USA > New Hampshire > Rockingham County > Salem > History of Salem, N.H. > Part 8
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
December 23, 1739, "voted to Peter merrill for speck and hinges 2-18-0 also voted to peter merrill for bords 2-0-0, to henry sanders for bords 5-6-3."
Early in 1740 the pulpit was built, as above stated.
83
BUILDING THE TOWN.
August 10, 1741, "voted to Richard dow for gutters for ye meetinghouse two Pounds and Eight shillings."
October 29, 1748, "paid to Jeremier Eatton out of ye treas- ury for Joinery work 9-0-0; pay'd out of ye treasury for bord nails four pound ten shillings."
March 10, 1749, "Rackning mad up with the comitte march ye 10, one ye a count of ye meeting-house in sashes and glas and work and Divers othe things 248-2-6."
May 6, 1749, "paid out of ye treasure to mathe reed for glas Eighteen pounds forteen shilings 18-14-0."
By this time the total expenditure on the meetinghouse had reached the sum of four hundred nineteen pounds, nineteen shillings and six pence. The pews were not yet laid out, nor were even the most common conveniences included in the equip- ment. Further progress in the improvement of the building will be noted as we trace the development of the parish.
Shortly after the organization of the church, it became neces- sary to divide the hundred acres of parsonage as indicated in the grant; that is, one half to the parish and one half to the first minister, Rev. Abner Bayley. This division was left to a com- mittee of three, Daniel Peaslee, Ephraim Clark and Isaac Clough, chosen to "decide the parsonage." Mr. Bayley was given the northern part of the lot, which part included the so-called Kelly's Plains, now the property of Warren Bodwell and others, on the south side of the road to Grosvenor's Corner, be- ginning at the Spicket bridge. Mr. Bayley afterwards bought land of Daniel Peaslee and others on the north side of the road, and built his homestead within easy reach of his church. This is the house now occupied by Warren Bodwell, although the al- terations made in recent years have entirely hidden the ancient frame which is enclosed within. Where Mr. Bayley lived before he built this house is not known to us. The deed for this home- stead lot was given in 1755 and is designated as "land whereon Bayley has erected buildings and now dwells." That is, he bought the land after he built and occupied the house, although it was probably not long after. The deed defines the bounds as beginning at "a swamp white oak in a littel vale by the road which leads from the meetinghouse to Swan's ferry;" (this little
84
HISTORY OF SALEM.
vale is now evident between Bodwell's and the old Emerson house) thence northeast ten and one half rods, thence east thirty-two rods to the edge of a little swamp; thence "south by the fence as it now runs" forty-one rods to said road. This lot contained six acres and was sold for nine pounds by Daniel Peaslee. It can be readily traced from these directions by any one familiar with this part of the town. Mr. Bayley afterwards effected other transfers of real estate, but retained this as his homestead lot. The subsequent history of the ancient house will be found elsewhere. (See Chapters V and XII.)
BURIAL GROUND LAID OUT.
It will be necessary to go back a few years to take up the story of the old burying ground near the meetinghouse. At the first parish meeting, in 1735, a committee of three, Joseph Peaslee, John Bayley and Abiel Kelly, were chosen to lay out a burial place. Of course, they had no authority over the land, and could merely look about and make the plans for best suiting the needs of the community. Nothing definite was done until after Mr. Bayley was ordained as minister. He then took the matter up in earnest and made known to the Haverhill Proprietors the needs of his parish. The following is the complete record as it appears on the Proprietors' book :
"Nov. 2, 1741.
"The proprietors being assembled pursuant to the adjourn- ment from the Seventh Day of September last past.
"Then ye Revª Mr Abner Bailey petitioned ye propr in the words following vizt. Haverhill Nov. 2ª 1741. To the propri- etors of the Common lands in Sª Haverhill & Methuen this day mett. The Humble petition of Sª Abner Bailey is that you would be pleased to give or sell to me a small piece of Land Ly- ing on the westerly Side of Spicket River between the fourth di- vision, and Said River, and between the Upper Spicket Bridge and the bridge by Spicket meeting House. Containing by Esti- mation about six acres: reserving in the Most Convenient place about Three Acres for a burying place and a Training field And you will much Oblidge your Humble petitioner Abner Bailey.
"In Answer to which petition ye propr A greed & voted to give
T
RESIDENCE OF WARREN BODWELL. (M 423) (See page 83)
85
BUILDING THE TOWN.
ye Land described in the petition to ye petitioner reserving a conveniency for a burying place & Trainfield & the priviledge of a Way from the Meeting house to Daniel Peaslees bridge if it be need full in ye most Convenient place voted in ye Affirm- ative Nemine Contradicente.
"Attest Richª Hazzen Clerk."
What a wealth of information is to be found in this single rec- ord if we will but read between the lines. In any evidence a mere reference to some fact or condition is often more convincing than the main assertion. For instance, the manner in which the fourth division land is mentioned in this request leaves not the slightest doubt that this land ran nearly parallel to the Spicket near the two bridges referred to, and not very far distant, as the whole lot between the division line and the river contained only about six acres. But there was to be a provision for a road to the bridge by Peaslee's; and if there was only a narrow strip of land it is not likely that the road would be laid out so as to divide it, but rather would be located so as to leave the re- mainder of the land all in one piece. This permits a reasonable supposition that the road was reserved at the west side of the grant, that is, near the line of the fourth division land. Later this road was re-laid and accepted by the town, and is the same that now leads from the townhouse to Pine Grove cemetery. Thus we can safely conclude that the fourth division lots in- cluded the land now occupied by Salem Center and extended nearly or quite to the road above mentioned. From other sources we already know that this is so, but the way in which this new link in the chain of evidence regarding early conditions tells the story all by itself is remarkable.
Of course this record is intended to give us the origin of the old burying ground. It does this, but even more. It tells us that the lot where the townhouse and library now stand, as well as perhaps the level stretch to the northward along the river, in- cluding perhaps some of the land across the street, was intended for a training field for the militia, for the frequent petty wars, Indian difficulties, etc., through which the settlers had passed made them realize the value and necessity of keeping up at least a slight knowledge of military tactics.
86
HISTORY OF SALEM.
Still another vital bit of information found in this record is that regarding the bridge by Daniel Peaslee's house. This has before been spoken of as the oldest bridge in town. Here we have a fresh bit of evidence-the record defines the road as lead- ing from the meetinghouse to the bridge by Peaslee's, to be re- served out of this lot of land. Can anyone interpret this to mean that the bridge by Peaslee's was the one near the old grave- yard, especially when we know that Peaslee lived near the old causeway ? And we know that the bridge near Peaslee's was so old as to be considered unsafe two years before the bridge by the graveyard was built.
The graveyard was fenced in 1752 with a rude rail fence which soon became a subject for discussion at town meetings to see whether or not it should be repaired. Thus in 1764 it was "voted to mend the fence about the burying ground." The next year the following strange vote was recorded: to "Rectify the Burying yard Exclusive of those Persons that fenced the other in the North Part of the town." This other must have been the one near the Atkinson line at James Cullen's. There was a considerable settlement in this part of the town, it being on the main road from Haverhill to Londonderry. An effort was made in 1770 to have a new fence built as the old one was in very poor condition. The motion was voted down however.
In 1773 it was "voted to fence the Burying yard with a Stone wall. Voted that the Selectmen Should Not Vendue the Jobb of the Burying Yard fence" (to the lowest bidder). It was a ' custom to put public contracts up for sale at auction, or as it was termed a "vendue sale." This method was applied to the sale of seats in the meetinghouse, the harvesting of crops on the parsonage land, the housing and care of the town poor, as well as to private sales. The record does not show whether the wall was built at once, but as no subsequent action was taken in the matter, we may suppose the wall to have been built at that time.
CHURCH DIFFICULTIES.
It was many years before the small and scattered parish es- caped the financial terrors of its very existence. The town af- fairs began to supplant the parish needs in degree of importance
87
BUILDING THE TOWN.
soon after the incorporation. At the second town meeting it was very magnanimously thought proper to see what terms could be made with the "Revern Mr. Bayley to settel amongst us". Here was a new and official sanction to his ministry. This same of- ficial authority was soon to neglect to fulfil its part of the obli- gation to his ministry.
In the town records we find many references to repairs and care of the meetinghouse. It was "Voted wd. Sarah Merrill 3 pounds old taner for sweeping the meeting house in ye year 1750." In May, 1751, voted to have the two "eand dors of ye meeting hous mad and hanged." It was at this time fine spring weather, when the necessity for permanent doors would seem to be far less urgent than in the winter months just previous. It is doubtful what protection had been temporarily provided for, the doorways, but it is evident that there was a desire to have an improvement before another winter should be at hand.
The pulpit was far from comfortable, as were also the pews. Some sympathetic individuals had an article inserted in the warrant to have a cushion obtained for Mr. Bayley; but it met its fate at the hands of the voters, thus: January 21, 1754, "Voted in ye Negitive Not to by a coshen for ye polpit."
But this was far from the most unpleasant action taken by the town. With the development of the town government came increased expenses, due to improvements made, roads laid out, and other obligations, such as caring for the town poor. This condition necessitated a higher tax rate, which was felt by many to be a great hardship. About this time, too, the currency be- gan to depreciate in value, which had a tendency to make mat- ters more unsettled than ever. A new system of finances was adopted, without, however, discarding the old. The "new tenor" was worth more than the old, and the ratio was rapidly increasing. Before a level of values was reached, before the change of values ceased, the new tenor was worth four times as much as the old. This caused a very serious question in re- gard to Mr. Bayley's salary. He had been paid in old tenor, but a move was made in 1756 aiming to make up for the depreci- ation of the money. But it was "voted not to give Mr. Bayley any compensation" for the fall in money values, also not to fur-
88
HISTORY OF SALEM.
nish him any form of wood this year. This was the culmination of several years of tendency to neglect the obligations to the min- ister, which had gradually become more and more apparent to that worthy gentleman. Accordingly, when this vote was made known, the Reverend Abner brought a suit against the town. This brought them suddenly to their senses, as they real- ized that his cause was right and that he was too able a man to attempt to trifle with any longer. Offers were at once made for a settlement out of court. Mr. Bayley was equal to the occasion, however, and presented his own terms of settlement in a proposal which was accepted by the town. The form was as follows:
"Voted that what the town has failed of paying four hundred pounds old taner yerly to the revd Mr. Abner bayley shall be amedately payd him and the intrest till payd from the time it was due that two hondred pounds old taner more shall be ame- datly paid to mak up the sink of mony and the town difishenc in wood in som masuer and the charges he has been at and that he shall be seplied with 25 cords of wood this prasent year ac- cording to ye old vot and that he shall have six hondred pounds old taner for his salery this prasent year on condition ye said ravernd mr Abner bayley with draw ye. somons he has sent ye town and give ye town a discharge in fool of all demand till March ye 1 1757 Apon his reciving as afforsd-voted in ye af- farmitive."
This proposition had been obtained from Mr. Bayley and pre- sented to the meeting by Joseph Wright, John Hall and Peter Merrill as a committee.
At the meeting in May, 1757, those in favor of cutting Mr. Bayley were again victorious, and the appropriation of his sal- ary was voted down. The folly of this move was apparent very shortly, and at a meeting the following September the vote was reconsidered and two hundred pounds old tenor appropriated. At this meeting it was voted to shorten the time between the meetings to three quarters of an hour. To us this brief inter- mission would seem a decided hardship, but in those days the Sunday worship was a very serious business. By thus bring- ing the morning and afternoon services nearer together, most of the people were spared a long wait in the cold and dismal church.
OLD GRAVEYARD, SALEM CENTER. (M 37) (See page 84)
RESIDENCE OF MORTON E. SMITH. (M 21)
1
89
BUILDING THE TOWN.
For they lived at such distances from the place of worship that it was impractical to go home and return before the afternoon ser- vice.
Meantime, during these years of trouble over the salary ques- tion, several attempts were made to divide the parsonage land. A committee was appointed to attend to this matter, but did not go at once about it; then in 1760, it was voted that they should not divide the lot.
The next year a committee was chosen to bring in a proposal for Mr. Bayley's salary. After due deliberation it was voted to allow him one thousand pounds old tenor per year for 1760 and 1761, together with the usual amount of wood. When the final payment was made at the end of this period, the committee insisted upon having an unqualified bill of discharge of the ob- ligation. Abner had among his many interesting traits a keen sense of humor, which at once appreciated the situation. He concluded to give them just such a receipt as they wanted. Here is the form in which he put it:
"Salem March 31: 1762.
"Received of the Town of Salem in the Province of New Hampshire the whole of my Sallery in Cash & Wood from the beginning of the world to March 5, 1762 One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty & Two. I say received in full
"by me "Abner Bayley."
As the population increased a demand arose for more pews in the church. In 1764 it was voted to take up the "four hind seats" and sell the "pue ground" thus obtained. The sale took place February 14, 1764, Andrew Balch, inn holder, being ven- due master. The two "seets in the mens side and two in the woman's" were to be made into four "pues each, of equal big- ness." There is a plan in the town records which shows the ar- rangement of the pews before this division was made, probably drawn about 1760. The accompanying cut is not a reproduc- tion of the original, but is drawn so as to preserve the charac- teristics, including spelling, of it. The pews numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown in the plan on the floor of the body of the house. The note just beside them explains that they were in
-
WEST STAIRS
Nº 17 Saven feet to Richard Dow 36 pounds old Taner
WAST DORE
No. 12 five feet to William Sanders 51 fifteen Shillings old tener
Nº 13 five feet to Richard Patte 54 pounds old taner
No. 14 five feet and half to Daniel Massey
44 pounds old Tener
No. 11 five feet & a half to Edward Clark 28 pounds ten Shillings old taner
Nº. 15 five feet and half to Eadward Clark 66 pounds old taner
Nº 10 5 feet & half to Oliver Sanders 53 pounds old taner
No - To Daniel Dow 24 pounds ola taner
No: 16 five feet and half the Townds pue
Nº 9 Six feet to Seth pattey 58 pounds old taner
No 2 to Jonathen Corles the third 25 pounds ola taner
PULPIT
SOUTH DORE
N.º .8 Six feet to Edward Clark fifty nine pounds old taner
Four pues Layd out in ye front gallery joyning to ye Sid of the hous five feet deep.
Nº. 3 to Isrel young Juner 23 pounds ol? taner
all the pues are Six feet Deep
Nº 1 six feet & 4 inches to Sath Patte 41 pound old taner
Nº 7 five feet and 4 intches to Daniel Dow 44 pounds old taney
No 4 to Benyman Wheler 26 pound ten Shilling old taner
NO 6 five feet and 4 intches to Ralph Hall 27 pounds old taner
Nº. 2 six feet 4 inches to Timothy Jonson 39-10 Thirty nine pound tan Shillings old taner
EST STAIRS
No. 18 Seven feet to nath" Don 37 pounds old taner
EAST DORE
Nº. 5 five feet Daniel Masey 39 pounds old taner.
Nº 4 five
feet Daniel Masay 39 pounds 5 shilin gs old taner
e
No. 3 to Jonathan Margin 37 £ 105 old taner Saven feet
Plan of Meetinghouse, Drawn about 1760.
91
BUILDING THE TOWN.
the gallery against the front or side of the building. The seats or benches in the middle part of the floor are not shown in this plan. They were not sold as the pews were, but were occupied as free seats. The pulpit was in the center of the north side and was raised high from the floor. This is the side which now stands next to the river.
It seems that the town had money at interest in the bank, as in 1768 it was voted to use the interest for repairs on the meet- inghouse. These repairs were for the most part alterations in the seating accommodations, or completion of work which had been left unfinished when the house was built.
The question of dividing the parsonage land with Mr. Bayley again came up in 1770, when Jonathan Wheeler, Jr., Daniel Gor- don and Jeremiah Dow were chosen a committee to divide it. The town voted, on October 8, to accept the division made by the committee. It will be remembered that this land had been di- vided by another committee nearly forty years before, but for some reason the bounds were either indefinite or unsatisfactory, so that a new division was deemed necessary.
Again we find that the floor seats of the meetinghouse were needed for a special purpose. This is explained by an article inserted in a warrant posted August 31, 1773: "3ly to See if the town will vote the two hind Seats on the Mens Side below for the use of those Persons that have a mind to Sit together to Carey the Lead in Singing in the Publick worship & if the town dont See fit to grant the two Hind Seets then to See if they will allow one half of the Seats in the front of the Gallery Both mens and womans Side for the Purpose of Singing during the towns Ples- ure they Prepairing them on their own Cost with out any Charge to the town."
When this came up at the meeting it was "voted the two Hind Seats below on the mens side be for those that Lead in the Sing- ing to Sit in by them selves during the towns Pleasur."
This did not satisfy very long. The singers became more am- bitious and asked still better accommodations; but at the same time they must have shown by their effectiveness in the singing that they were worthy of consideration, for in 1777 they were voted permission to erect, at their own expense, a pew in the
-
92
HISTORY OF SALEM.
front gallery, four feet on the women's side and three feet on the men's side.
In the records of the next year, 1778, we find an item to the effect that Capt. Moody Morse was paid three pounds for taking care of the meetinghouse for that year. Similar entries to this are common in the records, sometimes naming men, at other times women, who were paid money for sweeping or taking care of the house.
As will be seen by examining the tax lists of the early days, the minister's tax was levied and collected separately from other taxes; in fact, a separate tax was made for each branch of ex- pense, as state tax, county tax, school tax, etc. This gave excuse for asking that certain taxes be rebated. In 1774 Esq. Abraham Dow was released from paying his minister's tax, on the ground that he was not a Congregationalist but a follower of the faith of the Church of England. The release was to hold "as long as he continues in the persuasion" of this faith. Others asked to be released from the tax because they were of other faiths. This condition soon became far too common for fair management, especially as there were a large number of Scotch-Irish people in the western part of the town who professed to be Presbyterians. These desired a parish separation, and, as previously stated, were permitted to pay their minister's tax to Windham. But Salem voted not to release Presbyterians from the tax; that is, they must pay it either in one town or the other.
DIVISION OF THE PARISH.
In 1741, just after the church had been organized and the min- ister settled, came the third great change in the jurisdiction of the parish. First came the separation of the territory from the town of Haverhill by the incorporation of Methuen, then the setting off of the North Parish, and now by the establishment of the province line the land and inhabitants came under the au- thority of New Hampshire. This change of relations, while settling the long dispute regarding the border territory, caused considerable inconvenience to individuals on either side of the line. The selectmen of Haverhill were ordered to make an in- ventory of all the polls and estates in what was formerly Haver-
JOHN WOODBURY.
93
BUILDING THE TOWN.
hill, keeping separate those on opposite sides of the new line. Their report shows that a large part of the strength was cut off at this time. The summary is given below :
Acres.
Persons.
Houses.
Mills.
Mowing.
Planting.
Pasture.
Orchard.
Negroes.
Oxen.
Cows.
Horses.
Swine.
North of the line .
215
158
9
458
308
152
19
2
239 346 135
20
South of the line . .
346
214| 7 1126
751
723 1253 10
266 540 184 128
A part of this property was in what is now Atkinson, Plais- tow or Hampstead, therefore it is not intended to show the strength of Salem at this time. The names of the citizens who came under New Hampshire government are mostly now repre- sented in the families of the north and east parts of Salem, as the central and southern parts were then Methuen, and do not appear on the Haverhill books. We think, nevertheless, that there may be some interest found in the large number of names in this list who subsequently located in Salem, as well as in those who were then here. The following is from the list of Haverhill citizens who lived north of the new line, and includes many men who were later taxpayers of Salem :
Abraham Annis
Jonathan Coburn
John Currier
John Dow, Jur.
John Currier Jr.
Stephen Emerson, Jur.
Richard Carlton
Peter Easman
Edward Carlton Jr.
William Easman
Timothy Johnson
Robert Emerson, Jur.
William Johnson
Benjamin Emerson
Peter Patee
Jonathn Emery
Obadiah Perry
Humphry Emery
Seth Patee
Richard Flood
Stephen Wheler
Robert Ford
David Copp
Joseph Gill
Moses Copp
Moses Gill
Thomas Crawford
Ebenr Gill
94
HISTORY OF SALEM.
John Heath
William Stevens
James Heath
David Heath
Jonathan Stevens, Jur. Joseph Stevens, Jur.
James Heath, Jur.
Samuel Worthen, Jur.
Richard Heath
Jonathn Whitiker
Jonathan Hutchens
James White
Thomas hall
Israel Webster
Benjamin Heath
Thomas Pope
Zacariah Johnson
Edmond Page
Micael Johnson
Timothy Noyse
Stephen Johnson
George Little
Stephen Johnson Jur.
Daniel Little
John Kent
George Little Jur.
Jonathn Kimball
Samuel Little
Nathaniel Knight
Joseph Little
Benjamin Smith
Caleb Heath
Thomas Smith
Joshua Page
John Smith
John Hogg
Richard Patee
William Mackmaster
Jonathan Wheler
William Mackmaster Jur.
John Watts
Arter Boyd
John Webster
Askebell Kinnicum
William Webster
Askebell Forsh
Daniel Whitiker
Thomas Davison
Benjamin Wheler
Holbert morrison
John Kezar
William Hogg
Jonathan Merrill
Walter Mackfortin
Nathaniel Merrill
John Stinson
James Mills
Thomas Horner
Joseph Page
Alexander Kelcy
Jonathan Page
Micael Gorden
Caleb Page
Robert Mackcurdy
Timothy Page
Peter Christy
Benjamin Richards
William Gilmore
Samuel Stevens
Paul Mackfarlen
John Stevens
James Mackfarlen
Nehemiah Stevens
James Adums
Samuel Stevens, Jur.
James Adums Jur
95
BUILDING THE TOWN.
Daniel Mackcafee Heugh Mackcafee James Gilmore Samuel Paterson William Chambers Samuel Graves James Graves
Timothy Dow John Dow
Peter Dow
John Dusten
David Emerson
Timothy Emerson
Moses Tucker
William Hancock
Joseph Earwine
Nathll Heath
Samuel Eaton
Thomas Follensbee
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.