USA > New Hampshire > Coos County > Lancaster > History of Lancaster, New Hampshire > Part 5
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
.
1 i
---
1 1 I
1-
35
LOCATION, SURVEY, AND ALLOTMENT OF TOWN LOTS.
boundaries of said town, and to petition the Honorable General Court with any agent or agents of the neighboring towns, whose boundaries are disputed, or disputable, for their interference in the premises." 1127463
The people felt their title good enough, through the long term of their peaceable occupation of their lands, to risk them being carried into the law courts, though they never were. Attorney Everett was alert and ready for action at any time but never had occasion to go to court, nor do we know if he ever petitioned the general court in relation to the disputed titles.
The feeling of uncertainty, however, affected some people for a long time. When the Rev. Joseph Willard, the first settled min- ister in the town, accepted a call to settle here and received the right allotted to him, he required of the town the execution of a bond of guarantee to him against loss of title in event the town should lose its title to the granted township as then located. This bond was readily given as the people had no fear of ever being called upon to make good any such loss.
Not until 1853 did the last shadow of fear for their rights pass forever away for the inhabitants of Lancaster. In that year one Atkinson brought suit against one Goodall to obtain possession of lands in Bethlehem under the claim that they belong to the grantees of Concord Gore, described in its charter as cornering on Lancaster. The Hon. James W. Weeks, a land surveyor of con- siderable reputation, of Lancaster, was employed to survey and make a map of the Concord Gore and adjacent territory. When the case came to trial in Exeter the court decided that although the land in dispute was once intended to be a part of Concord Gore, that it was then a part of Bethlehem, and that the accepted bound- aries of towns, occupied as long as these had been, could not be disturbed by reason of variance from intention of original charters. This decision has dispelled all shades of doubt from the minds of Lancaster people, and gave undisputed validity to all titles.
We deem it of sufficient interest to subjoin hereto the names of the original grantees and the numbers of the several lots that com- prised their respective rights of land in the distributions above referred to.
36
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
THE ORIGINAL ALLOTMENT OF LANDS.
PROPRIETORS' NAMES :
First Division :
Meadow Lots.
Second Division :
Range.
Lot.
Range.
Lot.
Gore Lot.
Charles Howe
68
68
2
2
IO
I
Isreal Hale.
69
69
22
I
24
5
Isreal Hale, Jr.
70
70
23
I
23
6
Daniel Hale ..
71
71
18
I
27
3
William Dagget.
72
72
26
4
26
5
Isaac Ball ..
73
73
I
I
4
2
Solomon Fay.
74
74
24
2
25
4
Jonathan Death
33
33
5
I
28
2
John Sanders.
34
34
26
I
29
I
Elisha Crosby
67
67
I
2
27
2
Luke Lincoln.
66
66
22
2
25
3
David Lawson.
65
65
12
I
27
2
Silas Rice .
40
40
7
2
18
2
Thomas Carter.
41
4I
19
I
24
I
Cat Bow.
William Read.
25
25
3
I
27
4
Nathaniel Smith
27
27
27
3
30
3
Thomas Rice.
26
26
15
3
30
2
Daniel Searls.
47
47
IO
3
II
3
Isaac Wood ..
3I
31
13
2
15
I
Nathaniel Richardson.
3
3
3
2
13
I
Ebenezer Blunt.
5
5
23
3
23
4
John Wait
46
46
8
4
9
4
Ephraim Noyce.
21
21
12
3
15
5
Benjamin Sawyer.
44
44
9
5
IO
4
John Herriman.
28
28
28
3
29
4
Samuel Marble.
35
35
9
2
9
3
Joseph Marble ..
17
17
27
I
28
5
Jonathan Houghton.
48
48
8
7
II
5
John Rogers ..
24
24
27
6
30
2
Abner Holden.
29
29
15
4
16
5
Stanton Prentice.
30
30
12
4
13
4
Stephen Emes
7
7
24
9
25
8
John Sawyer.
4
4
14
I
23
5
John Phelps.
IO
IO
23
7
24
7
James Reed.
23
23
19
2
20
2
Benjamin Baxter.
II
II
23
2
25
8
Mathew Thornton, Esq ..
12
12
16
3
17
3
Andrew Wiggin, Esq ..
43
43
IO
2
II
2
Meshech Weare, Esq.
45
45
II
4
14
5
Maj. John Tolford. .
14
14
5
2
21
I
Hon. Joseph Newmarsh, Esq.
19
19
17
5
21
7
Hon. Nathaniel Barrel, Esq ..
39
39
6
I
17
I
Hon. Daniel Warner, Esq. . .
38
38
14
2
17
2
David Page
22
22
12
5
13
3
David Page, Jr.
15
I5
25
5
28
4
Cat Bow. Cat Bow.
Ruben Stone.
51
51
John Grant.
42
42
13
6
14
3
John Grant, Jr.
6
6
24
3
24
4
Cat Bow.
Solomon Willson.
52
52
18
18
8
2
16
2
-- --
- -
--
Benjamin Wilson.
8
8
20
7
24
8
Ephraim Sterns
59
59
House Lots.
Third Division.
Jonathan Grant.
50
50
Abraham Byam.
37
LOCATION, SURVEY, AND ALLOTMENT OF TOWN LOTS.
THE ORIGINAL ALLOTMENT OF LANDS-Continued.
PROPRIETORS' NAMES.
First Division :
Meadow Lots.
Second Division :
Range.
Lot.
Range.
Lot.
Gore Lot.
Joseph Stowel.
53
53
Joseph Page ..
20
20
I4
4
18
8
Cat Bow
Nathaniel Page
I3
I3
16
4
17
4
John Marden.
60
60
21
2
23
8
Silas Bennet.
55
55
Thomas Shattock
56
56
Ephraim Shattock.
57
57
Benjamin Man.
I
I
8
3
32
I
Daniel Miles.
2
2
I5
I
25
2
Thomas Rogers.
16
16
7
I
15
2
John Duncan
36
36
8
I
II
I
Timothy Whitney.
37
37
6
2
26
6
James Nevins, Esq.
49
49
8
5
8
6
Rev. John Wingate Weeks.
9
9
2
I
I2
2
Benjamin Stevens.
61
61
13
5
18
3
First Settle Minister.
32
32
I5
6
25
I
Gov. Benning Wentworth,
two rights .*
Right for School.
64
64
20
I
30
I
Church of England.
63
63
29
5
3I
I
Ch. of Eng. Glebe.
62
62
27
5
28
I
Cat Bow.
66
Silas Shattock.
58
58
Cat Bow.
William Page.
54
54
House Lots.
Third Division.
" The foregoing draft of the several lots placed to eache grantee of the first, second, and third divisions in the town of Lancaster were entered, examined, and recorded, the same agreeable to vote passed at a Proprietors meeting held in said Town by adjournment October 14th 1789.
By me Edwards Bucknam, Proprietors' Clerk."
*The two rights of Governor Benning Wentworth, reserved in granting the charter, was outside and independent of the seventy-four equal shares into which the town was to be divided, and was located on the back of the charter in northwest corner of the township.
38
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
CHAPTER VI.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN: ITS PROPRIETARY AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
Although the charter of the town made it a body politic, and enjoined upon it the civil mode of government then prevailing in the province, on and after the first Tuesday of August, 1763, it seems to have been governed wholly by a proprietary system until 1769, when a civil form of government was inaugurated by the election of a board of five selectmen-David Page, Abner Osgood, George Wheeler, Emmons Stockwell, and Edwards Bucknam-a town clerk, and other civil officers.
Several influences no doubt intervened to prevent an earlier com- pliance with the requirements of the charter. Most of the proprie- tors did not intend to locate on their lands. They accepted them as a matter of speculation, and yet, no doubt they were cautious not to allow the mere handful of actual settlers to have too much liberty in the management of the town under the provisions of the prevailing system of town government. The few actual settlers who came before 1769, may have felt some hesitancy in assuming the necessary offices, as there were not enough to fill all the offices and leave any- body to be governed. The situation would have been even more grotesque than on a subsequent occasion when the citizens turned out on a muster day, and after filling all the offices necessary to a proper drill, there was left but one private. There were not enough men present the first few years to fill the offices. They could, and did, however, carry out the wishes of their associate grantees in the management of the affairs of the town by the election of a moderator, clerk, and treasurer, with such committees as were from time to time needed.
The charter designated David Page as the rightful authority to call the first meeting of the proprietors on the first Tuesday of August, . 1763, and preside as moderator. If such meeting was held, it must have been somewhere else than on their granted territory. The first March meeting may have likewise been held at some other point, and probably was. It is quite likely, too, that when the first settlers. discovered that they were not settled upon the territory actually described in the charter as belonging to them, that they delayed the matter of an early organization, and were content to feel their way under a proprietary management of their affairs. The first meeting that was held in Lancaster was strictly a proprietary meeting, on March 10, 1767. The only actions taken were in regard to the dis- posal of lands and the appointment of a committee to locate a road to connect with the settlements to the eastward, and with Portland,
1
-- -- -------- 1 i 1
i
-
39
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN.
Me., and to " Lower Coös." The record of that meeting is of such unique character that I am persuaded to give it, as the proprietors' records, from which it has been previously quoted, are now entirely lost. Only some of the votes passed at that meeting are preserved, and these are as follows :
" Voted : That any person or persons that have rights of land in Lancaster, shall have the liberty to pitch them on any unsettled Land upon his performing the Duty, which is to clear, plow and sow with Rye or Wheat three acres upon each right, and build a house sixteen feet square shall answer for two rights. And if any person or persons clear more land than his proportion upon the laying out of the Town and lots shall cut them off, shall have the improvements of said land until he is paid so much money as two or three indifferent men may judge for the clearing thereof.
" Voted : That the Minister's Lott shall be pitched on the south side of Isreals River, in the Meadow at the lower end of the first falls.
" Voted : That Mr. David Page, Mr. Emmons Stockwell, Mr. Edwards Buck- nam, Mr. Timothy Nash, and David Page, Jr., be a committee to Look out and mark the road to Pigwakett or to Andriscogin, or to the first inhabitants, and also to the Lower Coos.
" Voted : To give one good Right of land to the first good Midwife that shall come and settle in Lancaster on or before the first day of December next.
" Voted : Mr. David Page two hundred acres of land where he shall think proper, not infringing on the Meadow or House lotts, for his building a Smith's Shop and keeping tools for the same work.
" Voted: To give half a Right of land in Lancaster to the first Doctor that shall settle in Lunneburg or Lancaster within one year from this day."
Tradition says that at this same meeting the ten rights bought up by Charles Ward Apthorp were located on the Cat-Bow tract. Apthorp was a wealthy man and bought up vast tracts of land in many places for purposes of speculation. He proved to be a source of much trouble to Lancaster, as he bought up thirty-six rights between the years 1765 and 1770, at which time he owned a con- trolling interest in the town; and he was not slow to dictate the management of their local affairs. He entertained an antipathy toward David Page that he dragged into the business management of the town as early as 1771. David Page had mortgaged a farm in Petersham, Mass., to Nathaniel Wheelright, a merchant in Boston, Mass., who on retiring from business a short time before his death gave to his nephew, Charles Ward Apthorp, all his accounts and cer- tain other property. The farm was occupied by Jonathan Grant at the time David Page removed to Lancaster, but in 1767, Page gave Apthorp a deed for the farm, and a dispute arose between him and Apthorp over some two hundred dollars of rent due from Grant. Apthorp was always hostile to Page, and used every means he could to prevent him from holding any office of importance in the town. Apthorp owned at that time the rights that had been allotted to the following persons: David Page, 22; Abram Byam, 50; Reuben
40
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
Stone, 51; Solomon Wilson, 52; Joseph Stowell, 53; William Page, 54; Silas Bennet, 55; Thomas Shattock, 56; Silas Shat- tock, 58 ; Ephraim Shattock, 57 ; Benjamin Man, I ; Daniel Miles, 2 ; John Duncan, 36; Nathaniel Smith, 37; Charles How, 68; Isreal Hale, 69; Isreal Hale, Jr., 70; Daniel Hale, 71 ; William Dagget, 72; Isaac Ball, 73; Solomon Fay, 74; Jonathan Death, 33; John Saunders, 34; Elisha Crosby, 67 ; Luke Lincoln, 66; David Lawson, 65 ; Silas Rice, 40 ; Thomas Carter, 41 ; Ephraim Stearns, 59; James Reed, 25 ; Timothy Whitney, 26; Isaac Wood, 31 ; Nathaniel Rich- ardson, 3; John Sawyer, 4; John Rogers, 24; Samuel Marble. 35, = 36 rights. With this majority of rights, Apthorp domineered the town, in some important measures for a number of years to the positive detriment of the actual settlers who had come here to make homes, and sacrified their chances elsewhere and bound up their destiny with that of the town. Things not going to suit him, Apthorp, through his attorney, one W. Molineaux of Boston, Mass., called a meeting of the proprietors in the fall of 1771, and sent Edwards Bucknam the following letter which needs no explanation, as it is written in simple and clear language :
" Boston, Oct. 21st 1771. Mr. Edw'ds Bucknam.
Having this day given you my Power of Attorney to vote at the meeting now to be called by the proprietors of Lancaster, I would have vote agt David Page being choose into any office with the Proprietors & upon a meeting being called that you would vote for the following officers to be choose viz: Emmons Stockwell, Mod- erator, Edwards Bucknam, Clark & Collector, George Wheeler, Assessor, John Cross & David Page Jr Treasurers. The officers being thus choose, you are to re- consider all the votes passed on & since the 12th March 1771 & vote that whereas after due consideration & debate, you find that all such votes that have passed on & since the 12th March 1771, is not only unlawful but detrimental to the Interests & settlement of said Township. David Page Esq having acted arbitrarily & against the sense of the meeting in consequence of his having a power to appear for Mr. Apthorp the owner of 36 rites, whose directions he violated to answer his own private purposes ; therefore voted that all the votes aforesaid since 12th March 1771 till this present meeting are and ought to be null, void & of no effect. Then . you are to vote that David Page Senr, Esq. immediately deliver up to the new clark all the votes, papers, and books in his possession, & if upon refusal to com- ply with the vote of the meeting, then it is resolved that said Page be sued forth- with by the Clark for withholding said papers &c for the sum of five hundred Pounds lawful money to make good the damage that ensue from the want thereof. Then you are to chose a committee of three to Examine his accounts & to see that he gives credit for all the taxes he has received, and that you have regular and lawful proof of such charges he makes for making roads, surveying &c & all other work done according to the votes from the first meeting of the 10th March 1767 to the 12 of the month the day it was dissolved & if after examination the committee find a balance due to the proprietors you are to pass a vote that said Page shall pay or cause to be paid the said ballance into the hands of the new Treasurer within 20 days in failure of which to be sued for the same immediately & when recovered to be expended in laying out roads, surveying ect that shall be found for the benefit of the township. Voted that the 16th vote on March 10th 1767 that
1 1
1
41
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN.
Charles W. Apthorp shall have set off to him, beginning at the upper part of the Cat Bow, running down the River 2 full miles upon a straight line & to go so far back towards the rear of the Town as to take in 10 full shares or rites of Land, in good form Be & is now confirmed, & Ratified irrevocable and that it is now further voted, that no Person whatsoever shall have right now or at any time hereafter to Pitch upon or occupy any part of 10 rites without the written directions or Power of said Apthorp or his attorney anything to the contrary voted notwithstanding, as it is the opinion of this meeting that it will be for furtherance and better settlement of the Town that he or his attorney or who they shall suffer to settle thereon have the sole direction thereof. Then voted that this meeting be ad- journed till tomorrow at 10 0-clock A. M. and then to vote that the whole of the foregoing vote be & hereby is confirmed & ratified irrevocable, then adjourn from month to month meeting at each time to do such other business as shall be found necessary.
Sir Yr Very Humbl Servt W. Molineaux Attorney to Charles Ward Apthorp."
We have now no source of information concerning such meeting as is here ordered, or if it actually took place what transpired at it. Of what took place during that year and the following year we can never know anything definite, as the records were burnt in 1772. We find, however, that the town records. still in a good state of pre- servation, show nothing of what took place after the meeting March II, 1769, which happened to be preserved on a scrap of paper. until March 9, 1773, when we have a full record of that meeting, and of every subsequent one down to the present day.
Either nothing was done worthy of record, or else it found its only record in the proprietors' books that are lost. The new book of rec- ord that was begun with the meeting of March II, 1769, contained only the transactions of the annual meetings for the first few years, which were civil rather than proprietary in character, showing an unmistakable drift from proprietary to a civil control of affairs in the town. With the controlling power of the proprietary rights in the hands of an absentee, disposed to antagonize the leaders and the in- terests of the actual settlers of the town, it would have been strange if they had not tried to wrest the power of control from their worst adversary. The way was open through the form of local, town gov- ernment then prevailing throughout New England for the residents of the town to work themselves out of the coils of a mischievous, ab- sentee, landlord domination of their affairs. In a civil, town meeting the majority of voters present and participating in that meeting ruled. Here were the advantages of the New England democracy over land- lordism, and the men who came here to found a town were fully im- bued with its spirit. They were mostly from western Massachusetts and Connecticut, where they had learned the advantages of indepen- dence in the management of local affairs, though none the less loyal to the provincial government.
42
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
In disregard of Apthorp's wishes and dictation, David Page was continued in office and appointed on important committees for many years; and after the records resume the narrative of the civil actions. of the people we see nothing more of the domination of Apthorp or his attorney. The people gradually got control of their own civil affairs and later settled their difficulties with Apthorp in the courts.
Once organized as a civil division of the province of New Hamp- shire, the people applied themselves to the task of developing their town as rapidly as their meagre means would allow. They elected, from time to time as they had need, such civil officers in whom they had confidence to carry out the wishes of the people as a town rather than as a proprietary company. By the time of the annual meeting of 1773 foreign domination and landlordism had been utterly up- rooted and the resident voters were in the full control of their local affairs, though their powers were somewhat restricted by the Provin- cial laws of that time. They voted appropriations for such public improvements as were most urgently needed, and in every way fos- tered the interests of the residents rather than those of the absentee landholders. As early as June 8th, 1773, they voted an appropria- tion of eighty-six pounds and eight shillings to assist David Page build a mill on Indian brook, and sixty-four pounds for roads. In August of the same year they voted one hundred and ten pounds for roads, and thirty pounds to assist David Page rebuild his mill, that had been burnt almost as soon as it was completed. At that meet- ing Emmons Stockwell and Edwards Bucknam were elected road surveyors. This office had been filled by David Page and Bucknam from 1769, which is the earliest intimation of its existence.
Nothing but stern necessity could have led these few men to tax themselves so heavily as they did during those few first years of the settlement. Roads and mills were essential things, and must be had at any cost, so they bravely bore the burdens in the hope of future prosperity from their use. Of money they had little, so we soon find them making their appropriations for all sorts of public enterprises in wheat, when bushels and pecks displaced pounds and shillings in the computations in those transactions. During the first few years, beaver, moose, and sable skins were their chief currency; but as these animals were already becoming comparatively scarce to an in- creased population and wheat was a staple, it became the medium of exchange in their traffic, and even the taxes were paid in wheat. Of course the taxes on the roads were invariably worked out by the citizens at a given amount of wheat for a day's work. Wheat was worth about six shillings at that time; and as there was generally a poll tax to the amount of six shillings, and about four shillings allowed for a day's work, every voter would perform a day and a half of work on the roads in addition to the assessments upon their property.
1
43
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN.
This arrangement was not burdensome to the residents who were on the ground to work out their tax on the roads; but it must have seemed a large tax to the non-resident landholders, whose only inter- est was in holding their lands for a rise in prices, in order to sell them at a profit.
It was not long before the non-resident landholders began to think themselves unduly taxed for the benefit of the actual settlers, and they refused to agree to being freely taxed for local improvements, and refused to pay the taxes when assessed upon their lands. There does not seem to have been any disposition on the part of the resi- dents of the town to take any unfair advantage of the non-residents. All their taxes fell equally upon the land and chattels. Of course, for many years the chattels did not amount to much, as the people were absorbed in the improvement of their farms and accumulated as little personal property as possible until their farms were cleared and good houses built.
Finding it somewhat difficult to collect taxes on the lands of non- residents, the people went to the general court on petition as early as 1787, asking for the passage of an act allowing them to lay and collect a tax of three pence on every acre of land (public rights ex- cepted) for one year, and one penny a year for five years, to be used for the construction of " roads, bridges, meeting-house, &c, &c." In their petition they set forth the fact that they had appealed to non- resident land-owners in vain for help in these important improve- ments. Their petition was granted by the passage of such an act, and from that time forward the way was clear for raising the means of public improvements.
Taxes were levied on the lands, and when not paid after a reason- able time they were sold. Much of the lands of the town were sold at these sales to satisfy the town's claims against them for taxes ; and the non-resident land-owners found that their lands did not grow in value as fast as they had hoped for. The collectors were repeat- edly authorized by vote of the citizens in town meetings to sell the lands of the delinquent taxpayers. It was characteristic of those collectors that they never proceeded against the delinquents without having first given them some warning of their purpose and one more chance to settle up and save themselves extra costs. Prior to tax- sales of lands notices like this were sent out, generally printed in the New Hampshire Gazette, which was read by many people in all parts of New England :
" State New Hampshire, Grafton ss.
Lancaster.
Notice is hereby Given to the Delinquent Proprietors and owners of Land in the Township of Lancaster-That said Proprietors at their meeting held in said
44
HISTORY OF LANCASTER.
town the 8th Day of June 1773-by adjournment; Voted four Dollars on Each Right to Pay David Page Esq. for Rebuilding the Mills in said town-and three Dollars on Each Right to open and Repair the Roads-and at their meeting held in said town the 26th Day of august 1773,-Voted fifteen Pounds to be assest on the Proprietors as their Proportion of opening a Road to the Eastward of the white hills Being four Shillings and three Pence on Each Right-and at their meeting held in Said town the 10th Day of august 1774 -- by adjournemnt --- Voted four Dollars on Each Right to be Laid out on the Roads in Said town -and Eight Shillings and four Pence more on Each Right to David Page Esqr. to Rebuild the mills in Said town after Being Consumed by fire -- that unless the Delinquent Proprietors and owners of Lands in the township of Lancaster Pay Each and all the afresaid sums or taxes to me the Subscriber by the first Day of June Next that their Rights or Shares of Land will be advertised in the Newhamp- shire Gazettee for Saleto Pay Said Taxes with incidental charges --
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.