USA > New Hampshire > Rockingham County > Salem > History of Salem, N.H. > 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
The first lot, that of Bartholomew Heath, was at the north end of the meadow, but as we do not know the dimensions of all of the lots, we can only state the order in which they lay down along the meadow.
In 1653 a third division of upland was laid out, at the rate of twelve acres to each acre of accommodation, or houselot land. The proprietors had just laid out an extensive common, includ- ing all the land in the Hawkes meadow district and thence ex- tending north and east to the Haverhill bounds. This common was to be left intact, the third division land being designated as beyond it. Here is the second parcelling of Salem territory. The lots in this case were in the east part of Methuen and Salem, and must have reached quite or nearly to the Spicket, because the next division was located specifically "beyond Spiggott." Doubtless the land about Captain's Pond and in Ayers Village was laid out in this third division, as this was the first line of travel into the country to the north and west.
It was customary to fence the meadow lots, so as to mark their bounds more clearly. Men were appointed for this work, ap- parently with considerable power. For it was voted that "if any upland should be fenced in while fencing meadow adjoining, then it shall remain so forever." If land had been worth much this might have furnished a few early specimens of the "tip" and "graft" systems sometimes in evidence in our day.
The town had laid out common land on which the oxen and cows were to be turned loose to feed. The ox common was sep- arate from the cow common. Both were fenced, and men were chosen each year to keep the fences in repair. They were known as fence viewers, and are still elected in most towns, though their duties have disappeared or decidedly changed.
47
SETTLEMENT.
FOURTH DIVISION.
The next item in the records to claim our attention is undoubt- edly the most significant from the standpoint of Salem history of all the early acts of the proprietors. It is the granting of a strip two miles wide, reaching from the Merrimack River nearly to North Salem. It is more important in that it locates for us the property of many of the early settlers, gives the first step in tracing the history of the present estates of this part of the town, and assists us in locating the original west bound of Haverhill, in Salem papers later referred to as "Haverhill old line." Fol- lowing is the complete record of this action : "October the 14th, 1659.
"Voted and granted that there shall be a fourth division of up- land laid out beyond Spiggott river, at the proportion of twenty acres to an acre of accommodation : if it should so fall out that there should be any Meadow found in any of the lots of this fourth division exceeding two acres in a piece, it shall remain to the town.
"The first lot of this fourth division is to be laid out by Thomas D'avis' third division of upland on the farther side & so to go round by the great river as far as our bounds go: if so be that the third division prevent not, & so from the great river which is south to run northward to a pond called Satchwell's pond and so Eastward till it be finished: This land is to be laid out ac- cording to the lots drawn & every proprietor is to take up his land as it lies, joining one to another, and the lots are to be a mile in length.
"Lots drawn for the fourth division. [Lay'd out by Theo. Satchwell, James Davis, Jun., Rob. Clement & Rob. Swan.]
Peter Ayer
1 Stephen Kent 26
Wm Simmons 27
Matthias Button
3 John Dow 28
Jnº Williams, sen.
4
Obadiah Ayer 29
Joseph Peaseley
5 Thoms Davis sen 30
Jnº Chenarie 6 Jas Fiske 31
Geo. Corlis
7 Jnº Heath 32
Daniel Hendricks 8 Jnº Ayers 33
Thomas Davis
9 Samuel Gild 34
48
HISTORY OF SALEM.
Theophs Satchwell
10
Thos Eaton
35
Mr. Jnº Ward
11
Thos Ayers 36
Richª Littlehale
37
Thos Sleeper
13
John Eaton
38
Jnº Johnson
14
Henry Palmer
39
Wm Holdridge
15
Barth: Heath
40
Thos Whittier
16
Robert
41
Robert Swan
17
George Browne
18
Daniel Ladd
43
Nathan1 Ayers
19
William White
44
Hugh Sherratt
20
Thos Linfurth
45
Robert Ayers
21 Jnº Hutchins
46
Mr. Joseph Jewett
22 Robt Clement
47
Mr. Clement's Executors
23
Jas Davis Jun.
48
John Page sen
24
Edwª Clarke
49""
-
These directions need a few explanations as to the bounds designated. Thomas Davis' third division of upland lay prob- ably in what is now ward five in Lawrence, or in the vicinity of Glen Forest. The new land was to follow the Merrimack as far as the Haverhill line, then follow this line as far north as Satch- well's Pond. We have referred to the fact that this pond has never up to this time been correctly located. The idea has been general that it lay near the Merrimack, probably to the south of the present state line. This is probably due to the fact that the ponds in Salem are all known by other names, which have been in use since the time of the first settlers, while some of the small bodies of water in the western part of Methuen have been under many names within recent years, usually taken after the owners of the neighboring land, and might reasonably be supposed to have been known in the early days by this name.
There can be no question in regard to it when all of the facts are considered. We recognize at once the name of one of the most prominent men of Haverhill, Theophilus Satchwell, also spelled Shatswell, who was chosen as one of the lot layers for all of the divisions of land about this time. He was a surveyor, and had explored all of the land of the town to locate the meadows, ploughland, etc. While on one of his journeys through the for- ests beyond the Spicket he came upon a fair sheet of water hid-
THE OLD MATTHEW TAYLOR HOMESTEAD. (M 633)
GILMAN D. KELLEY.
49
SETTLEMENT.
den among the hills, which up to this time had been unknown to the settlers. It received the name of Satchwell's Pond; but shortly after the land was laid out, and men became familiar with that part of the town, it was found that there was another name. The Indians called it Hitty Titty; at least this is the spelling given it by the settlers. The name Satchwell's does not appear again, therefore, and no further reference is made to it.
Let us review briefly the evidence by which this conclusion is reached. In the first place, the west line of Haverhill did not lie very near any of the ponds of western Methuen. Mystic Pond is considerably more than a mile too far east, and Harris' Pond and White's Pond are both outside the line, or on the west. It is unlikely that the northern limit of the lots would be deter- mined by a pond not within the town. Again, we have copies of several deeds of sale of this land, which was north of where, Salem Depot lies today. But the strongest, in fact the determin- ing factor in the discussion, is a deed recorded in Concord, which shows that Daniel Ladd's fourth division lot was the west, bound of a piece of land near David Allen's land in 1755. This was the present site of John W. Wheeler's land, and is in the same latitude as Hitty Titty Pond. Moreover, the old line ran directly through the north end of this pond.
It is impossible to give at this time the exact location of each proprietor's lot in this division but by laying out the line and placing the lots which are fairly well defined by deeds or other documents, written in most cases many years after the settle- ment of this land, some of the other lots can be filled in with a tolerable degree of accuracy.
The directions of the lot layers were to follow the line north as far as the pond, making the lots one mile deep east "and west, and so Eastwardly till it be finished :" It needed two ranges of lots to complete the division, the second in some cases lapping over onto land which had been omitted from the lots of the first range. It is not clear, without tracing the history of the land in Methuen, to say whether the second range extended as far south as the first lots laid out by the river, or ended some- where in Salem.
5
50
HISTORY OF SALEM.
The two ranges were separated by a "way" or strip of land twelve rods wide. This was intended for a road, or to be granted to lot owners to make up for land taken from their grants for roads. The lots in the second range were, like those of the first, supposed to be one mile deep and wide enough to make up the number of acres to which each proprietor was entitled, based upon the size of his house-lot in the village. But this theoretical plan of the lots was varied at will by the lot lay- ers for the purpose of equalizing the amount of meadow and other lands which the owners should hold. Consequently the lots in many instances did not conform to the general east and west plan, but took irregular directions and measurements.
The map on page 51 is drawn as though the division were laid out exactly as the directions stated, since we do not know where the departures from this method were made. From a deed of the Sanders family we know that Henry Sanders bought in 1728 the lot laid out to Theophilus Satchwell, No. 10; also lot num- ber eight, laid out to Daniel Hendricks, is known to have passed by marriage into the Dow family, and included the old Aquilla Dow homestead, now owned by Mrs. Frank Robie. Other lots may be similarly located, while many are very obscure. It must be borne in mind that this map represents the original plan of laying out the land, fastened upon a present-day survey of the town. As might be expected, the two do not fit together per- fectly. The roads are shown as they are today, in order to lo- cate the different lots. Even the few lots here indicated may not all be correctly placed. But we are confident that should anyone desire to trace the early history of any piece of land in Salem, he could do so by investing a small amount of time and money in the project. It may be added that the author has traced the Hendricks, Ladd, Hazen, Satchwell and Swan lots and finds them as here indicated.
There is one important question pertaining to the early his- tory of Salem which has been frequently answered incorrectly : From where did the first settlers of the town come? It has been stated that they were from the Scotch-Irish settlement of Londonderry. This idea may be based upon the fact that there was no organized community here till 1735, while Londonderry
1
1
HAVERHILL OLD LINE
HUTCHINS
LILFORD
WM. WHITE
-
LADD HAZEN
MOSES
JAME'S DAVIS
JOHN WARD
BART. HEATH
ROBERT
THEO
CLEMENT
SATCHWELL
-
ROBERT
CLEMENT JR
DANIEL HENDRICKS
GPO.
CORLES
THOSE DAVIS
STO7 NOTSINTO MI TO SENVY OMI IH1)
- -
NATHANIEL AYER
ROBERT
.
SWAN
SATCHWELL'S POND
EDWARD CLARK
DANIEL2
NEJMI18 AVM CON ARTEMI
Fourth Division of Common Upland of Haverhill, 1659.
52
HISTORY OF SALEM.
was incorporated in 1722. We wish, however, to correct this error. A glance at the names of the proprietors who received land in the fourth division ought to satisfy anyone that Salem's pioneers were from Haverhill. These men in many cases gave their land to their children or grandchildren, who came up here and built homesteads long before the colony of Scotch left Ireland, in 1718. For instance, such names as Ayer, Peasley, Corlis, Davis, Sleeper, Johnson, Swan, Page, Dow, Heath, Eaton Palmer, Ladd, White, Clement and Clark are too closely associ- ated with the past of the town to have their priority doubted. Only a few years later the families of Hall, Kelley, Woodbury, Wheeler, Webster, Merrill, Pattee, Bradley, Duston, Haseltine, Sanders, Ober, Eastman, Tyler, Pecker, Kimball, Hastings, Haines, Bayley, Silver, Marble, Emerson, Chase, and others, came from Haverhill and nearby Massachusetts towns. To be sure, many of those prominent in Salem affairs in later years did come from Londonderry, including families of such names as Dunlop, Nichols, Clendenin, Morrison, Taylor, Thompson, Wilson, Corning, Campbell, Rowell, Paul, Gilmore, Alexander, etc .; but even of these, some came to Salem from other places, while many who came here from Londonderry had removed there from towns farther south and were not related to the original Scotch-Irish stock of the early settlers. No, there is absolutely no question that the early Salem families were Haverhill fam- ilies, and that, too, for a long time after they had moved their goods up onto their new land.
The land to the west and north had proved so desirable that in 1658 a third division of meadow was ordered. This lay scat- tered about in the different meadows, each man taking his choice in the turn in which his name was drawn.
This was followed three years later by a general movement toward individual ownership of land, instead of having so much belonging to the town, or proprietors as a body. This tendency was due partly to the purpose of obtaining lots adjacent to land already received as grants, so as to have the farms more central- ized or united; and partly because it was desired to have land to sell to the numerous newcomers into town. Again it is the old story repeated-a cooperative town is well enough while it
RESIDENCE OF EZRA BAXTER HALL. (M 322)
-
53
SETTLEMENT.
is small, but must meet the strong spirit of individual domina- tion over one's property sooner or later.
Accordingly in 1661 there were three divisions of land, a fourth division of meadow and two "addition" divisions. When- ever land was laid out the requirement called for so many acres, more or less, to each man. The original meaning of this was that the land was not uniform in quality or desirability, there- fore it would be manifestly unfair to some to measure simply by size. The lot layers were to use their judgment and give extra measure where the land was poor, and take off some where it was extra good. This phrase "more or less" was retained and incorporated into the deeds of this land given later, and from that has crept into our form for deeds, now, however, being un- derstood to mean that the exact amount is not guaranteed. There was frequently some land left common lying near each division, especially in the case of scattered lots. The addition land was made up of such territory, each lot having added to it some of the adjacent common land. Thus in this year there was an addition to the third division land, of ten acres to each acre of accommodation. If it could not be had adjoining the third division lot of each owner, then it was to be laid out in some con- venient place in the third division neighborhood. The fourth division addition was likewise made, ten acres to one of accom- modation "added to the breadth of the fourth division lots." This finished practically all of the land in Methuen and Salem, as far north as Hitty Titty Pond, or with additions possibly somewhat beyond.
We cannot say definitely when the first houses were built in Salem territory, but it was probably somewhere about 1700. The farmers came to their meadow lots for their hay, and may have planted some of the choicest pieces of land; also the timber early claimed their attention, saw-mills leading all other struc- tures into the new regions. But it was too great a risk, in the face of the treacherous redskins, to attempt to move the fam- ilies too far from the blockhouses of the settlements.
It will nevertheless be interesting to follow these ancestors for the remainder of the time that they stayed in Haverhill, that we may be better acquainted with them when we find them com-
54
HISTORY OF SALEM.
ing to their lands here. They were men who had a high appre- ciation of learning, and reverenced their minister, Mr. Ward, for his scholarly attainments as well as for his devout attach- ment to his calling. Consequently they early sought to provide schooling for their children. They engaged Thomas Wasse as teacher, at a salary of ten pounds per annum from the town. It was voted that he also "shall be paid annually for each pupil according to his agreement with the parents. They shall come to him to be taught, the town providing a suitable place. Pro- vided, he shall not ask more for any child or person than is usually given in other towns by the year." This vote was passed in 1670, though Chase tells us that Wasse began to teach there in 1660. In 1686 the settlement had grown so that the number of pupils was sufficient to give the teacher a fair salary, without so large an appropriation from the town. He was voted three pounds per annum, to be paid in corn, and was restricted in his tuition fee to four pence per week for a reader, and six pence per week for a writer. The schoolhouse was built in 1671, next the meetinghouse, so as to be used for the convenience of those who did not wish to go home between the morning and afternoon church services on the Sabbath.
In 1700 it was "voted and ordered that Thirty Pounds in money shall be raised upon the Inhabitants of Haverhill for the maintaining of a Grammar School, and the instruction of the children in Reading writing & Cyphering; and that the Town at the public cost of the town shall provide for the School Master, if he Keep an horse, suitable, sufficient & convenient en- tertainment both summer and winter for his horse." Verily, the "School Master" must have been slightly backward if he did not "keep an horse" under these favorable conditions.
In '1713 two schoolhouses were built, each twenty feet long, sixteen feet wide, and eight feet stud. In the record for the next year we find the following vote, which shows that the coun- try outside of the village was becoming so well built up that a school was needed :
"Mar. 2; 1714
"Peter Green, Jotham Hendrick, Nath1 Peasly, Sam1 Clements, James Sanders, Peter Green Jun, John Page, John Eatton,
55
SETTLEMENT.
Math. Heriman Jun. Joseph Peasley, Abraham Page, Henry Sanders, desiring that a School house might be built on the Town's cost between Hoghill and the brick hill bridge, or some other place near thereabout, that so their children might learn to read and write.
"It was not granted, nor very few if any persons voted for it."
This list of petitioners, most of whom were afterwards citizens of Salem, indicates that the men who were to form this future town were already located near, if not within, its borders. The site of the schoolhouse requested was near the center of the pres- ent town of Atkinson, though a little toward the Salem side. In those days, in spite of the inconvenience of travel, distances were not so appalling to most of the people as they are to us. A man would walk from Salem to Newburyport to make pur- chases at the stores, returning the next day. Many of us to- day pay a carfare rather than walk from the depot to the town house. But with due credit to ourselves, let us assume that our ancestors would be glad to do likewise were they here today.
That there were no schoolhouses at this time in the outlying districts is shown by the fact that the town voted to rebate one half of Henry Bodwell's school and ministerial tax in 1712, as the distance was so far that attendance was difficult. Bod- well lived in the part of Haverhill now Methuen, where there must have been a considerable number of other persons in as bad a plight as he.
One of the most continuous troubles of the settlers was the ravages of wolves, which hung in packs about the outskirts, mak- ing havoc in the stock and threatening the safety of travelers who were abroad after nightfall. Many are the tales of exciting races and hairbreadth escapes in seeking safety from these dread animals. Town action was not wanting to stimulate the de- struction of this enemy. November 19, 1662, it was voted to pay forty shillings to any Indian for every wolf he should kill within Haverhill bounds. This shows that there must have been in the town Indians who were on good terms with the inhabitants. In fact, in many instances of raids by hostile Indians, the people of the towns were given valuable assistance by individual In- dians who dwelt among them.
56
HISTORY OF SALEM.
Wolves were always most troublesome as winter came on, it being then more difficult to find food. The second winter after the above vote was passed, the law was made more gen- eral :
"December the 19th, 1664.
"Voted and granted that if any man of this town shall kill a wolf or wolves, after the date hereof in this town he shall have paid him by the town the sum of forty shillings besides that the Country & county by-law alloweth, & this order shall continue until that the town see cause to revoke it."
It was twenty-one years before such cause was seen, when it came about in this way. The neighboring towns had suspended the payment of bounty on wolves, which led men killing them in those towns to bring them into Haverhill and then claim the bounty, saying that they killed them there. The payment was therefore suspended by Haverhill also. Then came the reaction. Men could not afford to spend their time hunting wolves with- out some recompense, even if they were numerous. Conse- quently, with none of the towns in the neighborhood protected, the wolves became more numerous, and therefore more bold- because they seldom show fight except when in packs-than they were previously. Accordingly, the bounty was renewed in 1687, but was reduced to fifteen shillings for a full-grown ani- mal or seven shillings six pence for a young one. We shall find later that the people of Salem were frequently compelled to take action in regard to these ravenous creatures.
INDIAN TROUBLES.
The depredations of the Indians played a very small part in Salem history. The experiences of the Haverhill settlers taught them not to wander far from the settlements except when con- siderable parties went to a new locality. The first-comers to Salem were careful to repair to the blockhouses at night, lest the savages should plan a raid upon them while asleep. Most of the serious Indian difficulties were over before there were many inhabitants in these parts. The raids of 1698 and 1708 were very disastrous to Haverhill, while some of their fury was felt in the scattered settlements to the westward. The only au-
. THE OLD THOM HOMESTEAD. (M 285)
--
-----
DARIUS MILTON THOM.
57
SETTLEMENT.
thentic account of capture by Indians here has been confused by various writers. We believe that Chase has the best ac- count, although we must add some explanations of a local nature.
Jonathan Haynes and Samuel Ladd were two men of some- what advanced age, who lived as neighbors in the western part of Haverhill, probably in the present eartern part of Methuen. They had each a piece of meadow in the neighborhood of the Spicket or just beyond, from which they obtained a large part of the food for their stock. On February 22, 1698, they, with their two sons, Joseph Haynes and Daniel Ladd, were return- ing from the meadow with two loads of hay, hauled by oxen, which the sons were driving. The old men were riding horses. When the party was passing along the road by World's End Pond, they were attacked by a band of Indians who were re- turning north after a raid upon the town of Andover. The In- dians numbered fourteen, and were arranged seven on either side of the road, having sprung from the bushes where they had been concealed. During the excitement and confusion of the succeeding few minutes, young Ladd suggested that he try to escape on one of the horses, but his father forbade him to try it, as the Indians had their guns cocked and presented. Just what transpired next we do not know. Chase says that young Ladd cut his father's horse loose, and mounting it, dashed away amid a shower of ineffective bullets from the foe. He gave the alarm as he sped on his way homeward. This cannot be correct, however, as he was taken by the Indians at this time. Another version of the story states that Ladd's horse escaped and came dashing against the door of his master's dwelling, where he fell dead. Be this as it may, the two fathers were killed on the spot and the sons taken prisoners. The following from Mirick tells the rest of the story :
"The Indians, on being asked why they killed the old men, said that they killed Haynes because he was 'so old he no go with us;'-meaning that he was too aged and infirm to travel; and that they killed Ladd, who was a fierce, stern-looking man, be- cause 'he so sour.' They then started for Penacook, where they arrived, with the two boys. Young Ladd soon grew weary of his situation, and one night after his Indian master and family
1 58
HISTORY OF SALEM.
had fell asleep, he attempted to escape. He had proceeded but a short distance, when he thought that he should want a hatchet to fell trees to assist him in crossing the streams. He accordingly returned, entered a wigwam near his master's, where an old squaw lay sick, and took a hatchet. The squaw watched his movements, and, probably thinking that he intended to kill her, vociferated with all her strength. This awakened the Indians in the wigwam, who instantly arose, re-captured him, and delivered him again to his master, who bound his hands, laid him upon his back, fastened one of his feet to a tree, and in that manner kept him fourteen nights. They then gashed his face with their knives, filled the wounds with powder, and kept him on his back until it was so indented in the flesh that it was impossible to extract it. He carried the scars to his grave, and is now frequently spoken of by his descendants as the 'marked man.' Some years after, he found means to re- turn, and his scarred and powdered countenance produced many witticisms at his expense. He was one day walking the streets of Boston, and a parrot observing his 'marked' features, vocif- erated 'a rogue ! a rogue!' Haynes remained a prisoner with the Indians some years, and was at last redeemed by his rela- tives."
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.