USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Canterbury > History of the town of Canterbury, New Hampshire, 1727-1912, v. 1 > Part 8
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
2 The town of Canterbury voted for the separation March 18, 1779, and Capt. Josiah Miles, David Foster, Capt. Edward Blanchard, and Ensign Archelaus Miles were appointed to run the line of division. The legislature approved June 19, 1780, and the inhabitants of Northfield met July 17, 1780, to elect their first town officers.
71
GROWTH OF THE TOWN.
known names are missing, but it shows the extent of the personal property of the inhabitants. Capt. Stephen Gerrish and Samuel Moore appear to have been the largest owners of live stock, while Dr. Josiah Chase, the physician of the town, is the only one who possessed two horses.
AN INVOICE FOR THE YEAR 1769.
Capt. Stephen Gerrish, 2 heads, 4 oxen, 8 cows, 1 two year old, 1 yearling, 1 horse.
Abraham Bachelder, 1 head, 4 oxen, 1 cow, 2 yearlings, 1 horse. Thomas Clough, 1 head, 2 oxen, 5 cows, 3 three year olds, 2 two year olds, 2 yearlings, 1 horse, 1 two-year-old colt.
Joseph Mann, 1 head, 1 cow, 2 three year olds, 2 yearlings, 1 horse.
Abraham Bachelder (Jr.) 1 head, 1 cow.
Isaac Bachelder, 1 head, 1 cow.
Jacob Bachelder, 1 head.
Archelaus Moore, 4 heads, 2 oxen, 5 cows, 4 two year olds, 7 yearlings, 1 horse, 1 two year old colt.
Ensign James Shepard, 1 head, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 1 yearling.
William Forrest, 1 head, 2 oxen, 3 cows, 2 two year olds, 2 yearlings.
William Glines, 2 heads, 1 cow, 2 two year olds. Joseph Glines, 1 head.
Nathaniel Glines, 1 head, 1 cow, 2 two year olds.
James Gibson, 3 heads, 2 cows, 5 yearlings, 1 horse, 2 two year olds.
John Holden, 1 head.
James Gibson, 1 head, 2 yearlings.
Joseph Cox, 2 heads, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 1 horse.
Benjamin Sias, 1 head.
Benjamin Simpson, 1 head.
Jonathan Clough, 1 head, 1 cow.
Nehemiah Clough, 1head.
John Ash, 1 head, 1 cow.
William Moore, 1 head, 2 oxen, 3 cows, 2 two year olds, 3 year- lings.
Ensign John Moore, 1 head, 2 oxen, 3 cows, 1 two year old, 2 yearlings.
72
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
Nathaniel Moore, 1 head, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 2 two year olds, 1 yearling.
William Gault, 1 head, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 2 two year olds, 2 year- lings, 1 horse.
Ann Curry, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 4 two year olds, 1 yearling, 1 horse. Jeremiah Hackett, 1 head, 2 cows, 2 yearlings.
Joseph Soper, 1 head, 1 cow.
Dr. Josiah Chase, 1 head, 2 cows, 2 horses.
Samuel Moore, 2 heads, 6 oxen, 6 cows, 1 two year old, 1 horse.
Daniel Ames, 1 head, 1 cow, 5 two year olds, 1 yearling.
Benjamin Heath, 2 heads, 1 cow.
Simon Ames, 1 head, 2 cows, 2 two year olds.
Ephraim Hackett, 1 head, 2 cows, 1 yearling, 1 horse.
Joshua Boynton, 2 heads, 1 cow.
Enoch Webster, 1 head, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 1 three year old, 1 horse.
Thomas Foss, 3 heads, 1 cow, 1 yearling, 1 horse.
Lieutenant (Samuel) Ames, 3 heads, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 5 two year olds, 1 yearling.
Samuel Ames, Jr., 1 head, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 1 horse.
Ezra Hackett, 1 head, 1 horse.
Jonathan Foster, 1 head.
THE "MARK BOOK."
The "Mark Book" of Canterbury, used to record the marks for cattle and sheep, selected by their owners to designate their live stock, is among the records that have survived the destruction of time. It was originally used when these creatures ranged at will on the common and undivided lands and before the settlers had individual pastures that were fenced, and it was employed later to assist in identifying cattle and sheep breaking out of enclosures and straying to other localities. The first. entries were made June 12, 1760, and the last just 103 years later. Those of the first date were the following:
"Lieut. William Miles' mark, a crop off each ear and a half penny under each ear." The latter mark was probably made by branding.
"Capt. Josiah Miles' mark, a crop off the near ear and a half penny under the right.
73
GROWTH OF THE TOWN.
"Thomas Clough's mark, a crop off the near ear and a slit in the end of the same.
"John Glines' (son of John Senior) mark, a crop off the right. ear and a half penny under the same.
"Ensign John Moore's mark, a swallow's tail in the end of the near ear and a half penny under the right ear.
"Ezekiel Morrill's mark, a crop off the right ear.
"Nathaniel Moore's mark, a swallow tail in the end of the right ear.
"William Moore's mark, a crop off the near ear, and a half penny under the same.
"Nathaniel Perkins mark, a hole in the near ear.
"Archelaus Moore's mark, a swallow tail in the end of the near ear.
"James Shepard's mark, a half penny under each ear."
November 28, 1760, Benjamin Blanchard records his mark, David Morrill, and Ephraim Hackett in 1761 and William Simons, Thomas Beedle, Henry Elkins, Jeremiah Clough, John Dolloff, Samuel Shepard, William Forrest and John Forrest probably the same year from the sequence of the records. Sol- omon Copp's mark is entered October 27, 1765.
In 1766 entries of the marks selected by Samuel Gerrish, Dr. Josiah Chase, Moses Ordway and Samuel Moore are recorded.
The necessity of these marks is seen by the following entry of September 13, 1766.
"This may certifie the owner or any other person whom it may concern that Nathaniel Moore took up and impounded a. stray ox and carried him through the law. He is a black one with a white face and a white spot under his belly and the tops of both his horns are cut off and (he) is judged to be about 8 or 9 years old."
The entries from 1767 to 1780 are as follows: 1767, John Hoyt; 1769, Abraham Batchelder; 1770, John Simons, William Davis, George Kezer, John Moore Jr., Simon Ames, Edward Blanchard; 1771, Nehemiah Clough; 1772, David Norris, William Gault, Jeremiah Clough Jr .; 1773, Josiah Miles Jr., Abiel Foster, Samuel Moore, Jr .; 1774, Ephraim Carter, Thomas Hoyt; 1775, Simon Stevens; 1776, Nathaniel Whitcher, Ensign Joseph Soper, Robert Hastings, Peter Huniford, Samuel Colby, Jona- than West, John West; 1777, William Hancock, George Hancock,
74
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
Leavitt Clough, Henry Clough; 1778, Thomas Cross, Jesse Cross, Obadiah Mooney, Joseph Moore; 1780, Joseph Durgin.
In 1798 and 1799 Moses Cogswell, Enoch Gerrish and Abiel Foster, Jr., had drawn in the book fac-similes of their marks.
When stray cattle were taken up and impounded and were not claimed within a reasonable time, it was necessary to appraise them so that they might be sold to pay the expense of their keeping. One such instance is recorded in this book.
CANTERBURY, December 15th, 1777.
I, Jeremiah Clough Esqr., being required Do appint Mr. Robart Hastons & Capt. Jeremiah Clough to be apprize masters to apprize two young Creaturs one a black heffer coming in three or four years old with a half cropp off of the Rite Ear & sum white on her bag also a black stear Coming in three years old no Artifisial Mark. Taken up by Mr. Abner Hains of the above said Town the 28th day of June 1777.
JEREMIAH CLOUGH, Just of Peace.
We the Subscribers being appinted as abovesd, have apprized the above mentioned Creaturs, to be worth ten pounds ten shillings, the heffer at six pounds, and the stear at four pounds ten shillings Lawful Money. Witness our hands-
Apprized and sworn
JEREMIAH CLOUGH Jun"
ROBERT HASTONS. (Hastings)
CHAPTER IV.
BOUNDING THE HOME LOTS. CONTROVERSIES OVER THE CANTER- BURY GORE. EARLY HIGHWAYS. THE WEBSTER-BLANCHARD FERRY. THE PARSONAGE LOT. EFFORTS TO SETTLE A MINISTER. REV. ROBERT CUTLER. REV. ABIEL FOSTER. HIS DISMISSAL AND SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC SERVICE. DIARY OF REV. TIMOTHY WALKER. THE POUND. AUTHENTICATING THE TOWN RECORDS. DUTIES OF CONSTABLE AND COLLECTOR.
In spite of Indian alarms and the apprehension of the people of attack by the savages, there were certain interests of the com- munity that could not be neglected. While the first concern of the settler was the clearing of his land, the planting of his crops and the erection of his dwelling, his relations with his neigh- bors and his duties as a citizen soon demanded his attention. His farm needed accurate boundaries. The town lines had to be perambulated and marked. Preaching of the gospel had to be provided and some thought given to the education of the children.1 Because there were public charges to be met, the annual meeting of the inhabitants must be held and selectmen and other officials chosen. Collective action, therefore, became necessary. Whatever the danger of attack from savage foes, the March election of town officers appears to have regularly occurred, but the votes passed and the instructions there given were not always obeyed with promptness.
When the grant of Canterbury was made to the proprietors, little was known of the territory so generously bestowed. There- fore, the inhabitants soon had trouble with contiguous towns over boundaries. Again, when the proprietors employed sur- veyors to lay out Canterbury into lots, range ways or roads running north and south and east and west were provided at regular intervals between the lots. Owing to the contour of the country, some of these proposed highways were impossible to build or were ill suited to the wants of the people. Their course
1 See the chapter on schools.
76
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
had to be changed, and this necessitated a corresponding change in the boundaries of the lots that had been purchased and occu- pied by inhabitants. Across the Merrimack River from Canter- bury was the town of Boscawen, now attracting settlers. To facilitate the transaction of business between the two communi- ties provision had to be made for a public ferry. Matters of minor import also called for attention, so that the warrants for town meetings and the action of these assemblies for twenty-five years following 1750 indicate the thoughts and activities of the people of Canterbury.
The accurate bounding of the home lots was long delayed. In 1750 there was a vote that "the side lines of the home lots in Canterbury be run east and west to settle the bounds of the said lots at the unbounded ends" and the lot-layers, James Scales, Ezekiel Morrill and Archelaus Moore, were chosen a committee to run these lines. Six years later, this committee was called to account for neglecting its duty. Finally, in 1761, a return of these boundaries was duly accepted by the town.
As the neighboring towns were being settled, it became impor- tant to define the limits of each town. The selectmen of Canter- bury and Bow perambulated the boundary line between the two towns in 1750 and made return of their work. By the grant of the provincial government of New Hampshire, the town of Bow was bounded in part on its easterly and northerly sides by Canter- bury. A considerable portion of the territory covered by the Bow grant had been given by Massachusetts to the proprietors of Penacook (Concord). This provoked a contest between the proprietors of these two towns which lasted many years. The final settlement left Concord instead of Bow as the town contiguous to Canterbury.1 While this controversy was going on, Canterbury laid claim to a gore of land having its western boundary on the Merrimack River and its southern on the original grant of Bow.
In his history of Concord, Bouton says that the original west. side line of Canterbury was 606 rods from the river and that it ran along the upland without taking in the intervale. This. intervale belonged to what was called "Mason's Patent," and the farms of Stephen Gerrish and Richard Kent on the east side of the river were included in the gore.2
1 Bow Controversy, Chapter VI, History of Concord (1903).
2 Bouton's History of Concord, pages 226-230. . .
77
BOUNDING THE HOME LOTS.
Settlements had been made in this territory on the supposition that it belonged to Canterbury. An early reference to the gore is found in the petition of Joseph Mann to the proprietors of the lands purchased of John Tufton Mason, dated May 8, 1753. His case is thus stated, "That your petitioner hath settled upon a parcel of land containing 40 acres for three years past, which 40 acres is situated in the gore of land between Canterbury and Bow and which 40 acres I purchased of Col. Peter Gilman as a lot in Canterbury No. 53 and gave him £150 old tenor for said 40 acres and have been improving upon said 40 acres ever since, and have built a house thereon where my family now dwells." Being informed that his farm was outside the boundary of Canter- bury, Mr. Mann asks the proprietors to sell to him rather than to any one else.1
Before the date of Mr. Mann's petition the Masonian pro- prietors had caused a survey and a plan of this gore to be made. Abraham Bachelder of Canterbury, in a petition dated Canter- bury, January 22, 1759, "reminds them that about seven years ago they desired him to run out and plan that gore of land laying between Canterbury and the Merrimack River and that they would see him satisfied." He reports that the work has been done and the plan delivered into their hands, yet he has not received any satisfaction. Therefore, he asks for a lot of land in said gore "beside Kent's Farm, so called, according to the plan I now send you in lieu of money." 2
At a meeting of the Masonian proprietors at Portsmouth, May 8, 1759, the clerk was instructed to pay Abraham Bachelder £10 old tenor for making a plan of the intervale and other lands between Canterbury and Merrimack River.3
Samuel Hale in a petition dated Portsmouth, February 8, 1759, asks for "a grant of between two and three hundred acres laying between Rumford (Concord), Canterbury and Kent's Farm and Gerrish's not claimed by any person." 4
The previous year the people of Canterbury had taken action to secure possession of this gore of land. July 17, 1758, the town "Voted that Thomas Clough be the man to agree with and make
1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXVII, page 142; Masonian Papers, Vol. V, page 93.
2 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXVII, page 144.
8 Idem, Vol. XXIX, page 489.
Idem, Vol. XXVII, page 145.
78
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
up and satisfy the Lord Proprietors of Mason's Right in the name and behalf of the present inhabitants of Canterbury from sixteen years old and upwards for the goar of land lying between Canterbury and Rumford and to receive a quit claim, first to each possessor according to what he is in possession of and also to pay according to (excepting them that possess home lots in said goar) that was supposed to be in his possession and the remainder to be acquitted to the present inhabitants of Canter- bury, they paying according thereunto-Capt. Stephen Gerrish and (Richard) Kent's grant excepted."
The next day Mr. Clough wrote a letter to George Jeffreys of Portsmouth, clerk of the Lords Proprietors, in which he recited the action of the town and informed him that he should have proceeded at once to Portsmouth but for the Indian alarms which made it unsafe for them to "stir from one garrison to another without a large company together." Therefore, he sent his communication by James Head to notify the Lords Proprie- tors that it was the intention of the people of Canterbury to purchase this gore of them and that they had "voted a plan of said land to be taken, . to see what is wild land, what is in possession and what hath been improved in said gore, except what was formerly purchased by Capt. (Stephen) Gerrish and Col. (Richard) Kent of Newbury." This plan he promised to bring with him when he was able to leave.1
Captain Gerrish appears to have been disturbed about the title to his farm, in spite of the fact that it was specially excepted from the proposed purchase by the town of Canterbury. He applied to the proprietors to confirm it, and at their meeting, November 26, 1761, the following vote was passed:
"Whereas Stephen Gerrish of Contoocook (Boscawen)
hath represented that he hath made improvement on a certain parcel of land lying near said place called Contoocook and between that and the township of Canterbury, bounded as follows: Beginning at Merrimack River, joining on Kent's Farm, so called, thence running east 15 degrees north 160 poles, thence north 15 degrees west 280 rods or poles, then west 15 degrees south 160 poles to the river aforesaid, and then by said river to the place it begins, and was solicitous to obtain a title from said pro- prietors.
"Voted that all the right, title, to said tract of 1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 143.
79
BOUNDING THE HOME LOTS.
land aforesaid, by estimation 300 acres is hereby granted to said Stephen Gerrish."1
The negotiations between the people of Canterbury and the proprietors of Mason's claim moved slowly, for it was not until six years after Thomas Clough's appointment as agent for the town that any further action was taken. Then, at a meeting held May 24, 1764, Thomas Clough, Walter Bryant and Joseph Sias were authorized to buy "of the purchasers of Mason's Claim the whole of their right or as much as they can agree for in the gore of land between Canterbury and Rumford line, and petition the General Court to have the same annexed to the town of Canterbury." 2
The proprietors of the gore began to get impatient at the delay as is seen by their vote July 25, 1764. They took the initiative and appointed a committee to sell.3
Sometime in the fall of 1764 a purchase was undoubtedly made for there is a memorandum of an agreement made in November that year by which Walter Bryant, Thomas Clough and Joseph Sias conveyed to Jeremiah Clough and Ezekiel Morrill of Canter- bury "all the intervale and upland in the gore, so called, that lays between Canterbury and Merrimack River and on the northwesterly side of the 40 acre lots laid out by the proprietors of Canterbury and on the north of Capt. Gerrish."4
To secure the committee (Bryant, Thomas Clough and Sias), a bond was given to them by certain citizens of Canterbury as follows:
"Canterbury, December 25, 1764. Whereas a committee of proprietors of the town of Canterbury have agreed with the pur- chasers of Mason's right to give £2600 old tenor for their interest. in a gore of land between Canterbury and Rumford line, now, know ye that we, the subscribers, upon said committee bringing in a quit claim deed of Mason's right agreeable to an agreement. we have heretofore made, we promise to pay the said committee the above sum of £2600 old tenor and all the charges that hath or may arise in the purchasing of said gore which purchases and
1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, page 502.
2 Idem, Vol. XXIV, page 146.
3 Idem, Vol. XXIX, page 512.
Idem, Vol. XXIV, page 146.
80
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
charges is to be paid in the proportion to what land we possess in the intervale of said gore.1
"Ezekiel Morrill, Jeremiah Clough, Thomas Clough, W'm. Moors, Sam'l Moore, James Gibson, Nat Moore, John Forrest, Samuel Ames, Richard Ellis, Ephraim Hackett, Henry Elkins, James Shepard, John Dolloff, Jr., David Morrill, John Moore, John Glines, Daniel Morrill, Josiah Miles, Abner Clough, Daniel Ames, William Forrest, Jr., Josiah Kentfield, Archelaus Moore, Joseph Simonds, Samuel Shepherd, Asa Foster."
To provide for the payment of the purchase price, the town had voted at a meeting held in September, 1764, that "so much of the common lands be sold and is hereby granted to those who will give the most for the same as will be sufficient to pay the charges of getting the gore between Canterbury and Rumford lines annexed to Canterbury."
The people not only desired to make good their title to the land in the gore by purchasing Mason's claim, but they wanted it formally annexed to Canterbury. To accomplish this it was necessary to apply to the provincial legislature at Portsmouth. Here they met with opposition not only from Rumford, whose people laid claim to part of the same territory, but they had to overcome the protests of some of the inhabitants of the gore who objected to being incorporated with Canterbury.
At a meeting of the inhabitants held August 16, 1759, it was, "Voted that Capt. Josiah Miles carry and offer to the General Court a petition to have that gore of land which lies between Bow and Canterbury annexed to Canterbury."
Captain Miles presented his petition to the general assembly of the Province February 7, 1760, setting forth "that there is a gore of land lying on the south west side of said boundary be- tween that and Bow on which several of the home lots of said Canterbury are laid out by mistake of the boundary on that side on which there are sundry families settled, and when an invoice was returned to regulate the proportion of the towns to the Province tax, those families were returned, supposing they were within said boundary; but upon running the line afterwards they were found without: since which they have refused to pay any tax to said town; that the people are willing to be annexed to Canterbury, as it would be more convenient to them than to be joined to any other township, and there is no prospect or rather possibility that it should ever make a town-
1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 147.
81
THE CANTERBURY GORE.
ship, considering the situation, the shape, the quantity-by estimation about fifteen hundred acres-and the quality of the land."
A hearing was ordered at the February session, 1761. In the meantime, remonstrances came in from various quarters. The inhabitants of Rumford protested and authorized Dea. Joseph Hall to repair to Portsmouth and "do what he can to hinder the prayer of the petition being granted." John Webster and Samuel Osgood set forth in a petition that "they had lately purchased a farm commonly called Kent's farm, contiguous to Rumford, of the claimers of the right of John Tufton Mason and that it would be more convenient to them to be annexed to Boscawen than to Canterbury on account of the distance to the meeting house and the badness of the road and not agreeable to their interest, con- nections or inclination, to be annexed to Canterbury." This farm contained three hundred acres and lay north of the Rum- ford line on the east side of the Merrimack River. Stephen Gerrish, whose farm was still farther north on the Merrimack, gave among other reasons for opposing the request of Canterbury that "the meeting house in Boscawen is within a mile of my house; that my interest is in several respects closely connected with that of Boscawen; that I largely contributed to the settle- ment and support of their late minister, Mr. (Phineas) Stevens, as long as he lived; as also towards procuring what occasional preaching they have had since his death." The most vigorous protests, however, came from "Joseph Man" and "Will. Gault," of which the following are exact copies:
"To his Excellency the Governor and House of Assembly:
"These are to inform you that I live on the Common Lands near Canterbury, and that Capt'n Miles is trying to have me Corperated to them, which I have no Desire to, be Cause they Intirely Refused me of all town Privileges altogether : Whereupon I would humbly pray your honors to set me of to Some other Christian People, for if I am Set over to them I expect Nothing but oppression.
"WILL. GAULT."
"These are to Inform His Excellency the Governor and the honorable Assembly of Portsmouth,
"That I Live in The Common land and Near to the town of Canterbury, and the Select men of the town has rated me every year, & I have paid rates this five years past to them, Which I 7
82
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
think Very hard of; Whereas they have a great Entervail that they have the Cheef of their liveing Every year, & Never pays no Rates for it, Which makes me think they use no Conscience, or they would Rate their own Common land as Smart as they doe others. Seeing that Mr. Parsons laid out and Incroached on Severall Eacers of my land, and has taken it into his farm, I Requested of them to lay out my land in Canterbury, as they Reserved a tract of land to make good the home lots that fell out of the town in the Commons. But it was Said yt I should have no other land than I had Gotten: for my Part I am affraid to be Corporated to Canterbury for fear of oppression, and for these reasons I would pray his Excellency and the Honorable Assembly of Portsmouth, that they would be pleased to Corpo- rate me to Some other Christian people.1
"JOSEPH MAN."
The objections of Joseph Mann, William Gault and Stephen Gerrish to being annexed to Canterbury appear to have been overcome in a few years, for in 1764 there is a petition to the provincial government signed by them, Archelaus Moore, Henry Elkins, Enoch Webster, William Curry, William Moore and Ann Curry, widow, asking to be included within the limits of Canter- bury. The petition sets forth that they "settled on a tract of land in the form of a gore, which until lately was deemed a part of the town of Canterbury in said province and lays between that and Bow that your petitioners are very anxious to be annexed to the town of Canterbury rather than Bow as they are within two miles of Canterbury meeting house and are distant six miles from that of Bow, and also they have several family connections in Canterbury.2 The prayer of the peti- tioners was granted January 23, 1765, and they were given leave to bring in a bill.
The early settlers evidently understood the value of political recognition in securing harmony among the inhabitants, for Stephen Gerrish was elected one of the selectmen of Canterbury in 1765 and 1766 and Joseph Mann in 1766 and 1767, while William Gault was chosen a fence viewer two years after his signature of the foregoing petition. Joseph Mann was further recognized by being made a tithing man the first year that he was elected a selectman.
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.