History of the city of Nashua, N.H., Part 9

Author: Parker, Edward Everett, 1842- ed; Reinheimer, H., & Co
Publication date: 1897
Publisher: Nashua, N.H., Telegraph Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 652

USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Nashua > History of the city of Nashua, N.H. > Part 9

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).

*Original papers in the office of Secretary of State, at Concord. Province Papers, Dunstable.

fr N. H. Hist. Coll., 150.

HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.

Dunstable was incorporated," says the petition, "they got into parties about the settlement of Mr. Bird. Each courted Pine Hill's assistance, promising to vote them off to Hollis as soon as the matter was settled. And so Pine Hill was fed with sugar plums for a number of years, till at length Dunstable cast off the mask and now appears in their true colours." After alluding to the objections raised by Dunstable, they add :- "Their apprehension must arise from some other quarter. They wish to keep us as a whip for one party or the other to drive out every minister that comes there, for they are always divided with respect to these things."*

It is not difficult to see, that, when the sentiment of dismemberment of the old township opened the door, dissatisfaction improved the opportunity to walk in beside it. Reasons were easily found. The distance to the meeting-house seemed greater than ever before; the burdens of maintaining the ministry grew with each year; other portions of the town were far better accommodated; the orthodoxy of the minister was not beyond question. What now appeared grievances in the light in which they saw them, heretofore were but the murmurings of pride or selfishness devoutly suppressed by the "love of thy neighbor as thyself." The unanimity that formerly characterized their action in spiritual matters was absent in the settlement of Rev. Mr. Bird. The Pine Hill controversy is fully set forth in the following :-

"DISINTEGRATION."

"The legislative dismemberment and mutilations of the body politic of the town of Dunstable began in 1722, when its northeast extremity was cut off to fill up a corner of the town of Londonderry. The next, in 1731, when a small slice of about eighty acres was taken from near its southwest corner to piece out a side of Townsend. In the year 1732 all the remainder of the old town, on the east side of the Merrimack, extending from the north end of Litchfield to Chelmsford, was incorporated into a new town called Nottingham. In the year 1734, the north part of the then new town of Nottingham and a part of the present town at the Merrimack, south of the Souhegan, at the junction of that river with the Merrimack, were incorporated into the present town of Litchfield.

"In 1739 that part of Dunstable lying west of the present east line of Hollis and the Nashua river was incorporated as a parish, known by the name of the West Parish of Dunstable.

"The incorporation of West Dunstable was the last legislative act of the General Court of Massachusetts affecting that part of the old town now in New Hampshire.

"The boundaries of the towns into which the parish of West Dunstable was divided do not appear to have been satisfactory to any part of its early settlers. The boundary line between Hollis and the new town of Dunstable, as established along Flint's brook and pond, and Muddy brook, soon became the occasion of a long, persistent and bitter controversy. The story of this controversy may be best told by extracts from the original documents relating to it still to be found in the office of the Secretary of State at Concord. Before, and at the time of these acts of incorporation into towns, there was a settlement of very worthy people, consisting of about fifteen families, near the east side of West Dun- stable, and east of the new town line, known as 'One Pine Hill.' This settlement had constituted an important part of the religious society of West Dunstable. The settlers there had aided in the settle- ment and support of Mr. Emerson, in the building of the new meeting house, in fixing the site of it and their burial ground, and in the laying out and making the public roads. In this settlement, among other worthy citizens, were William Cummings and Thomas Patch, two of the deacons in the church of West Dunstable; also the brothers, David and Samuel Hobart, the first distinguished for his gallantry as a colonel of a New Hampshire regiment at the battle of Bennington, and the latter as the first register of deeds of the county of Hillsborough, and a member of the New Hampshire Committee of Safety in the war of the Revolution. Much to their vexation and disappointment, and also to the chagrin of the people in Hollis, these settlers on One Pine Hill found themselves on the wrong side of the town line and cut off from their former civil, social and church relations with the settlers of West Dunstable. The only meeting house in Dunstable, originally built for the accommodation of settlers south of the new province line, as well as of those north of it, was from seven to eight miles distant from the settlers on One Pine Hill, while that in Hollis was less than half that distance. What was a matter to them of still more importance, the religious society in Hollis was well united with their

*Dunstable Papers, in office of Secretary of State, Concord.

HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. II.

popular and acceptable minister, whose orthodoxy was without taint, while the society in Dunstable was distracted with bitter, chronic dissensions, mainly on account of the alleged heresy of their pastor, the Rev. William Bird, who was charged with being a New Light and follower of Rev. George Whitefield.

"In these troubles of their neighbors, and late fellow parishioners, the sympathies of the people of Hollis were strongly with the settlers at One Pine Hill. The first reference we find in this matter in the Hollis records is in the proceedings of a town meeting, Oct. 26, 1747, at which the town 'Voted to request of Dunstable the People of One Pine Hill with their Lands to be set off to Hollis, and chose Capt. Peter Powers, Thomas Dinsmore and Samuel Cummings to assist in that affair, and Rais Bounds between the Towns.' This request of the people of Hollis was not hospitably entertained by their neighbors of Dunstable.

"No further reference to this subject is to be found in the Hollis records till the annual town meeting in 1756, when the town 'Voted to joyn with the One Pine Hill People, so called, to get them set off from Dunstable to be annexed to Holles.' Again, in 1759, the town 'voted £50 O. T. for the assistance of the People on the westerly side of Dunstable in their Petition to be annexed to Holles ;' and lastly, at the March Meeting in 1764, 'Voted to give the People of One Pine Hill, so called, £200 O. T. towards expenses in Getting off from Dunstable.'

"We again recur to the documents already referred to, pertaining to this controversy, to be found at Concord. It will be seen from these papers that the people of One Pine Hill, aided more or less by their allies in Hollis, were in almost constant rebellion against the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of their own town, for it appears from the town records of Dunstable, that the settlers on One Pine Hill, very soon after they found themselves, against their wishes, inhabitants of that town, petitioned the people of Dunstable for their consent to be set off to Hollis. This petition on the part of the people of One Pine Hill was refused by the Dunstable town meetings.

"The oldest of the documents above referred to, as found in the office of the Secretary of State at Concord, is a petition to the Governor and Council in the spring of 1756, signed by fifteen of the settlers on the west side of Dunstable, and the selectmen of Hollis. In this petition these signers from Dunstable say to the Governor and Council :

""That your Petitioners live in the west side of Dunstable and so far from the Meeting-House, that it is almost impossible for us to attend the Publick Worship of God there, for some of us live 712 miles and the nearest 512 miles from the Meeting-House, so that we Can't and Don't go to Meet- ing there * ** for they have set their Meeting-House to accommodate them Selves, and seem not * in the least to regard us only to get our Money. Our difficulties are so exceeding great that make us Dispair of having any comfortable reviving Gospel Privileges unless we can obtain the aid of your Excellency and Honnors.

"'Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Excellency and Honnors would so far Compas- sionate our Circumstances as to Relieve us by setting us with our Land to Holles to which we once belonged and helped settel our minister and now go to attend the Publick Worship of God. *

* The furthest of us from Holles is not more than 312 or 4 miles, and the bigest part about 21/2 or 3 miles to which we can go with some degree of comfort. We therefore pray * that you would be * pleased to annex us to Holles with about 2500 acres of Land which wee have described in a Plan,

which will greatly relieve us, * * and help us to a Comfortable Injoyment of Gospel Privileges. And as in duty bound, &c. Signed.

John Willoughby, Elnathan Blood, John Phelps, John Mooar, Benjamin Parker,

Nicholas Youngman, Gershom Hobart, Jonathan Hobart, Amos Phillips, Samuel Hobart,

David Hobart, Nehemiah Woods, William Cumings, Joseph Farley, Anna Patch,

Samuel Cumings, Samuel Goodhue, , Selectmen of Holles.'

Enoch Noyes,

- - ---- -- - ---

HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.

"Upon being notified of this petition, the people of Dunstable promptly met in town meeting and 'Voted not to set off the land and inhabitants of One Pine Hill to Holles,' and appointed Colonel Blanchard, with two others, a committee to oppose the petition. Colonel Blanchard at the time was a member of the New Hampshire Council, and made the answer to the petition on the part of Dunstable. In this answer he stated that 'About 1736, (9?) the old town of Dunstable was divided into two parishes. That what was then Holles & Monson with a part of Dunstable and Merrymac was the West parish and contained about 70,000 acres.' That they had an annual tax of 2d. per acre for four years on the land of non-residents to build a meeting-house and support a minister, and an after tax of about the same amount. More than was needed for it, but they disposed of it all or divided it. That in 1741 the Province Line was run leaving 33 of the Inhabitants and Estates of the East Parish in Massachusetts. * *

'' On examination we find that Holles is about eight miles in length East and West and about four and a half miles North and South *

* settled at each end. Some time after their incorporation Holles set up a Meeting-House with a part of the money we and others paid for that use, and sett it about a mile and a half from their East line Regardless of the complaints of the Inhabitants on the Westerly part, so that many of them are eight miles from their meeting, as they must travil, much further than any in Dunstable are from our meeting-house.

"' Wee are sencible that this vexatious Petition is stirred up and encouraged by Holles purely to prevent Justice to their Western Inhabitants which they foresee will obtain unless they can Cloak it by Ruining Dunstable.

"'What genius gave them front to mutter out this Motley Petition it is Difficult to guess.

"'The Pretensions of Holles and the Petrs are totally groundless, Wherefore we pray that their Petition may be dismissed. Signed

Joseph Blanchard, Zaccheus Lovewell, Joseph French,

Agts. for Dunstable.'

"I do not find in the records at Concord how or when the above petition was disposed of. It is evident, however, that it was not granted. It was said in the answer of Dunstable 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 its defence. In the fall of 1760 the settlers at One Pine Hill again petitioned Dunstable for permission to be set off to Hollis, at this time offering to pay to Dunstable £1500, O. T., for the privilege. A town meeting was called in Dunstable to consider this offer, which was promptly rejected, the town voting at the same time 'not to change their Meeting-House Place.'

" After this last defeat open hostilities were suspended till the spring of 1763, when the contest was renewed and a second petition presented to the General Court by Colonel Samuel Hobart as attorney for the settlers at One Pine Hill.

"In this petition Colonel Hobart says that 'about the year 1747(?) (1746), a committee of five, two of them from Dunstable, was appointed by the Governor, &c., to view the Lands about Merrymac River to see in what manner it was Best to Bound them into the Incorporations, * that this Committee went no Farther Westward than the Old Town of Dunstable. That a Committee came down from Holles, and desired this Committee to go and view the Situation at Holles and One Pine Hill, and urged it hard. But the Committee could not be prevailed on to go any further that way, (the opposition we judge being made by Dunstable). * Soon after Dunstable was incorporated * they got into Partys about Settling Mr. Bird. Each Party Courted Pine Hill's Assistance, promising to vote them off to Holles as soon as the matter was settled ; and so Pine Hill was fed with Sugar Plums for a number of years, till at length Dunstable cast off the mask and now appears in their True Colors. * * * *

" ' Under the Government of Massachusetts we belong to Holles and helpt Build a large Meeting- House and it was set to accommodate us, and helpt settle a minister not in the least Doubting but we should always belong there. * *

" 'We have ever since attended the Public Worship of God at Holles and paid our Taxes to the Minister there. tho. in the meantime we have been called on to pay Ministerial Rates with Dunstable in full proportion, except some trifling abatement they made to us to keep us quiet. We know of 110

1.5

HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. II.

other Real objection that Dunstable has to our going off, but reducing them to too small a number to maintain the Gospel. But if their Inclination can be judged by their practice it can't be tho't that they have any inclination to settle a minister *

*% Dunstable as it lyes now consists of about Ico Families. * * All we ask to be set off it but about twelve. * 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. '

"The Selectmen of Dunstable, on being notified of this Petition at once called a town meeting which voted to continue their defence and appointed a committee of three to answer the petition.

"This answer begun with the assertion that this 'Complaint of the People of One Pine Hill was groundless and unreasonable. * * As to Dunstable Meeting-House which Petitioners complain of as being at so great a distance from them, it was owing to themselves-for many of them voted to * That they so acted and voted for fear it might have it where it is-and none of them against it. *

be moved to a place more just and equal and so they be prevented from being set off to Holles. *

As in Times past so they are now stirred up by some Holles people to bring this petition in order to uphold the unjust Proceedings of Holles in setting their meeting-house where it is.

* * And now Holles are endeavoring to have the south part of Monson annexed to them, and should that be don and also the Westerly half of Dunstable then their meeting-house where it now is will be aboute right. So could it now be obtained to breake up and ruin two towns it may hereafter be something of a cover to hide the iniquity of Holles and help the private interests of some mercenary persons, but can't possibly promote the Public Good nor help the Interest of these Towns.'

"The case was argued on both sides, and the evidence and arguments convinced the General Court that One Pine Hill with its inhabitants, ought no longer to remain a part of Dunstable. Accordingly, on the 13th of December, 1763, an act was passed, entitled, 'An Act Annexing One Pine Hill to Holles.' This act was prefaced by a preamble in which it was stated 'That sundry inhabitants of Dunstable had petitioned the General Assembly, stating that they were more conveniently situated to belong to Holles than to Dunstable-that Dunstable is large, rich and able to spare them-which reasons and the arguments and objections having been duly weighed, and it appearing reasonable to grant the petition. * Therefore, be it enacted, &c.'

"Then follows a description of the part of Dunstable to be annexed to Hollis, in accordance with a survey and plan made by Samuel Cumings, the surveyor for Hollis and now at Concord. In running this new east line of the town this survey begun at the pine tree standing on the hill called One Pine Hill, thence south 131/2 degrees west, 372 rods to Nashua river. The line was then run northerly, beginning again at the same pine tree, one mile and 225 rods, thence westerly one mile and 23 rods to the northeast corner of Hollis as chartered in 1746, thus taking from Dunstable all that part of Hollis as it now is, east of Flint's brook and Muddy brook.

"This once famous pine tree, thus made to mark the boundary of the belligerent towns, and which gave its name to One Pine Hill is now no more. It is said to have been a tall, straight pitch pine, near a hundred feet high with no other tree of its species near it, standing solitary and alone on the summit of the hill. In early times, being conspicuous in all directions for a long distance, it served as a beacon to mark a place of rendezvous for backwoodsmen and deer hunters, whose names in scores were cut in its bark from its roots many feet upward.

"Thus at last ended by conquest the war between Dunstable and One Pine Hill and its ever faith- ful allies of Hollis, a war which had lasted, with varied fortune , nearly twice as long as the siege of Troy-more than twice as long as our war of the Revolution and, sad to tell, no Homer has yet sung its heroes-no Marshall told its history."-[Worcester's Hollis.

In 1749, the town "voted to hire a school for six months." One teacher only was to be employed, and the school was to be kept in four places in different parts of the town, alternately. Soon after this the French war commenced, which was very burdensome to the province, and exposed the frontiers to Indian attacks. and no other record of any school is found until 1761, when the town raised a small sum, "to hire schooling and houses for that end. " This was as the commencement of the difficulties with the mother country, and the importance of education began to be more sensibly felt. After this time money was raised for this purpose almost every year, but it was not until the Revolution that the people were fully awakened. In 1772, Joseph Dix was "the Schoolmaster, " and he continued to teach

- - --

HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.

in town for many years. In 1775 the town was divided into five school districts, and school houses were first erected. In 1777 each district received its proportion of money from the town, and hired its own teachers, which had been formerly done by the town. Females now began occasionally to be employed. From this period until 1790, about £30, or $100 were raised annually for the support of schools, or twenty dollars to each district. From this fact we may imagine the advantages of education enjoyed by our fathers at that period, and compare them with the privileges of children at the present day.

The bridges over the Nashua have always been a source of much trouble and expense to the town. At what period, and where the first bridge was erected, can not be ascertained with certainty, but there was a bridge over the Nashua not far from the present one at Main street, previous to 1746, when the road was surveyed and recorded anew by the selectmen in very near its present location. In the spring of 1753 it was carried away by a freshet, and rebuilt the same summer at an expense of £150. Before 1759 it was in a ruinous condition, and the town petitioned to the general court for "liberty to raise a Lottery for repairing the Bridge, or building a new one." The lottery was not granted, but a new bridge was built, part by subscription, and partly by the town in 1764. It stood "a little above" the old bridge, but below the present. In the spring of 1775 it was again carried away by a freshet, but was rebuilt the same season in the same place.

Between 1752 and 1756,* died John Lovewell, at the great age of one hundred and twenty years, the oldest person who ever deceased in New Hampshire. He was one of the earliest settlers of Dunstable, after Philip's war, but of his history little is known. He came, it is said originally from England about 1660, and settled some years before 1690. It is not improbable that he came to this town from Weymouth, as a person of the same name, from that town, was in the great Narragansett swamp fight, Dec. 19, 1675, and throughout Philip's war, under the famous Captain Church ; and the hand-writing of this person corresponds very closely with that of John Lovewell of Dunstable.t He is said, according to the tradition in the family, to have been an ensign in the army of Cromwell, and to have left England on account of the restoration of Charles II. in 1660. This army of 30,000 men was raised in 1653, and Cromwell died in 1658. During the Indian difficulties, about 17co, it is said that he was often spared by the Indians in their incursions, because he had been kind to them in time of peace.# He is represented as being even then old and white haired, and for such scalps the French governor paid no bounty. The cellar of his house may still be seen on the north side of Salmon brook, just above the bridge, by the road side, and there for a long time, when very much advanced in years, he kept a small store. There, too, he had a mill, and his farm reached far to the south of Salmon brook. He must have been exceedingly vigorous, for as late as 1745, when more than one hundred years old, he was very constant in his attendance upon church, and after 1752 used to chase the boys out of his orchard with his cane. The children were, I. John, the hero of Pequawkett; 2. Zaccheus, a colonel in the army ; 3. Jonathan. §

In 1753 the town contained 109 polls, and one female slave. There were four mills in town, and the valuation was £3795.

In the fall of 1753 Rev. Benjamin Adams, (a graduate of Harvard college in 1738,) preached here for three months, and the greater portion of the time during the next two years.

December 21, 1753, the town voted to build a new meeting-house "at the crotch of the roads as near as can be with convenience near the house where Jonathan Lovewell now dwells." This was the tavern stand now (1846) owned by Jesse Gibson, about two miles below Nashua village, and the meeting-house was built upon the little triangular green in front of it. It was finished in 1754, and a part of the materials of the old meeting-house in the south part of the town, were used in its construction.

*Farmer's Manuscripts.

+Original Papers in Mass. Records, 1676, 1725.

+N. H. Hist. Coll., 136. Farmer's Historical Catechism, 88.

§From a note in Mr. Fox's manuscript, afterwards crossed out by him, he appears to have entertained doubts as to the extreme age of John Lovewell, but to have subsequently dismissed them. The following is the note referred to :

"I am inclined to think that his age is somewhat overstated, and that the father and grandfather of Capt. John are confounded. In 1691 we find in the records of the town the names of John Lovewell and John Lovewell, Jr. The former probably came from England-the latter was in Philip's War, and the person above described."

This note was crossed out, and the following written, in connection with the reference to Farmer's manuscripts.

"He was certainly alive in 1732, as appears by a deed in which he styles himself 'the original proprietor.' He must have been aged, however, since he did not write his name as usual, and his mark is faint."

It has been thought best to insert both the above notes.

HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. II.

CHAPTER VIII.

CHURCH AFFAIRS. REV. MR. SMITHI. PROTEST. NOTICE OF COLONEL BLANCHARD. REV. JOSIAH COTTON. ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCIL. COMPROMISE. TOWN MEETING ON POINTS OF DOCTRINE. REV. MR. LIVERMORE. REV. MR. FESSENDEN. REV. MR. KIDDER SETTLED. NOTICE OF HIM. REV. MR. SPERRY. SLAVES OWNED IN TOWN. CUSTOMS AT FUNERALS.

H OWEVER distracted and divided our predecessors may have been in relation to religious affairs, we may justly be proud of them for their unanimity in patriotism. Exposed for so many years to the dangers of a border warfare, every citizen was a soldier. The story of Indian atrocities, and French instigation had been handed down from father to son, and not a few had shared personally in the conflicts. To hold a commission was then a high honor, and an object worthy of any man's ambition, for it was only bestowed upon those who had given proofs of courage and capacity. Every officer might be called at any moment into actual service. The military spirit was fostered as a duty, and New England freedom, which placed in the hand of every child a gun as well as a spelling-book, made necessarily of every child not less a marksman than a scholar.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of the city of Nashua, N.H., Part 9

Author: Parker, Edward Everett, 1842- ed; Reinheimer, H., & Co Publication date: 1897 Publisher: Nashua, N.H., Telegraph Publishing Company Number of Pages: 652

Author: Parker, Edward Everett, 1842- ed; Reinheimer, H., & Co
Publication date: 1897
Publisher: Nashua, N.H., Telegraph Publishing Company
Number of Pages: 652