USA > New Hampshire > Hillsborough County > Mason > History of the town of Mason, N. H. from the first grant in 1749, to the year 1858 > Part 2
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
16
HISTORY OF MASON.
they could give no opinion as to the right of the soil, the proper parties not being before them; that Mason had no right of government, none having been granted to him with the soil ; and finally, that the four towns Portsmouth, Dover, Exeter and Hampton, were out of the bounds of Massachu- setts. It was also admitted that the title could only be tried in the place, there being no court in England that had cogni- zance of it. It became necessary, therefore, to set up a new jurisdiction before Mason's title could be tried. It was donc. Thus, in consequence of this controversy and claim, New Hampshire was seperated from Massachusetts, and was again organized under a distinct and independent jurisdiction. Randolph was appointed governor. He was greatly and de- servedly unpopular. The whole number of voters in his prov- ince was 209, all in the four towns of Portsmouth, Dover, Hampton and Exeter. In the first assembly, the whole num- ber of Representatives was cleven : from Portsmouth, Dover and Hampton, three each, and Exeter two. Mason came over from England in the latter part of the year 1681. He had been appointed one of the council, and took his seat as such. He attempted to enforce his claims in a haughty and arbitrary manner. He met with a sturdy resistance on the part of the tenants, and by his hasty and injudicious procced- ings, lost the countenance and support of the council. The controversy with the council prevailed to such length, that a warrant was issued for apprehending him, which he avoided by making his escape to England. Finding the government, which he had procured to be erected, was not likely to be administered in a manner favorable to his views, he made it his business to bring about a change, and procured Edward Cranfield to be appointed Lieut. Governor. To provide for his support, he surrendered one fifth part of his quit rents, to the king. These, and the fines and forfeitures, were appropri- ated for the governor's support. Not satisfied to rely on these alone, he took from Mason a mortgage on the whole province for twenty one years, to secure the payment of one
17
CAPT. JOHN MASON.
hundred and fifty pounds per annum, for seven years. On this encouragement, Cranfield relinquished a profitable office at home, with a view of bettering his fortunes by this arrange- ment.
His commission gave him almost absolute power. He com- meneed his rule in 1682. Mason was named in his commis- sion as one of the council, and seems to have had a great share in the management of affairs. Suits were brought to enforce his claims. They were resisted. Nothing effectual was done to establish his title. When he succeeded in obtain- ing judgment, he was forcibly resisted in his attempts to get possession. Many of the tenants claimed under Indian deeds, which were then much regarded; others shew possession for from forty to sixty years, uninterrupted by any successful en- forcement of his rights. In 1686 a purchase was made of the Indians, of a tract on both sides of the Merrimack river, six miles in breadth, extending from Souhegan river to Win- nipisseogee lake. The purchasers were Jonathan Tyng, Jo- seph Dudley, Charles Lidgat, John Usher, Edward Randolph, John Hubbard, Robert Thompson, Samuel Serimpton, William Stoughton, Richard Warton, Thomas Hinchman, Thaddeus Maccarty, Edward Thompson, John Blackwell, Peter Bulkley, William Blathwayt, Daniel Cox and " three other persons, to be thereafter named and agreed upon." Mason, by deed, con- firmed this purchase, reserving to himself and his heirs a yearly rent of ten shillings. This was called the million aere purchase. About the same time he farmed out to Hezekiahı Usher and his heirs, the mines, minerals and ores within the limits of New Hampshire, for the term of one thousand years, reserving to himself one quarter part of the royal ores and one seventeenth of the baser sorts; and having put his affairs in the best order the times would admit, he sailed for England, to attend to the hearing of a case appealed against him to the king.
The appeal to the king was decided in his favor, and he returned in the spring of 1687, full of hope of realizing some-
18
HISTORY OF MASON.
thing out of his claims; but unexpected obstructions were in his way. The government, under Andros, was in the hands of a set of harpies, who could not look on without determin- ing to come in for a share of his success. He succeeded in getting his case brought before the Supreme Court in Boston, but before he could get a decision he died at Esopus, N. Y., on a journey to Albany, where he had accompanied the governor, Sir Edmund Andros, leaving his sons, John and Rob- ert, heirs of his claims and controversies. They sold their claim to Samuel Allen, of London, for seven hundred and fifty pounds. John Usher married Allen's daughter. He was a native of Boston, and by profession a stationer ; was rich, was one of the partners in the million acre purchase, and had san- guine expectations of gain from that quarter; as also, proba- bly, from the mines he had purchased of Mason. He was ap- pointed lieutenant governor, and administered the affairs of the province. He resolved to enforce Allen's claims. He found that Pickering, the defendant's lawyer, had with a com- pany of armed men, taken out of the hands of Chamberlain, the secretary and clerk, the records and papers relating to the Mason suits. After having recovered the papers, he seems to have made no effectual progress with the suits. In 1700, Allen took the matter in hand himself, but found, when the records were examined, that twenty-five leaves were missing, in which it is supposed the judgments recovered by Mason were recorded. No evidence appeared of his having obtained possession, and the whole work was to be gone over again. Suits were commenced anew. The jury found for the defend- ant. Allen claimed an appeal to the king, which the court would not allow, and he was compelled to apply to the king by petition, on which his appeal was granted. Allen appoint- ed Usher to act for him in prosecuting his appeal, having pre- viously mortgaged one half the province to him for £1,500. When the appeal came on for hearing, it appeared that no proof was produced to show that Mason was ever in possess- ion, and therefore judgment was rendered against him, but
19
CAPT. JOHN MASON.
with the right to commence again in the courts in the prov- ince. New suits were commenced, ending as before, in judg- ment for the defendant and appeal by the plaintiff. Allen was now old and poor, and proposed a settlement by compromise, but before it was effected he died. His son, Thomas Allen, renewed the suits with the same result, judgment for the de- fendants and an appeal to the queen in council. Before the appeal was ready to be heard, Allen died in 1715. This put an end to the suit, which his heirs, being minors, did not renew.
When the sale was made by John and Robert Mason to Samuel Allen, in 1691, it took place in England, and by a fiction of law, the land was supposed to be in England and the conveyance was by fine and recovery in the king's bench. In this process the land was described as being in "New Hampshire, Maine, Masonia, Laconia, Mason Hall and Mari- ana in New England in America, in the parish of Greenwich ;" a fiction of law by which a parish in England includes within its limits the principal part of two states of this Union. John Tufton Mason, the son of Robert Tufton Mason, after the death of his uncle and father, who were Allen's grantors, being advised that their conveyance to Allen could give him only an estate for their own lives, and that the recovery in the king's bench in England was void for want of jurisdiction, prepared to assert his claims, but died in Havana in 1718, where he had gone to procure means to carry on his suit. His son, John Tufton Mason, came of age about the year 1738. The controversy between the provinces about the southern boundary of New Hampshire, was at this time re- newed and brought to a crisis. Massachusetts claimed that the line should run three miles east from the river to a point three miles north of the junction of the Pemigewasset and the Winnipisseogee river; thence due west till it should meet the boundaries of the other governments. The commissioners doubted whether this should be the line, or a line commencing three miles north of the mouth of Merrimack river and run-
20
HISTORY OF MASON.
ning dne west till it should meet the other governments, and they referred the question to the king in council. While this controversy was pending, negotiations were entered into both on the part of Massachusetts and New Hampshire for the purchase of Mason's title. The agent of New Hampshire, Thomlinson, made an agreement with him for the purchase, on behalf of that province, of his whole interest, for one thousand pounds New England currency, but no legal assent to the purchase was made by the authorities of the province.
The question of boundary was settled not in accordance with either statement of the commissioners. The reason for departing from the letter of the grant was, that when it was made it was supposed, the country not having been explored, that the course of the Merrimack river was from west to cast, and therefore that the dividing line would run nearly west, and that so far then, as the course of the river corresponded with that supposed state of facts, a line three miles north of it should be the dividing line, and then the line crossing the river should take a course due west ; and such a line was finally adopted and established. Thomlinson was the agent for New Hampshire, and Thomas Hutchinson for Massachusetts. The line was run by George Mitchell, from the ocean to the station north of Pawtucket falls, at which point the due west line was to commence ; and by Richard Hazen from that point to Connecticut river. They were directed to allow ten de- grees for the westerly variation of the needle. The work was done in February and March, 1741. " This determina- tion," says Belknap, vol. 1, p. 257, "exceeded the utmost ex- pectation of New Hampshire, as it gave them a country four- teen miles in breadth and above fifty in length, more than they had ever claimed. It cut off from Massachusetts twenty- eight new townships, between Merrimack and Connecticut riv- ers, besides large tracts of vacant land, which lay intermixed, and districts from six of their old towns on the north side of the Merrimack, and if as was then supposed, the due west line were to extend to twenty miles east of Hudson's river,
21
CAPT. JOHN MASON.
the reputed boundary of New York, a vast tract of fertile country on the western side of Connecticut river was annexed to New Hampshire, by which an ample scope was given for landed speculation, and afterwards for cultivation and wealth."
The establishment of this line was undoubtedly a public benefit. It put to rest doubts and controversies about juris- diction and ownership, which had seriously retarded the set- tlement of the country. But it occasioned in many places great heartburnings and trouble. It severed the ancient town of Dunstable into two parts, leaving them in different juris- dictions. The line passed through the town nearly in the centre, leaving the meeting-house a short distance on the New Hampshire side. This town had been granted by Massachu- setts nearly eighty years, and had been more or less settled more than one hundred years before this time. It had always claimed and been considered to be within the limits of Mas- sachusetts. This decision placed their meeting-house, their minister, their grave-yard, and a large portion of themselves in another jurisdiction, and threw an air of doubt and distrust upon the validity of the titles to the lands upon the New Hampshire side of the line. The effects were most disas- trous upon their interests and institutions, both of town and church. The church was broken up. The minister withdrew and left the place. The meeting-house was abandoned, and for more than half a century the results of this disturbance of the municipal and church affairs in that place, were appar- ent. Hollis was then a part of Dunstable, a precinct or parish, and shared in the troubles of the mother town. Most of Brookline was then included in Hollis, and Pepperell was a part of Groton, which lost a portion of its territory by the new line. In Townsend, the complaints of the wrong done, were long and loud. At a legal town meeting held Oct. 6, 1740, in that town, John Stevens was chosen moderator. The proceedings of the meeting on this subject are recorded as follows : " Being informed that by the determination of his Majesty and Council respecting the controverted bounds
4
22
HISTORY OF MASON.
between the Province of Massachusetts Bay and New Hamp- shire, now part of this township, is excluded from the Prov- ince of Massachusetts Bay, to which they supposed they always belonged; therefore voted, that a petition be pre- ferred to the King's most excellent majesty, setting forth our most distressed circumstances, and praying that we may be annexed to the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, and voted nemine contradicente, that Thomas Hutchinson, Esquire, of Boston, be and is hereby fully impowered to prefer a petition to his majesty, and to appear and fully to act for the propric- tors and inhabitants in said town, respecting the subject : Also, voted that the aforesaid agent shall have no demand on the town of Townsend for charges in petitioning as aforesaid, seperate from any other town in the Province; Also, voted, in case the said Thomas Hutchinson be not chosen by the major part of the towns, or if chosen, cannot engage in said affair, then Capt. John Stevens be fully impowered to join with other the towns of the Province in the choice of another agent to act in said affair, and that the aforesaid John Stevens have full power in behalf of said town to prepare and sign any petition to his majesty concerning said lines, as shall be necessary, and that he shall have forty shillings reward for his services in this affair." Town Records Vol. 1, p. 31. It does not appear that any remedy or recompense for the wrong done, resulted from these proceedings. But the good people of Townsend looked for and obtained a remedy nearer home. The general court granted to the town a tract of land as a compensation for lands cut off by the New Hampshire line, and at a town meeting in 1786, the selectmen were directed to make sale of the lands so granted.
The agreement made by Thomlinson with Mason for the sale of his title, to the Province of New Hampshire before mentioned, was lodged in the hands of the governor, and was by him laid before the house. It lay on their table a long time without any formal notice. In the meantime Mason had , suffered a fine and recovery in the courts of New Hampshire,
23
CAPT. JOHN MASON.
by which he could convey his interest in fee. He sent in a memorial, stating that he would wait no longer, but consider inaction on their part a refusal, and intimations were given that if the agreement should not be ratified, a sale would be made to other persons, who stood ready to purchase. At length a resolution passed the house, that they would comply with the agreement and pay the price, and that the land should be granted by the general assembly, to the inhabitants, as they should think proper. A committee was appointed to com- plete the business with Mason, but he had on the same day, by a deed of sale for the sum of fifteen hundred pounds, con- veyed his whole interest to twelve persons in fifteen shares. The purchasers were Theodore Atkinson three fifteenths, Mark H. Wentworth two fifteenths, Richard Wibird, John Wentworth, (son of the governor,) George Jaffrey, Nathaniel Meserve, Thomas Packer, Thomas Wallingford, Jotham Odi- orne, Joshua Pierce, Samuel Moore and John Moffatt one fif- teenth each.
When it was found that the conveyance had been made, there was much dissatisfaction. Some attempts were made to negotiate with these purchasers for a conveyance to the Province, but without success. One obstacle in the way was, that the house would not make the purchase, unless with the stipulation that the land should be granted by the legislature ; but the governor and council and the purchasers seem to have insisted, that it should be granted by the governor and council, and for that reason principally the negotiation failed.
In 1749 the purchasers took a second deed, comprehending all the Masonian grant from Naumkeag to Piscataqua ; where- as their former deed, was confined to the lately established boundaries of New Hampshire. This deed was not recorded till 1753.
After they had taken the first deed, they began to grant townships, and continued granting them to petitioners, often without fees, and always without quit-rents. They quieted the titles in the towns on the western side of the Merrimack,
24
HISTORY OF MASON.
which had been granted by Massachusetts, before the estab- lishment of the line, so that they could go on peacably with their settlements. The terms of these grants were, that the grantees should within a limited time, erect mills and meeting- houses, clear out roads and settle ministers. In every town- ship they reserved one right for the first settled minister, another for the ministry, and a third for schools. They also reserved fifteen rights for themselves, and two for their attor- nies ; all of which were to be free from taxes, until sold or occupied. By virtue of these grants, many townships were settled, and the interest of the people became so united with that of the proprietors, that the prejudices against them gradually abated. The heirs of Allen menanced them by
advertisements, and warned the people against accepting these grants. To this fact and claim undoubtedly, reference is had in that clause in the grant of the township, by which the grant- ors engage " to defend through the law to the King in Coun- cil, if need be, one action that may be brought against them or any number of them," &c. By these proceedings, a way was prepared for giving to settlers a valid title to the lands, which had so long been a subject of doubt and controversy ; and a grant was made to the proprietors, under which the set- tlement of the town was commenced and proceeded with as will be detailed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER II.
PROPRIETARY HISTORY.
Groton Grant in 1734, the earliest grant in this part of New-Hampshire. Order of time of grants in the vicinity. No. 1 granted by the Masonian Proprietors. First inhabitants. Division among the grantees. Plan of the township. Proceedings in proprietors' meetings. Roads. Report of settlements and improvements, in 1752. Meeting House. Mills. Ministers and preaching. Call of E. Champney. Two hundred acres added on the north side. Call of James Parker. Vote for incorporation. Vote giving the Meeting House to the town. Final meeting.
THE earliest historical trace of the claim of ownership in the territory and soil of the town of Mason, is found in con- nection with the town of Groton. The original grant of the township of Groton, on the petition of Dean Winthrop and others, under date of 23d, 5th m., 1655, was of a tract " equal to eight miles square." In 1715, a portion of this ter- ritory was annexed to Nashobah and incorporated by the name of Littleton. There were also included within the bounds of Groton, as originally surveyed and located, two farms previously granted to individuals, containing about thirteen hundred acres, for which no allowance was made in the survey. In 1734, the inhabitants of Groton petitioned the General Court "for some of the unappropriated land of the Province, as an equivalent for the said farms, and the land so taken off by the line established, dividing between Groton and Littleton." On this petition a grant was made of "ten thousand eight hundred acres, in a gore between Townsend and Dunstable." This tract is undoubtedly the same repre-
26
HISTORY OF MASON.
sented on Douglas' map made in 1748, as " Groton Grant." According to that map, it embraced a territory extending to Souhegan river, which would include a large part of Ma- son, and a part of Wilton. See extract from Douglas' map Hist. of New Ipswich, page 28. Under this grant, the inhab- itants of Groton took possession of, and occupied the terri- tory. It was their custom to cut the hay upon the meadows, and stack it, and early in the spring to send up their young cattle to be fed upon the hay, under the care of Boad, the negro slave. They would cause the woods to be fired, as it was called, that is, burnt over in the spring; after which fresh and succulent herbage springing up, furnished good store of the finest feed, upon which the cattle would thrive and fatten through the season. Boad's eamp was upon the cast side of the meadow, near the residence of the late Joel Ames. When the Province line was run in 1741, it "passed through Groton Gore, leaving a large portion thereof, and a triangular piece of what was originally Groton, in the state of New Hampshire." For the land so lost by the establish- ing of the Province line, on the petition of the inhabitants of Groton, the General Court in June 1771, granted them " seven thousand and eight hundred acres of unappropriated lands lying on the western part of the Province." See But- ler's Groton, pp. 58-62. To have a distinet understanding of the state of territorial titles in 1734, the date of the grant of Groton Gore, it may be necessary to review the territorial grants previous and subsequent to that date, of the adjacent and neighboring towns.
Chelmsford and Groton were granted in 1655. Dunstable in 1673. This town originally comprised the territory now embraced in Dunstable and Tyngsborough in Massachusetts, Hudson, Nashua, Hollis, most of Brookline, all of Milford and Merrimack south of Souhegan river, and most of Liteh- field, in New Hampshire. Dunstable was "bounded south by Chelmsford to Groton line, on the west by Groton and by countrey land, the line running due north from the bound-
27
PROPRIETARY HISTORY.
ary" [that is the north east angle of Groton] "ten miles till you come to Souhegan river, at a place called Dram Cup Hill at a great pine tree nigh ye said river, at a [bound or corner] of Charlestown scoole farm; bounded by the Souhe- gan river on the north," &c. As "a triangular piece of what was originally Groton" was by the running of the Province line in 1741, left within the State of New Hampshire, the north east angle of Groton must be found in Brookline ten miles south of Souhegan river, not far from Potanapus pond. The tradition is that the west line of Dunstable, which must have commenced at the north east angle of Groton, passed through this pond. A tract about one mile wide lying on the east side of Mason, was added to a portion of Hollis, for- merly Dunstable, and incorporated by the name of Raby, af- terwards changed to Brookline. Thus it appears that the western line of Old Dunstable passed about one mile east of the eastern line of Mason.
Townsend was incorporated in 1732. A part of this town also was left by the Province line, in New Hampshire, and is included within the limits of Mason. New Ipswich was granted by Massachusetts in 1735. This grant was vacated by the establishment of the line; but it was regranted by the Masonian proprietors, with a change of boundaries, April 17, 1750. Hollis, the west part of Old Dunstable, was organized as a parish or precinct, December 28, 1739, and incorporated as a town, April 20, 1746. The name originally was Holles, from the family name of the Duke of Newcastle, prime min- ister of Great Britain in the reign of George II. at the time Louisburg was taken, in 1745, under Sir William Pepperell. Pepperell, another name commemorating the same event, was incorporated in 1753, being formerly a precinct or parish of Groton. Brookline, originally named Raby, was incorpo- rated March 30, 1769. The original charter embraced a part of the west part of Hollis, two miles wide and the mile slip, so called, a piece of land a part of the old Groton Gore, about one mile wide, "lying on the casterly side of Mason."
28
HISTORY OF MASON.
The east line of this mile slip must have been the west line of Old Dunstable, which bordered on "countrey land," from Groton to Souhegan river. In 1786, another portion of Hol- lis, three fourths of a mile wide, was added to Brookline. Wilton was granted by the Masonian proprietors, October 1, 1749. Temple was incorporated about the year 1770. Ash- by in 1767. Thus it appears that the original grant of this tract to Groton, by Massachusetts, was prior, in point of time, to that of any adjoining territory, except Townsend.
The title to the township of Mason, except two gores, one on the north and one on the south side, was granted Novem- ber 1, 1749, by an instrument of that date executed by Col. Joseph Blanchard, on behalf of the Masonian proprietors, of which the following is a copy :
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.