USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Nashua > History of the city of Nashua, N.H. > Part 100
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 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108
At the annual meeting of the town, March 19, 1759, the strife was renewed and waxed so warm that Thomas Lund accused the moderator, Jonathan Lovewell, of "allowing persons to vote who have no right." The meeting was then in no mood for business and so promptly adjourned. The people, however, could not rest easy. On April 23 they met again, and, after discussing a proposition to set off the people of One Pine Hill, voted in the negative. They also refused to set off John Willoby's one hundred and thirty acre farm. The Pine Hill people, so much in earnest were they, again appealed to Hollis for aid and sympathy. Hollis responded with a gift of fifty pounds, and thereupon-to the number of fifteen, eighteen including the selectmen of Hollis-they petitioned the governor and council for relief. Their petition recited their grievances. The town of Dun- stable upon being notified voted not to set off the land, and appointed Col. Joseph Blanchard, then a member of the governor's council, Zaccheus Lovewell and Joseph French agents of the town to oppose the petition. This committee evidently put on war paint. It reported :
575
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
" Wee are sencible that this vexatious Petition is stirred up and encouraged by Hollis purely to prevent Justice to their Western Inhabitants which they forsee will obtain unless they Cloak it by Ruining Dunstable.
"What Genius gave them front to mutter out this Motly Petition it is Difficult to guess.
"The petition of Holles and the petetioners are totally Groundless Wherefore we pray that the petition may be dismissed."
The petition was dismissed, and it is said, says Judge Worcester, "in answer to a like petition a few years later, that when it was found that Dunstable would answer it the petitioners were afraid or ashamed to appear in defense." The battle was renewed in 1760. The town of Dunstable, however, made an effort to pacify the Pine Hill people. It was voted Oct. 6 "to move the meeting-house to a place just and equal ; " and again Nov. 10 that "the place for a meeting-house is about one hundred rods westerly from Lund's bridge so called by a pine tree marked F on the southerly side of the road that leads to Thomas Haley land ; " and also "to set of John Willoby's farm to Holles." But no compromise would be entertained by One Pine Hill people. They petitioned again, and went so far as to offer Dunstable £1,5co for permission to be set off. The town not only declined the offer but voted Nov. 24 to reconsider its former vote to move the house and fifty-six pounds for "fixing it up." As if this were not enough to break the hearts of their belligerent fellow-citizens they voted Aug. 3, 1761, to change the creed of the town from Presbyterian to Congregational, and Oct. 19, 1761, that "no part of Pine Hill be set off to Holles."
The One Pine Hill people, however, with the aid of Hollis, were good fighters. They would not let go their hold. In 1763 they again sought relief through the governor and council. In this petition they enlarged upon their grievance and informed the authorities that :
"Soon after Dunstable was Incorporated they got into Partys about Settling Mr. Bird. Each Party Courted Pine Hills Assistance, promising to vote them off to Holles as soon as the matter was settled ; and so Pine Hill was fed on Sugar Plums for a number of years, till at length Dunstable cast off the mask and now appears in their True Colors * * * * So that their opposition must arise from some other quarter to keep us as whips to drive out every minister that comes among them, for they are always divided and which side we take must carry the day."
Dunstable voted to continue the defense and appointed a committee. This committee gave as good as had been received. It said in part :
"The complaint is groundless and unreasonable. As to the meeting-house it was owing to themselves (the location), for many of them voted to have it where it is and none of them against it. They so acted and voted for fear it might be moved to a place more just and equal and so they be prevented from being set off to Holles. As in time past so they are now stirred up by Holles People and so could it now be obtained to break up and ruin two towns (meaning Dunstable and Monson), it may be hereafter something of a cover to hide the iniquity of Holles and help the private interests of mercenary persons but can't possably promote the Public Good or help the Interests of these Towns."
The case was argued before the general court and that body was convinced that One Pine Hill and its inhabitants ought no longer to remain a part of Dunstable. An act, setting them off, was passed Dec. 13, 1763, and thus ended one of the longest and most tenacious town quarrels in the history of New England.
The people of Dunstable submitted quietly to their defeat and for a time gave their attention to other matters. They voted, March 4, 1765, that "the account of Capt. Nehemiah Lovewell, for opposing One Pine Hill and other service done for the town, amounting to sixty-one pounds, old tenor, be allowed," and June 6 that "Jonathan Lovewell be allowed ten shillings for getting the case depending with Thomas Fessenden continued." At an adjourned meeting one pound five shillings was voted to Mr. Lovewell " for going to Portsmouth to answer Fessenden." Fessenden had preached for the town and it had declined to pay. The only recorded transactions of the town during the next seven years that have any special interest to the people of to-day are found in the following condensed excerps :
Oct. 6, 1767, voted to excuse persons of other persuasions from pay tax to support Rev. Mr. Kidder," and at the same meeting,
"Voted not to give leave to remove any of the windows of the meeting house, and not to excuse any person of different persuasion from paying to support the minister," then reconsidered, and
576
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
"Voted to excuse those who brought a certificate from the minister that they were of a different persuasion."
May 5, 1770: "Voted to pay Joseph Whiting for opening and sweeping the meeting-house six shillings for one year."
During these years the relation between Dunstable and Hollis was a good deal strained. The people of Dunstable had grievances that time could not heal. They were jealous of Hollis because the charter of that town ante-dated theirs, and moreover the fact that the people of that town had meddled in their quarrel with the families at One Pine Hill still rankled in their bosoms. In short, they were determined to punish their adversary on the first opportunity that offered. The opportunity came at last. It seems that for many years-in fact while they were yet under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts-the question of a bridge over the Nashua river at a place called Lawrence mills, since known as Runnell's falls, had been agitated. The town of Dunstable had pursued a waiting policy. It had successfully dodged the issue. Hollis meanwhile had resorted to all sorts of schemes to build the desired bridge. In 1751 it voted to help build it; in 1756 it pleaded with Dunstable through an authorized committee but obtained no satisfaction; in 1760 it petitioned the general court for a lottery to raise the necessary money, and in 1759 and again in 1761 it called on Dunstable to join with it. Dunstable did not heed the call. Its vote was "in the negative," which is evidence of the sentiments heretofore attributed to her people. Then the town of Hollis, upon being informed of the indifference of the people of Dunstable, built a bridge, being aided with "money subscribed out of town." In 1765 the bridge having probably been carried away in a spring freshet, Hollis rebuilt and repaired it at a cost of eight hundred pounds. Though "often requested " Dunstable gave no aid and there the matter rested until March, 1772, when Hollis voted to appoint a committee to "ask for and recover of Dunstable a share of the cost with power to prosecute if necessary;" the committee also had power "to treat with Dunstable relative to setting off to Hollis the farms of Daniel Merrell, Ebenezer Jaquith and Thomas Jaquith-these families being nearer the meeting- house in Hollis than to that in Dunstable and disposed to contribute to the maintenance of the bridge."
Dunstable also appointed a committee. On the report, whether verbal or written is not stated in the records, Dunstable voted at a legal meeting held June 15, 1772, "that they would not do any- thing towards building a bridge over the Nashua river at or near Jaquith's mills; " also voted "that they would not annex the land of Daniel Merrel, Ebenezer Jaquith and Thomas Jaquith in Dunstable, lying on the Nashua river, to the town of Hollis." This curt answer no doubt nettled the people of Hollis, but for all that they did not find it necessary to prosecute. On the other hand they bided their time with patience and six months later appointed another committee. This committee had no better success than the first, for it seems by the Dunstable records of Feb. 1, 1773, the town voted, on a propositon to set off the farms of Merrel and Jaquiths, five hundred acres, "that it would not agree." Just at this time it was discovered by someone "learned in the law" that Jaquith's mills were not in either town. There was a defect in the line and neither Hollis nor Dunstable was compelled to main- tain a bridge. The wise men of Old Dunstable now saw their "way out of the woods." The loss of five hundred acres was as nothing compared with the cost of building a bridge and keeping it in re- pair for all time to come, and so in a legal meeting held Feb. 1, 1773, it was voted "to set off the farms of Merrel and the two Jaquiths to the town of Hollis upon conditions that the town of Dun- stable be forever excused from any future cost to effect the same or building a bridge at the Nashua river." Hollis accepted the terms and in May, the same year, the general court legalized the trans- action.
Before passing from the eventful period in which the transactions narrated occurred it will be interesting to note that in several particulars the civil government of the eighteenth century was not unlike that with which the people of the nineteenth are familiar. "The poor are always with you " was as true then as now and the undercurrent of purpose to avoid "town charges " the same. The methods of " ye olden tymes," however, was more peremptory and somewhat harsher, as will be seen by the following warrant, which is one of several of like purport spread upon the records :
To Thomas Cowen, constable of the Town of Dunstable in the Province of New " Province of
New Hampshire. ) 1 Hampshire. Greeting.
"Whereas, Benja Furbush and Mary his wife and three Children under age which is kept in their family viz Phebe Sneling and Asa Sneling and Lucy Sneling and John Downs and Mary his
---
577
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
wife a small Child viz Jane Maxwell all late from a Place called Souhegan East in said Province all poor persons and neither freeholders or Inhabitants of the Town by Law have come in to this Town to House Keeping and to Dwell and at present are residents in a House of Mr. James Gordons with- out any consent of the Town or selectmen and have resided for Twenty four days last past in this Town which they have no Legal Right to do Now then for that they might not become Chargable to the Town you are hereby commanded in his Majestys Name forthwith to Notifie and warn the said persons and every one of them that they and each of them Depart out of this Town within fourteen days next Coming at their Perril and see that you make return of this Warrant and the time of the said persons Entering and being Warned as aforesaid unto the Court of Quarter Sessions of the peace of the Province aforesaid.
JONATHAN LOVEWELL, / Selectmen. THOMAS HARWOOD,
" Dated at Dunstable the thirteenth day of June Anno Domini 1746.
"A true copy pr
JONATHAN LOVEWELL, Clerk."
The official return upon this warrant, if any was made, is not recorded, but it is presumed that Constable Cowen did his duty and that these poor persons were summarily ejected from the town. This cruel system, however, did not protect the town treasury, for it is recorded a few years later that the poor among them had to be provided for. The following is a true copy :
"Voted that the Poor of this Town be set up at Vandue and be struck off to the lowest bidder for a term of one year the selectmen having the wright to remove them when they think best Edward Turrel bid off James Robbins at forty-six cents per week Daniel Lund bid off Mary Kenny for Miss Lund at one hundred and forty cents pr week Abraham Hale, Jr bid off Mary Kennys child at thirty- eight cents pr week Nathan Fisk bid off Dorothy Purkins and is to keep her clothes as good as they are now and keep her clear of Cost from the Town."
Local quarrels and dissensions, and disputes with neighboring towns, ended with the settlement of the Jaquith bridge controversy with Hollis, and in the years that followed they gave freely of their time, money and blood to establish the independence of the colonies. The cause was near their hearts. They were patriots-loyal and true to the Continental army-and no sacrifice or hardship disheartened them. The narrative of events in which they were moving factors is given in another chapter of this work. All therefore that is pertinent in this connection to the civil government of the town is a few interesting and instructive extracts, orthography corrected, from the records :
Sept. 13, 1774 : "Voted eighteen pounds, six shillings, lawful money, to procure ammunition; " also, "voted three pounds to Jonathan Lovewell for going to Portsmouth to petition for liberty to send a representative, and for going to Exeter to join in choice of Delegates for a General Congress."
Jan. 9, 1775: "Voted that Jonathan Lovewell, Joseph Eayrs and Robert Fletcher be chosen deputies of the town to meet deputies of other towns to choose delegates to represent the Province in Continental Congress to be held in Philadelphia, May 10;" also
"Voted that Samuel Roby, Jonathan Lovewell, Joseph Eayrs, Benjamin Smith and Joseph Wright be a committee to see that the result of the late Continental Congress be carried into practice and that all persons in this town conform to it."
March 6, 1775: "Voted that Capt. Benjamin French, Jonathan Blanchard and John Sears be added to the committee to see that the result of the Continental Congress " etc .; also, "voted to peti- tion the General assembly to be excused from paying Provincial tax until given the privilege of representation."
April 3, 1775: "Voted that there be a school-house built in each of the several school districts, (there were five districts), in the town of Dunstable and that there be a committee of three from each district to fix upon certain places, and procure it for their school-houses, having regard for distance, and if either committee cannot agree on a place for the house then all of the committee, or a majority, shall go and find a certain place for that district and that each district have a proportional part of money to build with according as they pay taxes * shall agree to build a school- * house by the first day of October, 1775;" also voted "that eighty pounds, lawful money, be raised for building said school-houses."
May 7, 1776 : "Voted to pay Dea. Thomas Lund four shillings for transporting one Aaron and wife and two children from Dunstable to Bedford ; " also " voted to pay Noah Lovewell, Daniel Allds
46
578
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
and Benjamin Smith three shillings each for numbering the inhabitants of the town of Dunstable." ('The number was three hundred and seventy-six males, three hundred and twenty-nine females, forty men in the army, seven slaves, total seven hundred and fifty-two.
Jonathan Blanchard was chosen delegate to the Revolutionary convention at Exeter.
March 3, 1777: "Voted that those men that stayed with Lieut. David Allds at Cambridge at the time of the Concord 'fite' be paid out of the town treasury the same wages for the time served as those enlisted in the army," also
"Voted that thirty pounds be raised for schools," the amount prior to this date being twenty pounds.
April 10, 1777; "Voted that the town treasurer be and is hereby directed to hire as much money at six per cent per annum as will be wanted to pay the extraordinary expenses of raising the propor- tion of men in the town for the Continental army."
June 2, 1777 : "Voted one hundred dollars to Joseph Honey, forty dollars to Simeon Butterfield, and sixteen pounds, four shillings to Ebenezer Joseph to make their bounty equal ; " and "voted to raise seven hundred and thirty-five pounds, lawful money, to pay the extraordinary expenses of the present war."
Feb. 9, 1778: Voted to appoint a committee of nine to give Jonathan Lovewell instructions to call a full and free representation of this state for the sole purpose of framing and laying a permanent plan or system for the future government of this state."
Sept. 9, 1779 : "Met for the purpose of taking under consideration the Bill of Rights and plan of government for the state of New Hampshire."
Sept. 20, 1779: "Voted to reject the Bill of Rights."
June 10, 1779: "Voted to pay five hundred dollars bounty to each soldier."
June 24, 1779 : "Voted to raise $1,600 and pay the three Continental soldiers last engaged $1,500 of the same."
Oct. 15, 1779: "Voted to pay Lieut. John Lund eight pounds, two shillings for enlisting Conti- nental soldiers," also "voted to Dea. William Hunt four pounds, eighteen shillings, one penny expenses for attendance at Concord."
July 31, 1780: "Voted to raise £1,200, currency now passing, to pay what money had been bor- rowed to procure Continental soldiers," also "voted to raise £4,000, currency now passing, for pro- curing beef that this town is called upon to send to the Continental army," also "voted to excuse from assessment soldiers who have been three years in the service."
Sept. 10, 1780: "Voted £7,000, currency now passing, to procure beef for the Continental army." Nov. 23, 1780: "Voted to raise £9,400 to discharge the town's obligations to the soldiery, to be assessed in money and grain."
March 5, 1781: "Voted three hundred and twenty-eight pounds, nine shillings, new issue or equivalent, to procure beef for the army," also "voted to pay Rev. Mr. Kidder's salary, upon the scale of depreciation, as ordered by the court, the amount being sixty-six pounds, thirteen shillings, and four pence in bills of the new issue.
July 12, 1781 : " Voted that the town treasurer be ordered not to receive the balance due from Joseph French in Continental bills, by reason of the depreciation thereof, also "voted that David Gilson discharge one bushel of rye on his sons obligation from the town at the rate of one hundred and forty dollars for the 1,200 he received," also, "voted that the Constable be ordered not to collect any more beef rate and pay back what he had collected."
Oct. 10, 1781 : "Voted that fifty-five silver dollars be raised to procure rum for the Continental army."
Dec. 18, 1781 : "Voted that Jonathan Blanchard and ten others be a committee to examine and con- sider the plans of government lately formed for the state and lay their objections before an adjourned meeting."
Jan. 15, 1782: "A vote was proposed to see if the town objected against the plans of government lately formed for the state and it unanimously passed in the affirmative," and Col. Noah Lovewell was chosen delegate to a convention held at Concord.
- ------ -----
579
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
March 11, 1782: "Voted to abate Jonathan Powers' minister tax in consideration of deafness."
April 18, 1782 : "Voted that men who work on the highway be allowed four shillings a day in the best part of the year," also "voted to have the selectmen agree on some person or persons to go in search of William Mann, as they think best."
Dec. 23, 1782: "Voted that the objections against the Bill of Rights and plans of government as drawn by the committee be as it now stands and that the selectmen draw off the objections and send the same to Concord," also, "voted that Colonel Lovewell go to Exeter and get all the discount that is due the town for bounties paid Continental soldiers and supplies for their families."
July 7, 1783: "Voted that the selectmen be desired to make inquiry who has served in the war for the town and had no consideration and lay a report before the town." (The population had now decreased, partly by reason of enlistment in the army, from seven hundred and three to five hundred and seventy three.)
Nov. 8, 1783: "Voted to dismiss the petition drawn to present to the general court," also "voted to pay Benjamin Taylor one pound, seven shillings for a gun lost at Winter Hill."
April 18, 1785: "Voted to sell some part of the floor of the meeting-house, upon consideration to be agreed upon or by auction to the highest bidder, and that the money be expended for repairs," and at the same meeting, (the old and ever new trouble) :-
"Whereas complaint has been made that sums of money have several times been voted for partic- ular purposes, to discharge the town debts, and the selectmen have taken and used a part contrary to appropriation, which has served to mislead the town and create discontent, and if this method should be continued the accounts cannot be well understood or the debts so agreeably discharged, therefore :
"Voted that the selectmen do not on any pretence draw or appropriate any money to different purposes, and that they keep proper books."
March 5, 1787: "Voted that Mary Harwood be allowed seven pounds, eight shillings for what this town was benefitted by her late husband in the war, also voted the same, (amount not stated), to the heirs of William Lund."
Jan. 10, 1788: "Voted not to accept the constitution," (presumably that of the state. )
The only member of the governor's council from the towns formed out of the territory of Old Dunstable was Col. Joseph Blanchard, who served by appointment from 1741 till his death in 1758. In 1752, and for some years after, Jonathan Lovewell represented Dunstable and Merrimack in the house of representatives, the towns being classed together. In 1762 Dunstable and Hollis were classed together. The hostile feeling between the people, by reason of the meeting-house and bridge trouble, asserted itself. The result is thus recorded in the New Hampshire Historical collection, vol- ume one, page fifty-seven.
"For a number of years after Hollis was incorporated, the two towns were classed together to send a man to represent them to the general court. Dunstable being the older town, required the Elections to be uniformly held there, until Hollis became most populous, when it was requested by Hollis that they should be held in those towns alternately, that Each might have an Equal chance. But Dunstable did not consent to this proposal. Hollis feeling some resentment, mustered all its forces, leaving at home scarcely man or horse .. Previously to this time the person chosen had been uniformly selected from Dunstable. But on this occasion the people of Dunstable, finding they were outnumbered, their town clerk mounted a pile of shingles and called on the inhabitants to bring in their votes for Moderator for Dunstable. The town clerk of Hollis mounted another pile and called on the inhabitants of Dunstable and Hollis to bring in their votes for Moderator for Dunstable and
Hollis. The result was that Lovewell, Esq., was declared Moderator for Dunstable and Dea. Francis Worcester, Moderator for Dunstable and Hollis. Each Moderator proceeded in the same manner to call the votes for Represenative. Jonathan Lovewell, Esq., was declared chosen to repre- sent Dunstable and Dr. John Hale was declared chosen to represent Dunstable and Hollis. Accord- ingly both repaired to Portsmouth to attend the general court. Lovewell was allowed to take his seat and Hale rejected. Hale, however, instead of returning home, took measures to acquaint the Governor with what had transpired and awaited the issue. It was not long before Secretary Theodore Atkinson came into the House and proclaimed aloud, 'I have special orders to dissolve this House : Accordingly you are dissolved.' 'God save the King.'
580
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
"It appears from the Journal of the House that the election of both Lovewell and Hale was set aside, and the House immediately dissolved by the Governor. A few days after a second election was held and Hale returned by the sheriff, and at once obtained his seat without further objection."
The outcome was unsatisfactory to both towns and it does not appear that they affiliated, politi- cally, afterwards. A few years later Dunstable renewed its request for single representation, and, the privilege being granted, Jonathan Blanchard was chosen to represent the town. Noah Lovewell represented the town in 1777 and 1778; William Hunt, 1781; Benjamin French, 1782, no record for 1782; Frederick French, 1793, 1795, 1797, 1803, 1805 and 1806; Noah Lovewell, 1794, 1796 and 1802.
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.