History of Merrimack and Belknap counties, New Hampshire, Part 105

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton), ed
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: Philadelphia [Pa.] J. W. Lewis & co.
Number of Pages: 1520

USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > History of Merrimack and Belknap counties, New Hampshire > Part 105
USA > New Hampshire > Belknap County > History of Merrimack and Belknap counties, New Hampshire > Part 105

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).

"State of New Hampshire. In the House of Representatives, June 24th, 1779. The foregoing bill having been read a third time, 'voted that it pass to be enacted.'

"Sent up for concurrence.

(Sigued)

"JOHN LANGDON, Speaker.

423

NEW LONDON.

"In Conncil June 25th, 1779. This bill was read a third time, and " voted that the same be enacted.'

(Signed) " M. WARE, President.

"Copy examined by E. Thompson, Secretary."

Mr. Samuel Messer called a meeting of the free- holders and other inhabitants qualified by law to vote in town affairs, on Tuesday, the 3d day of August, 1779, of which he gave due notice, for the following purposes, viz. :

" Firstly-To choose a Town Clerk.

"Secondly-To choose Selectmen.

" Thirdly- To choose a Constable and such other officers as shall be thought proper in town.

" Fourthly-To see what method the town will take to have roads.

"Fifthly-To know what sums of money shall be granted to pay the town charges for the present year.

"Sixthly-To see if the town will vote to hire preaching.

"Seventhly-To see if the town will hire any school for children."

In compliance with said warrant, the inhabitants of New London met at the dwelling-house of Mr. Samuel Messer, at which time was read the copy of the act of incorporation of this town, Mr. Messer's power, given him by said honorable court, to call said meet- ing, after which was read the notification for said meeting, of which Mr. Messer was considered as moderator, and then proceeded to act on the business of the day.

Town officers chosen by written votes : Ebenezer Hunting, town clerk; Mr. Samuel Messer, Mr. Ben- jamin Eastman and Mr. Nathaniel Everett, for select- men ; and Mr. Nathaniel Goodwin, for a constable ; Mr. Nathaniel Everett, for town treasurer; and Mr. Benjamin Guile and Mr. John Austin, for surveyors. All of whom were duly sworn.

" Voted, To choose a committee to lay out roads where, at present, necessary.

" Voted, That Mr. Samuel Messer, Mr. Benjamin Eastman and Mr. Nathaniel Everett serve as a committee to lay out roads this year.

" Voted, That roads be laid out three rods wide.

" Voted, To purchase the land for said roads.

" Voted, That four hundred and fifty pounds be raised for clearing roads, and that labor shall be three pounds per day.

. " Voted, That one hundred aud eighty pounds be raised to pay town charges.

" Voted, Not to hire any preaching this year.

" Voted, To hire three months' schooling this year."

The meeting dissolved.

It will be observed that the act of incorporation of this town was passed about midway during the time of the Revolutionary War. The first settlements were made in the year 1775, the same year that wit- nessed the commencement of the war at Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill. The first child was born here in 1776, the year in which, upon the 4th of July, the ever-memorable Declaration of American Inde- pendence was adopted by the Continental Congress. This year was also noted for another event which no son of New Hampshire should forget,-that is, that on the 5th day of January of that year a temporary constitution was adopted by this State, which was the first written Constitution adopted by any of the States now constituting the American Union. Under this

constitution the State was prosperously governed for eight years, and until the new Constitution of 1784 went into effect. The form of government was not much changed by the Constitution of 1776.

Before that the government of the State consisted of a Royal Governor, appointed and commissioned by the King of England, with a Council, also ap- pointed by the King, and an Assembly elected by the people of the several towns in the province. After the separation from the mother-country the State elected their Council and also their Assembly or House of Representatives, and the Council elected their presiding officer, who acted for the time being as Governor; hence the act of incorporation was passed by the House of Representatives, then by the Council, and was signed by M. Ware, president. This was the form of government until the new Con- stitution of 1784, when we had a president and an advisory Council, with a Senate and House of Rep- resentatives, all elected hy the people. Meshech Ware was president of the Council for the eight years that the temporary constitution continued, and one year under the new Constitution. It will also be ob- served that the town was incorporated some two years, nearly, after the Articles of Confederation had been adopted by the American Congress, that having been done November 15, 1777.

By examining the boundaries of the town as incor- porated, we see that it was of very ample proportions as compared with its present size. It began at the southwesterly corner of Alexandria, on the patent line, etc. Alexandria was formerly much larger than it now is ; for, besides several other pieces that have been taken off from it, the whole township of Dan- bury was incorporated June 18, 1795, out of territory that before was the southwesterly portion of Alex- andria, so that when New London, in 1779, began at the southwest corner of Alexandria it would he the same now as beginning at the southwest corner of Danbury on the patent line.

But what was this patent line ? New Hampshire, as it seems, was granted by the Council of Plymouth, England, to one John Mason in 1629. This patent included the land " from the middle of the Pascataqua River, and up the same to the farthest head thereof, and from thence northwestward until sixty miles from the mouth of the harbor were finished ; also through Merrimack River to the farthest head thereof, and so forward up into the land westward, until sixty iniles were finished; and from thence to cross over- land to the end of the sixty miles accounted from Pascataqua River, together with all islands within five leagues of the coast." This tract of land was called New Hampshire. In 1768 the Masonian pro- prietors procured one Robert Fletcher, as a surveyor, to run out their territory, claiming that their line should be a curve line drawn from the point on the south line of the State sixty miles west from the sea- coast, to a point on the east line of the State sixty

424

HISTORY OF MERRIMACK COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

miles north of the sea-coast, in such a way that it should, at every point, be sixty miles from the coast. This claim of Mason, and after him of the Masonian proprietors, to this curve line had never been dis- puted by the government of England, and so Fletcher run the line as requested, starting on the south, on the west of the town of Fitzwilliam, and so running northerly and northeasterly through Marlow, Sulli- van, Goshen, and so on what was afterwards the northwest line of New London and Wilmot, and thence, through Hebron, Plymouth, Campton and Sandwich, to the town of Conway. This was known as the westerly line of the Mason patent, and is hence called the patent line.

So New London, after starting at the corner of Alexandria (now Danbury), on this patent line, was to run on this patent line to Fishersfield Corner. Fish- ersfield had been incorporated the year before New Lon- don (November 27, 1778), and is bounded on the north- west by the same patent line. Its name was changed to Newbury in 1837. Then the line of the town runs easterly on the north line of Fishersfield to the corner of Perrystown (now Sutton), thence on Perrystown north line a given number of rods to a marked tree, and there turning off and running north, thirty-nine degrees east, to Alexandria corner (now Danbury south corner), and thence on Alexandria (now Dan- bury) to the place of beginning.

This patent line remained unchanged, though un- decided, marking the claim of the Masonian proprie- tors, until after the termination of the Revolutionary War, in 1783, when, various disputes arising relating to the titles to the land, several parties petitioned the Legislature to locate and establish this line. Where- upon, by an act of 1787, the bound on the south line of the State was fixed near the southwest corner of Rindge, and thence running a straight line instead of a curved line to the bound on the easterly side of the State. This line run through Peterborough, Frances- town, Hopkinton, Concord, Gilmanton, and so across the lake through Ossipee, making a difference here in the centre of the line of some thirty miles between the two lines.

But the conditions upon which this grant was made Were not performed by the grantees, and so the grant- ors, the Masonian proprietors, re-entered upon the land, and thus became legally seized and possessed again of the lands.

On the 7th day of July, 1773, the Masonian pro- prietors, at a meeting held at Portsmouth, issued a new grant of Alexandria, including the same land which had been included in the former grant, to Jo- nas Minot, Matthew Thornton and others. This grant was described as bounded on the northwest by Mason's patent line. The said Masonian proprietors, at the same time, July 7, 1773, voted that there be, and there hereby is granted unto the before-named Jona Minot, and others, upon the terms, conditions, limitations and reservations hereinafter mentioned,

" Voted that there be, and there hereby is, granted to the before-named Jona Minot, and others, upon the terms, condi- tions, limitations and reservations hereinafter mentioned : A certain tract of land situated in the county of Hillsborough and Province of New Hampshire, bounded as follows, viz .: beginning at the south westerly 'corner of Alexandria, aforesaid, on the patent line, and running on said patent line to Fishersfield Corner in Great Sunapee Pond; from thence east on the northerly side line of Fichersfield, 472 rods, to Perrystown Corner; thence north eighty-five degrees east, ahont four miles, to a beech tree marked on the Perrystown line ; from thence north, thirty nine degrees east, about 1672 rods, to a beech tree marked in Alexandria Corner; from thence north, 12 degrees west, to the patent line aforementioned on the westerly side of said Alexandria."

One of the terms and conditions of the grant was, that "within ninety days from this date the lots of said grantees shall be drawn or divided, and a sched- ule of the numbers returned to the said grantors within that time, with the list of the settling lots and the lots thereto belonging ; and that said grantees, within said ninety days, shall vote an acceptance of both said grants, and make a record of such acceptance."

There was a meeting of the grantees of these lands holden at Londonderry September 7, 1773, at which it was voted "that the proprietors accept of the grant agreeably to the condition of the charter granted to them by the proprietors of Mason's patent, bearing date July 7th, 1773, which grant includes the town- ship called Alexandria, in the county of Grafton, and the land called the 'Addition of Alexandria,' lying in the county of Hillsborough, both in the Province of New Hampshire."

Having thus ascertained what was meant by the patent line, the next question that arises is, How came the territory now known as New London to have been Here we have the origin of the term Addition of Alexandria, which addition was bounded precisely as the town of New London was when first incorporated. We also find that all the lands in the town of New London and much of Wilmot were lotted and drawn to the proprietors while it was thus known as the Addition of Alexandria, and probably within the ninety days after the date of the grant, for the records of Alexandria show the drawing of these lots, and among the different lots drawn by one Robert McMur- phy was lot No. 108, and at the end of his drawing it says, "and all the common land adjoining the lot proprietors of Alexandria, to whom this addition was called " Alexandria Addition ?" or the addition of Alexandria ? It is so called in the petition of the in- habitants for their act of incorporation. and is so des- ignated in said act of incorporation. But why was it so called? I have looked in vain for an answer to that question among all the books of charters and acts of incorporation and other records in the office of the Secretary of State at Concord, where such records should be found. Upon going to the records of the town of Alexandria, we found that the town had been granted by the Masonian proprietors to Joseph But- terfield, Jr., and others, March 13, 1767, including . 108, by Little Sunapee Pond." The records of the much of what is now Alexandria and all of Danbury.

425

NEW LONDON.

also granted, have been destroyed by fire, from 1779, the year New London was chartered, down to 1793. After this latter date I find that the Addition is often spoken of as the Alexandria Addition, alias New London, and a number of meetings of these proprie- tors were held in New London, after 1793, at the house of Joseph Colby, Esq.

Thus we see that the lands in New London were originally, and are still, held under this grant of the Masonian proprietors to Jonas Minot and others, of this territory as an addition to the town of Alexan- dria, and all the plans of the town are based upon that grant, and upon the allotments and drawings or purchase of lots under that title. But these grants of the territory gave only the title to the lands, and did not give any political or municipal rights, and hence, when the inhabitants desired to act as a body politic, to lay out highways and build the same, to elect town officers, to impose taxes for town purposes, for schools or for preaching, they needed an act of incorporation by the State govern- ment, which was obtained in 1779, as has been seen, and the town organized and making progress under the same.

I find a difference of opinion in regard to the original name of New London. Some say its first name was Dantzick, others that it was first called Heidleburg. Which are right ? The earliest writer I have been able to find on that subject is Dr. Belknap, the author of the early history of New Hampshire. In the third volume . of his history of this State he gives us a table of statis- tics, in which, on page 235, he mentions Fishersfield (now Newbury), and says of it "First called Dant- zick," and on page 236 he mentions New London, and says of it, " First called Heidleburg." He men- tions these both as facts that were to his mind well authenticated, and concerning which there was no dispute or doubt.

The " New Hampshire Gazetteer" of 1823 (Farmer & Moore's) says that Fishersfield was first called Dantzick, according to Dr. Belknap, and that New London's "first name was Dantzick; Dr. Belknap says Heidleburg." But they give us no reasons why they differ in opinion from Dr. Belknap in this re- gard. Dr. Bouton follows Farmer & Moore and says that New London was first called Dantzick, hut says nothing of Fishersfield. Fogg, in his "Gazetteer," says that Newbury (formerly Fishersfield) was orig- inally called Dantzick, and says the same of New London. No one of them, subsequent to Dr. Belk- nap, has given any reason for differing from him, nor do they refer us to any books, maps or records to substantiate their claim. I have been able to find nothing in the office of the Secretary of State bear- ing upon the question. In the State Library are many maps and charts, which I have consulted. Carrigain's Map of New Hampshire, published in 1816, shows nothing on this point, but it shows the curve line which was for many years claimed as the

western and north western boundary of the Masonian grant. Neither does Dr. Belknap's map, in the first volume of his history show anything upon the point in controversy, while it does show the straight line, that was established in 1787 by the Legislature, as the northwestern boundary of said Masonian grant. Holland's Map of New Hampshire, published in London, Eng., in 1784, from a survey made about 1775, gives us no aid in this matter.

But I find a large Atlas of Maps in the State Li- brary, published in London, Eng., in 1768, in which is a map of New Hampshire, which is said to have been made from surveys of the State, made by Mitchell and Hazzen in 1750. Upon this map we find put down Protectworth (now Springfield), Alexandria, Heidelburg, Dantzick and Perrystown (now Sutton), and judging from that map, and comparing it with our modern maps, it would seem to leave no doubt that Dr. Belknap is right. Dantzick, on the map, covers nearly all the territory now covered by New- bury, and extends easterly so as to cover a consider- able part of what is now Sutton ; but it does not ex- tend farther north than the north line of Newbury and Sutton, and Heidleburg lies north of Dantzick, and covers very nearly the ground afterwards covered by New London.

I also find another map of New Hampshire in the same atlas, prepared by Colonel Joseph Blanch- ard and Rev. Samuel Langdon, at Portsmouth, N. H., in 1761, and engraved and published in London with the rest, in which the curve indicating the claim of Mason on the west and northwest is well marked, and showing all the towns in the vicinity within that curve line, and scarcely anything outside of it, show- ing New Chester, Alexandria, Heidleburg, Dantzick, Perrystown and other towns around it on the east and south; from all which I am led to the same conclusion, as to the location of Heidleburg, as before.

There is one other circumstance which has great weight with me. My father was born in Hopkinton in 1768, and removed thence to New London in 1781, when thirteen years old, and he was eleven years old when the town was incorporated as New London. He used to tell me often about his moving to New London with his father; that his tather had been talking of moving there several years before he did go, and that this tract of land was known in Hopkin- ton as Heidleburg until the time of its incorporation, and that in 1781, when he moved there, the name of Heidleburg was quite as frequently applied to it as New London, though both were used indiscriminately in common conversation ; that Dantzick was the name applied to the region round the south end of Sunapee Lake, while Heidleburg was to the northeast of it.

The only trouble with these old maps is that Suna- pee Lake, being put down without regard to any ac- tual survey, is often represented on them as extending

426

HISTORY OF MERRIMACK COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

much farther south than it should be, as compared with the surrounding territory. All the authorities agree that Newbury (formerly Fishersfield) was orig- inally called Dantzick; and I think, upon investiga- tion, it is equally well settled that the original name of New London was Heidleburg. I have no parti- ality for one name more than the other, and have ouly endeavored to get at the truth in this matter. I am inclined to think that the first settlers were wise in selecting the plain English name of New Loudon in preference to either of them.

CHAPTER II.

NEW LONDON-(Continued).

LET us now return to the records of the town and see what progress our new municipal corporation has been making. They held their meetings an- nually for the choice of town officers, and many spe- cial meetings were also holden ; one was notified and held February 12, 1781, "to see what method the town will take to procure a man for the Continental Army," and it was " Voted, That some man be procured for the Continental Army," also that " the selectmen be a committee to hire a man for this town to serve in the Continental Army for three years."

Also, at a meeting held September 24, 1781, "Voted, to raise silver money to pay for beef purchased for this year, and to pay the soldier hired for this year."

At the annual town-meeting, held in March, 1782, after choosing town officers, etc., they

" Vuted, Twenty hard dollars to he raised for town charges.

" Voted, To grant money for school, -twelve hard dollars granted.

" Voted, Seventy-five dollars for highways ; work to be three shillings per day.

" Voted, To do something towards the support of Mr. Ambrose, preacher. Chose a committee to inquire into his wants, and supply ac- cording to our proportion, and that an average of the same be made. The committee was Nathaniel Everett and Mr. Samnel Messer.

" Voted, To join Perrystown and Fishersfield, and petition the General Court that these towne may be joined in representation."

We find nothing to show that New London was ever classed with Perrystown and Fishersfield to send a representative, but it was soon classed with Perrys- town, which was incorporated as Sutton in the year 1784, April 13th.

The town records do not show who was procured as the soldier in the Continental army ; but I find in tlie Adjutant-General's office, among a mass of old papers and records, one with the following heading : "Return of Soldiers mustered in the years 1781 and 1782, to fill up the Continental Army, with the towns and places they engage for, and time when mustered in, for each of which a bounty of twenty pounds was promised by the acts and resolves of the General Court."

Upon this paper the names of the different towns are entered, with the names of the soldiers and the

date of their mustering in. Under the heading " New London" is the name "Francis Coums, 1781, April 23." The town is also credited in another place on this paper with one man for the year 1781, £60; one man for the year 1782, £60; one man for the year 1783, £54 128. We find that the army was dis- banded November 3, 1783, our independence having been secured by treaty before that time.

At the annual town-meeting in March, 1783, held at the house of Lieutenant Levi Harvey, at the mills in said town, said Harvey was chosen moderator, Eben- ezer Hunting, town clerk; Samuel Brocklebank, Levi Harvey and Ebenezer Hunting, selectmen; Peter Sargent, constable; John Morgan and others, sur- veyors of highways. "Voted, To concur with the Council and House of Representatives for this State that the present government be continued in full force until the 10th day of June, 1784, according to their resolve passed the 27th of February, 1783."

Our Constitution was adopted only to continue dur- ing the war with England. The war had virtually ceased in January, 1783, but our State recommended that the government be continued until the meeting of the Legislature in 1784, when the new Constitution took effect.

" Voted, To Mr. Nathaniel Everett one pound, five shillings and six pence, it being for expense in removing Mr. Ambrose from New Plymouth to Perrystown;" also, " Voted that the selectmen give security to Levi Harvey for the purchase of land and defending of privileges for a mill, according to former bond;" and also, that . "grinding days this year be Tuesdays aud Fridays of each week."

Thus we see that at first the only currency was the depreciated Continental money, a pound of which was only equal to a shilling in silver, and three of either were equal to a bushel of corn or a day's work.

Peter Sargent, grandfather of Judge Sargent, who was first elected constable in 1783, was born in Ames- bury, Mass., married Ruth Nichols, of Amesbury or Newbury, and removed to Hopkinton, N. H., before 1760, where he had a large family, and then removed to New London with his family in 1781. Most of his children settled in New London.

We find that the Rev. Samuel Ambrose, who had been living at Plymouth (then called New Plymouth), had visited Perrystown in 1781, and preached to them a while, and that he finally removed there in Feb- ruary, 1782, and that he preached to the people in New London a portion of the time, in connection with the people of Sutton, for several years, the town con- tributing something annually towards his support, until they were able to settle a minister for themselves. It appears, also, that Levi Harvey had built a grist- mill at the outlet of Harvey's Pond, being the only grist-mill in town, and that two days in each week were assigned as grinding days.

In 1784, the town " Voted to raise twenty-five dollars for Mr. Ambrose for his services the year past;" also,

427

NEW LONDON.

"to open a road from Kearsarge Gore to Proctectworth - upon the request of the latter place;" also, "Voted to lay out one hundred days' work in opening said road this season," and also to "raise ten gallons of rum, on the town's cost, for the opening of the road before men- tioned." This was the main road from Sutton to Springfield, as it used to come up by Esquire Jona- than Harvey's, in Sutton, to the Daniel Woodbury place, thence over the hill where the meeting-house now is, and by Little Sunapee Pond, and thence over Addison Hill, as it was termed, to Springfield.

This year the town first voted for President of the State, as the Governor was called, under the new Con- stitution of 1784, and they all voted for Colonel Jo- siah Bartlett, of Kingston, for President, he having twenty-four votes; in 1785, John Langdon, of Ports- mouth, had twenty-five votes for President.

In March, 1786, the town

"Voted to build a meeting-house fifty feet long, and height and width in proportion.

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.

History of Merrimack and Belknap counties, New Hampshire, Part 105

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton), ed Publication date: 1885 Publisher: Philadelphia [Pa.] J. W. Lewis & co. Number of Pages: 1520

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton), ed
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: Philadelphia [Pa.] J. W. Lewis & co.
Number of Pages: 1520