USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Hudson > History of Hudson, N.H., formerly a part of Dunstable, Mass., 1673-1733, Nottingham, Mass., 1733-1741, District of Nottingham, 1741-1746, Nottingham West, N.H., 1746-1830, Hudson, N.H., 1830-1912 > Part 11
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
Courts and commissions failing to settle the controver- sy, appeals were made to the king by both sides, setting. forth their grievances in long petitions. Fees were paid counsel, and obligations to the courts had to be met, so, to say nothing of the vexation and hindrance to colonization, great expense and loss of time was sustained.
Finally, Edmund Quincy and Richard Partridge were appointed Agents by the Massachusetts Assembly "to join with Francis Wilks, in the prosecution of their claim be- fore the King. New Hampshire intrusted its interests to Capt. John Tomlinson, of London, with Mr. Parish as his solicitor.
March 5, 1740, a hearing upon the appeals of both provinces, respecting the lines, was secured and the deter- mination of this long controversy was made on entirely dif- ferent grounds from those previously submitted. Ignoring old charters and grants made when the country was unex- plored, the new consideration declared :
That the course of the river, though unknown, was supposed to be from west to east, therefore it was deemed equitable that as far as the river flowed in that course, the parallel line at three miles distance should extend. But, as on the other hand, if by pursuing the 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
139
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE
the other hand when it appeared to have a northern bend, it was equally inequitable to enlarge it. Therefore it was determined ; that the northern boundary of the Province of Massachusetts be, a similar curve line, pur- suing the course of Merrimack river, at three miles distance, on the north side thereof, 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.
This determination exceeded the utmost expectations of New Hamp- shire ; as it gave them a tract of country fourteen miles in breadth, and above fifty in length, more than they had ever claimed. It cut off from Massachusetts twenty-eight new townships between the Merrimack and Connecticut rivers ; besides large tracts of vacant land, which lay inter- mixed; and districts from six of their old towns, on the north side of Merrimack ; and if, as was then supposed, the due west line were to ex- tend to twenty miles east of Hudson river, the reputed boundary of New York; a vast tract of fertile country, on the western side of the Connecti- cut river was annexed to New Hampshire, by which an ample scope was given, first for landed speculation, and afterward for cultivation and wealth.
When this determination was known, the politicians of Massachusetts were chagrined and enraged. They talked loudly of injustice, and some of the more zealous proposed trying the merits of the cause upon the words of the charter, before the Judges in Westminster Hall, who it was expected would upon their oath reverse the judgment, and tell the King that he had mistaken the meaning of the royal charter.
This would have been indeed a bold stroke. But a more moderate and pusillanimous scheme was adopted, which was to send a new agent to petition the King, that he would re-annex to their government the twenty-eight townships, which had been cut off, and the districts of the six towns.
It was also thought prudent that the whole Province should not open- ly appear in the affair ; but that petitions should be drawn by the inhabi- tants of these towns, and that the agent should be chosen by them.
Accordingly town meetings were held; petitions were prepared and subscribed; and Thomas Hutchinson was appointed agent, and sent over to England, when he formed those connections which afterwards served to raise him to the chair of government in his native Province.
About the same time Governor Belcher procured a pe- tition from his six friends, of the Council of New Hamp- shire to the King, praying that the whole Province might be annexed to the government of Massachusetts. Suc- ceeding events proved that the action was taken at an in- opportune time, and their petition was promptly rejected.
140
HISTORY OF HUDSON
Action upon the town petitions was delayed, putting the inhabitants to expense and prolonged anxiety over the matter. In one respect this was a benefit, as it gave Mr. Tomlinson ample time in which to prepare his defense, and the Massachusetts representative found himself out- matched. Not only was the territory in dispute to remain under the jurisdiction of New Hampshire, but, in order to escape any further controversy, Governor Belcher was or- dered by royal authority to have surveyors appointed from both provinces to establish the line. Again Massachusetts demurred, but as provision had been for either party to act independently of the other, the Assembly of New Hamp- shire proceeded to appoint their surveyors, and these were endorsed by the governor. George Mitchell surveyed the line from the ocean "three miles north of Merrimack River to a station north of Pawtucket Falls, in the township of Dracut," following the bends in the river. Richard Hazen began where his colleague stopped, and continued the west line across Connecticut River to the supposed boundary of New York. Ten degrees were allowed for the westerly variation of the needle. The work was begun in February and completed in March, 1741. The following May the court confirmed this action of the surveyors, and so after over a hundred years of wrangling and disputing the boun- dary between the provinces was fixed. The grantees of the towns in New Hampshire that suffered by the failure of Massachusetts to hold the territory, were given grants in Maine or elsewhere, but the recompense only covered a small portion of the expense and hardship they had met.
Among the petitions sent to the King for relief, as per order of the court of Massachusetts, the following was voted at a town meeting held, in Hudson, November 21, 1740, this being a fair sample of the others submitted:
Inasmuch as we are informed that his Majesties court determination of the northern boundary of Massachusetts Province, this town is the greater part thereof left out of said Province to which they always sup- posed themselves to belong, therefore voted that a petition be prepared
141
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE
to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, setting our most distressed circum- stances, and praying that we may be united to the said Majesties Prov- ince, and that Thomas Hutchinson Esq. be fully impowered to prefer such, our petition at the court of Great Brittian, and for us to appear in all things touching our petition according to his best discretion.
Nov. 21, 1740.
JONATHAN SNOW, Town Clerk.
At a town meeting the following year, November 22, 1741, it was
Voted that they would send to the General Court to see if the town could get any abatement of their county tax Rates by reason of our being cut to Bitts with the Province line. * It was also voted to join with other towns and send a petition to England to be annexed to Massa- chusetts Bay.
Chose Colonel Thomas Colburn to go to the General Court to get the county tax abated.
The records of the town do not show that another town meeting was held until August 9, 1743.
An Act was passed by the General Court of New Hampshire, dated March 18, 1741-2, for taxing the new Districts, and to choose town officers to assess and collect the taxes.
Richard Jenness of Rye, George Walton of Newing- ton, and Eleazer Stevens of Kingston were appointed to call the first meeting of the inhabitants. The following is the substance of the report of the committee:
Province of New Hampshire.
Portsmouth, 17th May, 1742.
Wee, the subscribers, being appointed a committee by the Governor, Council and Assembly, to call the first meetings in the several Towns within the Province, that falls within the lines according to his Majesty's determination in Council, in order to their paying a Province tax, do de- clare that in that part of Salisbury, Amesbury, Haverhill, Methuen, Dra- cut, Dunstable, Litchfield & Nottingham, people were well satisfied that they were under no disatisfaction upon any account, but in three or four of the towns where the Parrishes were divided, which, if they by an act of both Governments, that is the Province of Massachusetts & New Hamp- shire they could be enabled to carry on their Parrish affairs, they would in General be entirely easy.
142
HISTORY OF HUDSON
This we declare to be in truth according to the best of our knowledge before His Excellency, Benning Wentworth, Esq. Governor & Command- er in Chief of his Majesty's Province of New Hampshire.
Geo. Walton, Eben' Stevens, Richard Jenness
Province of New Hampshire.
Acct of Travels of the Committee appointed by the Act of the Gov- ernment, for viewing the New Districts falling into the Province, lying to the northward and eastward of the Boundary Lines between this Prov: and Massa Bay, & and for qualifying ye officers in ye same.
Apr. 11.
Wee the Committee opened the meeting att a place called Loggin Plain at the meeting there between Salisbury and Amesbury, being by in- formation about 28 miles distant from Court.
A meeting was also held at Haverhill, April 20, and one at Methuen, April 21, 1742.
Apr. 22 wee proceeded to Nottingham & opened the meeting house there, Distance from Methuen, 12 miles from information.
Voted Capt. Henry Baldwin, Moderator ;
Henry Baldwin clerk. Capt. Hen: Baldwin
Zacheus Lovell, Jno. Snow. Selectmen. Thomas Gage, Collector.
Meetings were held in Dunstable April 23; Litchfield April 24, and Penny Cook, April 27.
The record of the meeting, August 9, 1743, was headed : "Province of New Hamp: District of Notting- ham," as all subsequent town meetings were given until 1746.
At a meeting August 24, 1743, "Voted to set up warning at the meeting house for District meetings, and and at two public houses in said District."
October 14, 1743, "Fifthly, the District put to vote to see whether they would move to the Great General Court to be Incorported into a town according to the limits of the District, and it passed in the Negative."
January 3, 1744. One of the articles in the warrant was: "To see if the District will by a vote set off part of
143
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE
said District as a separate town as follows, Viz: Begin- ning at Merrimack River at Province line; then by said line three miles from said River; thence running three miles distant from said River to Litchfield line; thence by said line to Merrimack River aforesaid." This article "was put to vote and passed in the Negative."
At a meeting held October 8, 1744, an article in the warrant was as follows: "To see if said District will set off by vote the inhabitants and lands lying on the North End of the District of Nottingham from Litchfield line down- ward two miles, thence crossing said District to London- derry." The article was "dismissed."
March 10, 1745.
Province of New Hampshire
The District of Nottingham being assembled together at a meeting this tenth day of March, 1745-6.
By virtue of a warrant issued out by two of his Majesties Justices of the Peace and Quorum ; They passed sundry votes.
First made choice of Mr. Thomas Gage Moderator; secondly it was put to vote to see if the District will signify by a vote that they will be incorporated into a Distinct Town, and it passed in the affirmative. (The yeas were as follows): John Hamblet, John Huey, Joseph Caldwell, Eph- raim Cummings, Joseph Wright, James Gibson, John Mitchell, Samuel Jewett, Benjamin Frost, Thomas Burns, Thomas Richardson, Hesekiah Hamblet, Capt. Henry Baldwin, Phineas Spaulding, Hugh Richardson, Daniel Merrill, Benjamin Tyng, Abel Merrill, Robert Nevens, Joseph Hamblet, Daniel Douglass, Samuel Butler, Thomas Gage, Josiah Ham- blet, John Baldwin, Onesephorus Marsh, Jacob Butler, Ebenezer Dakin, Joseph Gould, John Butler, James Wason, Joseph Caldwell, Jr. In the affirmative 32.
Nays: James Barrett, Thomas Pollard, Robert Glover, Joseph Blodg- ett, Eleazer Cummings, Lieut. Joseph Winn, John Marshall, Jeremiah Blodgett, Jonathan Hardy, Dr. Ezekiel Chase, Samuel Greeley, Jr., Lieut. Joseph Snow, John Marsh, George Burns, Ensign William Cummings, Samuel Burbank, Samuel Greeley, Capt. Thomas Colburn, Joseph Winn, Jr., John Marshall, Jr., Samuel Huston. In the Negative 21.
Thereby it was put to vote to see if the District will split the town partly north and south and the vote passed in the Negative.
That article in the warrant to set off Hills farms was dismissed by a vote.
The District chose Mr. Thomas Gage, Mr. Ephraim Cummings and Mr. John Butler a committee to treat with the courts committee and rep- resent the circumstances of the District to them.
144
HISTORY OF HUDSON
A large majority of those voting yea were residents of the east part of the District, while all those who voted nay, were residents of that part that became Nottingham West, and nearly all the leading citizens of the west part of the District appear to have been opposed to the incorporation, as was voted for at that meeting.
As has been before stated in this History, Nottingham included the western part of Pelham. It was bounded eas- terly and southerly by Dracut according to the lines of old Dunstable as surveyed by Jonathan Danforth, May, 1674.
Mr. Danforth states in his report, as given in Dunsta- ble Records:
On the East side Merrimack it begins at a great stone which was supposed to be near the North East corner of Mr. Brenton's land; and from thence it runs Sou. southeast six miles to a pine tree marked : F : standing within sight of Beaver Brook; thence it runs two degrees West of South four miles and a quarter which reached to the south side of Henry Kimble's farm at Jeremie's Hill; thence from ye southeast angell of said farm it runs two degrees and a quarter westward of the south near to the Head of Long Pond which lieth at ye head of Edward Colburn's farm." "And thus it is bounded by ye said pond and the head of said Col- burn's farm; taking in captain Scarlett's farm so as to close again; all of which is sufficiently bounded and described
Nearly fifty years later these bounds were renewed, as the following copied from the Dunstable Records will show:
December in ye year 1723
Renewing the bounds between Dunstable and Dracut by order of the Selectmen of each town. "Beginning at the pine tree on the North side of Beaver Brook being marked and lettered F. it being fallen down we have laid stones about it. "From thence running Southward by the old marked trees, many of them lettered with D.D. until we came near to a place called Stone dam, then we not finding the old bounds then we agreed both parties to make a pine which stands on the east side of Bea- ver Brook four rods from said Dam, which trees is lettered D.D. and stones by it, which said tree and stones, both parties agreed to be a bound between said towns-from said corner tree running southward to a pine tree marked and lettered D.D. So running to a pine tree marked and stones about it near to a pine tree which is called the South East an- gle of Henry Kimball's farm, and from said pine tree we renewed the old
145
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE
bounds to Long Pond, thence running by the pond part of the way to an oak tree, thence the said bound being lost both committees agreed upon a line of marked trees to Tray Rock to be the bounds between said towns, which trees are lettered with D.D. and then we renewed the old bounds to Merrimack River. This is our mutual agreement, that the said lines shall stand good forever and it is agreed that the bounds which we men- tioned shall be entered in Dunstable and Dracut Town Books.
Joseph Blanchard. his Joseph X Butterfield, being the mark
Major part of the Committee of the town of Dunstable.
Thomas Varnum.' Joseph Varnum. Samuel Colburn, being the whole
of the committee for Dracut.
SAMUEL DANFORTH.
Surveyor.
The ancient "pine tree marked F, standing within sight of Beaver Brook," mentioned by Jonathan Danforth in his survey of Dunstable in May, 1674, later became the north-west corner of Dracut, the north-east corner of Not- tingham and the south-east corner of Litchfield, as these towns were chartered by Massachusetts, nothwithstanding that the south line of Londonderry as chartered by New Hampshire was about two miles south of the aforesaid an- cient boundary pine.
This corner pine had fallen down in 1723, and its exact location is unknown at the present time, but approximately it was about one-half mile north-easterly from Lawrence Corner, and a short distance north of the point where the Worcester Division of the Boston and Maine Railroad crosses Beaver Brook, and on the north-west side of said brook.
This old pine was the point at which the joint commit- tee started to renew the bounds between Nottingham and Dracut. From thence they run southward on the old Dunstable line "by the old marked trees, many of them lettered D.D. (Dunstable, Dracut), until we came near to a place called Stone dam, then we not finding the old bounds,
146
HISTORY OF HUDSON
then we agreed both parties to make a pine which stands on the east side of Beaver Brook, four rods from said Dam, which tree is lettered D.D. and stones by it, which tree and stones, both parties agreed to be a bound between said towns." This "Stone Dam" was at North Pelham, where the line was about four rods east of Beaver Brook.
From thence they followed the old line southward to a "pine tree marked and stones about it near to a pine tree which is called the South-east angle of Henry Kim- ball's farm." This point, which was an angle in the east line of old Dunstable, was probably about one mile north- westerly of Pelham Center. From that point they "re- newed the old bounds to Long Pond." This point was a little less than one mile east of the present corner between Hudson and Pelham on the State line.
Thence they ran by the pond to an oak tree on the west side of the pond. "Thence the said bound being lost both committees agreed upon a line of marked trees to Tray Rock." Tray Rock, still one of the bounds between Dracut and Tyngsborough, is a large rock, very near the highway, and on the east side at Lakeview, and a little southerly of the cottage of the late August Fells. From there they "renewed the old Bounds to Merrimack River."
The present line between the towns of Dracut and Tyngsborough is at the mouth of Scarlet Brook, which is about three-fourths of a mile east of the south end of Tyng's Island. The line at that point is probably substantially at the same point where it was in 1723.
These lines and bounds, as run and renewed by the committees of Dunstable and Dracut in 1723, became the dividing lines between Nottingham and Dracut in 1733 and remained as such, until the Province line was established, in 1741.
CHAPTER XIII
"LONDONDERRY CLAIM"
Mention has been made of lands, now forming the north-easterly corner of the town of Hudson, which were annexed to Nottingham West from Londonderry in 1778. This section contained about 4,600 acres, and with adjoin- ing lands was known as the "Londonderry Claim." This territory was long in controversy between the inhabitants of that town, who claimed it under their charter from New Hampshire, while the settlers of Nottingham and Litch- field sought to hold it under the charter of Dunstable ob- tained from Massachusetts in 1673. Subsequent to the settlement of the Province line in 1741, and prior to the granting of the charters of Nottingham West in 1746, and of Litchfield in 1749, the occupants of these disputed lands were greatly annoyed by the levying of taxes by rival au- thorities, which they were compelled, in some cases, to pay.
The spirit of the situation is illustrated in the follow- ing petition :
To His Excellency Benning Wentworth Esqr Governor &c. the Hon'b His Majesty's Council and Assembly in Gen'll Court Convened at Ports- mouth New Hampshire April 1746.
The Petition of us the subscribers Inhabitants of the tract of land formerly in town of Dunstable lately incorporated into a District called Litchfield & in that part of S'd District which Interferes with Londonderry bounds According to the late running per Mr. Walter Bryant. That yr Pertitioners settled under ye Grants of Massachusetts Bay, And have continued to pay Rates to Litchfield by whom their poles and Estates was with Litchfield Envoice Returned to this Hon'b Court, but so it is that this Last year notwithstanding they were Rated as usual to Litchfield And there payed their full proportion to town Minister And Province Taxes yet they were Rated in Londonderry and by their Constable Distrained for the same & have paid as Per Rec. which your Petitioners Humbly Ap- prehended a great Hardship and Know of no Relief unless your Excellen- cy & Hon'rs should see meet to Relieve us.
147
148
HISTORY OF HUDSON
Therefore your Petitioners Humbly pray You to Consider the prem- ises & direct that One of the S'd Towns Return the rates Recd. as afore- said or Otherwise relieve us as may seem meet & ye Pet'rs as in Duty Bound shall ever pray &c.
(Signed) Ebenezer Spalding Stephen Spalding William butterfield larned Comins
Then follow copies of receipts of payment of taxes in both Litchfield and Londonderry in 1745, all signed by the constables of the two towns.
Leonard Cummings5 (Samuel4, John3, John2, Isaac1), was assessed in Nottingham in 1735-6-7 and 1740; in Litch- field 1741 to 1745 inclusive. He was a "joyner" by trade and a yeoman. In 1742 he purchased of James Perham of Nottingham forty acres of land in that part of Litchfield that was in dispute, and which is now in the north-east part of Hudson. He lived there until his death in Octo- ber, 1758. January 25, 1780, the heirs of Leonard Cum- mings conveyed to Ebenezer Tarbox and Henry Tarbox, then in Nottingham West, 104 acres of land, which was undoubtedly the Cummings farm.
The cellar of the Tarbox house may still be seen a short distance south of the Londonderry town line, some distance west of the Derry road, and is on land formerly belonging to the Hudson town farm. At the present time this land forms the westerly part of the farm of Henry Morey, it being the first farm south of the Londonderry line on the Derry road.
A deed covering this property, situated near the south- east corner of the Curtis farm, so called, describes the boundaries as
Beginning at a pine tree in the easterly line of said farm from thence running N. 79º E. by land of Major Coffin-hundred rods to a heap of stones the corner of said Curtises lot, thence the line runs N. 20° E 43 rods by common lands to a pine marked, from thence N. 5º E. by com- mon land 28 rods to a pine thence N. 10° W. 80 rods to a heap of stones, from thence S. 79º W. 120 rods to a heap of stones in the line of Brin- ton's farm, from thence southerly by the said farm line to the pine tree the first mentioned bound.
149
"LONDONDERRY CLAIM"
A large majority of the inhabitants of the lands in controversy were formerly of Dunstable, Nottingham or Litchfield, and were greatly disappointed by the termina- tion of the boundary dispute between the two Provinces. Some of these were so intensely dissatisfied that some years later, in June, 1754, they petitioned to Governor Wentworth to be taxed in Nottingham West. This oppo- sition rose largely from the inconvenience caused them in attending divine worship. The meeting house, the com- plaint goes on to say, in Londonderry was nine miles dis- tant, while they were very conveniently situated to attend their own church, which had been built when they had sup- posed they belonged in Nottingham West, and "that we may be so far sett off and annexed to Nottingham West as to be taxed with them to the Province charges."* This petition was signed by the following persons :
Ebenezer Spalding
William Butterfield
Noah Kidder
Isaac Page
Ezekiel Page
Benjamin Melvin
Joseph Kidder
Leonard Cummings
James Barret
Richard Marshall
Stephen Spalding
Moses Barret
George Burroughs
Joseph Kidder
Reuben Spalding
Ezekiel Chase
John Kidder
Moses Lowell
George Burroughs, Jr. Thomas Mash (?)
Nathaniel Hills
John Marshall, Jr.
William Hills
David Lawrence
Mellen Hills (?)
Samson Kidder
Stephen Lowell
A counter petition was presented by the selectmen of Londonderry, and the request of the above named citizens was not answered. Still the matter continued to be agi- tated, and nearly fourteen years later, at the annual town meeting held March 4, 1768, "It was also put to vote to
* New Hampshire Town Papers, Vol. II, Page 511.
150
HISTORY OF HUDSON
see if the Town would hear and answer the request of a number of the Inhabitants of Londonderry Claim to be an- nexed to this Town."*
While this article received a favorable consideration at home, it failed to accomplish its purpose, and the matter seems to have rested for ten years, when the courts of New Hampshire were again appealed to for relief, by the follow- ing petition to be annexed to Nottingham West:
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.