USA > New Hampshire > Merrimack County > Concord > The history of Concord : from its first grant in 1725, to the organization of the city government in 1853, with a history of the ancient Penacooks ; the whole interspersed with numerous interesting incidents and anecdotes, down to the present period, 1885 > Part 21
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 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78
5. Canterbury, Chichester, Epson and Bow, were all granted by New-Hampshire, May 20, 1727, as is believed, without previous actual survey.
K The PLAN-although not drawn with perfect accuracy - is sufficiently clear to show the grounds of the long controversy.
# The purambleation of the Lines of the Town of Bow as Surveyed by me, the subscriber, on or about the year 1749.
I began at the Reputed Bound of the Town of Chichester, at the head of Notingham, and from thence run north-west four miles to the head of Epsom ; then there marked a maple tree with the word Bow and sundry Letters, and from said tree, which I called the East Cor- ner of said Bow, I run north-west, four miles, to the West Corner of Chichester ; yn north- east, one mile, to Canterbury South Corner ; then north-west, five miles, on said Canterbury ; yn south-west, nine miles, which runs to north-west of Rattle-snake Hill and most of the Pond that lays on the north-west side of said hill ; and said Line crosses Hopkintown Road, so called, and takes part of said Town in; then we marked a tree and run south-east, fivo miles, and marked a tree; yn one mile south-west ; then south-east, four miles ; yn north- east, nine miles, to where we began.
WALTER BRYANT.
P. S. I crossed Merrimack River within two mile of Canterbury Line, and found all the inhabitance to the south of Canterbury and east of Merrimack which are in Rumford to be in Bow.
§ Members of the Council. || Members of the Assembly.
PLAN OF RUMFORD AND BOW.
207
PENNICHIGASSET R.
WINNEPISSE
OGE R.
CONTOO COOK RIVER
RUM FORD
CANTERBURY
GRANTED MAY 20TH 1727.
·
SUNCOOK
CHICHESTER GRANTED MAY 20TH 1727.
BOW
.
.
·
.
E/ PSOM
GRANTED MAY20TH 1727.
208
HISTORY OF RUMFORD.
these, sixteen others were added by order of the lieutenant gov- ernor and council - making in all, one hundred and forty-four.
In 1733 Penacook was incorporated by Massachusetts into a township by the name of Rumford. In 1737 the king deter- mined the boundary line between Massachusetts and New-Hamp- shire, so that Rumford fell under the jurisdiction of the latter. After the expiration of the District act, (1748,) a petition was presented by Benjamin Rolfe, Esq., January 24, 1749, to the Governor and Council of New-Hampshire for the incorporation of Rumford by its original bounds .* To this a counter petition was presented by the selectmen of Bow, February 7, 1749-50.+
In November, (14,) 1750, a suit was commenced against Dea. John Merrill " by the proprietors of the common and undi- vided lands lying and being in the town of Bow," in an action of ejectment, wherein they demand against the said John Merrill eight acres of land, more or less, with the edifices and appurte- nances thereof, lying and being in Bow aforesaid."# This seems to have been the beginning of the litigation -the test of the right of the proprietors of Bow to the lands claimed by them, and included in the original grant of Penacook. Many other suits, it appears, were afterwards instituted ; but this against Merrill involved the principle on which all the cases were finally settled.
In defending the title to their lands the proprietors of Rum- ford had to contend, not so much with individual inhabitants of Bow as with the government of New-Hampshire ; for most of the original " proprietors" of Bow had forfeited their rights by non-fulfilment of the conditions, and the township had fallen into the hands of the " associates," who, as before observed, consti- tuted the civil authority of the Province. Hence it was that an impartial trial seemed impossible ; for the government was itself, for the most part, the tribunal before which the case was tried - judges, jurors, counsellors, and all, were in the New-Hampshire interest.
Happily the proprietors of Rumford were united in their pur- pose to maintain and defend their rights, and to " stand by " each other at whatever cost and sacrifice through the contest. Hence, * Doc. No. 2, A. tDoc. No. 2, B. # Doc. No. 3.
209
CONTROVERSY WITH BOW.
April 23, 1750, they Voted, "That the proprietors will be at the cost of defending John Merrill, one of said proprietors, in the action brought against the said John by the proprietors of Bow, for the recovery of part of said Jolin's homestead : provided, said John Merrill shall pursue and defend said action agreeable to the orders of said proprietors." Also, Voted, " That the pro- prietors will be at the cost and charge of supporting and defend- ing the just right and claim of any of said Proprietors or their grantees, to any and every part of said township of Rumford, against any person or persons that shall bring a writ of trespass and ejectment for the recovery of any of said lands : provided the said proprietors or grantees that shall be trespassed upon, or that shall be sued, shall pursue and defend their rights or claims agreeable to the orders of said proprietors of Rumford."
At the same time, Capt. John Chandler, Col. Benjamin Rolfe, Lieut. Jeremiah Stickney, Mr. Ebenezer Virgin, and Dr. Ezra Carter, or the major part of them, were appointed a committee for said proprietors, " to advise and order Dea. John Merrill how he shall pursue and defend the action brought against said Mer- rill by the proprietors of Bow ; also, to advise and order any other person or persons that shall be sued or shall sue in order to support and defend their rights or claims, what method they shall pursue for the purposes aforesaid." *
In order to meet the expenses incurred on these suits, in subsequent years, till the settlement of the controversy, the proprietors, from time to time, ordered the sale of "so much of their common and undivided lands " as would be necessary for the purpose.f
In 1760 sundry of the propricters gave their notes, for £15
* Proprietors' Records.
+ At a meeting of tho proprietors, June 28, 1759, Capt. John Chandler, Ezra Carter, Esq., Mr. Ebenezer Virgin, and Mr. Joseph Ilall, were appointed a committee "to lay out and sell so much of tho common and undivided lands as shall be sufficient to raise a sum of fif- tecn hundred Spanish dollars, over and above the cost and charge of laying out, selling and recording said lands - said sum to be applied for the defence of the said proprietors' title to their township, against the claims which any person or persons shall or may lay to the same or any part thereof, either in any of Ilis Majesty's courts of justice in this Province, or in forwarding of an appeal to His Majesty in Council, according to such directions as said pro- prietors have or may give."
March 13, 1758, Mr. Joseph IIall, Mr. Ebenezer Eastman and Mr. Peter Coffin, were ap- pointed " a committee to dispose of so much Iron Ore belonging to the proprietors as they shall think proper for the benefit of said proprietors."
14
210
HISTORY OF RUMFORD.
each, as security or indemnity for expense of agents employed by them ; which, however, were afterwards recovered. And in 1766, before the final adjustment of the controversy, they agreed and voted to raise £400 sterling, and a committee was appointed " to apportion said sum on the proprietors and their grantees."
In the course of the trial various depositions were obtained, showing the preoccupancy of the lands by inhabitants of Rum- ford, even before the grant of Bow was made. Richard Hazzen deposed, December 14, 1752, that he surveyed the house and home-lots in Penacook in May, 1726 ; and again another divis- ion of lands in May, 1727 ; and " that there were near fifty of the proprietors at work there, or persons whom they hired, dur- ing the time he was laying out said lands." Edward Abbot deposed,* " that on 8th of May, 1727, he, with many others, set out from Andover on their journey to a new township called Penacook, in order to erect a house which had been some time before begun, which was designed by the settlers for a meeting- house for the public worship of God ; that about the same time, in said month, a considerable number of settlers - about forty- went up to the said place, and that John Merrill, one of the said settlers, moved his family up to the said plantation in June, 1730, having made considerable improvements there the three preced- ing years." Mr. Abbot also deposed and said, that " he had been well acquainted with the circumstances of the plantation of Penacook from its first settlement to this day, and that he never knew any of the proprietors of Bow, as such, their agents or delegates, settle upon, manure, or occupy any part of the said township or plantation." Jacob Shute deposed, " that in the fall of the year 1727 he assisted in moving up the first family that settled at Penacook ; that he then found a meeting-house built, considerable hay cut and cured, and corn planted, and that in the month of June, 1730, John Merrill moved his family up to the said plantation, having made considerable improvements there in the three preceding years." Joseph Abbot deposed, " that some time in the month of April, 1727, he went to Penacook, and assisted in felling and hewing timber for a meeting-house ; that there were then eighteen persons assisting in said business ;
* Original deposition, among papers of the late Rev. Timothy Walker.
211
CONTROVERSY WITH BOW.
and that during their stay there they turned their horses to some stacks of hay said to be cut there by some of the admitted set- tlers the year before ; and that John Merrill, one of the admitted settlers, was at Penacook in the month of May, and worked some on said house, and some at clearing of land." "The deponent further saith, that he is well knowing that from this time the plantation increased so fast, that in the fall of the year 1730 there was a church gathered and a minister ordained." Jere- miah Kimball made a similar deposition.
While the trial of this case was going on, a warrant was issued by the government of New-Hampshire, May 30, 1753, for raising an assessment of sixty pounds on all polls and estates ratable by law within the township of Bow ; and another warrant, July 26, 1753, for raising thirty-one pounds, four shillings, to be collected and paid in on or before the 25th of December next ensuing .* The persons on whom these taxes were to be assessed, were, with perhaps three or four exceptions, inhabitants of Rum- ford.
Up to this time a town-meeting had never been held by the inhabitants of Bow proper ; and on the 30th of June, 1753, a special act was passed, appointing Daniel Pierce, Esq., to warn
* The tax was to be paid " in bills of credit, according to their several denominations, or in coined silver at six shillings, eight pence per onnce, Troy weight, of sterling alloy, or in coined gold at four pounds, eighteen shillings per ounce ; or in the following sorts and species of goods, being of the produce or manufactures of said Province, at the price to each sort and specie herein respectively affixed, namely :
Merchantable hemp, per cwt., · £2
Winter and first fare Isle Sable cod-fish, per quintal,
0 15
10
0
Tanned sole leather,
1
6 0
Bar iron, per cwt.,
0
4
0
Indian corn, per bushel,
0
4
0
Beef, per lb.,
0
0
3
Merchantable white pine boards, per M.,
2 5
0
Beeswax, per Ib.,
0
1
6
Pitch, per barrel, .
1 5
0
Bayberry wax, per Ib.,
0
1
3
Tar, per barrel,
1 0
0
Flax, per lb.,
.
0
1
0
Rye, per bushel,
0
5
0
Wheat, per bushel, .
.
0
6
0
Peas, per bushel,
0
8
0
Pork, per lb., .
0
0
4
Joist, per M., .
2
0
0
White oak two inch plank, per M.,
8
0
0
Turpentine, per barrel,
0112 1
0
0
Barley, per bushel, .
.
.
.
.
15
0
212
HISTORY OF RUMFORD.
and call a meeting of the inhabitants of Bow-the preamble to said act setting forth that " the inhabitants had never held a meeting as a town."" The meeting was accordingly notified and held, July 25, 1753. But unexpected difficulties were here encountered, properly set forth in the following petition, October 26, 1753.
PROVINCE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
To His Excellency BENNING WENTWORTH, Esq., Captain General, Governor, &c .:
We, the subscribers, humbly beg leave to inform your Excellency and Honors, that at a meeting of the frecholders and inhabitants of the town of Bow, in said Province, held the 25th day of July last past, pursuant to a special act of this General Assembly for the call- ing said meeting, we were chosen seleetmen for said town for this current year ; and that since that time we have received two several warrants from this Province treasurer - the first dated May 30th, 1753, and the other dated the 26th day of July, 1753 -by the first of which we are commanded in His Majesty's name to assess the sum of sixty pounds on said inhabitants, and by the other the sum of thirty-one pounds, four shillings ; - and though we are ready, [and that with cheerfulness, ] to obey every order of government, yet that we are at a loss as to the boundaries of said Bow, and consequently do not know who the inhabitants are that we are to assess said sums upon. That the proprietors of Bow, in running out the bounds of said town, have, as we conecive, altered their bounds several times ; and further, that one of those gentlemen that purchased Capt. Tuf- ton Mason's right to the lands in said Province, has given it as his opinion that said proprietors have not as yet run out the bounds of said town agreeable to their charter, but that their southeast side line should be carried up about three quarters of a mile further toward the northwest ; and there is lately [by his order,] a fence erected along some miles near about said place, designed, [as we suppose,] as a division fence between said Bow and land yet elaimed by said purchasers.
And that, on the other hand, the inhabitants of Pennycook, for- merly erected into a district by a special act of the General Assembly of this Province, [though they object nothing against submitting to order of Government,] refuse to give us an invoice of their estates, [that is, such of them as we have asked for the same, ] alleging that they do not lay in Bow, and that this said Assembly did as good as declare in said district act.
So that, upon the whole, we humbly conceive, [unless the pleasure of this court is first made known relating to the aforesaid affairs,] that should we proceed to assess the aforesaid sums on such as we may have conceived are the inhabitants of said Bow, that many would
t See Act on record in Secretary's office.
213
CONTROVERSY WITH BOW.
refuse to pay the sums that should be so assessed on them, and con- sequently that we should be thrown into so many law suits, as would, in all probability, ruin us as to our estates. Therefore we humbly crave that your Excellency and Honors would take the aforesaid affairs under your wise and mature consideration, and fix the bound- aries of said Bow, or otherwise give us such directions as you shall think proper. And so submitting the whole affair to your Excel- lency and Honors to do as you in your great wisdom shall think fit, not doubting that you will give us such directions as, if followed by us, we may obey the commands laid on us by this court without the least detriment to ourselves.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
Bow, October ye 26th, 1753.
MOSES FOSTER, JOHN COFFIN, RICHARD EASTMAN, DAVID ABBOT, WILLIAM MOOR, Selectmen.
[The House granted a hearing on the 31st of January, and on petition deferred it till the Friday after the 20th, 1754.]
The next step, February 12, 1753, on the part of the inhab- itants of Rumford, was to appoint Rev. Timothy Walker and Benjamin Rolfe, Esq., to represent " to the King's most Excel- · lent Majesty in Council, the manifold grievances they labored under,* by reason of the law suits commenced against them by the proprietors of Bow, and by being for several years past deprived of all corporation privileges :" in August following, a petition was preferred to the Massachusetts government, repre- senting their grievances and asking " such relief as in their great wisdom they should see fit to grant." In answer to which latter petition one hundred pounds were granted.
Deputed as an agent for the proprietors of Rumford, Rev. Mr. Walker sailed for England in the fall of 1753,f and presented
* Doc. No. 4, A and B.
+" Whereas the Rev. Mr. Timothy Walker, of Rumford, one of our brethren, has informed us that he has some thoughts of going to England, and has desired a recommendation from us, we do hereby signify and declare that he is not only a gentleman of a liberal education, but a worthy and regular minister of yo gospel, and a member of this convention ; and we do hereby freely and heartily recommend him to the charity and good esteem of all our Chris- tian friends and brethren in England.
Voted, That the moderator and clerk sign the above within recommendation in the name of the convention."-Records of Convention of New-Hampshire Ministers, Hampton-Falls, Octo- ber 9, 1753.
214
HISTORY OF RUMFORD.
" to the King's most Excellent Majesty in Council," the following petition, drawn up, as appears, by himself, every word of which should be read.
A PETITION OF TIMOTHY WALKER AND COL. ROLFE TO THEIR MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN.
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Couneil :
The petition of Benjamin Rolfe, Esq., and Timothy Walker, clerk, inhabitants of a town called Rumford, in the Province of New- Hampshire, in New-England, for themselves, and in behalf and at the request of the other inhabitants of said town, most humbly sheweth -
That the lands contained in said town of Rumford were granted by the government of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in the year 1725, and were supposed, according to the construction of the Massachusetts Charter and the determination of His Majesty King Charles the Second, in 1677, to lay wholly within the said Province, though bounded on New-Hampshire, seeing no part of said lands extended more than three miles from the river Merrimack towards New-Hampshire. Your petitioners and their predecessors very soon engaged in bringing forward the settlement of the above granted lands, though in the midst of the Indian country, and near thirty miles beyond any English plantation, and have defended themselves more at their own cost than at the charge of the public, through the late war with ye French and Indians; and from a perfect wilderness, where not one acre of land had ever been improved, they have made a considerable town, consisting of more than eighty houses, and as many good farms; and your humble petitioner, Timothy Walker, was regularly ordained the minister of the church and parish in said town in the year 1730, and has continued there ever since.
Your petitioners beg leave further to represent to your Majesty, that at the time of the aforesaid grant they had no apprehension that their bounds would ever be controverted by the Province of New-Hampshire ; but it has so happened that by your Majesty's late determination of ye boundary line between ye two Provinces, the whole of the aforesaid township falls within the province of New- Hampshire. Soon after the aforesaid determination, your petitioners made their humble application to your Majesty in Council, that they might be restored to your Province of the Massachusetts Bay, which your Majesty was pleased to disallow ; but your humble petitioners have dutifully submitted to the government of your Majesty's Prov- ince of New-Hampshire ever since they have been under it, and with so much the greater cheerfulness because they were well informed your Majesty had been graciously pleased to declare that however the jurisdiction of the two governments might be altered, yet that the private property should not be affected thereby.
But notwithstanding this your Majesty's most gracious declaration,
215
CORTROVERSY WITH BOW.
your poor petitioners have for several years past been grievously ha- rassed by divers persons under color of a grant made by the govern- ment and council of New-Hampshire in the year 1727, to sundry persons and their successors, now called the Proprietors of Bow.
Your petitioners further humbly represent, that the said grant of Bow was not only posterior to that of Rumford, but is likewise ex- tremely vague and uncertain as to its bounds, and its being very doubtful whether it was the intent of the Governor and Council of New-Hampshire that it should infringe upon the Massachusetts grant of Rumford; and notwithstanding the grant of Bow has now been made so many years, there are but three or four families settled upon it, and those since the end of the late French war ; the proprietors choosing rather to distress your petitioners by forcing them out of the valuable improvements they and their predecessors have made at the expense of their blood and treasure, than to be at the charge of making any themselves. But your petitioners' greatest misfortune is, that they cannot have a fair, impartial trial, for that the Governor and most of ye Council are proprietors of Bow, and by them not only ye judges are appointed, but also ye officers that impannels ye jury, and the people also are generally disaffected to your petitioners on account of their deriving their titles from the Massachusetts; and all the actions that have hitherto been brought are of so small value, and, as your petitioners apprehend, designed so that by a law of the Province there can be no appeal from the judgments of the courts to your Majesty in Council ; and if it were otherwise the charges that would attend such appeals would be greater than the value of the land, or than the party defending his title would be able to pay ; and without your Majesty's gracious interposition your petitioners must be com- pelled to give up their estates, contrary to your Majesty's favorable interposition in their behalf.
Your petitioners further beg leave humbly to represent, that, while they were under the government of Massachusetts Bay, they enjoyed town privileges by an act specially made for that purpose in the year 1733, and expressly approved of by your Majesty in the year 1737; but the utmost they could obtain since their being under New-Hamp- shire has been the erecting them into a district for a short term only ; which term, having expired near four years ago, they have been with- out any town privileges ever since, notwithstanding their repeated applications to the Governor and Council ; and they are not able to raise any moneys for the support of their minister, and the necessary charges of their school and poor, and other purposes ; nor have they had any town officers for the upholding government and order, as all other towns in both the Provinces of New-Hampshire and the Massachusetts Bay usually have. Under these our distresses we make our most humble application to your Majesty, the common father of your subjects, however remote, entreating your gracious interposition in our behalf; and that your Majesty would be pleased to appoint disinterested, judicious persons to hear and determine our cause, that so we may have a fair and impartial trial, and that the
216
HISTORY OF RUMFORD.
expense which otherwise must attend the multiplied law suits, as they are now managed, may be prevented, or that your Majesty would be pleased to grant us such other relief as to your great wisdom and goodness shall seem meet; and your most humble petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
[Within presented in 1753.]
While in England the first time, Mr. Walker succeeded so far as to obtain a hearing of the case before His Majesty, which should take place the ensuing winter. He engaged Sir William Murray, afterward Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, as his counsel- or and advocate, with whom, it is said, he formed a particular acquaintance. But it was necessary for him to go again. Ac- cordingly, in October, 1754, Benjamin Rolfe, Esq., presented a petition to the General Court of Massachusetts, in which he acknowledges the receipt of one hundred pounds sterling, the previous year, and asks for still further aid. He says, "That the prosecution of the affair thus far has not only exhausted the said grant of this government, but brought your petitioners con- siderably into debt ; that they are so impoverished by ye accu- mulated charges occasioned by these lawsuits as they have been managed in ye courts of New-Hampshire, as also by ye troubles from the Indians, which have drove many of them from their habitations, and taken all of them from their husbandry in ye most busie season of ye year, and employed them in building garrisons for ye defence of themselves and families, and also being at great cost during ye absence of their minister to procure a meet per- son to administer ye word and ordinances among them ; that they are very unable to furnish their agent with ye monies neces- sary to enable him effectually to proceed in the said affair."
While the proprictors of Rumford sought pecuniary aid from the government of Massachusetts, the proprietors of Bow also applied for the same purpose to that of New-Hampshire, and obtained a grant of £100 to aid them in carrying on the suit .*
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.