USA > New Hampshire > History of New Hampshire, Volume I > Part 14
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
Walter Barefoot had two ribs broken and lost a tooth in the. fray. Two servant maids testified that Anthony Nutter "did walk about the room in a laughing manner" and gave no assist -- ance to either Barefoot or Mason. Yet Barefoot, in his will,
1 Coll. of N. H. Hist. Society, Vol. VIII, pp. 265-6.
JOSEPH DUDLEY
159.
A HISTORY
1688, gave nearly all his houses and lands to this same Thomas Wiggin, "my brother in law, and to my sister Sarah his wife," so that the scrap did not occasion any lasting ill will. The contention was not with Barefoot but with the deputy governor and friend of Robert Mason, the oppressor. From other evi- dences concerning Barefoot and the habits of the times the con- clusion is forced that the four convivial neighbors had some- thing for supper stronger than tea. It was then thought that even a just cause could be better prosecuted with the aid of a stimulant.
Here we bid farewell to Walter Barefoot, physician, captain of the fort on Great Island, councilor, judge and deputy gov- ernor. He was a royalist, a friend to Mason, a man of wealth and power, little moved by sympathy either with the political leaders or with the common people, self-sufficient, social, an adventurer in the new world. His like does not appear again in the early history of New Hampshire.
In the year 1685 the people of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were summoned to defend their charter or allow it to be forfeited. They chose the latter course. The same year the king, Charles II, died, and his successor, James II, on the eighth day of October, commissioned Joseph Dudley to be first president of the council, to exercise with them authority over the united provinces of New England, including the Colony of Massachu- setts Bay, the provinces of New Hampshire and Maine, and the Narraganset Country, otherwise known as the King's Province. The members of the council were William Stoughton, deputy president, Simon Bradstreet, the last governor, Robert Mason, the proprietor of New Hampshire, John Fitz Winthrop, John Pynchon, Peter Bulkley, Edward Randolph, Wait Winthrop, Richard Wharton, John Usher, Nathaniel Saltonstall, Barthol- emew Gedney, Jonathan Tyng, Dudley Bradstreet, John Hinckes and Edward Tyng.2 The only member from New Hampshire was John Hinckes. This new form of government came into existence May 25, 1686, and was of short duration. It seems to have been designed as only a forerunner, to prepare
2 The names of the councilors are here given in the order used by Belknap. Dudley's commission gives a different order and also includes the name of Francis Champernowne, who died in the spring of 1687.
160
NEW HAMPSHIRE
the way for a sterner administration, just as President Cutt had prepared the way for Cranfield in New Hampshire. Joseph Dud- ley was well known in the colonies as the son of Gov. Thomas Dudley.
The noticeable feature of Dudley's commission was the omission of any reference to any assembly or representative government, to which the people had been accustomed. It was the feeling of the king and privy council that Massachusetts as well as New Hampshire had abused the liberties conferred by their charter and commission, and that henceforth they should be governed by the king and not by themselves. On the tenth of June the president and council issued an order for settling of county courts, "that they shall consist of such member or mem- bers of the council in each county and province as shall be therein resident," together with such justices of the peace as shall be commissioned thereto. The courts in New Hampshire were to be held at Great Island and Portsmouth, a superior court being held in Boston three times a year.
Sir Edmund Andros was appointed captain general and governor in chief of New England in May 1686 and arrived in Boston December thirtieth. He had been governor of New York from 1674 to 1682 and subsequently served as gov- ernor of Virginia and of the island of Jersey. The colony of Plymouth, not mentioned in the commission of Dudley, was added to the jurisdiction of Andros. His commission implies the continuance of the former council, but gives him power and authority to suspend any member thereof at his own pleasure. Any five councilors constituted a quorum and vacancies were to be filled by royal authority, unless by chance the number at any time fell to less than seven, in which case Andros might appoint some of the principal inhabitants to be confirmed by the king. The governor general and his council had power to make laws, subject to confirmation by the king, to levy taxes, estab- lish, courts, appoint judges and other necessary officers, have charge of military forces, pardon offenders, etc. Again there was not mention of representative government, and the people had nothing to say about their own taxes.
The brief rule of Andros had little to do with the people of New Hampshire, except that Mason found in him an unex- pected opponent. Since Andros had the power of granting land,
161
A HISTORY
Mason's authority to give leases was denied by James Graham, the attorney-general. Effort was made to transfer Mason's suits to the supreme court at Boston, by the favor of the chief Justice, Dudley, but the death of Mason suddenly put an end to his hopes and the fears of the landowners. While accompanying Sir Edmund Andros, as one of his council, from New York to Albany, he died at Esopus, about September, 1688, in the fifty- ninth year of his age, leaving two sons, John and Robert.
The news of a revolution in England, leading to the over- throw of James II and the coronation of William, Prince of Orange, emboldened the people of Massachusetts, and of Boston in particular, to strike a blow for freedom. There is said to have been a foolish rumor of an intended massacre in Boston. Andros was declared by rumor to be a papist and to have designs of bringing the Indians against the settlers. There was not the slightest foundation for either report. On the contrary he had led his forces in person to subdue the eastern Indians. But on the morning of the eighteenth of April, 1689, Boston was in arms, and the country around flocked to assist in the pulling down of a despotic seat of power. The former governor, Simon Bradstreet, now one of the council and eighty-four years of age, became the head of a council of safety. Andros, Joseph Dudley, Edward Randolph, James Sherlock, formerly sheriff and member of the council at Portsmouth, and others to the number of twenty-five, some say fifty, were seized and put in prison, where they remained till royal authority ordered them sent to London for trial. All were acquitted. A candid perusal of the Andros Tracts, wherein the arguments of both sides are set forth, would convince the impartial reader of today that there was little against Andros and his assistants personally, that he was not the tyrant alleged, but that the opposition of the people was really against the system, under which he governed. They were taxed and ruled without any representation, either in Lon- don or at home. Too much power was given to the governor. The days of constitutional monarchies, much less of republics, had not yet come, but the desires and convictions of the common people were flowing that way. The subsequent career of Andros shows that he was a wise and trusted governor and a man of unblemished character.
The other New England colonies quickly resumed the form
162
NEW HAMPSHIRE
of government to which they were accustomed before the union of the provinces under a governor-general, and in the course of one month affairs were going on much as under the old charters, Simon Bradstreet acting as governor of Massachusetts. New Hampshire could not reassume the government under which they had lived as a royal province, neither could it at once come under the government of the Bay Colony. There was some jealousy among the towns, particularly on the part of Hampton, whose people thought that Portsmouth desired and designed to lead and control the other towns. The Indians were threat- ening the towns, and the need of some form of government was urgent. The authority of former magistrates and officers was in question. Nobody had right to tax the people, even for their own defence. The towns were as independent as they were before the first union with Massachusetts. They met and voted what they pleased, but there was no authority to enforce law. Some gentlemen of Portsmouth and Great Island sent a letter to the other towns, inviting them to send delegates to a con- vention to be held July II, 1689, to "consider of what shall be judged meet and convenient to be done by the several towns in the Province for their peace and safety, until we shall have orders from the crown of England." Such was the language of the people of Hampton. Their delegates, Ensign Henry Dow, Sergt. John Smith and Mr. Joseph Smith, were instructed to bring back a full account of the proceedings of the convention, but had no power to act without further authorization by the town. There is no record that this proposed convention was ever held. Perhaps its futility was foreseen, since the towns had not given equal powers to their delegates.
The council for safety, at Boston, in October sent a request to Richard Martyn, William Vaughan and Richard Waldron, asking that the Province of New Hampshire send an agent to meet other commissioners at Boston to consult about the Indian wars. The towns agreed, though eighteen persons in Hampton dissented from the vote. William Vaughan was chosen com- missioner and met with the others in Boston, December sixth. The same month Hampton chose three men, Nathaniel Weare, Samuel Sherburne and Henry Dow, to meet persons chosen from other towns and consult about the establishment of some gov- ernment, but the attempt was abortive. At the end of the year,
163
A HISTORY
1689, New Hampshire was still without a common government. There were four independent little republics, Hampton at least too independent and jealous for all its particular rights. The habits of life of the first settlers made every man a law unto himself. Nothing was right without his consent. When neigh- boring settlers united for mutual protection and advantage, then they claimed independence of all other similar unions. A larger union of towns was consented to only as the inhabitants saw that it would be good for them as individual communities. The larger view, of the greatest good to all the towns and all the colonies as a whole, it took long time and hard experience to gain. In January of 1689-90 Dover, Portsmouth and Exeter elected delegates with full powers to meet in convention to de- vise some method of government for defence against the common enemy. The persons chosen by Dover were Capt. John Wood- man, Capt. John Gerrish, Lieut. John Tuttle, Mr. Thomas Edgerly, Lieut. John Roberts and Mr. Nicholas Follet. Ports- mouth's choice were Major William Vaughan, Richard Waldron, Nathaniel Fryer, Robert Elliot, Thomas Cobbet and Capt. John Pickering. Exeter sent to the convention Robert Wadley, Wil- liam Moore and Samuel Leavitt. Hampton chose Henry Green, Henry Dow, Nathaniel Weare, Capt. Samuel Sherburne, Morris Hobbs, Sen., and Mr. Edward Gove, but no pledge was given to abide by the decisions of the convention unless a majority of the commisioners from Hampton should agree thereto. The convention met in Portsmouth, January 24, 1690, and agreed upon a simple form of government, a president, a secretary and a treasurer to be chosen by major vote of the whole province and a council of ten persons, three of whom were to be of Portsmouth and Hampton each and two of Dover and Exeter each. These were to call an assembly of not more than three from each town, and together they were to take such action and make such laws as seemed to be wise and necessary for the preservation of peace, the punishment of offenders and de- fense against the common enemy. All signed their names to the document. The town of Hampton voted not to chose officers according to the plan agreed upon, and so the whole plan failed. The paper was drawn up in the handwriting of John Pickering, a lawyer of Portsmouth and a member of the convention. In Hampton "a very large majority seemed to be fearful and sus-
164
NEW HAMPSHIRE
picious that the other towns did not intend to act according to their professions, but wished to bring the people of this town under them. The minority regarded this view as uncharitable and unjust; but they were referred by the majority to some former acts of some of the towns, which appeared to afford ground for being jealous of them."3 It is seen that the people of Hampton preferred to keep power in their own hands rather than to entrust it to delegates. They claimed the initiative and the referendum, and after more than two centuries we recognize their wisdom, though caution may have been too great for the pressing necessity of the times, and jealousy may have been unfounded. Already there was talk about reunion with Massa- chusetts, of which some were in favor, while others opposed.
The attack of the Indians upon Cochecho and other parts of the province brought matters to a crisis. There must be union and cooperation under lawful authority, or destruction by the savages awaited them all. Hence a petition was drawn up and hastily carried throughout the four towns for signatures. Three hundred and seventy-two persons signed it. The petition was addressed to the governor and council of the colony of Massachusetts Bay and asked for "government and protection, as formerly, until their Majesties' pleasure shall be known con- cerning us: hereby obliging ourselves to a due submission thereto, and payment of our equal proportion (according to our capacity), of the charge that shall arise for the defence of the country against the common enemy ; praying also that such per- sons may be commissionated to command the militia as have already been or shall be chosen by the trained soldiers in the respective towns." The petition was readily granted and thus New Hampshire came once more, for a short time, under the government of Massachusetts, and orders were given for town meetings for the election of proper officers. The petition had been taken to Boston by William Vaughan and John Pickering on the twenty-eighth of February, and William Vaughan, Richard Martyn and Nathaniel Fryer at once were appointed magistrates. The objec- tions of Hampton were set forth at length in a letter of Nathaniel Weare to Major Robert Pike; that out of about two hundred inhabitants over twenty-one years of age less than fifty had
3Dow's History of Hampton, Vol. I, p. 117.
165
A HISTORY
signed the petition and some of these were minors, while some of the principal inhabitants of the town, including Weare himself, had not been shown the petition; that formerly Hampton had chosen her own magistrates and could not now see why magis- trates from Portsmouth should be thrust upon them without even a majority vote of the town; and that Massachusetts had not authority to appoint officers and make laws for New Hamp- shire until such authority should be conferred by the crown, or by a majority vote in town meeting. They feared that a gov- ernment so imposed would cause "distractions, heart-burnings, disobedience to the supposed commanders, public declarations, remonstrances set forth, that might reach as far as England, and so make way for a person to be deputed by the crown, that might under color of a commission exercise his own will." Hampton evidently felt that Portsmouth was railroading a scheme through to suit the wishes of the bosses of that place and that would give to them the positions of power, as formerly under Massachusetts rule, and Nathaniel Weare was long-headed enough to see through the scheme to its probable outcome. But the unanswerable argument of the presence of hostile Indians and French upon their borders constrained the voters of Hamp- ton to submit to the wishes of other towns. Hampton favored a plan that would give them a greater measure of home rule.4
The political leaders at Portsmouth wanted annexation to Massachusetts; the common people were divided on this ques- tion. The king and his council were told, perhaps by Edward Randolph, perhaps by Nathaniel Weare, perhaps by many others, that the people of New Hampshire did not desire union with the Bay Colony. Such union was desired by the leaders in Boston, and Rev. Cotton Mather, their agent sent to London, earnestly sought it. They were looking toward practical independence and increase of dominion, as ambitious as Canada is today, scorning to be a dependency and willing to be an ally on equal terms. The king had other plans, still maintaing the validity of the grants made to Capt. John Mason and wishing to aid Samuel Allen, merchant, of London, who, for two thousand
4 See Weare's letter in N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. II, pp. 43-46, Dow's Hist. of Hampton, Vol. I, pp. 113-119, and especially Tuttle's Historical Papers, pp. 197-214.
I66
NEW HAMPSHIRE
seven hundred and fifty pounds, had bought, of the two sons of Robert Mason, April 27, 1691, all their claim to lands in New England that had been granted to Capt. John Mason. By a previous agreement and a fictitious sale, known as a fine and recovery, since it put a finis, or end to all legal dispute, the entail had been docked, or set aside. In this "fine" it is inter- esting to learn the estimated extent of Mason's claim. His pos- sessions are named "the Mannor of Mason Hall with the appurtenances and seven thousand Messuages, fifty Mills, six thousand Gardens, a hundred thousand Acres of Land, a hun- dred thousand Acres of Meadow, a hundred thousand Acres of Pasture, one million and a hundred thousand Acres of Wood, two hundred thousand of acres of Marsh & Moss Ground, a hundred thousand Acres of fresh Marsh, a hundred acres of Salt Marsh, a hundred thousand acres of Ozirs, a hundred thousand Acres of ... , two hundred thousand of acres of Land Covered by Water, a hundred Pound Rents Common of Pasture for all manner of Cattle, free fishery and free Warrin with the appurtenances in New Hampr, Main, Masonia, Laconia, Mason Hall, Mariana in New England." This shows that Mason Hall was not the name of a house, as some have supposed, but of lands.5
Belknap says6 that the inhabitants "again assembled by deputies in convention and sent over a petition to the king, praying that they might be annexed to Massachusetts. The petition was presented to Sir Henry Ashurst and they were amused with some equivocal promises of success by the earl of Nottingham ; but Allen's importunity coinciding with the king's inclination effectually frustrated their attempt."
The commission of Samuel Allen as governor and com- mander in chief of New Hampshire was dated March 1, 1692. Therein the same powers were granted to him as to former governors and in nearly the same words. Also John Usher, Esquire, was named as one of the council and lieutenant gov- ernor, having all the authority of the governor in the latter's absence. The governor could call and prorogue assemblies at will, suspend and appoint members of the council, and veto any
5 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, pp. 143-147. 6 Page 123.
167
A HISTORY
laws or bills passed. The councilors named in Allen's instruc- tions were, besides John Usher, John Hinckes, Nathaniel Fryer, Thomas Graffort, Peter Coffin, Henry Green, Robert Elliot, John Gerrish, John Walford, and John Lowe. Six of the ten coun- cilors were of Portsmouth. William Vaughan, Nathaniel Weare and Colonel Richard Waldron were added to the council a little later.
John Usher was a citizen of Boston and had been a member of Governor Andros' council. He became the actual governor of New Hampshire, since Samuel Allen, the proprietor now in place of Robert Mason, did not appear to execute the duties of that office. Historians have fostered the supposition that Usher was made lieutenant governor, because he was son in law of Allen, but John Usher and Elizabeth Allen were married in Hampton, March II, 1698-9, or six years after his appointment as lieutenant governor. His first wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Peter and Elizabeth Lidgett, who died August 17, 1698. It appears, then, that family relationship had nothing to do with the appointment of Usher, and that he had no interest in Allen's claim to lands at the time when he was made lieutenant gov- ernor. He arrived with the commission and assumed the duties of his office, August 13, 1692, and once more and finally New Hampshire was free from the government of Massachusetts. In real freedom there was no immediate gain. "Liberty of conscience to all persons except Papists" is granted in the gov- ernor's instructions.
The first settlers built their log cabins near the rivers, which were the natural and only highways. The second and third generations began to push inland and build roads. Small col- onies got grants of large tracts in the wooded wilderness, and the original grantees became proprietors or owners of the townships formed. The people from Massachusetts spread up the valley of the Merrimack. In the year 1673 the General Court granted to twenty-six petitioners the town of Dunstable, which after the division line was fixed was found to contain lands in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The town as originally granted contained about two hundred square miles, or one hundred and twenty-eight thousand acres. The part in Massachusetts included what is now Tyngsborough,
I68
NEW HAMPSHIRE
the east part of Dunstable, a little of the north part of Pepperell and the northeast corner of Townsend. In New Hampshire it embraced the town of Litchfield, most of Hudson, the southwest part of Londonderry, the west part of Pelham, nearly all of the towns of Nashua and Hollis, all of Amherst and Merrimack south of the Souhegan river and about two-thirds of the towns of Brookline and Milford.6 In this section the General Court had previously granted extensive farms, varying from three hundred to fifteen hundred acres. The first minister was the Rev. Thomas Weld of Roxbury; the most prominent settler was Col. Jonathan Tyng, who bought of the Indian sachem, Wonalancet, October 10, 1685, a tract of land, which extended six miles on each side of the river Merrimack and reached from a point three miles north of the old Indian fort at Penacook to that place at the great pond, or lake Winnepiseogee, which was accounted the northern bound of the lands claimed by Massa- chusetts. Tyng was acting as agent of a company of men in Boston, and to three of them, John Usher, Charles Lidgett and Thaddeus McCarty, Mason gave a deed, April 15, 1686, of the same land named in the above tract sold by Wonalancet. The southerly bound on the west side of the Merrimack was the Souhegan river, and on the east side of the Merrimack the south- erly bound was land owned by William Brenton, in old Dun- stable, later governor of Rhode Island. The price paid was thirty pounds and the yearly rent charge was ten shillings. One-fourth part of the gold and silver that might be found was reserved. This tract was called the million acre purchase. It was a long time before any towns were incorporated within this tract of land, though now it is the most populous and enterpris- ing part of the state, including Manchester and Concord.
6 Old Dunstable, p. 4.
Chapter VIII KING WILLIAM'S WAR
Chapter VIII
KING WILLIAM'S WAR.
Causes of the War-Kancamagus, Chief of the Penacooks-Massacre at Cochecho-Death of Major Waldern-Character of Waldern-Escape of Mrs. Heard-List of the Slain and Captives-Huckins Garrison at Oyster River-Attack on Salmon Falls and Berwick-Massacre at Fox Point Doubted-Hope Hood-Seven Killed at Newmarket-Battle of Wheel- wright's Pond-Capt. Sherburne Slain at Maquoit-Twenty Killed at Sandy Beach-Seventeen Indians Surprised and Slain-Attack on Dunstable-Treaty of Peace at Pemaquid-Conduct of French Mis- sionaries-Massacre at Oyster River-Sixteen Houses Burned-Nearly One Hundred Killed and Captured-Killing of Mrs. Ursula Cutt-Attack on the Settlement at Sagamore Creek and Sherburne's Plain-Cochecho again Assailed-More Killed at Oyster River-Hannah Dustin-Treaty of Peace Made at Casco-Losses Occasioned by the War.
T HE aim of this chapter is not to give a history of the French and Indian War, known as King William's War, but only to state the part that New Hampshire had in that conflict, with only such brief mention of external events as seem necessary to show logical connections. The remote causes of the war were many, chief among them being the treacherous betrayal of the Indians in the sham fight at Dover, about thirteen years before. The immediate cause is said by historians to have been the plundering of the Baron de St. Castine's house by Governor Edmund Andros in 1688. The former lived on debatable land, between the Penobscot and the St. Croix, claimed by both France and England. Castine had resided many years among the eastern Indians, married wives from among them and so was able to stir them up to war on the ground of abuses which they had received from time to time. There are always reasons enough for what we want and are determined to have. Some Indians were arrested for stealing cattle, and Andros had them liberated and was severely criticized for so dong. Then he sent an army of seven hundred soldiers against them, who returned without seeing an Indian. The sagamore, Kancamagus, alias John Hawkins, chief of the Penacook Indians, did not share the friendly feeling toward the whitemen that his father Wonalancet
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.