USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Hollis > History of the town of Hollis, New Hampshire, from its first settlement to the year 1879 > Part 7
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
In December, 1748, this pew ground was disposed of by lot -those entitled to do so drawing for choice. Down to this day the records of the town show the amount of the premium paid for cach pew, by whom it was paid, and the precise location of each pew in the meeting-house, "with the man and his wife seated in it according to pay on Real Estate," can be as readily understood from this record, as from an ocular view. "Mr. Enoch Hunt" drew the first choice, paid for it £14, O. T., and chose the second pew at the right hand of the pulpit. Mr. Elias Smith drew the second choice, paid £14, O. T., and chose the second pew at the left hand of the pulpit. "Capt. Peter Powers," third choice, paid for it £13, O. T., and chose the first pew on the left hand of the front door. Lt. Benjamin Farley. eighth choice, and took the third pew at the right hand of the east door, and paid for it fr. O. T. Dr. Samuel Cumings, thirteenth choice ; paid for it £9, Ios., O. T., and took the first pew at the left hand of the west door. And so of the others.
The pulpit was not yet built ; but at the annual Town Meeting in 1749 it was " Voted to Bould the Pulpit and the Ministerial Pew and Stars as soon as the Bords wold do to work." It was not told how soon the " Bords wold do to work," yet it appears that when that part of the joiner's work was first done, it was not thought so good as it should have been, as I find at the annual meeting in 1754 the town .. Voted that the Pew before the Pulpit be taken down, if there may be a good Hansom Pew for the town built. and a
70
THE SECOND MEETING-HOUSE.
[1746 to 1750. . .
convenient Deacons' seat and good Hansom stairs to go to the Pulpit." At the above annual meeting in 1749 it was put to vote " To see if the Town would build two Porches to y' Meeting House, and it passed in the Negative."
The question in respect to the building of porches to the meeting- house was many times discussed in the town meetings for the next twenty years. But none were built till about the year 1772, when a small one was erected on the south side of the meeting house, for passing into the main building. One on the east side high and large enough for gallery stairs to the " Women's Gallery," and one on the west side for stairs to the "Men's Gallery." with a belfry and steeple.
This ancient second church edifice of Hollis, as originally com- pleted. long ago was dust. and has passed away among the things that once were but are not. All that was mortal of the worthy people who built and worshipped in it is also dust, and for nearly a century has reposed in the humble church-yard hard by. Yet from the minutes and hints preserved by them in their town records it would not require the genius of a Cuvier or Agassiz to reconstruct this ancient edifice, both as to its interior and exterior, and to pre- sent in vivid perspective the old congregation of worshippers as it would have appeared to the eye of a looker-on one hundred and twenty years ago.
The stumps of the sturdy forest trees that had grown on the con- mon before it. and in the burial ground behind, still stood firmly rooted in their native soil. The roads that led to it, freshly cut, and little better than bridle paths, unfenced, except here and there with logs or brushwood through the scattered and stump-covered clear- ings, wound their lonely way through the dense. primeval forest.
The building itself was a plain wooden structure. covered on its outside with split clapboards. unpainted, except its doors. windows and water " Troves," as yet without porches. with a single outside door on each of its south. east and west sides ; with a suitable num- ber of horse blocks at convenient distances for the accommodation of such of the congregation as rode to meeting upon the side saddle or pillion. as well as of those who rode upon saddles with two stirrups.
On the inside. upon the floor below, around next to the four walls, was a single row of pews, in which. from Sabbath to Sab- bath were seated the patriarchs and dignitaries of the town, the " highest in pay on real estate," with their wives and families.
71
1746 to 1750.] THE SECOND MEETING-HOUSE.
A broad aisle leading from the south door to the pulpit and deacons' seat divided the remainder of the lower floor into the east and west sides, the east being the "men's side," and the west the "'women's side." This area was furnished with long seats for such as could not afford or were not permitted to enjoy the luxury and dis- tinction of pews ; yet in making and arranging these seats, the com- mittee charged with their construction were directed by the town meeting to have them made and arranged " according to pay, having regard to age."
The galleries were also divided between the sexes in the same way with the lower floor - the west gallery belonging to the sterner, the east to the gentler sex, with separate flights of stairs in the southwest and southeast corners leading to each of them, with tithing men above as well as below to note all graceless irreverence and indecorum -especially in the youthful portion of the congre- gation.
The pulpit was at the end of the broad aisle, on the north side, next the wall, with a capacious sounding board raised over it so high that in after years it was ordered by the town to be placed lower, if " those who wished for the change would pay the expense of mak- ing it." By the side of the pulpit, and leading into it, was a flight of "Hansom stairs," such being the kind voted by the town. Imme- diately in front of the pulpit was the deacons' seat, where, in ac- cordance with the usages and established proprieties of those times, Deacons Boynton. Cumings. Patch and Worcester, in their small . clothes, long hose, knee and shoe buckles, took their seats as models of gravity and decorum to all the lay members of the congregation.
" Cleanliness was said very long ago to be next to Godliness," and cleanliness in respect to the care of their meeting-house was cultivated by our worthy forefathers as diligently as if it ranked among the Christian graces. At each annual town meeting a special officer was chosen to take care of the meeting-house for the coming year. The following extract from the town records of 1773 furnishes an example of these appointments, and of the duties ex- pected to be performed by that officer : "Edward Carter, chosen to take care of ye meeting-house & he is to keep it well swept and clean : To open and shut the Doors in Good season, and shovell the snow from the Doors, and shovell Paths from the Doors to the ' Horse Blocks. and clean the Horse Blocks well. He is to have eighteen shillings if done to the acceptance of the Town .- if not, to have Nothing."
.
-
72
THE SECOND MEETING-HOUSE. [1746 to 1750.
.
This picture of this ancient edifice cannot be truthfully en- bellished with stair or floor carpets, or with wood or coal stoves or furnaces, or with any other modern invention for warming churches in winter. The only implement or convenience for a like purpose. then in use in country meeting-houses, was the little portable. tin foot stove with its basin for coals and ashes, which the youthful members of the congregation were educated to carry to meeting in their hands for the use and comfort of their parents and seniors. Yet this was an indulgence that popular sentiment did not seem to favor. as is evident from a vote of the town, at the March meeting in 1776, of which a record was made in the following words : " Voted that all Stoves that shall be left in the Meeting-House shall be for- feited to the Saxton Mr. John Atwell & he may sell them if the owner shall refuse to pay 1-2 a Pistareen for the first offence & Doble that sum for the second offence, and the said Atwell shall return the overplus after he is paid for his trouble for the use of the Poor of the Parish."
Nor are we able to garnish our picture with an organ, melodeon, bass viol, or with duets, trios or quartettes, or with any choir of trained vocal singers. All these helps and accompaniments of mod- ern congregational worship were then unknown. Yet in the public devotional exercises of that day the use of hymns and spiritual songs was by no means omitted or neglected, and the singing was doubt- less quite as solemn as other parts of the religious services either of those times or the present. When a psalm was selected from Stern- hold and Hopkins, or a hymn from Dr. Watts, it was slowly read by the minister or senior deacon, one or at most two lines at a time. and sung by the congregation as read from the pulpit or Deacons' seat. When the reader had read from the book, " Hark from the tombs a doleful sound," or, " My drowsy powers why sleep ye so ?" he was expected to take a rest till the congregation had sung those lines before reading the next. The congregation in this way would be quite sure to have some conception of the ideas intended to be conveyed by the words of the hymn, a matter quite certain not to be true in the ordinary opera performances of the modern quartette.
The earliest reference to be found to a choir of singers in the town records is in the doings of the annual town meeting in 1767. The town then " Voted that those Persons that had taken pains to instruct themselves in singing may have the two fore seats below on
1
73
1746 to 1750.] THE SECOND MEETING-HOUSE.
the Men's Side." The next notice we find of singing and singers is in the record of the annual meeting in 1784. It was then " Voted That 12 Feet of the hind Body Seats below next the broad Aisle be appropriated to the Use of Singers on condition that a certain num- ber of them will give the Glass necessary to repair the windows." Lastly, in the year 17SS, it was " Voted That the Ground now occu- pied by singers shall not be appropriated to any other use, and that the singers may be allowed to Sing once a Day Without Reading."
This was a final and decisive triumph on the part of the choir. Thenceforth it not only secured toleration from the town meeting. but approved recognition as a fitting adjunct and help to public wor- ship, and also a place to sit and stand in the church without the condition of paying for it by mending broken windows. At length, and .before the end of the century, the choir was promoted to con- spicuous seats in the front gallery where it might sing its pæans of victory, and its songs of devotion and praise might be heard till this venerable second meeting-house, having stood for nearly sixty years, at last fell before the hand of time and modern innovation, and the church edifice now standing was erected upon the same hal- lowed ground.
4
1
74
THE ONE PINE HILL CONTROVERSY.
.
CHAPTER V.
1746 to 1773. - THE ONE PINE HILL CONTROVERSY. - ANNEXA - TION OF ONE PINE HILL TO HOLLIS. - SECOND BORDER CON- TROVERSY. - DISPUTE ABOUT BUILDING THE NASHUA RIVER BRIDGE. - COMPROMISE.
The boundaries of the towns into which the parish of West Dun- stable was divided do not appear to have been satisfactory to any part of its early settlers. The boundary line between Hollis and the new town of Dunstable, as established along Flint's brook and pond and Muddy brook, soon became the occasion of a long, per- sistent and bitter controversy. The story of this controversy may be best told by extracts from the original documents relating to it still to be found in the office of the Secretary of State at Con- cord. Before. and at the time of these Acts of incorporation into towns, there was a settlement of very worthy people, consisting of about fifteen families, near the east side of West Dunstable, and east of the new town line. known as " One Pine Hill." This settle- ment had constituted an important part of the religious society of West Dunstable. The settlers there had aided in the settlement and support of Mr. Emerson, in the building of the new meeting- house, in fixing the site of it and their burial ground. and in the laying out and making the public roads. In this settlement, among other worthy citizens. were William Cumings and Thomas Patch. two of the deacons in the church of West Dunstable : also the brothers David and Samuel Hobart. the first distinguished for his gallantry as the colonel of a New Hampshire regiment at the bat- tle of Bennington. and the latter as the first register of deeds of the county of Hillsborough, and a member of the New Hampshire Committee of Safety in the war of the Revolution. Much to their vexation and disappointment, and also to the chagrin of the peo- ple in Hollis, these settlers on One Pine Hill, found themselves on
.
٠٫٧٥
1746 to 1763.] THE ONE PINE HILL CONTROVERSY. 75
the wrong side of the town line and cut off from their former civil, social, and church relations with the settlers of West Dunstable. The only meeting-house in Dunstable, originally built for the ac- commodation of the settlers south of the new province line, as well as of those north of it, was from seven to eight miles distant from the settlers on One Pine Hill, while that in Hollis was less than half that distance. What was a matter to them of still more im- portance, the religious society in Hollis was well united in their popular and acceptable minister whose orthodoxy was without taint. while the society in Dunstable was distracted with bitter, chronic dissensions, mainly on account of the alleged heresy of their pastor. the Rev. William Bird, who was charged with being a New Light and follower of Rev. George Whitefield.
In these troubles of their neighbors, and late fellow parishioners. it was very natural that the kindly sympathies of the good people of Hollis should have been strongly with the settlers at One Pine Hill. The first reference we find in this matter in the Hollis records is in the proceedings of a town meeting. Oct. 26, 1747, at which the town ". Voted to request of Dunstable the People of One Pine Hill with their Lands to be set off to Hollis, and chose Capt. Peter Powers, Thomas Dinsmore and Samuel Cumings to assist in that affair, and Rais Bounds between the Towns." It is very evident from the sequel of events that this very civil request of the people of Hollis was not hospitably entertained by their neighbors of Dunstable.
No further reference to this subject is to be found in the Hollis records till the annual town meeting in 1756. when the town "Voted to joyn with the One Pine Hill People, so called to get them set off from Dunstable to be annexed to Holles." Again in 1759, the town " voted £50 O. T. for the assistance of the People on the west- erly side of Dunstable in their Petition to be annexed to Holles ;" and lastly, at the March Meeting in 1764. " Voted to give the Peo- ple of One Pine Hill, so called, £200 O. T. towards expenses in Getting off from Dunstable." The foregoing votes sufficiently in- dicate the sentiments and wishes of the people of Hollis.
We again recur to the documents already referred to, pertaining to this controversy, to be found at Concord. It will be seen from these papers that the people of One Pine Hill, aided more or less by their helpful allies in Hollis, were in almost constant rebellion against the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of their own town, for
.
76
THE ONE PINE HILL CONTROVERSY. [1746 to 1753.
. the seventeen years from 1746 to 1763. These original document will still be found interesting to many, not only as containing impor- tant and unique matter of local town history, but also as showing the manner and spirit in which controversies of this sort were then con- ducted. They set forth very fully the questions in dispute, the ar- guments on each side, and somewhat of the evidence. To such ... are curions in such matters, these papers may also be further inter- esting as affording an insight into the temper that animated tine parties to this controversy and the sentiments which the good people of Dunstable, Hollis and One Pine Hill mutually entertained of the motives, conduct and Christian character of each other.
It appears from the town records of Dunstable, that the settlers on One Pine Hill, very soon after they found themselves, against their wishes, inhabitants of that town, petitioned the people of Dunstable for their consent to be set off to Hollis. This petition and all other amicable efforts on the part of the people of one Pine Hill were refused by the Dunstable town meetings.
The oldest of the documents above referred to, as found in the office of the Secretary of State at Concord, is a petition to the Gov- ernor and Council in the spring of 1756. signed by fifteen of the settlers on the west side of Dunstable, and the Selectmen of Ilollis. In this Petition these signers from Dunstable say to the Governor and Council,
" That your Petitioners live in the west side of Dunstable and so far from the Meeting-House, that it is almost empossable for us to attend the Publick Worship of God there, for some of us live 7 1-2 miles and the nearest 5 1-2 miles from the Meeting-House so that we Can't and Don't go to Meeting there *:
* * for they have set their Meeting-House to accommodate them Selves. and seem not in the least to Regard us only to get our Money. Our Difficulties are so exceeding great that make us Dispair of having any comfortable reviving Gospel Priviledges unless we can obtain the aid of your Excellency and Honnors."
" Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Excellency and Honnors would so far Compassionate our Circumstances as to Re- lieve us by setting us with our Land to Holles to which we once belonged and helped settel our Minister and now go to attend the . Publick Worship of God. * The furthest of us from Holles is not more than 31-2 or 4 miles, and the bigest part about 2 1-2 or 3 miles to which we can go with some degree of comfort. We
77
1746 to 1763.] THE ONE PINE HILL CONTROVERSY.
therefore pray * that you would be pleased to annex us to Holles with about 2500 acres of Land which wee have described in a Plan, which will greatly relieve us, * * and help us to a Com- fortable Injoyment of Gospel Priviledges.
And as in Duty Bound, &c. Signed :
JOHN WILLOUGHBY NICHOLAS YOUNGMAN DAVID HOBART
ELNATHAN BLOOD GERSHOM HOBART NEHEMIAH WOODS
JOHN PHELPS
JONATHAN HOBART WILLIAM CUMINGS
JOHN MOOAR
AMOS PHILLIPS
JOSEPH FARLEY
BENJAMIN PARKER, SAMUEL HOBART ANNA PATCH
SAMUEL CUMINGS | SAMUEL GOODHUE > Selectmen of Holles." ENOCH NOYES
Upon being notified of this Petition, the people of Dunstable promptly met in town meeting and " Voted not to set off the land and inhabitants of One Pine Hill to Holles" and appointed Col. Joseph Blanchard, with two others, a committee to oppose the pe- tition. Col. Blanchard at the time was a member of the N. H. Council. and made the answer to the Petition on the part of Dun- stable. In this answer he stated that " About 1736, (9?) the old town of Dunstable was divided into two parishes. That what was then Holles & Monson with a part of Dunstable and Merrymac was the West parish and contained about 70,000 acres." That they had an annual tax of 2d. per acre for four years on the Land of non- residents to build a meeting-house and support a minister, and an after tax of about the same amount. More than was needed for it, but they disposed of it all or divided it. That in 1741 the Province Line was run leaving about 2-3 of the Inhabitants and Estates of the East Parish in Massachusetts.
" On examination we find that Holles * * is about eight miles in length East and West and about four and a half miles North and South * settled at each end. Some time after their Incorporation Holles set up a Meeting-House with a part of the money we and others paid for that use, and sett it about a mile and a half from their East line Regardless of the complaints of the Inhabitants on the Westerly part, so that many of them are eight miles from their meeting, as they must travil, much further than any in Dunstable are from our meeting-house.
" Wee are sencible that this vexatious Petition is stirred up and encouraged by Holles purely to prevent Justice to their Western In- habitants which they foresee will obtain unless they can Cloak it by Ruining Dunstable.
---
78
THE ONE PINK HILL CONTROVERSY.
[1746 to 1763.
" What Genius gave them front to mutter out this Motley Petition it is Difficult to guess.
" The Pretentions of Holles and the Pet's are totally Groundles, Wherefore we pray that their Petition may be dismissed.
Signed JOSEPH BLANCHARD, ZACCHEUS LOVEWELL, { Agts for Dunstable. JOSEPH FRENCH
I do not find in the records at Concord how or when the above petition was disposed of. It is evident however that it was not granted. It was said in the answer of Dunstable to a like petition a few years later. that when it was found that Dunstable would answer it, the petitioners were afraid or ashamed to appear in its defence. In the fall of 1760 the settlers at One Pine Hill again pe- titioned Dunstable for permission to be set off' to Hollis. at this time offering to pay to Dunstable £1500, O. T .. for the privilege. A town meeting was called in Dunstable to consider this offer. which was promptly rejected, the town voting at the same time " not to change their Meeting-House Place."
After this last defeat open hostilities were suspended till the spring of 1763. when the contest was renewed and a second peti- tion presented to the General Court by Col. Samuel Hobart as at- torney for the settlers at One Pine Hill.
In this petition. Col. Hobart says that " about the year 1747 (:). (1746), a Committee of five, two of them from Dunstable, was ap- pointed by the Governor &c., to view the Lands about Merrymac River to see in what manner it was Best to Bound them in the In- corporations. * * that this Committee went no Farther Westward than the Old Town of Dunstable. That a Comtee came down from Holles, and desired this Comte to go and view the Situation at Holles and One Pine Hill. and urged it hard. But the Comte could not be prevailed on to go any further that way. (the opposition we judge being made by Dunstable). * * Soon after Dunstable was Incorporated they got into Partys about Settling Mr. Bird. Each Party Courted Pine Hill's. Assistance. promising to vote them off to Holles as soon as the matter was settled : and so Pine Hill was fed with Sugar Plums for a number of years, till at length Dunsta- ble cast off' the mask and now appears in their True Colours. ** * * Under the Government of Massachusetts we belonged to Holles, and helpt Build a large Meeting-House and it was set to
.
.
1746 to 1763.] THE ONE PINE HILL CONTROVERSY. 79
3
accommodate us, and helpt settle a minister not in the least Doubt- ing but we should always belong there." * *
"We have ever since attended the Public Worship of God at Holles and paid our Taxes to the Minister there, tho. in the mean time we have been called on to pay Ministerial Rates with Dunsta- ble in full proportion, except some trifling abatement they made us to keep us quiet. We know of no other Real objection that Dun- stable has to our going off, but reducing them to too small a nun- ber to maintain the Gospel. But if their Inclinations can be judged by their practice it can't be tho't that they have any inclination to settle a minister * Dunstable as it lyes now consists of about
100 Families *
* All we ask to be set off is but about twelve. *
# So that their opposition must arise from some other quarter to keep us as whips to drive out every minister that comes among them, for they are always divided and which side we take must carry the Day."
The Selectmen of Dunstable, on being notified of this petition, at once called a town meeting which voted to continue their defence. and appointed a committee of three to answer the petition.
This answer begun with the assertion that this " Complaint of the People of One Pine Hill was groundless and unreasonable. As to Dunstable Meeting-House which Petitioners complain of as being at so great a distance from them, it was owing to themselves - for inany of them voted to have it where it is - and none of them against it. . That they so acted and voted for fear it might be moved to a place more just and equal and so they be prevented from being set off to Holles. * As in Times past so they are now * stired up by some Holles People to bring this petition in order to uphold the unjust Proceedings of Holles in setting their meeting- house where it is. * And now Holles are endeavoring to have the south part of Monson anexed to them, and should that be don and also the Westerly half of Dunstable then their meeting-house where it now is will be aboute right. So could it now be obtained to breake up and ruin two Towns it may hereafter be something of a cover to hide the iniquity of Holles and help the private interests of some mercenary persons, but can't possably promote the Public Good nor help the Interest of these Towns."
The case was argued on both sides, and the evidence and argu- ments convinced the General Court that One Pine Hill with its Inhabitants ought no longer to remain a part of Dunstable. Ac- cordingly, on the 13th of December. 1763, an act was passed.
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.