USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Canterbury > History of the town of Canterbury, New Hampshire, 1727-1912, v. 1 > Part 17
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
At a special meeting September 14, 1814, the North Meeting House was referred to in a vote of the town describing a change in the location of a highway, and apparently at that time the building was intact.
Six months later, at the annual meeting March 14, 1815, there was an article in the warrant, "To see if the town will choose a committee to see what it is best to be done with the North Meet- ing House and report at said meeting or at a future meeting."
The town appointed John Kimball, Col. David McCrillis, Jeremiah Pickard, Asa Foster, Esq., and Thomas Ames a com- mittee "to examine and report the situation of the North Meet- ing House (so called) tomorrow or at some future meeting and likewise what is best to be done with said house."
177
THE NORTH MEETING HOUSE.
The town meeting adjourned until the next day, when this committee made a report, which was not accepted. The sub- ject was again referred to this committee, and the reference and report is shown by the following record:
"Voted that the examination of the North Meeting House be recommitted to the same men, who report that the North Meet- ing House be sold at public auction, time, place and articles of sale made known by the selectmen of said town. Accepted."
This is the final record of this building. Whether it had blown down before this date or the collapse took place prior to the proposed sale, there is no one to give information. The town having voted to sell, the building not only disappears, but there remains no knowledge of the time and manner of its demolition.
Between 1790, when it was voted to hold meetings every fourth Sunday that there was preaching in the east part of the town, and 1792, when the "Shell Church" was so far completed as to be used for town meeting purposes, religious services must have been held at private houses in the Hackleborough neighbor- hood. After the "Shell Church" was abandoned, or collapsed, these services were held as often as once in two months at the house of Jeremiah Pickard, which was built in 1811. The arrangement of the hall and rooms of this house is said to have been planned with special reference to holding religious meetings therein. It was thus used for public worship until the Union Church at Hill's Corner was completed. The Pickard house is located on a farm once owned by Thomas and Joseph Lyford, who sold to Jeremiah Pickard when they separated, Thomas moving to Northfield and Joseph to the Borough of Canterbury, where Mrs. Winthrop D. Lyford and Joseph's descendants now reside. The old house is still standing which Jeremiah Pickard occupied until he built in 1811 and it is now used by Jeremiah's descendants for a shed and for storage.
The increase of converts to the Baptist faith intensified the opposition already existing to the payment of taxes for the support of the gospel. It was a part of the movement throughout the state which resulted in the toleration act of New Hampshire a few years later. At a town meeting held Decem- ber 21, 1803, the following articles appeared in the warrant:
13
178
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
"To see if the town will release from paying the minister tax the present year all those who have gotten certificates from Mr. Young's society prior to making the tax.
"To see if the town will release from paying the minister tax the present year all those who have entered their dissent on the town book against said tax."
The latter article the town voted to dismiss. At an adjourned meeting the former article was considered and the yeas and nays taken on a motion to relieve those from the tax who held certi- ficates from Elder Winthrop Young's society. The vote was as follows:
Yeas-Laban Morrill, Joseph Ham, Moses Brown, John Kim- ball, Leavitt, Clough, Elijah Sargent, Obadiah Mooney, Jr.
Nays-Abiel Foster, Esq., Ebenezer Greenough, Jonathan Blanchard, David Foster, Samuel Moore, Jr., Jonathan Moore, Henry Parkinson, Jesse Stevens, Joseph Gerrish, Philip Clough, Joseph Soper, Nehemiah Clough, William Glines, Zebadiah Sar- gent, Reuben Moore, Moses Cogswell, Jonathan Foster, Shubael Sanborn, Daniel Randall, William Foster, Jacob Blanchard, David McCrillis, Enoch Gerrish, Asa Foster, Jr., Ezekiel Moore, Leavitt Clough, Jr., Nehemiah Clough, Jr., Abiel Foster, Jr., William Moore, Jr., Nathan Emery, Josiah Moore, Samuel Gerrish, David Foster, Jr., Morrill Shepherd, Stephen Hall, William Randall, Dea. Asa Foster, Jonathan Kittredge, John Carter, John Glover, John Palmer.
There are several protests recorded in the town records. One reads as follows: "We the subscribers, inhabitants of Canter- bury, hereby notify the Congregational Society of Canterbury that we consider it both illegal and unconstitutional that any person or persons by the authority of a town or society whatever lay a ministerial tax on any person or persons by the authority of a majority of a town or society vote, and we the undersigned hereby give notice that we are determined to pay no more minis- terial tax for the purpose of supporting any preaching or minister whatever in that way and manner after this date. Canterbury, February 16, A. D., 1803."
Another protest specifies that the subscriber is not in accord with the Rev. William's Patrick's principles. The signatures to these several remonstrances are as follows:
179
RELIGIOUS PROTESTS.
Jesse Ingalls, John Rawlings, Reuben French, James Lyford, Nathaniel Ingalls, Samuel Robinson, Ebenezer Parker, Nathaniel Pallet, William Brown, Benjamin Simpson, John Johnson, Charles Beck, John Peverly, Henry Beck, Jr., Ebenezer Parker, Samuel Haines, Jr., Joseph Clough, Samuel Haines, 3d, Miles Hodgdon, Jacob Blanchard, Edmund Stevens, Joseph Pallet, Enoch Emery, Joseph Pallet, Jr., Samuel Haines, Henry Beck, Joseph Lyford, William Simpson.
The attention of the people at this time was not wholly en- grossed with religious matters, though, so long as they were taxed for the support of the gospel, this subject continued to occupy a prominent place at their annual and special town meetings. The education of the children which is considered fully in another chapter 1 was not wholly neglected when the voters met for delib- eration on public affairs. Early efforts were made to provide schools, but it was more than a decade after the Revolution that schoolhouses were built. The poverty of the people, the scarcity of teachers, the Indian wars and the sacrifice necessary to main- tain the contest with Great Britain, all contributed to the interruptions which the records show to have occurred in the provisions for education. There were several years in succession at different periods when no appropriation was made for the instruction of the youth of the town. This, however, was in accord with the condition which prevailed in other parts of New England for a portion of the eighteenth century.
The early settlers were able with neighborly helpfulness to meet all the misfortunes incident to sickness, accidents, failure of crops and loss of their live stock through disease or the depre- dations of wild animals and the Indians. Few in number and dependent upon one another, all cases of poverty and affliction were met by contributions of the more fortunate. As the town grew in population and the people accumulated property, not all of the newcomers were enterprising settlers. The Revo- lutionary War unsettled conditions, and toward its close there drifted to Canterbury, as well as to other communities, discharged soldiers and others without occupation and without means of support. The thriftless appeared even in the frontier towns and became in time a public charge. The first reference in the records to the support of the poor is at the annual meeting in
1 Chapter on schools.
180
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
1779, when it was "Voted that the selectmen take charge of -- 's family and bind them out as the laws of the state in their case (are) made and provided."
At the annual meeting in 1793, Dr. Jonathan Kittridge's bill "for doctoring -'s family" was paid by vote of the town. Three years later the town's poor were sold at auction. Capt. Jonathan Foster, Masten Morrill and Enoch Emery being the successful bidders. In October, 1797, another unfortunate was "bid off to Capt. David Morrill and he to have $5 for keeping her until the March meeting." At the annual meeting in 1803, Stephen Hall was voted $23.50 to keep the same party for one year, and Dea. David Kent was "voted $1 per week to keep a year, if he lived so long."
At these auctions of the poor, the lowest and successful bidder was to house, feed and clothe the unfortunates for a specified time, and he gave bonds to the selectmen to fulfil his contract. He was entitled to their labor, however, if they were able to work. The women usually did the drudgery of the household and the men and boys the chores and such labor in the fields as they were fitted to perform or as could be wrung out of them. The physical condition of the pauper and his ability to work were taken into consideration by the bidder in naming the price he would accept from the town for keeping him. Sometimes the poor had the good fortune to be bid off by kind and consider- ate families, but too often it was the case that their treatment was harsh and they were inadequately fed and clothed. No stories are extant of those in Canterbury who ill treated the poor that were confided to their care. The few bidders named in the records of the town were reputable men and were undoubtedly as humane in their treatment of the unfortunate as the times demanded. But he who, discontented with the present, sighs for the "good old times of the fathers" has but to read the public records of those times to be convinced that civilization has made rapid strides since the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries. At the annual meeting in 1791, two overseers of the poor were elected in Canterbury. As the poor were still let out to the lowest bidder, the duties of these overseers must have been to look after the welfare of the unfortunates and see that they were not misused.
Among the papers of the town was found the following notice
181
SELLING THE TOWN'S POOR.
of the sale of paupers as late as 1825, four years prior to the purchase of a poor farm by the town.1
"We the subscribers, selectmen of Canterbury, will dispose of all the town paupers on Tuesday the 15th day of the present month at the store of Richard Greenough at one o'clock P. M. by receiving proposals from such persons wishing to contract for them. Canterbury March 9, 1825.
JOSEPH HAM, JR. JOSEPH LYFORD, JR. Selectmen.
SAMUEL TALLANT. 1
A list of the paupers is given in the notice. It includes two families, a man and his wife, a woman and child, three single women and four single men.
Two bills of Richard Greenough for supplies furnished the selectmen, dated 1820 and 1826, contain these items:
"To 2 quarts of Rum when the poor was let out, $1.00.
"To 7 quarts of W. I. Rum when the paupers were disposed of $2.63."
The records indicate that there were few cases of poverty in Canterbury that were not relieved by relatives and neighbors. The exceptions for the most part were of people who were without kindred in town but who had been inhabitants long enough to secure a settlement and to become a charge upon the community. For well-to-do people to have those near of kin to them sold as paupers or, at a later period, sent to the town farm, was considered as much of a disgrace as to have these same relatives convicted of crime. Therefore, when misfortunes came, not only were the immediate neighbors moved to action but the town occasion- ally voted relief. An instance of this kind occurred at the annual meeting in 1788, when the town "Voted to give Joseph Sanborn his town tax for the year 1787 on account of the loss he met with by fire." Insurance companies did not then exist and destruction of buildings by the flames meant total loss to the owners. In 1782 it was voted that "Granny Simons be exempted from her rates for one cow, always."
Complaints of poor highways did not begin with the incoming of the twentieth century and the general use of automobiles. As early as 1784, there was evidence of neglect in Canterbury
1 For account of poor farm see Chapter IX.
182
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
to work out highway taxes. Too many tax payers then, as later, took hoes instead of shovels and picks to the scene of their public labors because the former implements were more handy to lean upon while they swapped stories and watched the sun make his diurnal course in the heavens. To reprove them and the highway surveyors who had charge of the annual repairs, the town voted at its March meeting in 1784, "that those surveyors of highways that are delinquent in making the men under them in the last year's list work out their rate, for the surveyors to make return to the present selectmen of what remains due and from whom." In 1786 the town "Voted to fine those who have not worked out their highway tax by the first of October 3 shillings in money for every day lacking that is not worked out."
Canterbury originally belonged to Rockingham County. To attend court, to secure the recording of deeds of their property and to probate wills, the inhabitants were obliged to travel to Portsmouth and Exeter. As neighboring towns were settled, there was demand for the creation of a new county by the people of Canterbury, Concord and other communities distant from the county seats of Rockingham. In January, 1788, there was an article in the warrant "To see if the town will vote to petition the general court to form a new county, partly of Rockingham and partly Hillsborough Counties." Abiel Foster was chosen to confer with others at Concord on the subject and a petition to include most of the present towns of Merrimack County in a new county was received by the legislature February 5, 1788.1 In December, 1789, Jeremiah Clough, Esq., and Capt. David McCrillis were elected delegates from Canterbury to meet dele- gates from other towns at the house of Benjamin Haniford, inn- holder, at Concord to petition the legislature to create a new county. Again in 1791 there is a petition to the legislature on this subject which bears the signature of the Canterbury delegates.2
The petitioners state their grievances as follows: "The impor - tant privilege of trial by jury of the vicinage which in their present situation they must altogether forego or the otherwise so great privilege be rendered very burthensome, and the records being kept at so great a distance makes the necessary resort
N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVIII, page 795.
2 Idem, page 825.
183
PETITIONS FOR A NEW COUNTY.
to them very expensive and grievous, likewise all probate matters, as proving wills, taking letters of administration etc., the expense of carrying witnesses so far to try causes, not to mention the exor- bitant fees for travel, taxed by sheriffs and parties in their bills of cost, are accumulative sources of complaint."
Again in 1793 the inhabitants of Canterbury, Loudon, North- field, Bow, Pembroke and Concord set forth the difficulties under which they labored by reason of the courts being held in the extreme end of the county, and they alleged that they did not obtain equal justice by reason of their not having jurymen from these towns.1
For various reasons the request of the petitioners did not materialize until 1823, the principal of which was that political power in the state centered at Portsmouth and Exeter, and prob- ably those in control objected to the division of Rockingham County.
There was a special town meeting called October 20, 1794, "to see what encouragement the town will give in addition to the offer of Congress to enlist Minute Men to make up the quota from the town."
The town "voted for each soldier and noncommissioned office one shilling for each day he shall attend by order of his officer to learn the military exercises not exceeding one day a month until the next annual meeting. In case they are called into actual service, each soldier and noncommissioned officer shall receive in addition to his Continental monthly pay $2.50 per month."
This was evidently in response to the act of Congress of May 9, 1794, authorizing the president to call upon the executives of the several states "to organize and equip according to law and hold in readiness to march at a moment's warning eighty thousand effective militia," of which number New Hamp- shire's proportion was 3,544. The pay and allowance of the militia if called into the United States service were to be the same as that of the regular army. The president was further required to call upon the governors of the states to have their entire force of militia "armed and equipped according to law."
Apprehension of war with Great Britain led to this action of Congress.2
1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVIII, page 862.
2 McMaster, Hist. People of U. S., Vol. II, page 186.
184
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
.
Under the Provincial Government New Hampshire had a mili- tary organization.1 As has been seen in a previous chapter, steps were taken early in the Revolution to reorganize and perfect the militia.2 In 1780 a new militia act was passed which was amended in 1786. When the newconstitution of 1792 was adopted, it contained important provisions as to the military organization of the state, and, at the session of the legislature in December that year, an act was passed dividing the militia into regiments, brigades and divisions. There were twenty-seven regiments and each regiment was divided into two battalions. The com- panies in the towns of Concord, Pembroke and Bow formed the First Battalion of the Eleventh Regiment and those in the towns of Canterbury, Loudon and Northfield the Second Battalion.3
Every able-bodied, white male citizen of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty was required to be enrolled by the captain or commanding officer of the company within whose bounds he resided. The privates were to furnish themselves with "a good firelock, bayonet and belt, a cartouch box which will contain 24 cartridges, 2 good flints, a knapsack and canteen," and the selectmen were to equip those not able to supply them- selves. Twice a year, in June and September, the captain or commanding officer was to call out his company for inspection of arms and instruction in discipline and at such other times as he thought necessary. These training days were exclusive of battalion drills.4
In 1785 Jeremiah Clough, Jr., was commissioned lieutenant colonel of the Eleventh Regiment and served for four years.5 As early as 1794, David McCrillis was major of the Second Bat- talion of the same regiment.6 He was probably appointed in 1792 when the militia was reorganized, and he served until 1807, when he was promoted to lieutenant colonel.7 Morrill Shepard was also an officer in this regiment,8 being one of its majors in 1807 and its lieutenant colonel in 1808 and 1809. In 1810, Asa Foster, Jr., was commissioned major of the Second
1 Potter's Military History of N. H., Vol. I, page 258.
2 Chapter VI.
3 Potter's Military History of N. H., Vol. I, pages 371 to 391.
Act of Dec. 28, 1792.
5 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XX, page 282.
6 N. H. Register, 1794.
7 Idem, 1807.
s Idem, 1808, 1809.
185
MILITARY AND CIVIL APPOINTMENTS.
Battalion and promoted to lieutenant colonel in 1816 and col- onel in 1817.1 In the reorganization of the militia, the Eleventh Regiment became the Thirty-eighth and Colonel Foster contin- ued at its head until 1819. Stephen Moore was major of the Thirty-eighth Regiment in 1820 and 1821,2 and Richard Green- ough its adjutant from 1822 to 1824 inclusive.3 No officers of a higher rank than captain appear from Canterbury for the year 1825.
James Scales was the first justice of the peace in Canterbury. There is a record of his taking the acknowledgment of a deed as early as 1744, and he continued to act in this capacity until he moved to Hopkinton in 1757. Jeremiah Clough, Sr., was the next justice to be appointed from Canterbury. The earliest acknowledgment taken by him noticed in the Province Registry of Deeds was in 1765, but he may have been commissioned earlier. Archelaus and Samuel Moore were appointed soon after the Province was divided into five counties by the act of July 19, 1771.4 Samuel Moore was also a deputy sheriff of Rocking- ham County in 1772 and 1773.5 All of these appointments were under the Provincial Government. Samuel Moore probably held the office of justice of the peace until his death in 1776. His brother Archelaus continued as a magistrate as late as 1795.6 Other justices of the peace under the state government to the close of the eighteenth century were Rev. Abiel Foster, Jeremiah Clough, Jr., Asa Foster, and John Bean.7 Joseph Clough was a deputy sheriff from 1787 to 1789. New names appearing in the list of justices of the peace from Canterbury during the first quarter of the nineteenth century were Leavitt Clough, Abiel Foster, Jr., Joseph Clough, Moses Cogswell, Obadiah Mooney (probably junior), Jonathan Ayers, Leavitt Clough, Jr., Ezekiel Morrill, Amos Cogswell and Morrill Shepard.
Obadiah Mooney was appointed a coroner in 1787 and he con- tinued to hold the office for eleven years.8 Why a coroner should be necessary in a peaceful community like Canterbury does not
1 N. H. Register, 1810 to 1819.
2 Idem, 1820, 1821.
3 Idem, 1822 to 1824.
Idem, 1774, 1775.
5 Idem, 1772, 1773.
Idem, 1795.
N. H. Register, 1787 to 1800 and N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXI, page 750.
& N. H. State Papers, Vol. XX, page 812, and N. H. Register, 1788 to 1797.
186
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
appear, but a citizen of the town continued to fill the position most of the time until 1823. Benjamin Bradley was commis- sioned in 1806 and served until 1821. Jeremiah F. Clough was appointed in 1823.1
The records of the New Hampshire and of the Center District Medical Societies show that Canterbury had three physicians practicing in town from 1815 to 1820, Dr. Samuel Foster, Dr. Jonathan Kittredge and Dr. Joseph M. Harper.2
Just when the public burying yard at the Center was laid out is uncertain. The custom of having private grave yards on the land of the owner began early in the history of Canterbury and continued late into the nineteenth century. The most of these private cemeteries have been obliterated. The property on which they were located has passed from the ownership of the families for whose use they were set aside. Nearly all of them have been neglected and suffered to grow up to bushes. The walls of loose stone inclosing them have fallen down, the rude headstones marking the graves have been broken and scattered, and in some instances the plow or the cattle feeding in the pasture nearby have removed all traces of graves. In a few cases these burying places were more than family lots, the owner giving permission to neighbors to use the same. A broader interest was thus created in their preservation and public spirited descend- ants have contributed to their care and maintenance. For the most part, however, the private burial yards of Canterbury furnish little information of the history of the town.
At the annual meeting in 1795 an effort was made to enclose the cemetery at the Center, but nothing came of it. At a special meeting held May 12, 1796, it was voted "to fence the burying yard south of the Meeting House." The meeting house had been moved across the road to the north several years before, so that its first site within the enclosure of the present cemetery was now south of the building. It was declared by vote that "the bury- ing yard shall consist of 2 acres and 16 rods." The character of the fence is thus described in the records: "The two fronts of the burying yard to be fenced with posts and boards spiked on and a rail spiked on top of the posts and also two gates made in each front and the remainder fenced with chestnut rails and the
1 N. H. Register, 1806 to 1823.
2 Idem, 1815 to 1820.
Morrill Lot, Center Cemetery. Rear flag marks grave of "Master" Parkinson. See page 276, Vol. II.
187
PUBLIC CEMETERIES.
posts for the boards to be white oak 16 inches square and the said gates hung with iron hooks and eyes." The work was to be com- pleted by the middle of June.1
Whether there were interments in this cemetery before 1795 is a question. None of the early headstones which bear names and dates indicate this. There is no record of the purchase of land for cemetery purposes. The parsonage lot, given to the town by Ezekiel Morrill in exchange for other land, embraced land on both sides of the present highway between the church and the cemetery. The old custom of burying near the meeting house probably led to the use of this lot. It may be that inter- ments made here prior to 1789 led to the vote that year to move the meeting house across the highway. This is the story of the establishment of the first public cemetery in Canterbury so far as the records show.2 Evidence still exists of an earlier burying yard near the site of the log meeting house, south of the Center.
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.