USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Hollis > History of the town of Hollis, New Hampshire, from its first settlement to the year 1879 > Part 11
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
Voters and their qualifications. Prior to the Revolution. the qualifications for voting in town meetings varied with the objects of the meetings. To be qualified to vote for town officers, the per- son offering his vote was required to be a free holder in the town or to have other taxable estate of. the value of £20 .*
In the choice and settlement of a minister for a town or parish, and fixing his salary, the right to vote was limited to the owners of real estate.f Nothwithstanding this restriction of the right to vote, the taxes for the support of the minister were assessed by the Se- lectmen on land. personal estate and polls in the same manner as taxes for other town charges. To be competent to vote for a dele- gate to the General Court, the elector was required to be the owner of real estate in the town of the value of £50, and the can- didate, in order to be eligible to that office, to be possessed of real estate of the value of £300.
*Col. Laws, p. 137. tIb. p. 55.
AUTY
1746 to 1775.] THE STOCKS AND WHIPPING POST. 113
Houses of Correction. A province law passed in 1719 provided for the erection and regulation of Houses of Correction "for the keeping, correcting and setting to work of rogues, vagabonds, common beggars and lewd and idle persons." Such persons on con- viction before the Court of Sessions or a Justice of the Peace were to be sent to the House of Correction and set to work under the mas- ter or overseer of that institution. Upon his admission, the unlucky culprit was to be put in shackles or to be whipped, not to exceed ten stripes, unless the warrant for his commitment directed other- wise. By an act of the General Assembly adopted in 1766, the law for the maintenance of Houses of Correction was extended to towns with the like powers and duties in respect to them." It appears from the following vote of a special town meeting, on the 18th of March. 1773. that the people of Hollis had availed themselves of the right to establish such an institution for the town. It was then " Voted that Capt. Joshua Wright be overseer of the House of Cor- rection, and take all who may be sent there according to law." The foregoing vote is the only notice I find in the records of such an asylum for rogues and vagabonds. Both the records and traditions are alike silent in respect to the place of its location and the time it was continued, and also as to the names and numbers of its inmates, sent to the overseer to be welcomed on their introduction with. shackles and stripes.
The Stocks and Whipping Post. The punishment of malefac- tors, " by making their feet of the offender fast in the stocks," is as ancient as the days of Job, f and it is very evident from the recorded experiences of the Apostles Paul and Silas that neither the stocks nor whipping posts were unknown in their times. Sustained alike by abundant Biblical precedent as well as by the laws of the province, our order-loving ancestors were not slow in providing their town with both of these terrors of evil-doers. At a special town meeting in June, 1746, about two months after the town was incorporated. ". Voted that the Selectmen provide stocks :" and at a town meeting in the month of January next after, ". Voted to Accept the Account of Josiah Conant for making the Stocks." The town whipping- post. the fitting companion of the stocks, held its place near the front of the meeting-house, not far from the west line of the common. till after the commencement of the present century, and was in use
*Col. Laws, pp. 74. 139, 202. tjob, Chap. 13, V. 37.
(8)
114
THE STOCKS AND WHIPPING POST. [1746 to 1775. within the memory of persons still living, with its inseparable a-so- ciate, the " cat o' nine tails." The varied practical uses to which the stocks and whipping-post were applied may be readily inferred by reference to a few of the cotemporary criminal laws for the pun- ishment of minor offences, most of which were within the jurisdic- tion of justices of the peace. Some of these punishments were as follows :
Profane Cursing and Swearing. .. For the first off'euce --- a fine of one shilling. " If not paid the culprit to be set in the stocks two hours-For more than one profane Oath at the same time -- a fine of two shillings and to be set in the stocks not more than three hours."
Drunkenness. .. For first offence. a fine of 5 shillings-if not able to pav, the convict to be set in the stocks not more than three hours."
Defamation. If found guilty the offender to be fined 20 shillings. If not paid to be set in the stocks not more than three hours .*
Robbing Gardens and Orchards. If the prisoner was not able to pay his fine to be set in the stocks or whipped at the discretion of the Justice. ;
Insolence or Violence to Women on the Highway. For first offence, whipping not exceeding ten stripes. For second offence, to be burnt in the hand. j
Petit Larceny. The offender to forfeit treble the value of the property stolen, and to be fined not exceeding £5, or whipped not more than twenty stripes. If not paid. the culprit to be sold for a term of time to be fixed at the discretion of the court.
The following sentence of one Charles Newton, convicted of steal- ing property of the value of three shillings, is copied from the carly court records of Grafton County. It is here presented as illustrat- ing the state of the law in like cases in the times of King George. The person from whom the property was stolen, and who was charged with the duty of selling the culprit into servitude, was Dea. John Willoughby, one of the many worthy emigrants from hollis. to Plymouth just before the war of the Revolution.
" Grafton. ss. Superior Court. Func Term, 1774.
" Dominus Rex. 1. Charles Newton. It is considered by the Court that the said Charles Newton pay a fine to his Majesty of
*Col. Laws. p. 31. ICol. Laws, p. 150.
----
----------
-
115
1746 to 1775.] THE POOR AND THEIR SUPPORT.
Ten Shillings. or be whipped ten stripes on the naked back by the hands of the common whipper, between the hours of Ir o'clock A. M .. and 2 o'clock, P. M .. to-morrow. being the 16th day of June, A. D., 1774 .- Also that he pay to John Willoughby nine shillings, being treble the value of the goods stolen and costs of prosecution. That in want of the payment of the said nine shil- lings and cost, he be sold into servitude by the said Willoughby to any of his Majesty's liege subjects for the Term of Six months to commence on the 15th day of June. A. D. 1775. and that he stand committed till sentence be performed."
·· Attest, GEORGE KING, CTR."
The Poor and their Support. By a law of the province of 1719; continued in force till long after the Revolution. all persons having dwelt in a town for three months, without being legally warned to depart, became inhabitants, and in case of inability to support themselves from sickness or other cause, were required to be relieved by the town. By the same law the town could protect itself from the risk of the liability for the support of all new comers by warning them to leave town within the three months after their first coming. By an Act passed in 1771. the time for this warning to leave was extended to one year. The warrant for this " Warning out." as it was called, was issued by the selectmen to a constable. commanding the new comer to depart from the town within a time fixed in the warrant, and in case of his neglect to leave, the law authorized the issuing of a second warrant for his removal to his former residence. If a person so removed after- wards returned, he could be dealt with as a ". vagabond," and sent to the house of correction.
The province laws of the times provided for the election by towns of Overseers of the Poor, and in 1749, Capt. Peter Powers. Zedekiah Drury, and Nathaniel Townsend were chosen to that office. This is the only instance I find in the carly records of an. election to that office, and the instances were very rare in which any special tax was levied for the support of the poor. The care of the poor as well as the protection of the town from the increase of paupers by the .. Warning out" of new settlers appear to have been left wholly to the selectmen. It is very evident from the many entries upon the records of the issuing and return of these notices that this harsh and invidious duty of warning new settlers to leave
116
AFRICAN SLAVERY. [1746 to 1775.
the town was very diligently performed by the Hollis selectmen and constables from its first settlement, till near the commence- ment of the present century.
The first of these notices found in the records was in June, 1746. the year of the charter, and was directed to Wid. Mary Blanchard. The next in time, now to be found, was dated July 6, 1749. and served upon James Ferguson and John Thompson, requiring them " to depart from the town in 14 days." Between 1746 and 1797 there are records of nearly two hundred of the like warrants and notices, a part of them to single individuals, but much the largest portion embracing whole families, giving the names of the husband, wife and children. All new comers, indiscriminately, appear to have been exposed to these inhospitable notices. whether likely to become paupers or not. As evidence of this lack of discrimination, I find in these warrants between 1767 and 1774, the names of no less than seven persons who were afterwards Hollis soldiers in the Rev- olution, and the like number who had been in the army, and were warned to leave after the war was ended. It is very evident. how- ever, that the persons so warned did not ordinarily obey this sum- mons to leave. nor does it appear that they were expected to do so, as we find in these warrants not only the names of so many Hollis soldiers, who did not go away, but also the names of many others, who were served with the like notices, and afterwards remained, and became substantial frecholders and valuable and respected citi- zens. It is but just to say that this odious and barbarous custom had the sanction of a general law of the province. and I find no reason to believe that it was executed more offensively in Hollis than in other New Hampshire towns.
Slavery. African slavery existed in New Hampshire under the sanction of the province laws till near the close of the war of the Revolution. According to a census taken in 1767, the whole pop- ulation of the province was 52,700, of which number 384 were slaves, of whom there were two in Hollis. In 1775 the whole pop- ulation of New Hampshire had increased to $2.200. and the slaves to 656, of whom four were in Hollis.
I am indebted to a granddaughter of Col. David Webster for the original deed of sale made to him of two negro slaves. A copy of this deed is presented below, showing the mode of transferring the supposed legal title to this kind of property in human flesh in accordance with the laws then in force in New England. Col.
1746 to 1775.]
AFRICAN SLAVERY. 117
Webster was a distinguished New Hampshire officer in the war of the Revolution. who for some years before the war resided in Hollis, and removed from Hollis to Plymouth about the year 1765.
.. Know all Men by these Presents that I Jacob Whittier of Me- thuen in the County of Essex in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, Yeoman, in consideration of the Sum Sixty pounds lawful money paid me by David Webster of Plymouth in the Province of N. Hampshire. Gent. have sold and by these Presents do sell unto- the said David Webster, one negro man named Cicero, and also one .Negro Woman, named Dinah, both being servants for life, and now in my possession. To have and to hold the said Negroes during the natural life of each of them Respectively to the said David Webster, his heirs and assigns, according to the common usage and Laws of said Provinces. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the 13th day of December Anno Domini 1769, in the ioth year of his Majesty's reign. Signed Sealed and delivered in presence of us.
JACOB WHITTIER. Seal.
EBEN V. BARKER. ABIGAIL BARKER.
118
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GENERAL COURT.
CHAPTER X.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GENERAL COURT. - MEMBERS FROM HOLLIS AND THE OLD DUNSTABLE TOWNS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION. CONTESTED ELECTION IN 1762 .- DIVISION OF THE PROVINCE INTO COUNTIES .- ORGANIZATION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. COUNTY OFFICERS FROM HOLLIS,-THE PINE TREE LAW .- ITS UNPOPULARITY AND TROUBLE IN ENFORCING IT .- RIOT AT WEARE. -- GOV. JOHN WENTWORTH. - HIS PERSONAL POPU- LARITY .- ADDRESS FROM THE PEOPLE OF HOLLIS .- JURORS TO HOLLIS .- THE FIRST TRIAL FOR MURDER IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY .- POPULATION BEFORE 1775 .- 1741 TO 1775.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GENERAL COURT.
From 1741. (the year when the new province line was settled ). till 1775. the New Hampshire General Court consisted of a Gover- nor and twelve Councillors appointed by the King, and a House of Representatives varying in number from thirteen to thirty-one. elected by the towns. The only member of the Governor's Council. from the towns formed out of the territory of Old Dunstable. was Col. Joseph Blanchard, a resident of the new town of the same name, who was appointed in 1741. and held his office till his death in 1758.
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE FROM HOLLIS AND THE OLD DUNSTABLE TOWNS.
There was no member of the House of Representatives from either of the old Dunstable towns till 1752. when Jonathan Lovewell was chosen for Dunstable and Merrimack. From 1762 10 1768 these towns were coupled together and represented as follows : 1762. Dunstable and Hollis-Dr. John Hale.
Merrimack and Monson-Joseph Blanchard. Esq. Nottingham West and Litchfield-Capt. Samuel Greeley. 1768. Dunstable and Hollis-Dr. John Hale. Merrimack and Monson-Capt. John Chamberlain. Nottingham West and Litchfield-James Underwood. Esq.
..
119
1741 to 1775.] A CONTESTED ELECTION.
I find the following scrap of characteristic political history in respect to the election for Hollis and Dunstable in 1762, in the New Hampshire Historical Collections (v. I. p. 57) which is here pre- sented as follows :
" What is now Hollis was formerly the West Parish of Dunsta- ble. For a number of years after Hollis was incorporated, the two towns were classed together to send a man to represent them to the General Court. Dunstable being the older town. required the Elec- tions to be uniformly held there, until Hollis became the most populous, when it was requested by Hollis that they should be held in those towns alternately, that Each might have an Equal chance. But Dunstable did not consent to this proposal. Hollis feeling some resentment. mustered all its forces, leaving at home scarcely man or horse. Previously to this time the person chosen had been uniformly selected from Dunstable. But on this occasion the peo- ple of Dunstable. finding they were outnumbered, their town clerk mounted a pile of shingles and called on the inhabitants to bring in their votes for Moderator for Dunstable. The town clerk of Hollis mounted another pile and called on the inhabitants of Dunstable and Hollis to bring in their votes for Moderator for Dunstable and Hollis. The result was that ---- Lovewell. Esq., was declared Moderator for Dunstable and Dea. Francis Worcester Moderator for Dunstable and Hollis. Each Moderator proceeded in the same manner to call the votes for Representative. Jonathan Lovewell. Esq .. was declared chosen to represent Dunstable and Dr. John Hale was declared chosen to represent Dunstable and Hollis. Accord- ingly both repaired to Portsmouth to attend the General. Court. Lovewell was allowed to take his seat, and Hale rejected. Hale. however. instead of returning home. took measures to acquaint the Governor with what had transpired and waited the issue. It was not long before Secretary Theodore Atkinson came into the House and proclaimed aloud. . I have special orders from his Excellency to dissolve this House: Accordingly you are dissolved.' . God save the King."
It appears from the Journal of the House that the election of both Lovewell and Hale was set aside, and the House immediately dissolved by the Governor. A very few days after, a second elec- tion was held, and Hale was returned by the sheriff. and at once obtained his seat without further objection .*
*Prov. Papers, Vol. 6, p. Soó.
-----
120
ORGANIZATION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. [1771.
Dr. Ilale was afterwards re-elected and continued to represent Hollis and Dunstable till 1768, when he was succeeded by Col. Samuel Hobart, who, as appears from the Journal, represented Hollis only for the next six years till the Revolution. In 1767 Dr. Hale was Lieut. Colonel of the Regiment of Militia to which Hollis was attached, and Col. Hobart, Major of the same regiment. In 1775, Hale was appointed Colonel of that regiment, and Hobart Colonel of the Second New Hampshire Regiment of Minute Men. ordered to be raised by the New Hampshire Provincial Congress in September, 1775 .*
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
Before the Revolution, Justices of the Peace as well as the Gov- ernor and Council held their commissions, as Magistrates, from the King. The only persons in Hollis known or supposed to have been so commissioned were Samuel Cumings, Sen .. the first Town clerk, his son Samuel Cumings, Jun., John Hale, Samuel Hobart and Benjamin Whiting, the first sheriff of. Hillsborough County. Samuel Cumings, Jun., and Whiting were Loyalists or Tories, and are supposed to have left the State early in 1777 and never after- wards returned, and together with Thomas Cumings, a brother of the former, were proscribed by an act of the New Hampshire General Court passed in 1778, forbidden to return and their estates confiscated.i
ORGANIZATION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
Previously to 1771 there had been no division of New Hampshire into counties. Till that year the province, in law, was but a single county, and the courts of law, as well as the sessions of the Gen- cral Court, were ordinarily held at Portsmouth, near the S. E. cor- ner of the province. That part of New Hampshire between the Merrimack and Connecticut rivers had for many years been largely settled, and the settlers west of the Merrimack .had for a long time been greatly dissatisfied with the inconvenience, delays and ex- pense incident to their being so remote from the courts of justice and seat of government. As early as 1754 the people of Hollis, with a very large portion of the settlers west of the Merrimack. united in petitions to the General Court setting forth their grievances.
*Prov. Papers, Vol. 6, pp. 607, 641.
+Belknap's History of N. IL., p. 351.
121
THE PINE TREE LAW.
1772.]
and praying for a division of the province into counties. But no such division was made till 1771. On the 19th of March of that year the General Court passed an act dividing the province into the five original counties of Rockingham, Strafford, Hillsborough. Grafton and Cheshire. These counties were so named by Gover- nor Wentworth in honor of some of his friends in England con- nected with the English government .*
The county of Hillsborough was organized the same year, with the county seat at Amherst. The town meeting in Hollis, held in August of that year, " Voted to raise Croo, for a prison at Amherst, provided it should be built on the South side of the Souhegan river."
Two of the first Judges of the Court of Sessions for the county were Matthew Thornton, of Merrimack, and Samuel Hobart, of Hollis. Benjamin Whiting, also of Hollis, was the first high Sheriff, and Hobart the first county Treasurer and Register of Deeds, his office being kept in Hollis.
THE PINE TREE LAW, ITS UNPOPULARITY AND TROUBLE .
ENFORCING IT.
It will be remembered by the careful reader of the town char- ter of Hollis that all White Pine Trees growing within the town and fit " for the royal navy" were reserved to the King for that use. The same reservations of white pine trees for the like pur- pose were made in other New Hampshire town charters granted by the royal governors. As early as 1722, the New Hampshire General Court passed an act making it a penal offence for any person to cut White Pine Trees of twelve inches in diameter and over, a law that was continued in force till the Revolution. By this law the fine for cutting such trees of 12 inches in diameter was £5. -- 12 to IS inches in diameter, fio,-from IS to 24 inches, £20 .- exceeding 24 inches, $50,-and all lumber made from trees unlaw- fully cut was forfeited to the King.i
It may well be supposed that this law was not popular with the New Hampshire owners of saw mills, and farmers whose lands abounded with those trees, which were quite as useful and needful for the dwelling-houses and meeting-houses of the inhabitants as for the King's navy. At the time Hillsborough County was
*Belknap, p. 344. ¡Col. Laws, pp. 226, 220.
-
-
122
PINE TREE RIOT AT WEARE.
[1772.
organized. Gov. John Wentworth held the office of .. Surveyor of the King's Woods." coupled with the authority and duty of enfore- ing this hated law, and he had in different parts of the province his deputies to aid in its execution. It was among the duties of these deputies, at the expense of the land owner, to mark all of the King's Pine Trees, on land proposed to be cleared, before the owner should begin his clearing. If lumber made from the King's trees, marked or unmarked, was found at saw-mills or else- where, it was made the duty of the deputies to seize and sell it for the benefit of his Majesty's treasury.
PINE TREE RIOT IN WEARE.
In the spring of 1772 an incident occurred in the town of Weare. in the northerly part of Hillsborough county, that well illustrates the bitter and settled hostility of public sentiment to this odious law. A citizen of that town of the name of Mudgett, with others. had been charged by a deputy surveyor with unlawfully cutting the king's trees, the lumber made from which was then at one of the saw-mills in Weare. A complaint was made against the offender and a warrant issued for his arrest. and put into the hands of Sheriff Whiting for execution. The sheriff, taking with him an assistant. repaired forthwith to Weare and made prisoner of the accused. The arrest being late in the afternoon. the prisoner suggested that it the officer would wait till the next morning he would furnish the necessary bail for his appearance to the next court. The sheriff acquiesced in this suggestion, and he, with his assistants, went to a tavern near by to pass the night. The coming of the sheriff, with the nature of his mission. to Weare, was very soon made known to the townsmen of the accused, who. to the number of twenty or more. met together. and during the night made their plans for bail of a different sort from that understood by the sheriff the evening before. Very early in the morning. while the sheriff was yet in bed, he was roused from his slumbers by his prisoner who told him that his bail was waiting at his door. Whiting complained at being so carly disturbed in his slumbers. The proposed bail. however. without waiting to listen to any complaints of this kind. promptly entered his sleeping-room. each furnished with a tough. flexible switch. an implement better adapted for making his mark upon the back of the sheriff than for writing the name of the bail at the foot of a bail bond. Without allowing their victim time to dress
123
PINE TREE RIOT AT WEARE.
1772.]
himself. one of the company, as is said, held him by his hands, and another by his feet. while the rest in turn proceeded to make their marks upon the naked back of the sheriff more to their own satis- faction than for his comfort or delight. Having in this way, as they said, squared and crossed out their pine tree accounts with the principal, they afterwards settled substantially in like manner with his assistant. Having in this manner satisfied their accounts with these officials their horses were led to the door of the tavern. ready saddled and bridled. with their manes. tails and cars closely cropped, and their owners invited to mount and leave. Being slow to do so. they were assisted upon their horses by some of the com- pany and in that plight rode away from Wearc. followed by the shouts and jeers of the rioters.
The sheriff was not of a temper to overlook or forgive such gross abuse and insults. He at once appealed to the colonels of the two nearest regiments of militia. and with their aid called out the posse comitatus, who. armed with muskets, marched to Weare to arrest the offenders. The rioters for the time disappeared, but afterwards surrendered themselves, or were arrested. and eight of them were indicted for assault and riot. at the September Term of the Superior Court. 1772. At that term they were arraigned and all pleaded that they " would not farther contend with our Lord the King but would submit to his Grace." Upon this plea the court fined them the very moderate sum of twenty shillings each with cost. This very slight punishment for such an outrage upon the high sheriff. when executing the legal process of the court,. would seem to indi- cate that the sympathies of the bench were quite as much with the prisoners at the bar and popular sentiment, as with the sheriff and the Pine tree law. This law as it was enforced was more oppres- sive and offensive to the people of those times than the Stamp tax and Tea tax, and there is little doubt that the attempted execution of it contributed quite as much as either or both of those laws to the remarkable unanimity of the New Hampshire yeomanry in their hostility to the British Government in the civil war that soon followed.
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.