USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Nashua > History of the city of Nashua, N.H. > Part 99
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
Before making a further summary of the affairs of the civil governments of which Nashua is a successor mention should be made concerning the ownership of the territory. The town of Dunstable, as has been shown, entered upon a new era of prosperity early in the eighteenth century. Deserted farms were being tilled by new settlers, a minister, Rev. Josiah Swan, had been secured, and, the plantation having increased to fifty families, prosperity had evidently come to stay. The new condi- tions that confronted the original grantees and their heirs, together with the fact that the town had some years before fixed the population at eighty families, aroused them to the necessity of protecting their interests in the "common and undivided land." They caused a legal warrant to be posted warning a meeting to be held at the meeting-house July 12, 1729, for the purpose of making a record of legal ownership and an equitable division of the same. The meeting was held on the day cited in the warrant. Benjamin Prescott was chosen moderator, and it was voted that 1,000 acres of equal value be laid out to each of the original grantees and that the heirs of John Lovewell and others who had fallen in the defence of the settlement have the same. They also made their organization perma- nent, inferentially declaring themselves proprietors of all the land then unsettled, and not before granted to non-residents, within the boundary of their charter. A few years later, however, they were shorn of some of their possessions by the "setting up" of new towns, but in the end-after they
*The reader is referred to other chapters of this work for continuity of narrative relative to wars, Indian massacres, the successors of Rev. Mr. Weld, the old burial ground, and other matters that are not included in this record of the civil government of Dunstable.
570
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
came under New Hampshire government-they froze out, taxed out, bought out and confiscated all that belonged to Massachusetts grantees. The land thus mentioned was surveyed and set off from time to time by Joseph Blanchard, surveyor of the town and proprietors' clerk, and due record made in a book kept for that purpose. Of the land in question four hundred and forty acres, on Watane- nock plane or Watanenock neck-exclusive of two grants of twenty-three acres each on the Merrimack river, owned respectively by Thomas Clark of Boston and John Solendine of the town-were sur- veyed in 1764 by Colonel Blanchard, and conveyed, Sept. 10, to Joseph Knight and Christopher Temple. The descriptive boundary was as follows : "A parcel of land north of Salmon brook and south of the Nashua river," formerly known as the Watenenock river, "running westward about two miles ; " also conveyed to Samuel Whitney, "one hundred and ninety acres upon the same plain, upon Salmon brook southward." The land on the north side of the river was granted to the Boston Artil- lery company Oct. 11, 1673, a few days before the Dunstable charter was signed. The boundary was as follows: "One thousand acres on the north side of the Nashway river, at the intersection with the Merrimack, extending along the north side of said river about one and a half miles, and on the Nashway to Spectacle meadow, about two miles." In these three descriptions is found the original ownership of the major part of the territory now embraced in the thickly settled part of Nashua. Col. Joseph Blanchard purchased, about the middle of the eighteenth century, the interest of the Artillery company and later sold it to actual settlers. The land on the south side of the river was disposed of in the same way, and in 1816 the original proprietors closed their accounts. A few years later the Nashua Manufacturing company became the purchaser of a large tract, and since then the list of ownership has enlarged-most of the territory described being now in house lots.
DUNSTABLE UNDER A NEW HAMPSHIRE CHARTER.
In 1741 a new state line-over which there had been a controversy for a good many years-was established between Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This line divided the town nearly in the middle, "leaving in Massachusetts," says Judge Worcester, "the part of the old town now in Tyngs- borough and Dunstable in that state and a narrow gore from the old parish of West Dunstable, now in Pepperell, and severing from Groton a small triangular tract now in the south part of Nashua along the state line."
The division came as a surprise upon the inhabitants of all parts of the town. They had seen their territory diminishing in extent from time to time-Nottingham, now Hudson, having been set off in 1732, Souhegan East, later Rumford and now Merrimack, in 1733, Amherst and Litchfield in 1734-and they felt the last blow keenly. They argued that they had been unfairly dealt with and claimed-at the same time declaring that under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts they were secure in their methods of local government-they had grave doubts about their standing under the jurisdiction of New Hampshire. Moreover, their kindred, their history, their business interests and their church were in Massachusetts. The more they brooded over the situation the more disgusted, discouraged, and homesick they became. In fact their grievances became so magnified that nearly five years elapsed before they were sufficiently reconciled to apply for a new charter, and even then they would not have humbled themselves had not other settlements in the town insisted on another division and on being set off. The issue was actually forced upon them, No alternative remained but to act or lose their identity. After much vain strife they consented to make application to the royal governor, Benning Wentworth, for a charter re-establishing the township. Col. Joseph Blanchard was chosen agent of the town for that purpose, and April 4, 1746, it was obtained. Another grievance came with it; new towns had been set up and their territory thus again diminished. Nor was this all. Although Dunstable was the original settlement the charters of Monson, Merrimack and Hollis were given precedence in date. Ten days later, however-notwithstanding their discomfiture-a legal meeting of "all those qualified to vote" was held at the house of Jonathan Lovewell, when the charter was accepted and the following officers chosen: Jonathan Lovewell, town clerk; Jonathan Lovewell, Thomas Harwood and Thomas Patch, selectmen; Joseph Blanchard, treasurer; Jonathan Snow, tithing-master; Thomas Allds, Elnathan Blood and Thomas Killicut, field-driver; Ephriam Lund and Samuel Keeny, fence-viewers; William Lund, Gideon Howe and Joseph Butterfield, hog constables. It was voted that future meetings be called by the selectmen and then the meeting was
571
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
adjourned. In the records of this meeting the adjective "old," as a prefix to the name of the town, is used for the first time, the evident purpose being to emphasize their priority over the other Dun- stable and the towns whose charter antedated theirs. At a subsequent meeting it was voted to pay Colonel Blanchard thirty pounds, old tenor, expenses for obtaining a charter .* It will be observed that in this concise summary is given the circumstances under which the charter was obtained, the price paid, and the first legal government, under the laws of New Hampshire, established over the territory now governed under the charter of the city of Nashua, together with the first officers, and the fact made clear that the inhabitants were not in a frame of mind calculated to lead to generous dealings among themselves or with neighboring towns.
A list of the officers of the town during the hundred years that follow, together with anything like a complete summary of the business transacted, is not practicable. It is enough to know that the men who controlled public affairs in those days were not unlike the public servants of the present time. They had their sharp differences of opinion and were more or less jealous of each other. In fact the records show that they were often hopelessly divided on matters of local policy and were just as tenacious and uncompromising in whatever they deemed their rights, individually and collectively, as are the people of this generation. The truth of these statements-and, if this asservation seems harsh, the reader must remember that their exalted patriotism, devoted husbandry and religious zeal are set forth in other chapters, this chapter presenting more especially the view that is "of the earth earthy "-are borne out by the tone and temper of the second and subsequent meetings of the town. It was there, at the second meeting, May 10, that a bitter controversy arose over the minister, over the payment of the just amount of salary due him for services rendered when they were a part of the other Dunstable, and also over the location-most readers will find it difficult to suppress a smile-of their one public building, a meeting-house. These troubles-the second mentioned of which lasted seventeen years-will be better understood when considered in separate paragraphs.
For some reason that is not made clear in the records the town was about equally divided in favor and against Rev. Josiah Swan. As a whole the voters were desirous that his ministry over them should come to an abrupt end, and it is quite evident that a heated debate took place and that party feeling ran high. Finally a committee was chosen "to wait on Rev. Josiah Swan to know his demands on the town and report the same to the meeting." The committee reported that "the demands on the inhabitants, on both sides of the province line, what was old Dunstable was two hundred pounds, old tenor, for his salary for the past year." The only answer made by the meeting was a vote to excuse from the payment of any part of this sum those not residing under the old charter, and also that the committee "treat with Rev. Mr. Swan and see if they can come to an agree- ment with him to perform the office of gospel minister in this town and if they can they agree with him so long as they think proper not exceeding said term." It does not appear that the committee agreed with Mr. Swan. At an adjourned meeting Sept. 29, "it was proposed that Rev. Josiah Swan's salary be raised and assessed according to contract and voted in the negative," and "voted in the affirmative that the place of preaching be at Deacon Jonathan French's house." Their grievance against Mr. Swan had now become of a belligerent character. They discussed it in stormy detail, and Oct. 15 "voted that Noah Johnson, Thomas Harwood and Jonathan Snow go to Rev. Mr. Swan and see if he had any demands on this town and if he has to see upon what terms he will acquit this town and ask a dismission of the church here, and that they hear his proposal and make proposals to him to settle affairs." Two days later another meeting was held at which the committee reported that Rev. Mr. Swan "desires six weeks in which to make up his mind as to the terms on which he would withdraw." Voted to grant his request and "to hire some person to preach six weeks." Nov. 28, the six weeks having elapsed, the town met again. The committee, which found Mr. Swan obdurate, reported that "the Rev. Josiah Swan's terms are if the town would give him three hundred and fifty pounds, old tenor, he would endeavor to get a dismission from the church and would acquit the town." The discussion that followed, judging from the division of sentiment, the character of those interested, and the tone of their vote, may be set down as of angry import. Here it is: " Voted that if Rev. Josiah Swan pursue his proposal and gets a dismission from the said church and bring a certificate thereof and offers the same to the selectmen they shall assess the inhabitants and pay him." During this time the town settled Rev. Samuel Bird, Mr. Swan, who was still a freeman
*A fac-simile of this document is given as a frontispiece to this work.
STP
HISTORY OF NASIIUA, N. H.
of the town, and others voting against him. Mr. Swan settled with the town March 2, 1747, and shortly afterwards moved to Lancaster, where he resumed his former occupation of a schoolmaster. This controversy lasted ten months and authorities agree that it was of a bitter character.
Meanwhile, for the town had another and more serious iron in the fire at the same time, a warm discussion was progressing and increasing in importance, relative to the location of a meeting-house. Their former place of worship was located in the other Dunstable and they "would have none of it." They were holding town meetings and religious services in houses and barns, which was neither comfortable nor dignified, and were determined on settling on a site for a house "suitable to the inhabitants." At their third meeting, July 6, the matter was brought forward and discussed, after which it was "voted that the place for erecting a meeting-house for the Publick Worship of God be on or near the common road of passing through the town, viz, the road passing by the house of Jona- than Lovewell; " also, "voted that the place of building and erecting said meeting-house be as near the barn of Messrs. Tyler and Hancock, now in the possession of Thomas Cowen, as a place can be found convenient for the use," and that " the place of preaching be at Ephraim Lund's barn and to hire a proper person to preach." The first votes are antagonistic and the only explanation that can be given is that under their parliamentary usage a subsequent vote on a subject cancelled former votes relative to the same. At all events the action of the town raised a storm at once. Decided opposition came from unexpected sources and the question was taken home for further consideration. The result of thinking and talking the matter over found public expression in a vote at a meeting held Sept. 29, when it was "voted that the place to remove the meeting-house to in this town be about forty rods to the south of Jonathan Lovewell's house, to the west of the road of passing, upon a place of rising ground about six rods west of said road." Then the storm burst in fury. The free- men, both for and against the proposition, took sides, and, unquestionably, determined on a fight to the bitter end. The opponents of the removal and site were exasperated and Col. Joseph Blanchard entered a written protest in which he insisted that the location was unjust, boldly declaring that the meeting was illegal and accused the moderator, Jonathan Lovewell, of "admitting to vote inhabitants who were not qualified." The result was much the same as is experienced in these days, with excep- tion that an appeal was not taken to court. This protest, which no doubt created a sensation in the town, was entered upon the records and the meeting adjourned. Six weeks later, Oct. 15, another effort was made to settle the controversy, but nothing was done except to vote "that the place removing the meeting-house be not the place and that another be agreed on." Thus matters stood until the next spring, when, March 2, 1747, a statement was made that :-
"A number of the inhabitants have proposed to take that part of the meeting-house in that will be the proportion this town ought to have in said meeting-house together with old areages if any be coming to them from Dunstable, Mass., and to erect and furnish a meeting-house forty feet long and twenty-eight feet wide twenty foot post on the place that shall be stated by the committee chosen at this meeting and build as many pews therein as may be commodious on the lower floor and gallery, finish a pulpit, leave two seats below next the front one on the men's side and one on the women's side a pew below for strangers and one pew for the minister's family and that they calculate the charges that they have been at and apportion the same on the pews and proportion to the tax on real estate."
On this proposition the vote was in the affirmative. They were not content it seems with this settlement of their differences, for at the same meeting it was voted that "a committee of three judi- cious men belonging to some other town or towns be raised to locate said meeting-house." Then it was voted that the committee consist of Joseph Fitch of Bedford, William Lawrence of Groton and John Chamberlin of Souhegan East, and "the place shall be as stated by the committee." After another provoking delay it was voted, whether or not on the recommendation of the committee is not stated, that the place be "near the common road that passes Thomas Harwood's house to the Nash- way river." But the end was not yet. At a meeting held May 25, it was voted "to sell the interest of the town in the old meeting-house to the town of Dunstable, Mass., for one hundred and fifty-five pounds," and also that "the vote relative to a meeting-house be not pursued and that some other measures be taken." The division of sentiment was so strong that nothing was accomplished and further consideration went over to a meeting held July 6, which was adjourned to Aug. 31, when it was voted "to set a meeting-house near the common road passing through the town, viz, the road
573
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. H.
that passes Thomas Harwood's house to the Nashway river." The meeting adjourned to Sept. 15, at which time twenty heads of families, including Rev. Mr. Swan, wearying of strife and turmoil, and some of them dissatisfied with Rev. Mr. Bird, whose orthodoxy was in doubt and whom they denom- inated a "new light of the Whitefield school," petitioned the town " to be excused from paying taxes to support the minister and also from being assessed to erect and furnish a meeting-house where he was to preach." Col. Joseph Blanchard, the leader of the opposition, as against Jonathan Lovewell, headed the petition. They were excused. As if this was not enough to distract the town eleven others, residents of "One Pine Hill," entered a protest saying they could not and would not attend Mr. Bird's meeting. They had contributed to the building of the meeting-house in Hollis when, by the old line, they belonged in that town, the distance was one-half less, they were attached to Rev. Mr. Emerson and they desired to be set off to that town. This protest proved the entering wedge of a long and bitter quarrel in which Hollis became a moving factor. The request was denied, and seventeen persons subscribed two hundred and fifty-six pounds and entered into an agreement with the town to take the money coming for the sale of their interest in the old church and build a meeting-house, according to plans heretofore mentioned, and sell the pews by auction, the money received to be divided in proper proportions to what each subscribed : "and the town will assemble and agree upon a place that is just and equal near the common road passing through said town, viz, the road that passes Thomas Harwood's house to the Nashway river bridge." This agreement was in part rudely broken at a meeting held Nov. 9, it being voted that "the committee having agreed upon a place that is not just and equal, all circumstances considered, it therefore now voted that the place be one hundred and forty rods south of the house of Jonathan Lovewell, a few rods to the west of the town road on a plane of rising ground by a pine tree marked X or the nearest place convenient for that not more than forty rods from that place." The plan to build by subscription and sell by auction-the site being now settled-was agreed upon by the town, which, being interested as a sub- scriber to the amount of one hundred and fifty-five pounds (received in payment for the old meeting- house) immediately hedged against wage-earners on the point that the town should "oversee in the matter of cost and get the work done cheeper if it could." The meeting-house was built during the fall and winter of 1747, and town meeting was held in it June 17, 1748.
The meeting-house, it will be observed, had been built and furnished according to contract, and yet the trouble did not cease. The location was unsatisfactory to nearly one-half of the population and they refused to be placated or comforted. Both sides were determined and belligerent, and, so the records relate, March 13, 1749, "the warrant for the meeting was taken away by violence." The selectmen certified a new warrant, but no business of importance was transacted. In fact the town would neither settle with the builders of the meeting-house, pay for preaching, form a parish associa- tion with the neighboring towns, call a minister or meet in the meeting-house, and for seven years, until Oct. 15, 1774, the meetings were held at farm houses as had been the custom before it was built. The people were not only angry with each other, but, as subsequent events show, with the people of other towns, and that their anger did not cease for several years is abundantly proven by their record :
Jan. 15, 1750: "Voted that the people of Nottingham and Dunstable, Mass., upon pledging to to pay a just proportion of the tax to support a minister (their request being before the meeting in writing) may attend public worship in the meeting-house in this town," whereupon Jonathan Love- well, Noah Johnson, Samuel Whiting and others entered a written protest, and here the matter ended.
In the meantime the inhabitants of "One Pine Hill " were uneasy, discomforted and a source of constant irritation and vexation. They would not vote to hire preaching and they again petitioned to be set off to Hollis.
March 25, 1751 : Voted that the request of the people of "One Pine Hill " (their petition having been discussed) be denied and that "the place of Publick Worship be at the meeting-house built by Jonathan Lovewell, Noah Johnson and others until the town see fit to alter it."
April 15, 1752 : Voted to decline an invitation to form a parish reunion with people of Dun- stable, Mass.
" In these troubles," says Judge Worcester, "it was very natural that the kindly sympathies of the good people of Hollis should have been strongly with the settler at "One Pine Hill." The
571
HISTORY OF NASHUA, N. II.
records of the town show that as early as Oct. 26, 1747, Hollis voted "to request of Dunstable the People of One Pine Hill with their Lands be set off to Hollis," but this request was not hospitably entertained. All concerned were obdurate.
Dec. 21, 1753: "Voted the place whereon to set up a meeting-house for Public Worship on Lord's day be at the crotch of the road as near as can be with convenience near the house where Jona- than Lovewell now dwells;" also
"Voted that the old meeting-house be took down, moved and set up on the place this night voted and that the same be forthwith don."
March 5, 1754: "Voted that the old meeting-house be fitted, raised and furnished as well as it was before it was took down at the place agreed upon for that use and that the pew ground below the same as was put to that use before the house was took down, and the pews sold at publick vandue ; " and also
"Voted to excuse 'One Pine Hill' people from all charges in fitting, raising and furnishing the old meeting-house," to which last concession seventeen voters entered a protest which has the effect of annulment.
The people of "One Pine Hill " were now vexed beyond measure, and, it would seem, the peo- ple of Hollis were giving them aid and comfort. The former addressed a new petition to their towns- men requesting to be set off and the latter voted "to joyne 'One Pine Hill' People, so called, to get them set off from Dunstable to be annexed to Hollis." The town of Dunstable discussed their requests March 8, 1756, and peremptorily denied them.
Sept. 27, 1757 : "Voted that nothing more be done about furnishing the meeting-house at pres- ent ; " also
"Voted to hire Elias Smith to preach," whereupon John Allds and Jeremiah Colburn protested
in writing that Smith did not adhere to Westminster confession and they were Presbyterians.
*
*
* * Nine others protested that the meeting was illegal and that Smith's "preaching is contrary to our profession," while seven contented themselves with "protesting that the meeting was illegal;" and it was
"Voted that the town would not Incourage the settlement of Elias Smith."
Nov. 27. 1758 : "It was proposed whether the people of 'One Pine Hill' should be excused or released from paying anything towards the support of the Gospel and it was voted in the negative"- and fourteen persons signed a protest against settling Josiah Colburn and a committee was appointed to find out why he was dismissed from his last place. (The committee reported at a subsequent meet- ing that "it was to ease the taxpayers," and he was thereupon hired.)
Meanwhile the people of One Pine Hill were not appeased. They renewed their demand to be set off, and Dec. 18, 1758, "it was proposed to give consent for their set off to Hollis for one thousand pounds." This proposition was voted down, and then it was voted that "the people of One Pine Hill are uneasy and to make it easy move the meeting-house to the center of the town." A committee was appointed to talk the matter over with the grieved people and the committee reported that "the people of Pine Hill would not be content nor joyne in settleing a minister, neither consent to hear one sermon," and thereupon the vote to move the meeting-house was rescinded. Finally it was " voted to settle Mr. Colburn and give Pine Hill the full part of preaching according to their tax in any place in Dunstable they might choose." Even this proposition did not heal the wound.
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.