with this precept, Benjamin Rolfe was chosen representative.3 Thus chosen, Colonel Rolfe-only recently in military commission-duly appeared in the assembly, and took the customary oaths; as likewise did four other gentlemen, elected from places hitherto unrepresented. But the members from places heretofore represented did not permit the five to vote in the choice of speaker; thus refusing them seats in the house. They did this to resist what they deemed " an encroach- ment on their privilege;"4 for they plainly declared to the governor their conviction, "that no town or parish, not before privileged, ought to have a writ sent it for choosing a representative, without a vote of the house, or an act of the general assembly."5 On the contrary, the governor pronounced the action of the house in the matter of the rejected members whom he had called to the assembly "by the King's writ, issued by the advice of the council," to be " an invasion of the prerogative of the crown,"6 and during an inter- change of warm messages continued till the fifth day of the session, he withheld the requisite approval of the choice of speaker. Then, that the transaction of public affairs might not be hindered in a press- ing time of war,-for King George's War was already on,-the gov- ernor thought it best not to pursue his contention with the assembly, but to approve of its choice of speaker, and thus suffer his new mem- bers to be excluded till the king's pleasure could be known.7 So Rumford was not represented in the general assembly, which was dis- solved in May ; and no attempt was made to secure representation in the one elected to succeed it, which convened in June, 1745. Though amid the urgent cxactions of war-legislation, the contest as to pre- rogatives and privileges had truce, yet the governor had not failed to
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.