USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Canterbury > History of the town of Canterbury, New Hampshire, 1727-1912, v. 1 > Part 9
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
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
According to Nathaniel Bouton in his "History of Concord,"
1 Bouton's History of Concord, pages 226-230.
2 N. H. State Papers, Vol. IX, page 94.
83
THE CANTERBURY GORE.
the Canterbury petition was in part granted. That is, a strip of land lying north of the original Rumford line and extending to the Merrimack River was annexed to Canterbury. The bounds were as follows: "Beginning on the easterly side of the Merri- mack River, on a course north, seventy-three degrees east, from the mouth of the Contoocook River; from thence, continuing the same course about six hundred and six rods, to Canterbury south-west side line; from thence, north-west, by said Canter- bury line, to Merrimack River; from thence, down the said river, to the place begun at; and all the lands, polls and estates taken by said boundaries are hereby added to said Canterbury and made a part thereof."
Bouton adds that it appears that the original west side line of Canterbury was 606 rods from the river, and that it ran along on the upland without taking in the intervale. The intervale between the river and Canterbury line 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 strip of land annexed to Canterbury, while none of that asked for between Canterbury and the Bow line, which belonged to Rumford, was granted.1
When the "Parish of Concord" was created in 1765 by the provincial government of New Hampshire in settlement of the controversy with Bow, the boundaries of the original grant of the former town by Massachusetts were changed. Referring to these changes, Amos Hadley in the "History of Concord" says: "By this bounding, the north east corner of Penacook, being a triangle of 1,025 acres more or less, was left to Canterbury. This piece of land had been asked for by Canterbury in a petition pre- sented to the General Assembly in 1760, to which remonstrance had been made by the leading citizens of Rumford. After Con- cord was incorporated, the gore was a bone of contention between its proprietors and those of Canterbury for sixteen years, or until 1781, when a settlement was effected, the former quit claiming one hundred and fifty acres and the latter eight hundred and seventy-five acres. Finally on the 2d of January, 1784, by act
1 Bouton's History of Concord, pages 226-230. Near the railroad station of Canterbury is an ancient stone bound, still standing, that probably marked the original western boundary of the town.
84
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
of the State legislature the gore was severed from Canterbury and annexed to Concord."1
The settlement here referred to is confirmed by the "Proprie- tors' Records" of Canterbury, for the agreement between the two towns is in these records, under date of February 9, 1781. The land quit-claimed by Concord is described as a "tract containing all the land which was laid out by the proprietors of Canterbury in their forty acre (division) to the following original proprietors, namely, Henry Tibbets, John Moore, Eli Demmerett, Henry Tibbets, son of Nathaniel, Ezekiel Hogsden, Jr., and Samuel Shute." The 875 acres of land quitclaimed by Canterbury is described as "the remainder of a gore of land of one thou- sand and twenty-five acres of land more or less claimed by each of said proprietors." The agreement is signed by John Chandler, Timothy Walker and Benjamin Emery in behalf of Concord and by Archelaus Moore, Thomas Clough and Josiah Miles in behalf of Canterbury. At a meeting of the proprietors this report was accepted.
The action of the Legislature in 1784 referred to by Amos Hadley arose from a petition of citizens of Canterbury and Loudon. In their petition dated June 10, 1783, they say that " Your petitioners live upon a gore of land formerly claimed by the proprietors of Rumford and Canterbury, that when Rumford was incorporated in the year 1765 by the name of Concord, your petitioners were left to said Canterbury, since which time said proprietors of Rumford and Canterbury have amicably settled their dispute. Your petitioners would further show that by the late division of Canterbury2 they were all except one set off to the parish of Loudon, that they are situated at a great distance from the meeting house in said Loudon, &c.
"Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the above mentioned gore of land containing 1050 acres lying at the north- easterly corner of Rumford be dissevered from said Canterbury and Loudon and annexed to the parish of Concord.
"John Hoit, Timothy Bradley, Jr., Abner Hoit, Phineas Virgin, Samuel Goodwin, Simon Trumbel, Timothy Bradley, James Glines, John Chandler, Amos Heath, William Virgin, Eben Foss, Stephen Crossman, Benjamin Bradley, Henry Lovejoy, William Stickney, Philip Eastman."
The plan which follows, shows the changes in the boundaries of Canterbury and Concord and how the New Hampshire grant
I History of Concord (1903), page 240.
" The setting off of Loudon as a separate township in 1773.
85
THE CANTERBURY GORE.
to the Bow proprietors overlapped the Massachusetts grant to the proprietors of Concord. The light black lines mark the present boundaries of Canterbury and Loudon, the last town being included in the original grant of the first. The heavy black lines indicate the present boundaries of Concord. The double lines mark the boundaries of Bow as it was originally granted by New Hampshire. The dotted line running northwest and south- east shows the original west side line of Canterbury to the Merri- mack River and also a part of the western boundary of Loudon at the time that town was set off from Canterbury. The dotted line running southwest and northeast indicates the southern boundary of Canterbury as claimed by the inhabitants of that town after Loudon was made a separate township, Bow being recognized as a contiguous town to Canterbury rather than Con- cord. The present bounds of the latter town are now substan- tially those of the grant made from Massachusetts.
The entire western boundary of Canterbury at the present time is the Merrimack River. Between the dotted line which marks the original west side line of Canterbury and the river as far south as the present northern boundary of Concord is that part of the gore upon which Joseph Mann, William Gault and others settled, and it included the farms of Richard Kent and Stephen Gerrish. This was a triangle, by estimation 1,500 acres, but it was never claimed by Concord.
Between the northern boundary of Concord and the dotted line, which is an extension to the west of the present northern boundary of Loudon, lies the territory in dispute, with the Merrimack River as its western boundary. Canterbury claimed this territory because its original boundaries were laid on Bow, while Concord claimed it because it was included in the original grant to the proprietors of that town. When the boundaries of the parish of Rumford were defined by the provincial legislature of New Hampshire in 1765, all this territory was given to Canter- bury. It formed a triangle of 1,025 acres.
In 1781, when the proprietors of Canterbury and Concord adjusted their dispute, 875 acres in this territory contiguous to the Merrimack River were quitclaimed to Concord and 150 acres, which was a triangle in the eastern corner of the larger triangle, were conceded to Canterbury.
The northern boundary line of Concord now extended east to
-
86
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
the original west side line of Canterbury. To complete its present. boundaries and to include what was originally granted by Massa- chusetts to the Concord proprietors it was necessary to annex a gore of 1,050 acres, of which probably 150 acres had been conceded to Canterbury three years before, while the remaining 900 acres were taken from the town of Loudon. This annexation was upon the petition of John Hoit and others, and it was made without opposition.
The plan here given is not exact in its dimensions but in a gen- eral way shows how the controversy arose and how it was adjusted from time to time until the final settlement in 1784. Accurate surveys and correct maps of the towns of New Hampshire were the product of a later generation than that of this dispute, while legislative changes of boundaries in the early days were not always accompanied by clearly defined measurements and descriptions of the territory.
In the New Hampshire State Papers are several plans that throw some light upon this controversy and they have been of assistance in determining locations and reaching conclusions.1 They were undoubtedly made at the time of the dispute, although one is without date. The course of the Merrimack River in two centuries has greatly changed, and this must be taken into consid- eration in determining the territory in the gore which is now a part of Canterbury.
Mr. Hadley's statement that, "Finally on the 2d of January, 1784, by act of the state legislature the gore was severed from Canterbury and annexed to Concord," 2 is misleading. It is too broad an assertion. It conveys the impression that Canterbury finally surrendered everything for which it contended. This was not the case. The origin of the controversy so far as Canterbury was concerned was due to the location on the intervale of the Merrimack River of some of the Canterbury settlers on the sup- position that they were within the limits of the grant of that town. Finding that they were not and that they were within the terri- tory owned by the purchasers of the claim of John Tufton Mason, the inhabitants of Canterbury first proceeded to purchase of these proprietors their rights and then to have this territory annexed by the legislature to Canterbury. The controversy
1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXVII, pages 146-148, 154.
2 History of Concord (1903), page 240.
87
PERAMBULATING THE TOWN LINES.
BOSCAWEN
MERRIMACK RIVER.
CANTERBURY.
GORENo.I.
+ N. W. CORNEROF LOUDON 1784.
CONTOOLOOK
RIVER.
GORE No. 2.
Goda No.3.
LOUDON,
CONCORD.
* N.W. CORNER LOUDON 1773.
Bow.
PLAN OF GORE.
88
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
between Canterbury and Concord arose over the conflicting claims of the proprietors of Concord and Bow as to the boundaries of the latter towns. When this was finally settled in 1784, Con- cord had secured substantially all that it originally claimed, but it never laid claim to that part of the gore which is now included in Canterbury. In reality, there were three distinct gores as indicated on the plan, No. 1 being annexed to Canterbury with- out dispute and Nos. 2 and 3 finally ceded to Concord.
The boundary between Canterbury and Chichester was also in controversy as early as 1767 and was soon taken to the courts of the province for settlement. Committees were appointed at various times by the citizens of the former town to "prosecute and defend" its rights. It was not until about 1780 that an adjudication was secured. Perambulation of the line between Canterbury and Gilmanton appears to have been accomplished without dispute as early as 1750.
In the early running of the boundaries of towns, the points where the line took a new course were not always marked by an enduring monument, the bound oftentimes being a tree or a stump which in time disappeared. Then, where the line followed a straight course for some distance, it was indicated by the spotting of trees. Even where stones were set up and marked on opposite sides with the initial letters of the two towns, the subsequent clearing of the forest was liable to obscure them in the under- brush. When it became the duty of the selectmen to perambulate or rerun the boundary, it was frequently attended with difficulty owing to the lack of permanence of the marks and bounds orig- inally made to indicate the line. As an illustration of this, take the return in 1800 of the selectmen of Canterbury and Concord showing their perambulation of the division line of these two communities. They report as follows:
"We the subscribers, have this day met and perambulated and new spotted the line between Canterbury and Concord, viz. We began at a red oak tree, being the northwesterly corner bound of Loudon and the southerly corner of Canterbury, thence running north twenty degrees west to a small chestnut tree and a large quantity of stones, being the northeasterly corner bound of Concord, thence south seventy degrees west to a stake and stones, on Gaults hill, so called, thence the same course to a pine stump near Jon'n Blanchard's house, thence the same course to Merrimack river."
89
EARLY HIGHWAYS.
Not many years ago the selectmen of Canterbury and North- field undertook to perambulate the boundary line of these two towns by beginning at the opposite east and west corners and running towards each other. They were unable to meet as they should have done if they had accurately located the bounds, but passed each other a little to the north and south of the true line. It was such experiences that led to the erection of stone monu- ments set securely in the ground and appropriately marked.
The selectmen, when they perambulate a boundary line, now look at these monuments to see that they are firmly in place. They are required by law to make these perambulations as fre- quently as once in seven years.
In the warrant of a town meeting held in February, 1762, there was an article to see if the town "will lay out a road from the meeting house in said Canterbury, through the town the nearest way to some seaport town and such other roads as are necessary to accommodate said town." The vote on this article was as follows: "That the committee chosen to lay out the third divi- sion of land shall layout a - rod road in the common land where they think best beginning at a place called Head's Hill to Chichester in the convenientest place of a (the) parish and to a market." This highway was completed in a year, for, in 1763, a committee was chosen "to lay out a four rod road through the land of Jonathan Elkins to the Chichester road that is now open." In the history of Loudon, this highway is referred to as "the old Canterbury road." 1
The first official action taken by the inhabitants in laying out highways that is recorded was in 1750, when a committee, consisting of Ephraim Hackett, Thomas Clough and Archelaus Moore, was chosen to join with the selectmen in "looking out convenient highways or roads among the home lots and to see where highways must be changed and to see that every man who is wronged by changing or making new roads have due recompense made to them." It appears that highways were reserved between the home lots when they were laid out. These reservations did not fully meet the requirements of the settlers and changes became necessary.
The Merrimack River divided the settlers of Canterbury from
1 History of Merrimack County, page 498.
90
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
their neighbors of Boscawen. There may have been places on this river that were fordable in dry seasons, but the crossing had to be made usually in boats. The necessity of a public ferry was early apparent, and September 19, 1767, the exclusive right of maintaining such a ferry was granted by the provincial govern- ment to John Webster of Canterbury.1 He was to transfer men, horses, cattle, goods, carriages, etc., from the shore of Canterbury to Boscawen and Concord and from Boscawen to Concord, and no others were to set up a ferry on the Merrimack River within three miles above or below where Webster lived. The location of this ferry is pretty accurately set forth in old deeds, and their descriptions contribute to the information regarding the gore of land which was so long a bone of contention between Canterbury and Concord.
July 10, 1760, Thomas Pearson of North Yarmouth, Me., sold to John Webster and Samuel Osgood three hundred acres more or less in Canterbury which Pearson bounds as follows:
"Southerly by Rumford or Penacook line and by 2 acres I gave to Phineas Stevens, westerly by Merrimack River, northerly by land of Capt. Stephen Gerrish, and easterly by land claimed by the proprietors of Canterbury, or, however otherwise bounded as by Richard Hazzen's plan thereof may appear, this being the same land granted to Richard Kent by the province of Massa- chusetts Bay and confirmed to me by the assigns of Tufton Mason." 2
May 31, 1765, Samuel Osgood of Maine deeds to Enoch Web- ster of Rumford "all my right in a farm, commonly called Kent's farm, on the easterly side of the Merrimack River opposite the Contoocook River, which farm my honored father, John Webster, and I lately bought in equal shares of Thomas Pearson and do now hold as joint tenants and estimated to contain 375 acres." 3
October 25, 1767, John Webster of Canterbury sold to Enoch Webster of Canterbury "the whole of a certain ferry which was granted to me by His Excellency, John Wentworth, upon the Merrimack River." 4 The farm and ferry were bought of Andrew McMillan of Concord and Enoch Webster of Canterbury, Novem-
1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 528.
? Prov. Registry of Deeds, Vol. LXVIII, page 198.
: Idem, Vol. LXXIX, page 99.
· Idem, page 426.
91
BLANCHARD'S FERRY.
ber 24, 1769, by Benjamin Blanchard, 2d, of Hollis, N. H.,1 and later they were conveyed by him to his son, Benjamin Blanchard, 3d. The ferry continued in the possession of the Blanchard family until the building of the Boscawen toll bridge. It was known as "Blanchard's Ferry" and so described in the act incor- porating the bridge company.2
A parsonage lot was provided in 1752, when Ezekiel Morrill was voted one hundred acres of the proprietors' undivided land "in exchange for forty acres of land joining to the meeting house which is proposed for a parsonage lot." In the drawing of the forty-acre lots, although provision was made for the school right and the minister's right, none was reserved for the parsonage. Nothing appears to have been done to improve the lot until 1756, when it was voted to "clear and fence the parsonage." The next year a town rate of £300 old tenor in work was voted at 30s. per day "to be worked out upon the parsonage by the first of May in clearing said parsonage, and any person who does not work out his rate by said time shall pay his money." Although a committee was appointed to see that the work was done, the same subject was before the town meeting again in 1760 when the minister who was called that year was voted the use of the parsonage in addition to his salary. It was further provided that the parsonage "shall be fenced with one good fence." Somehow the inhabitants seemed to shun this parsonage lot, for five years later the town offered still higher inducements for making it serviceable. In 1765 it was "Voted that men shall have £2 10s. old tenor per day for every day they work in fencing and clearing the parsonage, and Deacon (Ezekiel) Morrill and Ephraim Hackett have £10 each for their trouble as committeemen to see the same done." As there is no further record, it is presumed that the minister's lot was cleared so that he could plant his crops, and that a fence was at last erected to protect them from the stray cattle, sheep and hogs that roamed along the highway. Thirteen years had thus elapsed since the parsonage was set aside and nine years since the town first voted to put it in con- dition for use. The final disposition of this lot is part of the narrative of a subsequent chapter.3
1 Prov. Registry of Deeds, Vol. XCVI, page 162.
For account of Clement's Ferry see Chapter IX.
· Chapter X.
92
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
In the meantime, efforts were made to settle a minister. There was an article in the warrant of the annual meeting of 1755 to this effect, but no action was taken that year. If there was preaching, it was probably supplied without charge by the Rev. James Scales, to whom remuneration does not appear to have been voted after the March meeting of 1754. In June, 1756, however, a unanimous call was given to the Rev. Robert Cutler to settle in Canterbury. He was voted for his yearly support "£300 old tenor at £4 per dollar to be paid in dollars or bills of credit of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Contit equivalent thereunto, likewise £300 old tenor more to be paid in provisions and have his cows pastured and wood hauled."
This method of paying the minister in part by donation of provisions did not prove acceptable, for late the next year the town "voted to pay Mr. Cutler's rates in dollars at £4 per dollar instead of provisions, as voted in his call."
Mr. Cutler appears at first to have given satisfaction, for efforts were made to install him, which failed, however, through his inability to secure the attendance of a council of ministers. The following is a copy of a letter addressed to the church at North Hampton inviting the pastor and others to participate.1
"For the Revd Mr. Nathl Gookin Pastor of the 4th Church of Christ in Hampton. To be communicated to ye Chh.
"The freeholders & Inhabitants of this Town of Canterbury- To the Chh of Christ in North Hampton, Send Greeting:
"Revd Hond & Beloved in our Lord jesus Christ-
"Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God in his Holy Providence to make way for the settlement of a Chh in this town of Canter- bury and that as a Chh of Christ we might come to the enjoyment of all his holy Ordinances, we have unanimously Called Mr. Robert Cutler to the work of the Ministry among us, and it hath pleased Him who sends forth Laborers into his Harvest to incline his heart to accept this Call and to take the Pastoral Charge over us, who dwell in the Wilderness, and are exposed daily to the Insults & Barbarities of a Savage Enemy, we do therefore hereby signify to you that with his Consent we have Appointed Wednesday, the 15th day of Sept. next to be the day for his Instaulment to the Pastoral Office amongst us, & we do therefore humbly And Earnestly desire your Assistance here by your Revd Elder and Messengers on the said day for the more orderly and effectual Consummating of that Affair.
"Thus asking your Prayers to God for us and Commending 1 N. E. Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. XXVII, page 64.
93
SETTLING A MINISTER.
you to his abundant Mercies and goodness, we Subscribe your Brethren in the Faith and Fellowship of the Gospel.
CANTERBURY Aug't ye 4th, 1756.
"P. S. The Revd Elder and Messengers are desired to meet at ye House of Capt. Jeremiah Clough in s'd town at 8 of ye Clock in ye morning so that a Chh may be Seasonably embodyed.
"In ye name and behalf of ye Freeholders and Inhabitants of ye Town of Canterbury.
"EZEKIEL MORRILL, JEREMIAH CLOUGH, JOSIAH MILES.
"Aug. 29th This letter read. Sept. 12, Vote called for but none voted to comply.
"NATH'L GOOKIN."
Mr. Cutler made a journey in 1757 to various churches to secure their cooperation in his installation but without success. In December that year, the town voted to continue his preaching until the following July with a view to his settlement, "Joseph Man" entering his protest to this vote. When July came, a committee was appointed to send out letters in the name of the town to such regular churches as Mr. Cutler might designate to come and install him. To this vote William Forrest, Ezekiel Morrill, Ephraim Hackett, James Head, James Head, Jr., William Glines, William Moore, Reuben Morrill, William Glines, Jr., Ensign John Moore and William Forrest, Jr., entered their protest.
Neither Mr. Cutler nor the town committee met with any encouragement and the inhabitants finally appealed to the Eccle- siastical Convention for advice and assistance. The convention on account of Mr. Cutler's conduct while at Epping-for which, however, he had made his peace with the church and had been regularly dismissed-advised them to proceed no further towards his installation.1 This advice was accepted and the selectmen were authorized December 14, 1758, to make up his accounts and give him a note for the same. The town meeting then adjourned two weeks and "Voted that no preaching be hired until March next." The following tribute to Mr. Cutler was voted to be entered upon the town records:
"These lines are to signify to whom it may concern that, whereas Mr. Cutler, who has been with us for a considerable time and has preached to good acceptance amongst us and who
1 Farmer and Moore's Historical Coll., Vol. II, page 363.
94
HISTORY OF CANTERBURY.
has had an invitation for more than two years past to settle with us in the gospel ministry, yet, by reason of the many disappoint- ments we have met with in respect of his installment, with respect to the failure of churches in not coming, and the people thereby getting more and more discouraged and so crumbling into parties and sectaries, all these things being considered, we judge that it would not be for the glory of God and the interest of religion for Mr. Cutler to settle in the gospel ministry in this place, and, therefore, having agreed to a separation, we can't withal but think from an acquaintance with Mr. Cutler's minis- terial gifts and qualifications that we are bound in justice so far to acknowledge them for edification as that we do heartily recom- mend him to the work of the gospel ministry wherever Divine Providence shall open the door for him."
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.