USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Canterbury > History of the town of Canterbury, New Hampshire, 1727-1912, v. 1 > Part 21
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
If, according to the Rev. William Patrick, "the state of reli- gion was low" when the Rev. Abiel Foster "laid down preach- ing" in Canterbury near the close of the Revolutionary War, the condition of the proprietors' meeting house forty years later was still lower. It was wholly out of repair and bordering
1 Barstow's History of N. H., pages 422-447; Life of William Plumer, pages 116, 185.
220
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
on collapse. The frame had settled so much that on one side an open space of six inches was left between roof and walls where the winter winds and storms could sweep in at will. The windows were old and loose and many cracks and seams in the sides and about the doors admitted more fresh air than was necessary for good ventilation. Both the Congregational Society and the town were, therefore, moved to action.
In 1816 there was an article in the warrant to see if the town would vote to repair the meeting house or build a new one. Nothing was done at this time. Seven years later the subject was again brought up at a special town meeting held in May and called for this sole purpose. The town was invited to consider several propositions, to build a new meeting house and finish it so that it could be used for town purposes, to repair the old meet- ing house so as to preserve it for town purposes, or to sell it and use the proceeds towards erecting a new building. A committee consisting of John Kimball, Miles Hodgdon, David McCrillis, Morrill Shepherd, Jonathan Ayers, Samuel A. Morrill and Edmund Kezer were chosen to examine the meeting house and report on the advisability of repairing it. They reported that it was inexpedient to attempt to repair the building, and their report was accepted. Then all the articles in the warrant were dis- missed by vote of the town.
The next year passed without action, but at the annual meet- ing in 1825 the town voted to build a town house, the Congre- gational Society in the meantime having taken steps to erect for themselves a house of public worship. Ebenezer Bachelder, Moses Hodgdon, Joseph Gerrish, Richard Greenough and David McCrillis were chosen a committee "to consult and adopt some method to build a town house and also to confer with the owners of pews (in the old meeting house) and see on what condition they will relinquish their right as pew holders and report at the adjournment of this meeting." The adjourned meeting was held March 25, 1825, on a new warrant issued by the selectmen to properly meet the contingency. Then a controversy began which lasted for two years embracing both the questions of expe- diency in attempting to repair the old building and the location of the town house when it was decided to have one.
At the annual meeting in 1824 there was an article in the war- rant "to see if the town will vote to have the next annual meet-
221
CONTROVERSY OVER THE TOWN HOUSE.
ing at the Baptist Meeting House." This was evidently the expression of a desire on the part of some of the inhabitants to have the town meetings held nearer the geographical center of Canterbury. The town "voted to have the next annual meet- ing at the Baptist Meeting House provided that the selectmen be seasonably notified that the pew holders do not object." As the annual meeting of 1825 was held at the usual place, it is to be presumed that the Baptist Society did not favor turning their church into a meeting place for voters.
At the adjourned meeting March 25, 1825, a committee of one from each school district consisting of Benjamin Bradley, Stephen Moore, Ebenezer Batchelder, David Morrill, Jonathan Ayers, Thomas Ames, Jeremiah Clough, Enoch Emery and Nathaniel Ingalls were chosen to locate the town house. This committee reported in favor of a location "on the west end of the lot that John Sutton now lives on." It was undoubtedly the purpose of the committee to seek a geographical center, for the site they selected was about a mile east of the old meeting house on the highway leading to the Baptist Meeting House, or where Millard F. Emery lately resided. The vote on this report stood 80 in favor to 103 against. The town then voted 93 to 83 to locate the town house within thirty rods of the old meeting house.
By a further vote "the old meeting house was to be cut down one story, moved and finished as a town house on condition that (Richard) Greenough, after the timber for silling and drawing shall be provided by the town and also after the lower part of said house shall be cleared out by the town, shall cut said house down one story, new sill if necessary, and move to the place where the committee shall direct at his own expense, which condition has been made by said Greenough."
Then Thomas Ames, Samuel A. Morrill, Leavitt Clough, Jr., David McCrillis, Miles Hodgdon, Edmund Stevens and Richard Greenough were appointed a committee "to locate the town house within thirty rods of the old meeting house and also to select one or three of the board to superintend the finishing of said house, but (they) must let out the work to be done on said house at auction and sell all the boards, glass etc. at auction that shall not be needed in finishing the town house which belonged to the old meeting house."
222
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
There was also appropriated $200 for finishing the town house. David McCrillis, David Morrill and Jonathan Ayers were chosen a committee to settle with the owners of the pews in the old meeting house and "to serve without compensation."
If ever action could be considered final, it was that taken at this town meeting. The question of whether there should be a new building or a town house made out of the late meeting house and the question of its location had been discussed and settled. The expense had been safeguarded by requiring competitive bids for doing the work and the sale of all the old material not used. It was to cost nothing to move the building and the . appropriation for finishing the town house was small. Yet the meeting had hardly adjourned before there was a movement to have the town reconsider its action. Within three weeks another town meeting was held at which the entire subject was opened up for consideration.
The warrant for this meeting asked the voters to sell the old meeting house and build a new town house, to locate the build- ing on John Sutton's lot and to raise additional money for the erection of a new structure. The question of location appears to have been the moving cause of the renewal of the agitation, for there was another article in the warrant "to see if the town will vote a sum not exceeding $300. to build a town house in the easterly part of the town and to be located where a majority of the voters of said easterly part of the town (decide) on condition that individuals at their own expense will finish the same, con- structing pews and other accommodations suitable for public worship on the Sabbath, and that in the future the easterly part of the town have their due proportion of town meetings held in said house."
The east part of the town must refer to Hill's Corner school district. At this date it was the most promising part of the town, having two taverns, at least two stores and several small industries. Stages running from Concord to Fryeburg, Me., passed through this locality, changing horses at the tavern and stopping for dinner on their return trip. In the winter the school numbered upwards a hundred scholars and it was probably the most populous school district in town.1 Located as this dis-
1 See chapter on Hill's Corner.
223
CONTROVERSY OVER THE TOWN HOUSE.
trict was, in the northeast corner of the town, the situation for- bade its becoming the permanent site of the town house, but the people were not without ambition to divide this honor with the west section. Nearly all of the inhabitants were five miles from the old meeting house and some of them resided at a greater distance. The traveling was usually bad at the season of the annual meetings in March. If the town house could not be located near the geographical center of the town, then the people of this section desired to have the town meetings held a part of the time in their locality.
The town meeting April 18, 1825, completely reconsidered the action of its predecessor in March. The selectmen were directed to request those engaged in changing the old meeting house into a town house to suspend their work. Five hundred dollars was voted to build a town house and Samuel Moody, David McCrillis and Jeremiah Pickard, Jr., were appointed a building committee. There was no agreement, however, on the location. Concerning the discussion and votes on sites, if any were taken, the records are silent. All efforts to settle the controversy having failed, the town in apparent desperation then passed the following vote:
"That the town clerk go himself or send some person to the selectmen of Warner requesting them to come to this town as a committee to locate a town house and, in case either of them can not attend, that they substitute some man in the town of Warner so that a committee of three may attend and their deci- sion shall be final, all parties having the privilege of being heard before the committee." This committee was to report to the selectmen of Canterbury.
Whether Richard Greenough, who had volunteered to move the meeting house without expense after it had been cut down a story, and his associates of the committee appointed to carry out the instructions of the March meeting, went ahead with their work regardless of the votes of the April meeting, there is nothing in the records to show. Whether the selectmen of Warner were invited to appear as arbiters in this quarrel and, invited, came, viewed the sites and confirmed the prior action of the town, the oldest of the present inhabitants does not know. How the ques- tion was finally adjusted, there is neither record nor tradition to indicate. At the annual town meeting in 1826, there was an article in the warrant "to see if the town will vote to instruct
224
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
the selectmen to sell the present town house and apply the pro- ceeds to building another town house." This article was defeated by a vote of 70 in favor to 114 against. A year later the town voted to discharge the committee appointed to settle with the pew holders and authorize the selectmen to settle all claims not then adjusted.1
Then for more than fifty years, this building, which had been the subject of so many town meetings from the time of the first settlement, served its present purpose without change, as unique a structure in its internal arrangements as could be found in the state. In 1884 another transformation took place, the raised seats on the sides and the moderator's desk being removed and the entire interior changed into a simple hall with platform in the rear and rooms at either side of the platform. In its old age of one hundred and fifty odd years, it is undoubtedly more con- venient for town purposes than when first transformed into a town house, but it has lost those features which stamped it with antiquity, while equally lost are the traditions which for a long period were associated with this landmark of the past.
The Canterbury Society for the Reformation of Morals was organized at the house of Rev. William Patrick, December 22, 1814. Its creation was in response to a circular letter sent out by the Congregational General Association of New Hamp- shire, advising the formation of such societies in every town. This letter set forth that "The General Association of this state, considering the alarming situation of this country and apprehending that the open profanation of the Sabbath is one of the moral causes why the judgments of Heaven lie upon us, have resolved to recommend an united effort to arrest the progress of this vice." After stating that "the carry- ing and opening of the mail on the Lord's Day is a public viola- tion of this institution of Heaven and tends to encourage others among ourselves" in this profanation of the Sabbath, the asso- ciation recommended petitioning Congress to take the subject under consideration and the formation of societies in the towns of the state for the purpose of discountenancing vice and immoral- ity, "particularly Sabbath breaking, intemperance, profanity and falsehood."
1 The Congregational Society of the Center built a church in 1824 and dedi- cated it in 1825. See that chapter for further information about this society.
225
SOCIETY FOR REFORMATION OF MORALS.
Prompt action appears to have been taken in Canterbury, for the printed letter of the association, which contained a form of constitution for local societies, bears the signature of the following prominent citizens:
William Patrick, Joseph Gerrish, Morrill Shepherd, Ezekiel Moore, Ezekiel Morrill, Ebenezer Bachelder, John Clough, John How, Thomas Ames, Nathan Moor, Reuben Moore, Joseph Ham, Jr., Nathan Emery, Daniel P. Ham, Enoch Emery, David McCrillis, Jesse Stevens, Sam'l A. Morrill, Abiel Foster, Samuel Moor, Jr., Joseph Moore, Amos Pickard, Asa Foster, Jeremiah Pickard, Jr., Sam'l C. Hazelton, Reuben Morrill, Wm. Randal, William Foster, David Foster, Nehemiah Clough, John Foster, Timothy Foster, Jonathan Foster, Jeremiah Pickard, Joseph Moody, Simon Stevens, Stephen Hall, Samuel Moody, Amos Hannaford, John Kimball, Samuel Gerrish, Levi Gibson, Samuel Foster, Reuben French, Joseph Ham, Eben'r French.
Two months later the members subscribed a fund of fifty dol- lars to further the objects of the society. Two documents which have been preserved indicate its activity.1 One appears to have been a communication addressed to the tithingmen and is as follows:
"It having been represented to the Executive Committee of the Society for the Reformation of Morals that on the Sabbath many of the boys and young persons enter the orchards near the Meeting House in the intermission between the forenoon and afternoon service and often tarry until after service has been sometime recommenced, the Executive Committee would suggest to the tythingmen the propriety of adopting measures to correct this evil both of entering orchards and tarrying out until too late."
The other paper is a notice and warning to the public. It reads:
"The undersigned, Selectmen and Tythingmen of the Town of Canterbury, give notice, that we have taken the oath, which makes it our duty to execute the law of this State 'For the better regulation of the Lord's day.' This duty we must discharge though it will be a painful one if we have to prosecute any of the Inhabitants of this Town, or others traveling through the Town, for transgressions of this law. We give this Public notice hoping it will prevent that disagreeable necessity.
"The subscribers would in this public manner express their thanks to the Society for the reformation of Morals, in Canterbury,
1 Papers in the possession of Luther M. Cody of Canterbury.
16
226
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
for their determination to countenance and support us in our determinations as stated above.
"SAM'L HAZELTON JOSEPH KIMBALL
Selectmen.
"STEPHEN HALL THOMAS AMES DAVID KENT NATHAN MOOR 7
Tything Men."
It is not known whether the society continued its work or whether there were actual prosecutions of Sabbath breakers. Probably the moral influence of such an organization was suffi- cient to restrain the more offensive violations of the Sunday laws until custom rendered these laws obsolete.
It was not until 1829 that provision was made for a poor farm in Canterbury. This followed three years after the first recorded effort to establish a house of correction in town. After the poor farm was purchased, it was made the place of detention and punishment for the idle and disorderly as well as the home of those dependent upon public charity. This plan of combining a reformatory for criminals with an asylum for the poor dates back to the provincial government of New Hampshire. The instruction to Sir Edmund Andros, dated December 12, 1686, required him "to provide for the raising of stocks and building public work houses in convenient places for the employment of poor and indigent people." 1 In 1718 a house of correction for the province was authorized to be built "for keeping, correct- ing and setting to work rogues, vagabonds and common beggars and other lewd and disorderly persons, and until such house is erected, built or otherwise provided the common prison may be made use of for such purpose." If any town had or were to build a workhouse, any two justices of the peace could commit to such workhouse "all persons belonging to the same town £ that live idly, or disorderly, misspend their time, or that go about begging, or receive alms from the town."2
In 1766 any town or two or more towns jointly were author- ized to build or establish a house of correction. The preamble of this act recites the failure of previous legislation. It says, "The law of this Province for Suppressing and punishing rogues,
1 Laws of N. H. Provincial Period, 1679-1702 (Batchellor), page 165.
2 Act of May 13, 1718.
227
HOUSE OF CORRECTION AND POOR FARM.
vagabonds etc and also for setting the poor to work among other things provides that until a house of correction shall be provided at the charge of the Province the common prison may be made use of for that purpose, which use of the prison is found by experience to be very inconvenient in many respects."1
It was after the Revolution and after New Hampshire had become a state that the next legislation on this subject is found. By the act of February 15, 1791, any town was authorized to "build or use any house such town may provide for a house of correction or for a workhouse in which to set their poor to work and said house or houses may be used for keeping, correcting or setting to work of rogues, vagabonds, common beggars, lewd, idle and disorderly persons." At any legal meet- ing the town could appoint proper officers to govern such house of correction or workhouse and make rules for the control and punishment of the inmates.
Until the state was divided into counties, "the common prison" was at Portsmouth. When county jails were established, it was inconvenient and expensive for many towns to send minor offenders to the county seat for imprisonment. Canterbury was a part of Rockingham County until 1823 and the jail at Exeter was distant at least fifty miles. Whether any advantage was taken of the provincial statute of 1766 by towns to establish workhouses and houses of correction, and how early any town availed itself of the state law of 1791 to do the same thing, could be ascertained only by an examination of their records. Canter- bury apparently saw no urgent necessity for using the authority granted by these acts until 1826.
That year there was an article in the warrant "to see if the town will appoint a house of correction for idle and dis- orderly persons." It was voted to make the dwelling of Thomas Ames the house of correction. In 1827 and 1828 the residence of Capt. David Morrill, Jr., was designated as the place of con- finement for offenders. The latter year Joseph M. Harper, Joseph Lyford, Jr., Joseph Gerrish, David Morrill, Jr., and Eze- kiel Morrill were appointed a committee to draft the rules and regulations to be observed in the government of the house of
1 Prov. Laws, Vol. III, page 22, Act of January 23, 1766.
228
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
correction. At the annual meeting in 1829 the town appointed Jeremiah Clough, Ezekiel Morrill and Richard Greenough a com- mittee to purchase a poor farm at a cost not exceeding $2,000. The farm was to be purchased within a year and suitably sup- plied with stock, furniture and utensils. In 1830 the selectmen were authorized to borrow the school and parsonage funds and pay for the poor farm already purchased "and pay interest annually for the uses (for which) said funds were intended." The next year provision was made for reimbursing these funds.
To make a dwelling house a place of confinement for crimi- nals must have had its inconveniences and annoyances for the resident family, provided there were many commitments. It is not strange, therefore, that the town had soon to provide a per- manent house of correction. Before doing so, the committee who had been appointed to draft rules and regulations for the government of the institution made their report, and their draft was accepted by the town. These rules followed closely the language of the statute of 1791 and indicated the attitude of the people towards the idle and dissolute as late as the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century. After providing for the annual selection of a house of correction, the town voted that:
"There shall be chosen annually 5 or more persons as informers whose duty it shall be to give information to the Select- men or some justice of the Peace in the town of Canterbury of any rogue, vagabond, lewd, idle or disorderly person, persons going about begging, or persons using any subtle craft, juggling, or unlawful games or plays, or persons pretending to have knowledge in physiognomy or palmistry, or persons pretending that they can tell destinies or fortunes, or discover by any spells or magic art where lost or stolen goods may be found, common pipers or fiddlers, runaways, stubborn servants or children, common drunk- ards, common night walkers, pilferers, persons wanton and lascivious in speech, conduct or behavior, common railers or brawlers, such as neglect their calling or employment, misspend what they earn and such as do not provide for themselves or support their families, within their knowledge in the town of Canterbury.1
"There shall be appointed annually one or more overseers whose duty it shall be to confine at hard labor each and every
1 These several classes of offenders are still subject under the laws to im- prisonment. Public Statutes, Title 34, Section 21.
229
HOUSE OF CORRECTION AND POOR FARM.
person committed, and in case any person there committed proves refractory or disobedient, and in any manner either by conduct or language refuses to obey the orders of the overseer or overseers, he or they shall have power to inflict any or all of the following punishments, as the aggravation of the case may require viz: whipping, not exceeding twenty stripes, wearing of fetters, handcuffs, ball and chain, and feeding them with bread and water, not less than six ounces of bread and one quart of water in twenty-four hours, or any other punishment not repug- nant to the laws of this state. Provided nevertheless that whip- ping shall not be resorted to until other modes of punishment shall have been first applied and proved ineffectual in the judg- ment of the overseer, and in all cases when the whip is applied it shall be done within the bounds of reason and in presence of three respectable witnesses."
Copies of these rules were to be posted in five or more con- spicuous public places in town. The following persons, one from each school district, were elected as informers whose duty it was to call the attention of the selectmen to such idle and dis- orderly persons as in their opinion were "candidates" for the house of correction:
District No. 1, James Greenough; 2, John A. Chamberlain; 3, Benjamin Sanborn; 4, John Peverly; 5, Asa Foster; 6, John Kimball; 7, Richard Greenough; 8, John Jewett; 9, Reuben French; 10, Joseph Gerrish; 11, Jacob Gerrish. To this num- ber Robert Chase was later added.
In December, 1828, the act of 1791 was amended so that pun- ishment was reduced to hard labor or solitary confinement not exceeding forty-eight hours. The correction of the inmates of the house of correction was restricted to such as a parent may lawfully inflict upon a refractory child, and the term of impris- onment was limited to six months.1
The same statute of 1791 provided for binding out all idle or poor persons of whatever age for a term not exceeding a year and for binding out the children of the poor, "males until they were twenty-one, females until they were eighteen," and made "the relations of poor persons in the line of father, grandfather, mother or grandmother or child or grandchild of sufficient ability liable for their support." The selectmen continued to be authorized
1 The town farm was voted "a house of correction" as late as 1865. In 1870 Samuel Morrill was appointed keeper of the house of correction, although the town farm had been sold five years before.
230
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
to "warn out of town" any person liable to become a public charge at any time within a year of his coming to town. If this warning was duly served, the person did not gain a settlement and, if poverty overtook him, his support would not be charged to that town.
There is no record of any person being "warned out" of Can- terbury, but it is a very well-founded tradition that the law was repeatedly invoked by the selectmen in their zeal to protect the financial interests of the town. In some localities the notice was given indiscriminately to all newcomers as a precautionary and protective measure, regardless of their circumstances. Under this act, any one except a native of the town was liable to be directed to leave. Any person, therefore, looking up his pedi- gree need not be disturbed if he finds that some ancestor was ordered to move on by the selectmen of the town. This order did not mean that he had to obey or that he was necessarily in indigent circumstances at the time. There is a tradition that a citizen of Canterbury who was afterwards governor of the state and congressman was "warned out of the town" within a year of his coming for the sole purpose of protecting the town in case he was reduced to poverty in later life.
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.