USA > New Hampshire > The statistics and gazetteer of New-Hampshire. Containing descriptions of all the counties, towns and villages statistical tables with a list of state officers, etc. > Part 71
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
127
142
13
145
153
3
1
Ward 3 ..
49
61
5
3
57
60
1
1
Ward 4.
109
39
1
124
40
Ward 5 ..
54
157
8
85
205
Ward 6.
209
141
26
1
256
190
4
2
Ward 7
123
105
14
135
104
1
9
Ward 8
114
84
21
133
100
13
New Boston
128
176
1
137
178
New Ipswich
158
56
187
87
Peterborough
295
163
20
1
339
185
4
Pelham
88
107
1
100
130
Sharon
24
21
30
25
Temple.
53
49
65
51
Weare.
246
221
16
280
248
12
Wilton
196
239
5
204
247
2
Windsor
4
17
7
18
Total
6.472
5,554|
244
70
7,473
6,440
82
106
CHESHIRE COUNTY.
Alstead.
138
104
2
9
159
141
Chesterfield.
136
124
6
2
160
152
4
Dublin
87
19
99
23
1
Fitzwilliam
184
54
1
5
221
67
Gilsum .
54
105
10
62
113
Harrisville
95
66
1
98
102
Hinsdale
202
74
5
3
236
87
Jaffrey
181
104
2
14
896
567
5
5
Marlborough
210
43
3
237
45
Marlow
78
106
1
1
72
120
Nelson
68
29
78
33
Rindge .
179
42
190
47
1
Richmond
77
93
90
112
Roxbury
24
8
25
16
Stoddard
35
90
58
109
Sullivan
56
17
54
24
Swanzey.
106
202
10
4
148
242
3
Surry .
43
46
1
50
Troy .
95
61
110
68
Walpole
200
213
3
210
230
Westmoreland
121
130
21
145
151
Winchester
216
244
14
9
276
245
4
Total
3,428
2,532
53
74
3,667
2,597
17
6
SULLIVAN COUNTY
Acworth.
14.2
111
2
158
114
1
Charlestown
202
133
7
6
252
165
4
15
Claremont.
515.
296
61
2
641
306
4
14
Cornish.
166
115
1
7
189
126
1
17
Croydon
106
57
5
1
99
74
10
Goshen .. .
49
72
7
61
85
2
1
Grantham
88
63
11
95
62
17
Langdon
53
40
2
68
48
210
123
Keene
843
558
1
ยท
631
STATISTICAL TABLES.
SULLIVAN COUNTY CONTINUED.
1873.
1872.
TOWNS.
Straw.
Weston.
Blackmer.
Mason and scat.
Straw.
Weston.
Blackmer.
Cooper and scat.
Lempster
69
91
2
1
76
107
3
Newport.
295
257
9
13
336
276
3
8
Plainfield ..
123
169
1
8
173
190
20
Springfield
99
80
104
105
4
Sunapee
71
136
5
81
144
1
Unity
47
127
55
153
1
Washington
109
106
5
117
112
Total
2,134
1,853
103
53.
2,505
2,067
15|
111
GRAFTON COUNTY.
Alexandria
90
135
5
2
105
147
2
Ashland
147
84
1
155
78
Benton
14
60
1
20
84
Bath
87
125
3
121
160
Bethlehem
31
182
1
39
222
Bridgewater
59
43
76
57
Bristol
187
111
20
17
221
143
12
Canaan
167
219
6
4
207
240
2
Campton
155
122
2
184
137
Danbury
72
124
1
10
85
139
1
Enfield.
189
156
1
2
208
183
2
14
Ellsworth
7
35
Franconia
33
74
2
37
93
Grafton
98
115
116
133
Groton
40
69
3
53
92
1
Hanover
155
120
1
235
192
1
Haverhill
121
192
1
221
292
7
1
Holderness
70
101
87
140
1
Hebron.
32
55
1
34
68
Landaff
25
106
1
49
190
Lebanon.
482
244
1
1
570
281
1
Lishon
235
174
2
1
264
239
2
Littleton
252
330
8
267
360
1
1
Lyme
167
74
20
220
103
21
Lyma
56
54
3
81
64
2
Lincoln.
8
7
7
7
Monroe
63
38
75
46
Orange
42
35
48
38
1
Orford .
125
100
3
170
120
2
Piermont.
95
63
2
105
83
2
Plymouth
150
225
3
184
219
Rumney ..
129
107
12
2
147
132
10
11
Thornton.
59
143
62
155
Warren
38
167
51
194
1
Wentworth
59
167
70
193
Waterville.
3
9
4
9
Woodstock
21
58
35
64
Total
3,795
4,325
55
87
4,641
5,227
39
55
COOS COUNTY.
Berlin .
19
40
1
13
60
Colebrook.
145
182
2
146
194
2
Columbia
35
80
6
96
93
Cambridge.
24
48
Carroll. ..
25
46
27
79
Dalton
39
88
1
42
106
Gorham ...
97
127
2
109
134
Jefferson.
37
122
5
63
142
1
Lancaster
270
192
4
46
299
238
18
11
Milan .
76
48
1
00
66
1
Northumberland
77
112
3
90)
125
1
1
37
35
Errol-No election.
9
32
Clarksville
Dummer
38
33
29
130
Dorchester
32
99
632
GOVERNORS OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE, SINCE 1680.
COOS COUNTY CONTINUED.
1873.
1872.
TOWNS.
Straw.
Weston.
Blackmer.
Mason and scat.
Straw.
Weston.
Blackmer.
Cooper and scat.
1,289
1,566
9
100
1,370
1,814|
23
13
RECAPITULATION.
1873.
1872.
COUNTIES.
Straw.
Weston.
Blackmer.
Mason & scat.
Straw.
Weston.
Blackmer.
Cooper & scat.
Rockingham
5,546
4,759|
147
109
5,992|
5,141|
48
75
Strafford.
3,126
2,470
297
32
3,645
2,846
112
47
Belknap
1,826
2,066
21
42
1,988
2,317
26
43
Carroll
1,772
2,098
58
40
1,825
2,043
34
1
Merrimack
4,622
4,758
72
126
5,132
5,270
28
79
Hillsborough ..
6,472
5,554
244
70
7,473
6.440
82
106
Cheshire
3,428
2,532
53
74
3,667
2,597
17
7
Sullivan
2,133
1,853
103
53
2,505
2,067
15
111
Grafton.
3,795
4,325
55
87
4,611
5,227
39
55
Coos
1,289
1,566
9
100
1,370
1,814
23
13
Total
34,010 31,981 |1059
733| 38,238| 35,766]
424 537
GOVERNORS OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE SINCE 1680.
SUCCESSION OF GOVERNORS-1. Provincial Governors.
John Cutt, Pres. 1680 Joseph Dudley, Gov 1702
Richard Waldron, Pres.
1681 John Usher, Lt. Gov ... 1702
Edward Cranfield, Lt. Gov.
1682 George Vaughan, Lt. Gov .. 1715
Walter Barefoote, Dep. Gov. .. 1685 Samuel Shute, Gov .. 1716
Joseph Dudley, Pres. 1686 John Wentworth, Lt. Gov. 1717
Edmund Andros, Gov.
1686 William Burnet, Gov .. 1728
John Usher, Lt. Gov ..
1692 Jonathan Belcher, Gov.
1730
William Partridge, Lt. Gov.
1697 David Dunbar, Lt. Gov.
1731
Samuel Allen, Gov ..
1698 Benning Wentworth, Gov. 1741
Earl of Bellemont, Gov ..
1699 John Wentworth, Gov.
1767
William Partridge, Lt. Gov ... 1699
46
461
45
55
Randolph.
4
21
5
27
27
Stark.
48
58
35
85
1
Shelburne
37
28
36
29
Stewartstown
30
144
1
52
177
Stratford
57
92
1
79
112
Whitefield .
159
107
156
138
1
Wentworth's Location
Total.
Pittsburg ..
NOTE. The Lt. Governors, after 1741, are not known to have acted as
633
JUSTICES OF THE HIGHER COURTS, SINCE 1776.
chief magistrates, the Governors being residents of the province. Be- fore that, when the Governor was resident in Massachusetts, the Lt. Governors claimed to be chief magistrates, and often acted as such when the Governor was out of the province.
In May, 1775, the Royal Governor withdrew, and the province was governed by a convention, of which Matthew Thornton was President; and in January, 1776, a temporary Constitution was adopted under which Meshech Weare was unanimously elected President of the Council, and Chairman of the Committee of Safety, till June, 1784.
2. Presidents under the Constitution of 1784.
Meshech Weare, Hamp. Falls, . 1784|John Langdon, 1788
John Langdon, Portsmouth, . . . 1785 John Sullivan,. 1789
John Sullivan, Durham, .. . . 1786 Josiah Bartlett, Kingston,. 1790
3. Governors under the Constitution of 1792.
Josiah Bartlett, . 1792| John Bell, Chester, 1828
John Taylor, Gilman, Exeter,. 1794 Benjamin Pierce. 1829
John Langdon, 1805|Matthew Harvey* Hopkinton, . 1830
Jeremiah Smith, Exeter, 1809 Samuel Dinsmoor, Keene, .. .. 1831
John Langdon,. 1810 William Badger, Gilmanton, ... 1834
William Plumer, Epping, 1812 Isaac Hill, Concord,. 1836
John Taylor, Gilman,. 1813 John Page, Haverhill, .1839
William Plumer, .. 1816 Henry Hubbard Charlestown, . . 1842
Samuel Bell, Chester,. 1819 John H. Steele, Peterboro', .... 1844 Levi Woodbury, Portsmouth, .. 1823 Anthony Colby, N. London, . .. 1346 David L. Morril, Goffstown, ... 1824 Jared W. Williams, Lancaster, 1847 Benjamin Pierce, Hillsboro', ... 1827 Samuel Dinsmoor, Keene, ..... 1849
4. Governors under Amendment of Constitution of 1852.
Noah Martin, Dover, .. 1852|Frederick Smyth, Manchester,. 1865 Nathaniel B. Baker, Concord, . 1854 Walter Harriman, Warner, .... 1867 Ralph Metcalf, Newport, .... 1855 Onslow Stearns, Concord, ..... 1869 William Haile, Hinsdale, ...... 1857|James A. Weston, Manchester, 1871 Ichabod Goodwin, Portsmouth, 1859|Ezekiel A. Straw, Manchester, 1872 Nathaniel S. Berry, Hebron, ... 1861|Ezekiel A. Straw, Manchester, 1873 Joseph A. Gilmore, Concord,. . 1863|
JUSTICES OF THE HIGHER COURTS OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE, SINCE 1776.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE-1776 TO 1813.
Meshech Weare, C. J., Hampton Falls, Jan. 27, 1776, to June 19, 1782. Leverett Hubbard, Portsmouth, Jan, 27, 1776, to 1785. Matthew Thornton, Londonderry, Jan. 27, 1776, to 1782. John Wentworth, Salmon Falls, Jan. 27, 1776, to May 17, 1781.
Samuel Livermore, C. J., Holderness, June 21, 1782, to 1790.
Woodbury Langdon, Portsmouth, June 22, 1782, to 1783; Feb., 1786, to Jan. 1791.
Josiah Bartlett, Kingston, Nov. 14, 1782, to 1790; C. J., Jan. 15, 1790, to June, 1790.
William Whipple, Portsmouth, June 20, 1783, to 1785.
John Dudley, Raymond, Dec. 1784, to Feb. 1, 1797.
John Pickering, C. J., Portsmouth, July 7, 1790, to Feb. 1795.
634
JUSTICES OF THE HIGHER COURTS SINCE 1776.
Simcon Olcott, Charlestown, Jan. 25, 1790, to 1795; C. J., March 28, 1795, to 1802.
Timothy Farrar, New-Ipswich, March 18, 1791, to January 1803.
Ebenezer Thompson, Durham, April 3, 1795, to 1796.
Daniel Newcomb, Kecnc, April 6, 1796, to 1798.
Edward St. Loc Livermore. Portsmouth, Fcb 6, 1797, to 1799. Paine Wingate, Stratham, April 4, 1798, to 1809.
Jeremiah Smith, C. J., Excter, May 17, 1802, to May, 1809.
Arthur Livermore, Holderness. Dec. 21, 1799, to Sept. 19, 1809; C. J., Sept. 19, 1809, to Junc, 1813.
William King, Atkinson, Dover, April 26, 1803, to 1805.
Richard Evans, Portsmouth. June 5, 1809, to 1813.
Jonathan Steele, Durham. Feb. 19, 1810 to 1812.
Clifton Claggett. Litchfield, August 10, 1812 to 1813.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT-1813 TO 1816.
Jeremiah Smith. C. J., Exeter, July 12, 1813, to June 1816.
Caleb Ellis, Claremont, July 12, 1813, to June, 1816.
Arthur Livermore, Holderness, July 12, 1813, to June, 1816.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE-1816 TO 1855.
William Merchant Richardson, C. J., Chester, July 5, 1816 to March 23, 1838.
Samuel Bell, Chester, July 5, 1816, to June, 1819.
Levi Woodbury, Francestown, Dec. 9, 1816, to 1823.
Samuel Green, Concord, June 26, 1819, to 1840.
John Harris, Hopkinton, Oct. 6. 1823, to Jan. 5, 1833,
Joel Parker. Keene, Jan. 8, 1833, to June 25, 1838; C. J., June 25, 1838, to June 24, 1848.
Nathaniel Gookin Upham, Concord, Jan. 8, 1833 to Dec. 1, 1842; Died Dec. 11, 1869. aged 68.
Leonard Wilcox, Orford, June 25, 1838, to Sept. 29, 1840; June 26, 1848, to June 18, 1850.
John James Gilchrist. Charlestown, March 17, 1840, to June 26, 1848; C. J., June 26, 1848, to March 16, 1855.
Andrew Salter Woods, Bath, Oct. 2, 1840, to March 30, 1855; C. J., March 30, 1855, to August, 17, 1855.
Ira Allen Eastman, Gilmanton, Aug. 31. 1849, to Aug. 17, 1855.
Samuel Dana Bell, Manchester, Aug. 31, 1849, to Aug. 17, 1855.
Ira Perley, Concord, June 28, 1850, to October 1, 1852.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT-1855 TO 1870.
Ira Perley, Concord, born Nov. 2. 1799; ap. C. J., July 20, 1855, to Oct. 1, 1859; reappointed Aug. 1, 1864, to Oct. 1, 1869.
Ira Allen Eastman, Concord, July 20, 1855, to Dec. 1, 1859. Asa Fowler. Concord, July 20, 1855, to February 23, 1861.
George Y. Sawyer, Nashua, July 20, 1855. November 1, 1859.
Samuel Dana Bell, Manchester, July 20, 1855, to Sept. 23, 1859; C. J., Sept. 23, 1859, to August 1, 1864; died Aug. 1, 1868.
J. Everett Sargent, Wentworth, born Oct. 23, 1816; ap. July 5, 1859.
635
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED.
Henry A. Bellows, Concord, born Oct. 25, 1803; ap. Sept. 23, 1859; appointed C. J., Oct. 1, 1869. Died March 11, 1873.
Charles Doe, Dover, born April 11, 1830; appointed Sept. 23, 1859.
George W. Nesmith, Franklin, born Oct. 23, 1800; Dec. 31, 1859, to Oct. 31, 1870.
William H. Bartlett, Concord, Feb. 23, 1861; died Sept. 24, 1867.
Jeremiah Smith, Dover, born July 14, 1837; appointed Oct. 16, 1867. Resigned Jan. 1874.
William L. Foster, Concord, born June 1, 1823, ap. Oct. 1, 1869.
William S. Ladd, Lancaster, born Sept. 5, 1830; ap. Oct. 31, 1870.
Ellery A. Hibbard, Laconia, born July 31, 1826; ap. March 17, 1873. Isaac W. Smith, Manchester; ap. in Feb. 1874.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, 1874.
Chief Justice, JONATHAN EVERETT SARGENT, Concord.
Associate Justices, CHARLES DOE, Dover; WILLIAM LAWRENCE FOS- TER, Concord; WILLIAM SPENCER LADD, Lancaster; ELLERY ALBEE HIBBARD, Laconia; ISAAC W. SMITH, Manchester.
Attorney General, LEWIS WHITEHOUSE CLARK, Manchester.
State Reporter. JOHN MAJOR SHIRLEY, Andover.
ATTORNEY GENERALS FROM 1776.
1776 Wyseman Claggett.
1778 Samuel Livermore.
1781 Wyseman Claggett.
1812 Daniel French, Chester.
1782 John Sullivan.
1815 George Sullivan.
1786 John Pickering.
1835 Charles F. Gove, Goffstown.
1786 Benjamin West.
1843 Lyman B. Walker, Gilford.
1787 John Prentice, Londonderry.
1793 Joshua Atherton.
1848 John Sullivan, Exeter.
1863 Wm. C. Clark, Manchester.
1802 Jeremiah Mason, Portsmouth. 1872 Lewis W. Clark, Manchester. 1805 George Sullivan, Exeter.
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED.
For over one hundred years, or up to 1800, this deed was considered a valid instrument by people both in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
This deed purported to have been given to the Rev. John Wheel- wright by four Indian Sagamores in May, 1629, conveying certain terri- tory located in the south-eastern portion of the State, and embracing with- in its borders the towns of New Market, Exeter, Londonderry, Derry and other towns. It is the foundation for the early history of the settle- ments of more than one third of the State prior to 1750.
Since 1800, certain parties in Massachusetts have convinced them- selves, that the deed was a forgery, and it is so established by the Mas- sachusetts Historical Society. If their statements are true, that part of the early history of New Hampshire covered by this deed is a blank,
1848 John S. Wells, Exeter.
1801 William Gordon.
1806 Samuel Bell, Chester.
1807 William K. Atkinson.
636
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED.
and Exeter, the third settled town in the State, has never had her true early history written.
Our limited information does not warrant us to assert that this deed was a valid document, but it stands recorded in the Rockingham County Records as being a legal instrument. Some persons in this State have embraced the same views advanced by Dr. Savage, former Pres- ident of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
In the following article we have advanced a few reasons why this decd may not be valid, notwithstanding other statements to the con- trary.
Was the deed of four Indian Sagamores to Rev. John Wheelwright, and others, 17th May 1629, a forgery ?
Hon. James Savage, former President of the Massachusetts Historical Society says; " Before June 13, 1820, I had no more suspicion of the truth of the decd to Wheelwright and four others of 17 May 1629, than of the charter of 4th March 1628-29, for the coloney of Massachusetts Bay or any other disputed document."
After 1820, it appears that Mr. Savage became fully convinced that the Wheelwright deed of 1629, was a base forgery, and in the appendix of Winthrop's History of New England, Vol. 1, sets forth his reasons for thus believing.
In his first argument he says, " No Indian deed, in my knowledge, and I have examined many, was ever drawn so long, formal and pre- cise. " " This deed was, it will be said, drawn by one of the grantees. But who could have done it in so clerk-like length and beauty, more than a year before any lawyer, except Thomas Morton of Merry Mount came to this country " ?
The Rev. John Wheelwright, was a man of rare talants in any age, had speculative and liberal ideas believing that church and State should have no connection-which belief cost him his rights as a citizen, within the ju- risdiction of Massachusetts. Gorges and Mason, had then made a pur- chase, of the Plymouth council, of certain territory lying between the Kennebeck, and Merrimack rivers, August 22, 1622, and the next year, sent out people to form a colony on the Piscataqua river. Like the first settlers at Plymouth, no doubt but the carly settlers in New-Hamp- shire thought they would be more secure to have a permit, in some form, from the original lords of the soil, and there is little doubt but that the agents of Mason at the Dover settlement consented and were willing to have a formal consent from the Indians, of territory already acquired through grants from the Plymouth Council.
At the date of Wheelwright's deed, there were three small tribes of Indians living on the banks of the Piscataqua or its branches. Passa- conaway was a sagamore of the Pennacook tribe, and lived on the banks of the Merrimack, near where the city of Concord now stands. The valley of the Merrimack, at that time, was under the control of the Penacooks as hunting grounds, &c. As (is termed in these days) a war measure for their better protection against the incursions of the Mo- hawks, a powerful tribe of Indians living on the banks of the Hudson
.
637
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED.
and Mohawk rivers; these tribes, with others, formed themselves into a confederacy under the name of Pawtucket or Pentucket, and Passacon- away was the chief Sagamore. The Weelwright deed contained land belonging to all these tribes. The Pentucket tribe, of which Runnaawit was chief at the signing of the deed, resided in the vicinity of Lowell, but was doubtless more under the control of Passaconaway than the other tribes and no doubt it soon, or was at that time, nearly blended with the Pennacook tribe, as they had built a fort at Pawtucket Falls, Lowell. This clears the objection of Mr. Savage about the Pawtucket chief's never being heard of after his signing the Wheelwright deed, and the reason why Passaconaway consented to the sale of Pautucket in the deed of Haverhill, Mass., in 1642.
Nine years after, when Mr. Wheelwright and followers settled at Squamscot Falls agreeably to the provisions of the deed, he skilfully drew up a compact forming the settlers into a body politic and by- laws governing them, and who can doubt his ability to draft that deed, when they see the judgment he exercised in penning the laws govern- ing the first settlers of Exeter,
In speaking of the provisions of the deed, Mr. Savage asks-" Why should the Indians require that their grantees shall, within ten years, begin a plantation at Squamscot Falls, and to avoid contentions amongst them, should be subjected to the colony of Massachusetts!" As has been said, the Indians were jealous that their rights of land might be infringed up- on, and probably the grantees were asked why they wanted this large tract, and were obliged to tell what they intended to do with it. If other persons should come and settle within the jurisdiction of this grant, this deed showed they must be amenable to the colony of Massachusetts, and any one can plainly see that it was not the grantors who required these provisions ; but the grantees. Again Mr. Savage says-"The grantees, five in number, were not heard of for five years." This may be true, but it does not invalidate the deed on that account in the least. Many men in New-Hampshire, to-day, hold deeds of lands in the West who were never there, and probably never will be Mr. Savage places great stress about the witnesses, nine in number, who saw the deed signed, sealed and delivered. Signed, sealed and delivered does not follow that the grantors must deliver the deed to the grantees, but to any one who is considered an agent or attorney for the grantee. Another query is, how could so many be gathered at Squamscot Falls so far from any settle- ment in those early days? If there was one sachem, three witnesses, and one man to act for the grantees, the deed would be valid, because there were nine witnesses, and they could have been at Dover, and the other six saw it signed and delivered by the three other chiefs, but thoughtlessly kept the same date, which, as Mr. Savage says, was the Sab- bath. This may be true, for in these days we have known men who piously observe the Sabbath day, but forget the day till they are re- minded of it by seeing people passing on the way to church. Another reason why the deed was a forgery is, that Wheelwright was not in this country till 1636, or seven years after the date of the deed. He might
638
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED.
have been in Asia through the whole time, but if he had taken possession at the time stated in the deed it would not have been vititated. But here is what he says on that matter. " Mrs. Pierson, daughter of " Wheelwright told Cotton Mather, that her father's coming over with " his family was in the same ship with Mr. Samuel Whiting, the min- "ister of Lynn, and others," and he adds of them " who we are all sure came in 1636." This statement may all be true, but it does not necessa- rily follow that he did not come at another time before his family. Be- cause there is no record of his being here before 1636, (as Mr. Savage says there is none) it does not prove that he did not come, but rather the circumstances in connection with this deed, prove that records in those days were not kept correct which can be substantiated in hundreds of other instances. In this connection it is only necessary to say that Mr. Savage's principal evidence, Cotton Mather, believed the Wheelwright deed to be correct, if he did bring his family in 1636,
The next bold statement Mr. Savage makes is this-" Of the nine Eng- " lish witnesses in whose presence this deed is attested to be signed, seal- "ed and delivered the 17th of May, 1629, I believe we may entertain " very strong doubts whether more than one was then in this country." This is a presumptuous statement, nearly all founded on negative evi- dence and probabilities, which can always be produced when required, or predicated on neighborhood gossip, and brought in as proof after all the men have been dead more than one hundred years. The only true facts of any reliance are, that they were here in 1639, and the deed makes them here in 1629 Here are a few of the grounds upon which he bases this statement. First, John Oldham came in theAnn, in 1623, to Plymouth. John Oldham and Richard Vines of which livery of seizin was given in 1630, in which grant their undertaking to transport fifty persons thither must imply their presence in England." In those days, as now, firms have their agents and the man may be in China, still his business is transacted through his house as if he was in London; and letters may speak as if they had seen the man in London when in fact, he was in this country at the time. The above is the way all the witnesses of this deed are explained away. In 1870, there were living in other States in this Union, 125,000 persons who were natives of New- Hampshire, and what reliance can be placed by letters of the date of one hundreth part of these people when they left this State, one hun- dred and fifty years hence and this is the kind of evidence that Mr. Savage produces to prove that these eight witnesses were in England when it is said they were here to sign this deed. It is a brittle thread of evidence to throw away one third of all the early history of New- Hampshire that stood undisputed for nearly one hundred years, and men must have more courage than we allow to ourselves even to attempt it.
Another strong evidence why this deed is a forgery is, that the Indian sachem Wehanownowit who signed the deed in 1629, give Wheelwright and Story another deed of part of the same territory, April 3, 1638. Mr. Savage asks " why did he give this new deed of this land previously
639
THE WHEELWRIGHT DEED.
granted? There is nothing strange in this, especially in those early days. The Indians had begun to grow uneasy about white intrusions on their territory; aud doubtless Wheelwright and his people thought they would be more secure to take a new grant from this Chief, as he pretend- ed to hold control of all that wild land. These deeds, under the law, were never considered worth the paper they were written on, except as evidences of priority of occupation of territory, which was important in deciding who first occupied certain territory claimed by the Masonian heirs.
Gorges and Mason had a grant of this same territory, as can be seen, in 1622, but November 17, 1629, they applied for a new grant of the same territory they had purchased in 1622, as they also did of territory now comprising the land from Naumkeag River at Salem, Mass., and the whole of Cape Ann. With much more propriety could the question be asked, Why did Gorges and Mason require new grants of land purchas- ed seven years before? In the first volume of the New-Hampshire Pro- vincial Records, in speaking of these grants, it says, " the inference is that all the other grants had failed through some defect; especially was this the case of the grant of. August 10, 1622." Was not the Wheelwright deed, made six months previous, the cause of their investigations as to the validity of their deed of Aug. 10, 1622?
The Wheelwright deed first came before the courts and the public in the case of Allen vs. Waldron, in 1707, and 1708. The heirs of John Wheelwright, at that time, were living in York County, Maine, and this deed was doubtless in their possession. How long it was in their hands before it was placed on file in the York County records is not known, but a certified copy of this deed was used as evidence in this case; but still it was not recorded till 1713, in this county, and in the Rockingham Rec- ords in 1714. Mr. Savage requires to know, why the original deed was not produced instead of a certified copy? In all of our early settlements, legal papers were placed on file, as no books were provided at that early date to record them in, and copies of these files were suffered to go out of the office, but not the originals. Doubtless this must be the case of this deed, for it was not recorded in the books till five years after the copy was used in the courts. By inquiry any person will find this to be true of the early provincial records of New-Hampshire.
In reference to the signatures of the grantors of this deed, Mr. Savage says. "But the signing is a remarkable point. All the six marks are " different yet not one is an Indian mark. These who are conversant " with the habits of the aboriginees in this particular know their pride "is exhibited by animal or other devices on the same principal of human " nature that led civilized men to the "bost of heraldry" to put family, " or fancy arms and mottoes on their seals."
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.