History of Merrimack and Belknap counties, New Hampshire, Part 96

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 96
USA > New Hampshire > Belknap County > History of Merrimack and Belknap counties, New Hampshire > Part 96

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).

Township Number Five was one of a line of townships extending in a line from Rumford (now Concord), on the Merrimack River, to the Great Falls, on the Connecticut. Each township was decreed to be six miles square. Briefly expressed, the conditions im- posed upon the grantees by the court's committee were as follows: There were to be sixty settlers in a township, bonded to the committee for the perform- ance of certain conditions, as that each grantee build a dwelling-house eighteen feet square, and of seven feet stud at the least, on his lot, and fence in for plowing, or clear and stock to English grass, five acres of land within three years after being admitted to settlement; and the grantees together were to build and finish a suitable meeting-house, and settle a learned and orthodox minister within the same num- ber of years. In every sense of the term, settlements were to be actual.

In pursuance of the conditions above described, a meeting of the proprietors of Number Five was held at the tavern of James Morris, in Hopkinton, Mass., on the 14th day of February, 1837. Captain John Jones was chosen moderator; Charles Morris, clerk ; Ebenezer Kimball, treasurer. It would seem that at this time the township had been surveyed and located ; but the several lots of the grantees had not been established. The proprietorship was for some time occupied with the preliminaries of settlement. On the 31st day of May, 1787, a gratuity of five pounds

each was voted to Daniel Claflin and Richard Potter, provided that they settled before winter. There is a tradition that Potter was the first one of the grantees to begin domestic operations in the new territory. A call for a meeting, dated at Hopkinton, September 30, 1738, declares,-

" These are to Notify all the Proprietors of the New Township Num- ber Five, bordering on Rumford, to meet at the house of Mr. Henry Mellen, in the said Township, near the Meeting-house Spot, on Thirsday, the nineteenth day of October next enening, at nine of the Clock in the morning, there to act on the following articles," etc.

This call evidently anticipates the first public meeting in the new township Number Five, which soon began to be euphoniously known as New Hop- kinton and to be indicated in the public records as "New Hopkinton (so called)." A prefatory note to the incorporating charter declares as follows :

"This Township was taken up to be settled, after it was granted & laid out by Order of the General Court of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, by the inhabitants of Hopkinton, in said Province, under the name of Number five in the Line of Towns, and was by them called New Hopkinton."

The following is the list of the original bonded proprietors of Number Five:

John Jones, John Jeffards, Henry Mellen, Ebenez'r Locke, Elias Haven, Jacuh Gibbs, James Lock, John Brewer, James Nutt, Josich Watkins, Thomas Mellon, Thomas Bixbe, Richard Potter, Rev. Mr. Sam'l Barret, David Fauster, Nat'l Haven, Thomas Walker, Henry Walker, Caleb Claflin, Charles Morris, Jason Walker, John Bowker, Elisha lladen, Ebenezer Coller, Samuel Streater, Joseph Coller, Matthew Taft, John Walker, John Weston, Nat'l Smith, David Burnap, Edmund Bowker, Elenzer Gile, Daniel Mellen, James Morris, Joseph Haven, David Woodwell, Matthew Lackey, Robert Claflin, Joseph Gould, James Wilson, Daniel Claflin, Mark Whitney, Joshua Claflin, John Quarles, Eben'r Claflin, Jedediah Haven, Benj'a Carril, Paul Langdon, George Carril, Samuel Watkins, Samuel Frail, Joseph Holton, Peter How, Simpson Jones, Jabez Potter, Daniel Claflin, jun., Cornelius Claflin, Ebenezer Kimball, Isaac Whitney .- 60.

Troubles Incident to the French Wars .- The new settlement in Number Five was early subjected to various trials. One of these was incident to the pros- ecution of the so-called French Wars. The conflict known as King George's War lasted from 1744 to 1748 ; that sometimes called the Seven Years' War from 1754 to 1763. The English residents of the New England colonies were involved in an interest adverse to the French nation, in common with the mother-country. Consequently, in addition to the liability to active military service, the colonies were subjected to attacks from the Indians, instigated by the French, in the hope of securing captives, to be redeemed by their friends, thus aiding the treasuries of the French cap- tors. The St. Francis Indians performed an import- ant part in the work of securing English captives. These Indians were located upon the border of, or in, Canada.

In anticipation of predatory incursions by Indians, three forts, or garrison-honses, were early built in Number Five. They were Kimball's, Putney's and Woodwell's garrisons. The first of these was located about a mile from the present village of Hopkinton, on the road to Rumford, near the present residence of Mr. James K. Story, and was built by Aaron and

393

HOPKINTON.

Jeremiah Kimball. The second stood upon the top of Putney's Hill, near the present house of the de- scendants of Moses Rowell, and was erected by Sam- uel and John Putney. The third occupied a spot about half a mile from the present village of Contoo- cook, in the north part of the town, and near the present residence of Mr. Ebenezer Morrill, and was constructed by David Woodwell. The situation in Number Five during the period of the French Wars was more or less unsettled. On this account, im- portant changes were made in the plans of some of the proprietors. Doubtless, some transferred their interests ; some settled and then returned to Massa- chusetts ; others stayed in the new township. One thing is certain : domestic and social life were never suspended wholly in the new settlement, though in- dividual circumstances, doubtless, were in many in- stances modified. In consequence of the disturbed condition of affairs, there are no proprietary records extant for the years from 1743 to 1750, inclusively ; nor for 1752; nor from 1754 to 1756, inclusively ; nor for 1759; nor for 1762 to 1764, inclusively.

The inhabitants of Number Five also suffered per- sonal violence at the hands of their Indian enemies. On the 22d of April, 1746, Woodwell's garrison was surprised by a party of Indians and eight persons were taken captive. The captives were David Wood- well, his wife, two sons, Benjamin and Thomas, and a daughter, Mary ; Samuel Burbank, and Caleb and Jonathan, his sons. Woodwell and three children returned to Boston under a flag of truce. Mary Woodwell was held captive three years and was then redeemed, after spending six months with the French, at Montreal, waiting for a passport. Samuel Bur- bank and Mrs. Woodwell died in captivity. Jonathan Burbank was redeemed, but was afterwards killed by the Indians, who mistook him for the famous Robert Rogers. Mary Woodwell, in 1755, married Jesse Corbett, of Uxbridge, Mass., and they settled in Number Five (or New Hopkinton), on the scene of the capture of 1746. In 1759, Mr. Corbett was drowned in the Warner River, then called Almsbury River. In 1761, Mary Woodwell Corbett married Jeremiah Fowler, who died in 1802, and his widow immediately joined the Shaker community at Canter- bury, when she died in 1829, in the one hundredth year of her age. By her first marriage, Mary Wood- well had two sons, and by her second, five children. A detailed account of the capture at Woodwell's gar- rison was written by the late General Walter IIarri- man and published in vol. iv., No. 6, of the Granite Monthly. On the 10th of November, 1746, a Mr. Estabrooks, of Number Five, was killed by Indians, on his return from Rumford, where he had been for the medical services of Dr. Ezra Carter. Estabrooks was killed about a mile from the present Concord Main Street, on the present highway to Hopkinton.

On the morning of April 13, 1753, Abraham Kim- ball and Samuel Putney was captured by Indians.

Their capture occurred on the eastern slope of Put- ney's Hill, not far from Putney's garrison. Kimball and Putney were both young men. They were taken to Contoocook (afterwards Boscawen), on their way to Canada, when, on the next day after the capture, the Indians were surprised by some famous Indian hunters of the name of Flanders, and both the cap- tives escaped. Putney escaped by the aid of a dog that seized the neck of an Indian who attempted to tomahawk Putney. Abraham Kimball was the first white male child born in Number Five, he being a son of Jeremiah Kimball.

The military records of colonial New Hampshire, during the period of the French Wars, contain the following names of residents of Number Five, though the identification of the parties is not sure:

Joseph Eastman (probably of Rumford), Stephen Hoyt, Matthew Stanley, Ebenezer Eastman, Joseph Putney, John Annis, Enoch East. men, John Burbank, William Peters, Nathaniel Smith, Sampson Colby, Isaac Chandler, Thomas Merrill, Samnel Barrett, James Lock, John Nutt, John Jones, Thomas Eastman.

The Mason Claim .- A second source of trial to the proprietors of Number Five resulted from the Mason claim. The original royal patent, given to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason, embraced all the line of the Atlantic coast between the Merri- mack and St. Lawrence Rivers, and extended many miles inland. The country was named Laconia, and the patent was given in 1622. Subsequently, Mason obtained a second patent of a considerable territory lying between the Merrimack and Piscataqua Rivers, and which he called New Hampshire. Having at- tempted settlement and a development of resources, Mason failed, and, dying, his heirs at length realized nothing but the naked soil. In the year 1691, the Mason estate passed into the hands of Samuel Allen. The original title became involved in dispute, and subsequently, by a fiction of law, that the estate might be under the command of the King's Court, the land was assumed to be in England, and, by the con- nivance of the Massachusetts colonial authorities, John Tufton Mason, lineal descendant of John Ma- son, laid claim to the whole. John Tufton Mason was successful, and at length sold out to twelve lead- ing men of Portsmouth for fifteen hundred pounds.

The new proprietors were liberal in disposition, and made regrants of townships upon favorable terms, usually reserving fifteen rights for themselves. The conditions upon which Number Five was regranted are briefly expressed as follows :

The township was granted in equal shares to Henry Mellen, yeo- man, Thomas Walker, cooper, and Thomas Mellen, cordwainer, ell of Hopkinton, in the conuty of Middlesex.

A reservation of one-fifth, in the westerly part of the township, was set off for the proprietors.

One whole share in the remaining four-fifths was to be set off for the first settled minister, to be his in fee simple.

One whole share of the said four-fifths was to he set off for the use of the ministry forever.

One whole share in the said four-fifths was to be set off for the use of a school forever.

394

HISTORY OF MERRIMACK COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

That thirty acres of land, and the necessary water privilega, be re- served for a saw-mill, 'at the place where the old saw-mill stood ;' and that the grantees and their associates build a saw-mill within two years at their own coat.

That there be thirty families in the township within three years, each honse being at least sixteen feet aquara, and provided with a cellar ; and that there be five acres of land cleared and fitted for mowing or tillage in each case.

That there be sixty families within seven years, with other condi- tions as before mentioned.

That a meeting-house be built within three years, and constant preaching be maintained at the expense of the grantees.

That all the anitable pine trees be reserved for his Majesty's use.

That in case of an Indian war occurring within any time limited for the performance of conditions, the time should be extended to the close of the war.

That in case Bow took any territory from the townabip, the loss be made up from other and ungranted lands.

The foregoing conditions were by an act of the Mason proprietors on the 30th day of November, 1750. The reservation of one-fifth in the western part of the township suggests the remark that the earlier settlements had not extended far in that di- rection. The reservation ultimately reverted to the inhabitants of the township, but upon what specific terms the writer does not know.

In November, 1762, the following parties were de- clared legal grantees under the conditions of the Mason grant. The figures given indicate instances of a plurality of shares in possession :

John Jones, Esq. (2), Joseph Haven, Esq., Rev. Samuel Haven, John Haven, Thomas Byxby, Peter How, Joseph Haven, Timothy Townsend, Elder Joseph Haven, Simpson Jones, Esq., Isaac Pratts, Jedediah Haven, Mark Whitney, Nathaniel Gibbs, Isaac Gibbs, John Jones, Jr., Benjamin Goddard, Eleazer Howard, John and James Nutt, Daniel Mellen, James Lock, David Woodwell, Nathaniel Chandler (heirs), Samuel Osgood, Daniel and John Annis (2), Aaron Kimball, John Chad- wick (2) Thomas Eastman, Timothy Clement, John Rust (beirs), William Peters, Ebenezer Eastman, Jacob Straw, Samuel Putney, Joseph Putney, Jonathan Straw (2), Thomas Merrill, Joseph Eastman, Jacob Potter, Matthew Stanley, Abraham Colby, Sampson Colby (2), Isaac Chandler, Jr., Abner Kimball (beirs), John Burbank, Caleb Burbank, Samuel Eastman, Peter How, Jr. (2), Enoch Eastman (2), Stephen Hoyt, Isaac Whitney, Enoch and Ezra Hoyt, Deacon Henry Mellen (3), Thomas Walker, Thomas Mellen (4), Isaac Chandler, Joseph Eastman, Jr.

The Bow Controversy .- The reader will remember that, in discussing the Mason grant, an incidental mention was made of Bow. The Bow controversy agitated the residents of Number Five during a period of years. The origin of the trouble will be briefly stated. We have already seen that Number Five was originally granted by the authorities of Massachusetts Bay. Bow was granted to Jonathan Wiggin and others, in 1727, by the government of New Hamp- shire. A conflict of boundaries ensued between Bow and Number Five. Bow was also in controversy with several other townships upon the subject of bounda- ries. Bow claimed a section of Number Five in the southeast part of the township. The disputed section was wedge-shaped, with its apex lying very near the present village of Hopkinton.

The contest between Bow and Number Five was, in a sense, a conflict of colonial governments. It was but natural that both Massachusetts and New Hampshire should be zealous of their prerogatives. All the boun- daries involved in this controversy were not adjusted

before 1765. Adjudged in the New Hampshire courts, the controverted points seemed to be decided in favor of the local colonial interest. It seemed as if Bow was to win her case. This was the condition of things on the 7th of May, 1761, when Deacon Henry Mellen, Adjutant Thomas Mellen and Timothy Clement were chosen a committee of Number Five, "to go down to the land proprietors and the proprietors of Bow to see if the matter can be agreed upon." However, largely by the activity of the inhabitants of Rumford, the matter was brought before the King's Court. At the Court of St. James, on the 29th day of September, 1762, the King and his counselors reversed a judgment of the Inferior Court of the Common Pleas of the prov- ince of New Hampshire, of the 2d of September, 1760, and also one of the Superior Court of Judicature, of the second Tuesday in November, 1760, and the principle was established that defeated Bow and gave the other townships their land.

In 1763, on the 13th of December, an act of the New Hampshire Legislature joined the following per- sons and their estates to the " District of New Hop- kinton," thus acknowledging the validity of their claim as residents of the disputed territory of Num- ber Five:

Abel Kimball, Timothy Kimball, Timothy Clements, Eliphalet Colby, Green French, Jobn Chadwick, Abraham Kimball, Jeremiah Kimball, James Kimball, Moses Straw, Jonathan Straw, John Eastman, William Peters, Hezekiah Foster, Jeremialı Kimball, Jr., Thomas Jewett, Reuben Kimball, Daniel Watson, Obadiah Perry, Joshua Bailey, John Kimball, John Jewett, Parker Flanders, Isaac Colby, Thomas Hoitt, Widow Susanna Kimball.

In 1772, in consequence of the incorporation of the county of Hillsborough, of which Hopkinton was a part till 1823, it became necessary for the provincial authority of New Hampshire to enact that the por- tion of Hopkinton formerly claimed by Bow should be disannexed from Rockingham County, of which Bow was once a part, and annexed to the new county.

CHAPTER II.

HOPKINTON-(Continued).

Incorporation of Hopkinton and Incidental Mat- ters .- The legal incorporation of Number Five, by the name of Hopkinton, was effected in 1765. The in- corporating act passed the New Hampshire Provin- cial Legislature on the 10th of January. The ap- proval of the Council and the consent of Governor Benning Wentworth were given the next day. Hop- kinton was a town with all the implied legal rights and privileges. The subject of the legal incorporation of the township was agitated as early as 1757. On October 27th of that year a petition for incorporation was addressed "To His Excellency, Benning Went- worth, Esq., Captain-General & Governor-in-Chief in and over his Majesty's Province of New Hamp-

395

HOPKINTON.

shire, and to the Honble his Majesty's Council in the Province aforesaid." This petition was signed by the following persons :

" Samuel Pudney, Joseph Eastman, Aaron Kimball, Joseph Pudney, Enoch Eastman, John Pudney, Daniel Anis, Caleb Burbank, Peter How, Joseph Ordway, Matthew Stanley, Abraham Colbe, David Woodwell, Joseph Eastman, Jr., John Chadwick, John Ordway, John Burbank, Jonathan How."

There were probably not more than a few hundred people in Hopkinton at the time of the incorpora- tion. Let us consider some of the conditions of local society at this time. Although nearly twenty years had passed since the original grant of the town- ship, yet the originally implied conditions of the grant were not all fulfilled. Part of the neglect was due to the troublous scenes through which the inhab- itants had passed. A minister had been settled. Rev. James Scales was ordained on the 23d of November, 1757.1 No meeting-house had been built, though numerous votes to build had been passed. Rev. Mr. Scales was ordained at Putney's garrison, which was a place of regular publie worship. A meeting-house lot and a minister's lot had been located. Land had been set apart for educational purposes, but there is only slight evidence that a school had been taught. In March, 1765, the town voted to have a school two months of the ensuing year.

Loeal society was in a very primitive state up to the time of the incorporation of Hopkinton. The incident of Mr. Estabrooks, in 1746, leads to the in- ference that there was no physician in this town. Of lawyers there were apparently none. There are no data of the conditions of trade at this time. A vote of the early proprietors, passed February 14, 1737, appropriating twenty pounds for clearing a road from Rumford to the new township, and also for clearing other roads as far as the sum would allow, suggests that Rumford was a dependence for commercial sup- plies. There was probably no tavern in Hopkinton, though there may have been people who had special accommodations for travelers or visitors. A hint is afforded upon this subject by the action of the town in anticipation of the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Scales. It was voted to provide entertainment at six places,- the houses of Aaron Kimball, Matthew Stanley, Stephen Hoyt, Peter How, Samuel Putney and Joseph Putney. Some progress had probably been made in the erection of framed houses. In 1737, the proprietors voted a gratuity of twenty-five pounds to any one who would build a saw-mill near the "reservation," the mill to be completed by the next December. Subse- quently the same gratuity was offered to Henry Mellen personally, and, still later, the inducement of thirty pounds was made general. It is believed that Henry Mellen erected a saw-mill on Paul Brook, in the

westerly part of the town. The existence of such a mill provided lumber for building. The first framed house is said to have been built near Kimball's garri- son. The ancient Rowell house, now standing on Putney's Hill, near the site of Putney's garrison, was built for the Rev. James Scales. A grist-mill may or may not have been in operation in town previously to the incorporation, but, in 1765, Nathaniel Clement was allowed a gratuity of eighty acres of land, on the north side of the road to Rumford, so long as he kept a corn-mill in repair. The site of the Clement mill is just east of Hopkinton village, at the outlet of Mills' Pond, so called. Money was apparently plenty, though the currency was depreciated, being largely in provincial bills of credit, sometimes called "old tenor." The town appropriated four hundred and fifty pounds for the expense of the Rev. Mr. Scales' ordination, but this sum was probably worth no more than two hundred dollars in hard money.

Previously to the incorporation, the township had limited political privileges. It had a representative power at the General Court. In 1738, October 23, Isaac Whitney, Thomas Walker and Ebenezer God- dard were made a committee to present the votes of the proprietors at the seat of provincial government. In 1740, the township became a part of New Hamp- shire. Local meetings were called by special com- mittees. Jacob Gibbs and Charles Morris were the first committee to call meetings. The first meeting in the new territory was called by Joseph Haven Isaac Whitney and Thomas Walker. The township could not take its own inventory, which was taken by the selectmen of some corporate township. In 1761, the selectmen of Boscawen were paid five pounds for taking the inventory of Number Five.

The incorporation of Hopkinton gave a decided im- pulse to local public enterprise. Affairs seemed to as- sume a new and substantial basis. Various improved conditions resulted. A church was built in 1766. The edifice was fifty feet long, thirty-eight feet broad and the posts were twenty-two feet. The expense of its erection was five hundred pounds, old tenor. The same year it was voted to have two schools in town. In 1768 it was decided to build two school " housen " -one near Esquire Townsend's and the other in the centre, between Jonathan How's and Moses Gould's, -but this act was afterwards rescinded. Educational matters progressed, however, and, in 1784, a provision was made for dividing the town " into eight parts for schooling." In 1766 a vote was passed to build a hoat in the Contoocook River for the accommodation of people passing between Hopkinton and New Amcs- bury (now Warner), said boat to be as large as Deacon Merrill's boat in Concord. In 1772, an appropriation of thirty pounds was made for a bridge across the Contoocook. The same year the town obtained pos- session of two lots of land where the people had be- gun to bury their dead, and public legal cemeteries were established.

1 A church was organized at the same time. The following were the original members : James Scales, David Woodwell, Aaron Kimball, Jonathan Straw, William Peters, Joseph Eastman, Jr., Peter How, Abraham Celebe, Matthew Stanley, Enoch Eastman, William Peters was afterwards made the first deacon.

396

HISTORY OF MERRIMACK COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Hopkinton, being incorporated, soon became a thriving and prosperous town. The business centre was at the site of the present village of Hopkinton. The church was built there, its site being identical with that of the present Congregational house. This was the situation of public affairs on the eve of the Revolution.

The first selectmen of the incorporated township were Captain Matthew Stanley, Ensign Jonathan Straw and Sergeant Isaac Chandler.

The Revolution .- The people of Hopkinton were alive to all public events anticipative of the great struggle called the Revolution. At a town-meeting on the 18th of July, 1774, Captain Jonathan Straw was chosen a delegate to the Exeter Convention of the 21st of the same month, which was called to succeed the Assembly dispersed by Governor John Wentworth, and which also chose Nathaniel Folsom and John Sullivan delegates to the Provincial Con- gress. On the 9th of January, 1775, Joshua Bailey was chosen delegate from Hopkinton to a second convention at Exeter, which convention chose John Sullivan and John Langdon as delegates to another Provincial Congress. On the same day the town voted " to accept what the Grand Congress has resolved." On the 11th of December, 1775, Captain Stephen Harriman was chosen a representative to Exeter for one year, in anticipation of the convocation of the 21st of the same month, designed for the elaboration of a plan of civil government.

In 1775, in compliance with the demand of the local colonial authority, an enumeration of people and of war materials was taken in Hopkinton. The following is the official return :

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 96

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