History of the Town of Hampton, NH - Chapters 3-4



CHAPTER III. TOWN AFFAIRS, 1658-1680 - PUBLIC LANDS - PUBLIC HOUSES - AND
A TROUBLESOME PUBLIC CHARGE.

SECOND REVIEW OF OLD GRANTS

About twenty years after the settlement of the town, it was thought
expedient, to have all the grants made during those years carefully
examined, and properly recorded. For this purpose, on the 26th of
September, 1658, the town appointed Roger Shaw, Henry Dow, Sen., and John
Sanborn, together with Samuel Dalton, the town clerk, made it their duty
"to examine all grants and appointments of lands, highways, and such like,
and to perfect the same in the new Town-Book." For making the record, the
town clerk was to receive sixpence for each grant or parcel, and half as
much for transcribing for the Recorder, at the request of any grantee or
owner.

In the following winter, the committee attended to the business assigned
them. But in the course of their investigations, they met with instances
of persons claiming land, of which they could find no grant on record, and
this caused them not them not a little embarrassment. The town therefore
voted, that, in such cases, the claimants should produce two or more
witness to prove their grants; and that the committee should then cause a
record to be made of such grants as, in their opinion, were valid.

At the same meeting on the 9th of February, it was also voted, that the
committee, with the town clerk, should have further power given them by
the town, to appoint, lay out, and record convenient highways to men's
lands in the town, and to allow satisfaction to the proprietors according
to their discretion, which satisfaction was to be made with portions of
the town's land. The committee were also required to have all shares of
the common recorded; and as this would occasion considerable labor to the
town clerk, the other members were authorized "to adjudge what
satisfaction" he sould receive his pay to be taken out of the next town
rate.

The committee appear to have performed with great fidelity the duties
required of them, and as the result of their labors, a large number of
grants of land, returns of highways, and shares of commonage were entered
upon the records. Henry Dow, one of the committee, died before the
investigation was completed, and on the 9th of March, 1660, William Fuller
was chosen to fill the vacancy.


SNOW STORM IN MAY

Dr. Belknap mentions, in his History of New Hampshire, on the authority of
a letter from Rev. Nathaniel Gookin, of North Hampton, to Rev. Thomas
Prince, of Boston, a very sudden and remarkable change in the weather,
which, according to his statement, occurred in 1658, when the apple trees
were in blossom. The change of temperature was so sudden, and the cold
became so severe, that of the crew of a fishing boat, belonging to this
town, "one man died before they could reach the shore, another was so
chilled, that he died in a few days, and a third lost his feet." We find
no notice of this event on the town records; but they do inform us, that,
on "the thirtieth of April, 1659, there was a great storm of snow, which
lay upon the ground three or four inches thick upon May-day in the
morning, and continued, some of it, till it was ten o'clock, or
thereabouts." This date is given in Old Style, so that the storm was on
the 10th of May, according to the present method of reckoning; a time,
when, if it was a forward spring, the apple trees might have been in
blossom. Might not, then, the occurrence related by Dr. Belknap have
happened one year later than he supposed? That there should be an error of
one year, in the date, is not improbable, for it should be borne in mind,
that the letter on which he based his statement was written more than a
century after the occurrence, and the writer probably had no knowledge of
it except from tradition.

The following vote, passed by the town, December 20, 1660, shows a
willingness that the laws to which they were subject should be known. It
also shows the care that was taken of the books containing the laws.

"Liberty is Granted to those yt have the keeping of the Las Bookes yt they
shall lend them to their neighbors for about a fortnight att one time, who
are to Returne them to those yt haue the keeping of them & nott to lend
them from man to man whereby they may come to damage."

On the first of January, 1661, the town established a rule to be observed
in the taxation of unmarried men, who had no estates on which taxes could
be assessed, for defraying the expenses to which the town was liable. Each
man was to be estimated as an estate of £20 in the assessment of taxes--
whether town, or ministerial, except in cases where the selectmen, for
good reasons, should think it expedient to assess a smaller sum.

It has already been shown, that the regular and usual method of admitting
inhabitants was by vote of the town. From the first, this power was
exercised as a protection from imposition and injury. Still, there was
need of constant and untiring vigilance, to prevent persons acquiring the
rights and privileges of inhabitants without permission thus granted; for
by a colonial law, of 1645, any person who had lived in any town of the
colony for the space of one full year should be accounted an inhabitant of
that town. It was probably on account of this or some similar law, that
the people of Hampton at this time made a regulation, that if any
inhabitant of the town should receive into, or keep in his family, any
inmate, without the consent of the town, he should forfeit to the town's
use ten shillings a week.

But what occasion there was for the following vote, passed at the same
meeting, it is not easy to conceive. The record of it is in these words:--

"Itt is ordered ytif any prson shall discharge a Gunn in the Meeting
House, or in any other House, without the leave of the owner, or
Householder, Hee or they shall forfitt five shillings, unless the prson so
offending doth peaceably make satisfaction; nor shall any prson Ride or
lead a Horse into meeting House under the like penalty."

At the town meeting last named, liberty was given to any and all
inhabitants who chose, to break up planting ground on the commons, and
have the profits for ten years, on certain conditions. The land must lie
three miles, at least, from the meeting house, and those who should
undertake to cultivate any portion of it must give security to the
satisfaction of the selectmen for the time being, that at the end of the
ten years, they would, at a seasonable time in the year, sow it down with
English hay seed, two bushels, at least, of good merchantable seed upon
each acre of ground so cultivated, which was thenceforth to lie common
forever.

At at meeting, March 11, 1662, the town, as an act of justice to the
owners of the meadows, or marshes, over which the causeway passed, gave
them permission to set up gates across it in convenient places on both
sides of the meadows, to prevent cattle from feeding or trampling upon
them. The town also voted, that after the erection of such gates, no
persons should put any cattle upon these meadows between the first of
April and the first of October, under the penalty of being accounted as
trespassers and dealt with accordingly. Nathaniel Boulter alone dissented.

Permission was also granted for gates, to protect the common field that
had been enclosed in the east part of the town; one, near John Redman's--
probably on the sea road, not far from the site of the east schoolhouse--
to prevent cattle from entering the field from above; and another, at the
bridge near the beach, as security against the cattle pastured upon the
Great Ox-Common. These gates were to be kept up, and no cattle left within
the enclosure from the beginning of April, till after the 10th day of
October annually.

In the autumn following, the constable, Henry Roby, was fined ten
shillings for neglect of duty, in "warning a meeting and not attending to
forward the work"--the whole fine to be exacted, unless he should give a
satisfactory reason for his absence, in which case one-half of it would be
remitted. He also lost his office, and William Fifield was chosen
constable in his place.

In December, the question, Who are to be considered inhabitants of the
town? was answered by the following vote: "Itt is acted & ordered thatt
Hence forth no man shall bee Judged an Inhabitant in this towne nor haue
power or liberty to act in towne affaires or haue priviledg of Comonedg
Either sweepedg or feedage butt hee thatt hath one share of Comonedg att
least according to the first deuission and land to build upon."

At a town meeting, on the 9th of March, 1663, an allowance of 40s. was
made to Samuel Dalton, the town clerk, for keeping the town records and
recording the "Towne actes" during the year preceding. What his
compensation had been in former years is not known.


RIGHTS IN THE COW-COMMONS

At the same meeting, it was voted that the cow commons should be cleared
of mares and colts, and that no person should put any cattle upon the
commons, unless he owned some right in them. Persons having a right ,
might, if they chose, pasture one horse there instead of two cows. Thomas
Marston and Nathaniel Batchelder were chosen to see this order executed.
Persons owning no right in the commons, who should put any beast there to
be pastured, in violation of this order, were made liable to a fine, even
for the first offence. If the committee just chosen should neglect their
duty, they were to forfeit 10s.apiece.

At this meeting, too, about seventeen years after what has usually, though
rather improperly, been termed the divison of the cow common, two persons-
one of whom was John Sanborn, and the other not known, his name being
obliterated from the records-were chosen to join with Samuel Dalton, the
town clerk, to ascertain by whom the shares of the common were then
claimed, and to whom they really belonged; and as eleven shares had
formerly been reserved by the town, to be disposed of afterward, they were
also to ascertain how many of these had since been disposed of, and to
whom. All claimants of shares were required to make known to the committee
within two weeks, what shares they claimed, and any neglecting to do so,
would subject themselves to a fine of 20s. each, The committee were also
required, after having made a thorough investigation, and having found to
whom the shares legally belonged, to case a record thereof to be made. The
constable was empowered and ordered to take by distress all forfeitures
arising under this order, and to give an account thereof to the town, with
the assurance that he should "have satisfaction for his paines."

At the same meeting, it was voted that the cow commons should be cleared
of mares and colts, and that no person should put any cattle upon the
commons, unless he owned some right in them. Persons having a right,
might, if they chose, pasture one horse there instead of two cows. Thomas
Marston and Nathaniel Batchelder were chosen to see this order executed.
Persons owning no right in the commons, who should put any beast there to
be pastured, in violation of this order, were made liable to a fine, even
for the first offence. If the committee just chosen should neglect their
duty, they were to forfeit 10s. apiece.

At this meeting, too, about seventeen years after what has usually, though
rather improperly, been termed the divisonof the cow common, two persons--
one of whom was John Sanborn, and the other not known, his name being
obliterated from the records--were chosen to join with Samuel Dalton, the
town clerk, to ascertain by whom the shares of the common were then
claimed, and to whom they really belonged; and as eleven shares had
formerly been reserved by the town, to be disposed of afterward, they were
also to ascertain how many of these had since been disposed of, and to
whom. All claimants of shares were required to make known to the committee
within two weeks, what shares they claimed, and any neglecting to do so,
would subject themselves to a fine of 20s. each. The committee were also
required, after having made a thorough investigation, and having found to
whom the shares legally belonged, to cause a record thereof to be made.
The constable was empowered and ordered to take by distress all
forfeitures arising under this order, and to give an account thereof to
the town, with the assurance that he should "have satisfaction for his
paines."

Two weeks afterward, the committee presented their report, which was
accepted and placed upon record, as follows:

Owners of the Shares in the Cow Common, March 23, 1663.

Origl rights        and how their titles were derived
                    from the original owners.

Bot of Wm Howard    Robert Page 3 shares –
                    one of which given to John Clifford.

Wm Moulton          John Brown 1 share, bought of Thos Sleeper.

The wid. Bristow    John Brown - 1 share.

John Moulton        Henry Moulton 1 share - by the last
                    will of his father John Moulton.

Wm Howard           Wm Godfrey - 2 shares bought of Wm Howard.

Wm Cole             Thos Webster one share, bought of Wm Cole.

Walter Ropper       Thomas Marston one share
                    (of three which he bought of Robt Knight.)

Wm Eastow           Thomas Marston one share by the last will of Wm Eastow.

Walter Ropper       Wm Marston Jun two shares bought of Thos Marston.

Henry Green         Abraham Perkins one share, bought of Henry Green.

Henry Ambrose       Wm Fuller 2 shares
                    (of three which he bought of Henry Ambrose.)

Henry Ambrose       Anthony Stanyan 1 share, bought of Wm Fuller.

James Davis Senr    Anthony Stanyan 3 shares, bought of James Davis Senr

Philemon Dalton     Samuel Dalton 3 shares,
                    as sole heir to Philemon Dalton deceased.

The Almes Lot       Samuel Fogg, 1 share bought of John Redman.

Isaac Perkins       Samuel Fogg, 1 share bought of Henry Roby.

Rev. S. Batchelder  Nathaniel Bachelder 1 share bought of John Sanborn.

Stephen Sanborn     Nathaniel Batchelder 1 share bought of Stephen Sanborn.

Thos Moulton        Mr. Dalton or his Relict, 3 shares bought
                    of Thos Moulton late of Hampton.

Rev. S. Batchelder  Thos Philbrick Senr one share bought
                    of Wm Sanborn—before that John Sanborn's.

Wm English          John Casse two shares bought of Wm English.

Saml Getchell       Thos Dearborn one share bought
                    of Mr. Rishworth & Thomas Leader.

Thos Sleeper        Henry Dow one share bought of Thomas Sleeper.

Henry Dow Senr      Henry Dow one share, by the last will
                    of his father Henry Dow Senr.

Wm Eastow           Morris Hobbs two shares, by the last will of Wm Eastow.

Henry Green         John Marion one share bought of Henry Green.

Edw. Colcord by
right from
Tho. Jones.         Thomas Chase one share bought of Edward Colcord.

Aquila Chase        Thomas Chase, one share bought of Aquila Chase.

Francis Peabody     Robert Drake 3 shares bought of Francis Peabody.

Ed. Colcord right
of T. Jones         Robert Drake 1 share of
                    Edward Colcord, as appears folio 41.

Wm Howard           John Clifford, one share given him by Robt Page
                    (one of those that Page bot of Howard).

Henry Sayward       John Philbrick, late of Hampton, one share
                    bought of Henry Sayward.

Francis Swaine      Thomas Philbrick Junr -- one share bought
                    of Henry Green.

Francis Swaine      Nathl Weare, one share given him by Francis Swaine &
                    confirmed by Martha Leveredge, his executrix.

Thos Chase          Robert Smith, one share bought of John Garland.

[Francis Swaine]    Nathl Weare one share more given him by Francis Swaine
                    and confirmed by the wife of Caleb Leveredge as above.

Richard Swaine      Benjamin Swett--2 shares, bought of Richard Swaine.

Richard Swaine      Nathaniel Weare – one share, bought of Richard Swaine.

Wm English          Jasper Blake - one share, bought of Thomas Ward.

Mr. [T.] Dalton     John Knowles - 2 shares bought of Emanuel Hilliard -
                    by Giles Fuller.

Henry Dow           Thomas Nudd - one share bought of Henry Dow Senr

2 of the 3
shares to
"The Almes Lott"    John Redman - 2 shares granted to the lot given
                    to him by the Town.

Wm Marston Senr     John Marston - 3 shares bought of Wm Marston Senr.

Wm Marston Senr     Henry Dearborn - one of the above shares - bought
                    of John Marston.

Wm Marston Senr     Abraham Cole - one share bought of Thos Philbrick,
                    who bought it of John Moulton.

                    Francis Page - one share.

                    Daniel Dow - one share bought of Nathl Boulter.


CAPT. THOMAS WIGGIN

Squamscott Patent included the territory which now forms the town of
Stratham. On this territory lived Capt. Thomas Wiggin, one of the
magistrates of Massachusetts and for many years a judge of the courts of
Salisbury and Hampton, at Dover and York. Living upon his farm, which lay
not within the limits of any town, he was not liable to taxation till his
case was made a subject of special legislation. It was then ordered by the
General Court, that the dwelling-house of Capt. Wiggin, together with the
lands and other property pertaining thereto, should belong to the town of
Hampton, and be assessed by the selectmen thereof, in all rates, according
to law, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding; and that for
the time past in which he had paid no taxes, he should now allow the sum
of five pounds only, and pay the same into the public treasury. This
connection with Hampton continued about thirty-five years, from May 1657,
to November 28, 1692, when it was transferred to Exeter.

Capt. Wiggin appears, by this act, to have been subjected to the same
liabilities in regard to taxation, as if his property and his own
residence had been within the limits of the town. Several years afterward,
some changes were made, in practice at least, if not by law. The town
voted to free him from paying for his farm such rates as were made for
particular town charges, and for the house bought for the use of the
minister; but he was still to pay for his farm and stock all rates made
for the minister's maintenance, and all country and county rates, as
formerly. Hence it may be inferred, that his connection with the town was
regarded as temporary rather than permanent, and on this account he was
not required to pay any taxes, whose benefits would be in future only.

In the spring of 1663, the town, in accordance with the reserved right to
order both the sweepage and feedage of the several commons, voted that,
for the present year, three cows, or one horse and one cow, might be
pastured on the cow common, for each share.

The selectmen having appointed William Fuller, John Sanborn and John
Redman, to take notice of any breaches of the regulation about the making
of staves, the town confirmed the appointment, gave the men appointed
discretionary power to remit fines and to determine how many staves any
man might make; also imposed a fine a ten shillings for each tree felled
for staves without permission of the commmittee.

At the same meeting, Thomas Parker, shoemaker, was granted liberty to come
into the town to follow his trade, though, for some unknown reason, nine
prominent citizens entered their dissent.


THE NEW PLANTATION

About this time, a new enterprise of considerable magnitude was
undertaken. The western portion of the township being still unsettled, on
the 9th of June, 1663, it was ordered and agreed, that a tract of land in
that part should be surveyed and laid out, to contain several thousand
acres, (The leaf of the Records on which this order was entered, is
somewhat mutilated, but the quantity of land named appears to be four
thousand acres, yet the quantity actually laid out must have been larger)
if the persons sent to examine it should consider it expedient. The men
appointed for this purpose were John Sanborn, Thomas Marston, Christopher
Palmer, John Redman, Abraham Drake, William Sanborn, snd Morris Hobbs. If
these men, after viewing the land, should decide to lay it out, they were
instructed to begin at the western boundary, and extend their survey
eastward, taking the full breadth of the town, till the number of acres
designated should be included. This tract was to be laid out to the lawful
inhabitants, according to the town's will and pleasure. Anthony Stanyan
alone voted in the negative.

The committee appear to have attended to the duty assigned them
immediately, so far as related to viewing the tract, and to have reported
favorably. At another town meeting a week later, Capt. Christopher Hussey,
Dea. Robert Page, John Sanborn, John Redman, and the town clerk [Samuel
Dalton], instead of the former committee, were appointed to lay out the
land. They were directed "to consider of a way of division, and make
return to the town, in the evening after training, to which time" the
meeting was then adjourned. At that time, date not given, the report,
read, approved and adopted, was as follows:

"Concerning the matter committed to us, we judge it meet that the land be
divided into two divisions; the first division to be one hundred acres to
every inhabitant that hath two shares of commonage, or upwards, and those
that have but one share, to have each eighty acres; and what meadows
should be found, to be [divided] according to each man's right, in
proportion with the [rest]."

The survey and division of this land appear to have occupied about three
months, for a little more than that length of time had elapsed when, on
the 23d of September, the result was laid before the town. The lots were
then drawn for by those inhabitants entitled to them--Dea. Robert Page
having been chosen to draw for persons absent and not represented. This
tract was usually styled THE NEW PLANTATION, though sometimes designated
as "the land laid out by the pond in our township." The pond here
mentioned is Kingston pond, and a considerable portion of this tract of
land fell within the limits of Kingston, when, thirty years later, their
town was incorporated. This gave rise to several lawsuits, which will be
noticed in another chapter.


SUIT AGAINST NATHANIEL BOULTER

At this time, the town determined to commence suits at law against persons
who had trespassed upon the commons, either in mowing the meadows, or
felling timber, or in any other way, in all cases where legal proof could
be obtained. Thomas Marston and William Fifield were chosen to act as
attorneys for the town, in such suits. They were particularly instructed
to bring a suit or suits against Nathaniel Boulter, at the next court to
be holden at Hampton.

In what manner he had trespassed does not appear. The case seems to have
gone in his favor, for a few months afterwards, February 4, 1664, the town
voted to have it reviewed at the next court to be holden at Salisbury; and
William Fifield and John Redman were then appointed to act as agents for
the town in the prosecution. Subsequently, the entire management of the
case was committed to the latter. Before the trial came on, however, the
town agreed, that Boulter should have, in addition to the house lot
formerly granted to him, one of the eleven reserved shares of the cow-
common.

From a statment made to the county court at Salisbury in 1675, by Henry
Dow, the town's attorney in another suit with Boulter, then pending, it
appears that this suit was settled in 1666. In the other case, the town
denied that Boulter had any just claims, yet for the sake of peace, and to
end all differences then existing, or that ever had existed between the
parties, consented to an agreement by which a considerable tract of land
was conveyed to Boulter.

An unusually large amount of business was transacted at the town meeting
on the 23rd of September, 1663. Several important votes have already been
mentioned. An order was made that the Great Ox-Common should be fenced
with a sufficient four-rail fence, from the bridge near the beach to the
pond near Great Boar's Head. The other portions of this common, bordering
on the river and ocean, were sufficiently protected without being fenced.

Permission was given to William Fifield "to run his fence right over the
island by his meadow at the Little River, provided he did not enclose
above half an acre of upland to his own use." The island here mentioned is
now known as Fifield's island, an elevated tract containing about sixteen
acres and lying in the midst of the salt marsh, on the southerly side of
Little river.

This marsh was formerly a fresh meadow, (The land between Little River and
the Beach "tords the little Boares-head," in an entry on the Town Records,
under date of 20: 5 mo; 1640, is called "freshmd.") as is evident from the
large number of stumps and roots of trees still--or till recently--found
there. The river ran along southerly, inside of the beach, and, as some
suppose, at an early period united with Nilus brook, a tributary of
Winnacunnet or Hampton river. At the time of the settlement of the town it
flowed into the ocean at Plaice Cove. Afterward a more direct passage
having been opened through the sand, the tide flowed in, and the fresh-
meadow was gradually converted into saltmarsh.

After the drawing of lots for the land laid out at the New Plantation, the
town ordered that the dry-cattle should be kept there the next summer, in
charge of herdsmen to be hired by the selectmen then in office. As that
section of the township was the unsettled, the selectmen were instructed
to build a house for the herdsmen, and a pen for their cattle, and to make
such further provision as they might consider needful for their comfort
and convenience. Near the close of the year, the town somewhat modified
this arrangement. It was then voted that all the dry-cattle, except oxen
and young calves, should be pastured there. The order was made for the
whole town, and the inhabitants were strictly prohibited from allowing any
cattle of this description to go upon the cow-common, under penalty of 2s.
a head for all such cattle found there. For the rigid enforcement of this
order, Thomas Philbrick, jr., and Henry Dow were chosen and instructed to
clear the cow-common of dry cattle and to collect all fines arising from a
violation of the foregoing order.

The milch-cows were, the next summer, to be pastured, as formerly, upon
the cow-common towards Exeter.

The selectmen were directed to lay out for the use of the herdsmen for the
next year, twenty acres of land, which, in the drawing of lots already
mentioned, had fallen to John Knowles, but which he had now relinquished
to the town in exchange for an equal quantity which he was allowed to
choose out of the commons, in any place within three miles of the
aforenamed pond. To the lot thus relinquished, the selectmen were allowed
to add a "nooke" extending into the pond.


EUNICE COLE AGAIN

William Salter, the keeper of the prison at Boston, brought a demand
against the town for boarding Eunice Cole at the prison to which she had
been sentenced by the court; and, to secure payment of the debt, he
arrested Thomas Marston, one of the selectmen, July 14, 1664. Marston
having laid the case before the town, the following votes were passed:

"The towne doth order and agree thatt whatt remaines of old Cole's estate
in the hands of the selectmen, according to yeorder of the County Courtt,
shall bee payd to Salter with as much speed as may bee." "Thatt the Rest
yt is due to him, ye sd Salter, shall by the selectmen be payd out of the
fines yt are due to the Towne from those that are delinquents in making
staues upon the Comons contrary to the Town order, to make up the full
some [sum] due to the sd Salter."

In order that these proceedings may be the better understood, it is
necessary to give a brief account of some previous transactions.

While Eunice Cole was lying in prison after her trial for witchcraft in
1656, her husband, William Cole, on the third of November, 1659, sent a
petition to the General Court, in which he represented that he had, on
some former occasion, made over his estate to his wife, "to keep her from
going away from him;" that he was not able himself to perform the labor
that was needful to gain a subsistence from this estate, and that, as he
could not make payment from it to any persons whom he might wish to employ
to assist him, he had sometimes come near perishing, and had been obliged
to call upon the town for aid, which had been furnished; but that the town
could recover nothing for the assistance rendered, without having recourse
to a lawsuit. He therefore prayed the court to provide some relief in the
case.

The petition having been considered, the court ordered: "That the town of
Hampton should take into their possession all the estate belonging to the
said Cole, or his wife--as was pretended--and out of said estate, or
otherwise, as they should see cause, supply the said Cole's and his wife's
necessities during their lives, and afterward account for what should
remain unspent--if anything--after being paid for their trouble."

The town, in compliance with this order of the General Court, had taken
possession of Cole's estate, and in consequence had become liable for his
own and his wife's maintenance, though she was still a prisoner in Boston.
In 1662, Goody Cole herself prayed the court for release, pleading
pathetically her own age and weakness, and the infirmities of her husband,
"being 88 yeeres of Age," and needing the care which none but his wife
could render. Petitions were also presented by the inhabitants of Hampton
and the keeper of the prison, and the court ordered that she pay "what is
due on arrears" to the keeper, and "depart wthin one month after her
release, out of this jurisdiction, & not to returne againe on poenalty of
hir former sentenc being executed against hir." At the time of Marston's
arrest by Salter, William Cole was dead. The towne continued to maintain
his widow at the prison several years afterward at an expense of eight
pounds a year.

In the latter part of the spring of 1665, another petition from Goody Cole
was presented to the General Court, praying that she might be released
from prison. The court ordered that she might have her liberty upon her
security to depart from, and abide out of, their jurisdiction, according
to the former order of the court. She, however, still remained in prison,
unwilling, perhaps, to leave the colony, and probably unable to give the
security required.


BOUNTIES FOR NEW SETTLEMENTS

After the lapse of a quarter of a century from the first settlement of the
town, the population was still confined to the part of the territory lying
near the seacoast; but now there was on the part of many of the
inhabitants a desire that other portions should be occupied. When the New
Plantation had been laid out a little more than a year, the town, for the
purpose of procuring its immediate settlement, agreed upon a measure that
seemed likely, to some extent at least, to effect an object so desirable.
As an inducement for persons to settle there, it was voted, November 24,
1664, that any who would give in their names to the selectmen should be
allowed to take up twenty acres of land to a man, for house lots, on
condition that they would make use of their lots, for this purpose, within
twelve months. Soon afterwards (December 9), permission was given to such
of the inhabitants as had land granted to them in the township near Great
pond, to take up ten acres each in Ashing swamp, between Ass brook and the
township, which should be laid out at the discretion of the lot-layers,
and should be accounted as so much of the land granted to them.

The plan however, did not prove successful, and a few years afterward it
was thought expedient to offer other and greater inducements. It was then
voted, that those inhabitants of the town, who would give in their names
at a meeting to be holden for that purpose, and agree to improve land at
the New Plantation, by building upon it and fencing it, should be allowed
to take up forty acres apiece, to begin at the northern part of the
western boundry, next to Exeter, and have their lots laid thence homeward
towards the town, provided that none of them should extend more than three-
quarters of a mile eastward of Ass brook. This was April 14, 1669.

Twelve men accepted the terms, and the town voted that lots should be laid
out for them in two divisions. These twelve men were:

William Sanborn,
Abraham Perkins, Sen.,
Samuel Fogg,
Nathaniel Batchelder,
John Moulton,
Morris Hobbs,
William Marston,
John Smith (the cooper),
Henry Moulton,
Robert Smith,
Anthony Taylor,
Thomas Marston.

More than three years earlier the town had voted to give William Marston,
Sen., one hundred acres of land, to be laid out as near the Great pond in
the western part of the township as might conveniently be done, provided
he should build upon it and settle some person there during the next year.
As Goodman Marston was at that time far advanced in life, being about
seventy-five years of age, it was not probably expected that he should
settle there himself.

At the same meeting, Ens. John Sanborn, Samuel Dalton and Abraham Drake
were appointed as measurers of land, to lay out, or, it may be, to
complete the laying out of the land granted as a Second Division in 1663,
or later. They were ordered to lay it out by the end of May following, so
arranging the lots as to allow each person to have his full proportion in
one body so far as practicable.


COMMISSIONERS FOR SMALL CAUSES

The General Court, in the spring session of 1665, in consideration of the
trouble and expense to which the people of the county of Norfolk were
subjected, by reason of their remoteness from any magistrates, ordered
that Capt. Robert Pike, of Salisbury, and Mr. Samuel Dalton, of Hampton--
or either of them--should be "empowered as commissioners to take the
acknowledgment of deeds; to administer oaths in all civil cases; to issue
warrants to seach for stolen goods; to take notice of and punish defects
in watching; to punish for drunkenness, excessive drinking, and such like
crimes of an inferior nature, according to law; to bind over offenders to
the county court; to solemnize marriages to persons duly published; and
all this during the court's pleasure."

Before that year closed, Moses Coxe and Alexander Denham were engaged for
the next year as keepers of the dry cattle in the pasturage "about the
Great Pond."

It was ordered that no cattle but milch cows and working oxen should be
put upon any part of the cow common on the north side of Taylor's river,
and that no inhabitant on the north side should keep any cattle on the
commons on the south side, on any pretext whatsoever.

The town had previously ordered, as already related, that the Great Ox-
Common should be enclosed with a sufficient fence. The question was now
raised (May 12, 1666), What should be considered a sufficient fence? and
it was determined that the main river and the branch called John Brown's
river should be accounted a sufficient fence about the common from the
mouth of the river, and so westward up to the branch just named; thence up
this branch on the north and northeast side of the common to the fence
that goes over the beach near the Great pond--now called Beach pond--on
the north side of the Great Boar's Head.


LOCKE'S NECK

In the last chapter it was stated that the town sent a committee to the
northeast part of its territory between Little river and the town of
Portsmouth, to ascertain what encroachments had been made upon the town's
land, and to prevent, if possible, any further encroachment. Twelve years
had now passed, and these border difficulties still continued; for, in
1666, John Locke, who afterward fell victim to Indian barbarity, had
settled without permission upon the town's land at Jocelyn's Neck--
afterward called Locke's Neck--very near the boundary line between Hampton
and Portsmouth; and he may have supposed himself within the limits of the
latter town. Here he had built his house and enclosed a piece of ground,
and hither he had brought his family, with intent to stay. The town,
therefore, at the meeting on the 12th of May, directed Thomas Marston and
Morris Hobbs to go to Jocelyn's Neck and demolish the fence Locke had
built, and to order him to meddle no further with the town's property in
that vicinity.

What reception Goodman Locke gave this committee is not stated. Nothing
further concerning him or his possessions is found on record till nearly
two years afterward, when on the 9th of March, 1668, he made known to the
town his desire to be received as an inhabitant. The town acceded to his
request and the Lockes came to be among the leading citizens.


DANIEL TILTON, BLACKSMITH

In the summer of 1667, Daniel Tilton asked liberty of the town "to sit
down" here as a smith, engaging to do the town's work "upon as good terms
as any other man that doth use that trade in these parts, and that for the
term of four years." The town voted to receive him, and granted him four
acres of land adjoining the farm of Joseph Shaw. The conditions of the
grant were that the said Daniel Tilton should have liberty to improve it,
or dispose of it to any other smith "that the town could have no just
exception against." And if any other smith should come and settle in the
town within the term of four years, and succeed in drawing away the custom
from Tilton, then the latter should be at liberty to dispose of his land
to the town, or, on the town's refusal, to any purchaser that he could
find.

Tilton accepted these conditions, and the four acres of land were laid
out, having Joseph Shaw's farm on the northwest and the country way on the
southeast, the lot being ten rods wide at the northeast end, and twenty-
two rods at the southwest end, and forty rods in length (the Akerman place
on Hampton Falls hill).


COMMITTEE OF SURVEY

February 12, 1669, Thomas Marston, Abraham Drake and Joseph Dow were
instructed by the town, to run the line from the north tree [five miles
north of the meeting-house in Hampton,] westward through the woods to the
line of Exeter--two miles distant from the Meetinghouse in that town,--and
thence along the Exeter line to the bound tree standing where the road
crosses Ass brook. This survey was to be made in accordance with an order
of the court. The work was to be done sometime in the month of March; but
it seems not to have been completed at that time, for late in the
following autumn, a part of the same survey was entrusted to Marston and
Drake of the former commitee, together with Peter Johnson. They were
required to run the line from the north tree of Exeter, and also to
measure from the causeway bridge is according to the court's order and
grant in 1652. By the causeway bridge is probably meant a bridge near the
beach not far from the easterly end of the road now called the causeway,
though no reference to it in any court order of so early a date has been
found. At a later period, the boundary line at Jocelyn's Neck was declared
to be five miles from this bridge, to be measured along the road, or path,
near the beach.

There had been a controversy between this town and Portsmouth concerning
the boundary line at Jocelyn's Neck. The case was brought before the
county court at Salisbury, April 12, 1669, for adjudication. Ens. John
Sanborn was chosen to manage it as agent in behalf of this town, and was
instructed to procure such assistance as he might judge necessary.

An action brought by the selectmen against Henry Green, was pending in the
county court, but at this time the town declared the case "nott yett Ripe
for a Tryall."


ORDINARIES, OR PUBLIC HOUSES

An ordinary was an Inn, or Public House for the accommodation of
travelers, with lodgings and refreshments at established prices. The first
ordinary in Hampton was opened at a very early period, by Robert Tuck, in
accordance with the expressed wish of the town. His house was on the
corner at the junction of the town roads, near Rand's hill, about forty
rods northwest from the site of the first Meeting-houses. He continued to
keep an ordinary there till he had occasion to visit England about the
year 1654. It then became necessary for some other person to engage in the
business. The town having made choice of, or at least, authorized Anthony
Taylor to open an ordinary, though he lived on the border of the
settlement, about two miles from the Meeting-house, the county court
approved the choice and allowed him "to sell wine and strong water."

Goodman Tuck remained abroad about one year. After his return, he was
invited by the town to reopen his ordinary for the accommodation of
travelers. He consented, and soon after resumed business, having received,
as he said, "great Incoridgement to sett it up againe." Indeed, he
reopened his house immediately, without waiting for the sitting of the
county court to procure a renewal of his former license, not doubting that
the existing ordinary would soon be closed. But at the next term of the
court, he found himself in trouble. His license was indeed renewed, but he
was fined £5, for violating the law by engaging in the business before its
renewal, and was allowed a year in which to pay the fine. At the next
session of the General Court, in May, 1658, he petioned to have his fine
remitted, as he had offended ignorantly, suppposing that his former
license had not become void. The Court remitted £3 of the fine, leaving
enough of it to be paid to teach him the danger of violating the law, even
through ignorance.

Goodman Tuck continued to keep the ordinary till his death, which occurred
in the autumn of 1664; when it was found difficult for his family to go on
with the business, as his son who had come to America with him, had died
several years before, and the grandson who was heir to the estate, was
still in his minority. The house and land were soon after leased to Mr.
Henry Deering, of Salisbury. On motion of Mr. John Sanborn, made in town
meeting about a year after Tuck's death, the town admitted Mr. Deering as
an inhabitant, and voted their approval of him as a suitable person to
keep the ordinary.

By request of the town, the court had, several months before, licensed Mr.
Deering "to sell wine and strong waters by retaile." His license was
renewed for each of the two following years, but about six months after
the second renewal, he was invited by the selectmen of Portsmouth to keep
the ordinary for that town. The court approved, and granted him license.
This seems to indicate that he was held in good repute.

At a town meeting held early in the fall of 1667, Mr. Anthony Stanyan was
chosen to keep an ordinary, and to "make conuenientt pruision [provision]
for the Courtt & Juries att ye next County Courtt to be held att Hampton,
& to pruid [provide] for corters & strangers as the law directs." At this
term of the court, Mr. Stanyan was approved, and licensed. His license was
renewed the next year, but during his second year he failed to give entire
satisfaction; and at the term of the court held at Salisbury in the spring
of 1669, complaint was made, with the following result: "Anthony Stanian
being prsented by ye grand Jurie for not haueing accomodation for horses,
& other conveniences according to law: The prsentmt being proud [proved]
ye Court judges yt hee shall pay fiue [five] shillings as a fine, & costs;
& in case of non paymt of ye fine & costs; then to appear at Hampton Court
next to answer for his non appearance at this prsent Court."

At the next term of the court, October 12, Henry Roby was allowed to keep
an ordinary in the town; and the court licensed him "to sell beere & wine
& strong waters by retaile & ye sd Roby doth binde himself in ye sum of 40
lb, on condition not to suffer any townsmen, men's childeren & servants to
lie tipling in his house. This bond is owned by Hen: Roby in open court."

Mr. Roby kept the ordinary about ten years, his license being renewed from
year to year. Still there was some dissatisfaction, for after about five
years, he was presented at a court held in Hampton "for not keeping things
convenient for enterteinjng strangers either for horse or man wch causeth
strangers to complayne." "Upon ye sd Robie's prmiseng amendmt ye Court
thinks good to discharge the prsentmt he paijng [paying] fees of ye
Court."

At the court held at Salisbury in the spring of 1674, permission was given
for opening another ordinary in the town, as is shown by the record: "John
Souter of Hampton haueing had ye consent of selectmen to keep an ordinary,
this court doth allow of him to keepe an house of entertajnmt for ye yeare
ensuing; prvided yt hee sell no wine or strong waters to bee drunke in his
house or yards or out houses, to any of ye Inhahitants of ye sd towne,
either directly or indirectly." One year later, John Souter was allowed to
continue his house of entertainment another year, "according to ye
condicons mentioned in his first license."

At a court held at Hampton, October 8, 1678, the selectmen of Hampton
having asked that Samuel Sherburne, "who hath bought ye living at Hampton,
where old goodman Tuck lived & kept ordinary, for a house of entertainmt
may have a license to keep a publique house of entertainmt for horse & man
or travellers, [the court] Doe grant the same wth this prviso, that he
attend all ye laws relating to Innkeepers, & wth speed may bee provided of
an house there that may be sutable to entertaine ye Court & strangers."

Though ordinaries, or public houses, were required by law to be kept in
every town, and though they were essential to the convenience and comfort
of travelers, yet they were liable to abuse. We have no means of knowing
what reputation the ordinaries kept in this town before the close of the
seventeenth century, sustained. But in some of the ordinaries in the
colony, certain practices were allowed, which by many persons were
esteemed disreputable and disorderly. These practices attracted the
attention of the magistrates and deputies, and were made a subject of
legislation. The following act, passed in 1651, may serve as a specimen:

"Whereas it is observed that there are may Abuses and disorders by dancing
in ordynaryes, whether mixt or unmixt, uppon marriage of some persons;
This Court doth order, that henceforward there shall be no dancing uppon
such occasion, or at other times, in ordinaries, uppon the paine or
penaltie of five shillings for every person that shall so dance in
ordinaries."


THE FIRST NORTH DIVISION

Near the beginning of the year 1670, preliminary measures were adopted for
laying out a considerable portion of land, afterward known as The First
North Division, embracing all that part of the township lying beyond a
line four miles north of the Meeting-house and parallel with the northern
boundary of the town. This tract was consequently one mile in breadth, and
extended from Exeter to the sea. The town voted, February 22, that it
should be laid out and divided according to the shares of the common. The
lots were to be numbered, beginning on the west at the line of Exeter--two
miles from the Meeting-house in that town--and proceeding downward to the
sea.

As the number of shares in the cow common was one hundred forty-seven, it
might be supposed that this tract would be laid out into an equal number
of lots; but that was not the case. In many instances, two or more shares
of the common belonged to the same person, so that, in fact, the number of
owners was only seventy-seven; and as it appeared desirable, that the
whole of each man's share of this land should be in one lot, it was agreed
that the tract should be divided into just as many lots as there were
owners of the common; and that the lots--all being of the same length--
should vary in width in proportion to the owner's rights in the common
severally. It was therefore necessary, that the lots should be drawn for
by number, before they were actually laid out; and then it would not be
difficult to determine the width of the successive lots, as they were
numbered. Some portions of this land were, undoubtedly, far more valuable
than others, but in this instance no regard was had to its quality. Before
drawing for the lots, it was agreed that they should be taken by the
proprietors just as their respective lots should happen to fall.

Ens. John Sanborn, Nathaniel Weare and Peter Johnson were chosen to survey
and lay out this Division.

But it is far easier to resolve than to do. The land, here ordered to be
laid out, remained unsurveyed during nearly a whole generation. Twenty-
four years after this vote, another was passed explanatory of the former,
and it was then ordered that the division should be laid out under the
direction of those originally chosen for the purpose, except that Peter
Johnson being dead, another was chosen in his place. But six years more
passed away before the work was completed, and the result placed upon
record.


THE NEW PLANTATION LAID OUT ANEW

It had been shown, that in 1663, the town adopted such measures, and made
such arrangements for laying out, and disposing of, the land at the New
Plantation, in the western part of the township, no further action on the
subject seemed to be needed. But from offers afterward made by the town to
those who would settle there, and from the repetition of those offers, or
rather from still more favorable offers of a later date, it seemed to have
been difficult to induce people to settle so far back in the woods. From
whatever cause this may have happened, the result appears to have been,
that the whole tract remained unsettled, and the shares drawn by
individuals, probably reverted to the town; for now, after an interval of
about six years, the town undertook to lay out this land anew.

It was determined that it should be laid out in four Divisions, the first
abutting upon Salisbury, and the last upon Exeter, the numbering of the
lots to begin at the former town. It was further ordered, that the lots
should be 160 rods--that is half a mile--in length, and proportioned to
the several grants, in width--regard being had in laying them out, both to
the quantity and the quality of the land. As there would be the length of
two lots--one mile,--in each Division, and the number of Divisions was
limited to four, the extent of all of them would be only four miles--a
distance considerably less than the breadth of the town between Salisbury
and Exeter. It was therefore agreed that all the land not included in the
four Divisions, should be left in ranges of common between them. The
extent of the tract from the western boundary towards the town was not
limited to a certain number of rods, or miles; but it was not to come
"nearer the towne than ye little pond yt is att ye Head of ye falls on ye
southwest of or Pastor's farme"--that is, the pond from which the Falls
river flows.

This action was taken by the same town-meeting that created the First
North Division.

In May, 1670, the town again petitioned the General Court, in relation to
the causeway between the Town and the Falls, representing that for twenty-
six years they had been at great expense in making and maintaining this
road, passing for more than a hundred rods across a washy marsh; that it
had proved to be a constant as well as heavy burden, and withal
exceedingly discouraging, since the fruits of much labor and expense had
in some instances been suddenly destroyed--once, soon after they had laid
out £20 upon it. They stated that they had never received "any support
from the Country, but only £5 the first year that the said causeway was
made." They now asked for relief from the public treasury, which, however,
was not granted; but it was left to the court of the county of Norfolk, to
determine whether "to lay it on the county, or leave it to the town," as
might be judged most equitable.


EXCLUSION OF PAUPERS

By a vote of the town passed January 12, 1671, no person was allowed to
receive into his family, as an inmate, any single person more than sixteen
years of age, without the consent of the town. Every breach of this order
would subject the offender to a fine of 10s. a week for the whole time any
such person should be in his family, the fine to be collected by the
constable, by distress. No person was permitted even to hire a servant
from out of town, without giving security, that the town should not
receive any damage thereby.

This regulation was made to avoid the support of paupers; for by a law of
the colony, then in force, if a person not having a family, should be
resident in any town in the colony, more than three months, without being
formally notified of the town's unwillingness that he should remain, he
should, if needy, be provided for and relieved by such town.

No particular reason is assigned for passing such a vote at this time, but
one may be inferred, from another vote passed at the same meeting,
relation to one Christopher Gould, subjecting any person who should
receive him into his family, to the fine specified in the former vote.


THE CITIZEN ON SQUAMSCOTT PATENT

The same day, the town granted to Mr. Andrew Wiggin, at his own request,
liberty to take forty pines from the common on the northwest side of Ass
brook, at a place where one James Kidd had, on some former occasion,
hauled out logs. (James Kidd appears to have been regarded as a
trespasser, and Mr. Anthony Stanian and William Sanborn were appointed by
the town to compel him to pay for the timber he had taken from the town's
land.) This Mr. Wiggin was a son of Capt. Thomas Wiggin, heretofore
mentioned as a magistrate residing on Squamscott Patent. The son lived
there also, and paid taxes to Hampton as his father had done. He,
therefore, might perhaps justly be considered as entitled to some favor
from the town.

The part of the common whence these logs had been taken is now included
within the limits of Exeter. It had hitherto been considered as a part of
Hampton, and it evidently belonged to this town according to several acts
of the General Court, in which the boundaries of the two towns were
described. But not long after this a controversy arose concerning tract of
land near the borders of these towns, in which this portion was probably
included. Of this controversy and its result, some account will be given
farther on.


HORSES WINTERED ON MARSHES

Another vote, of the same date as the last, was substantially as follows:
The town being sensible of the great damage that is done in the marshes
and meadows, by persons letting their horses and other cattle run at large
in the winter time, going over fences, creeks and rivers, to the
haystacks, do therefore order, that from the first of November till the
last of March, from year to year, every person shall take care of his
cattle to prevent damage of this kind, as far as may be; and that, if any
cattle be found at the haystacks standing in the meadows and marshes,
within the time mentioned, their owners shall forfeit 12d. a head for
every beast so found, and it shall be lawful to impound such cattle, and
to take the penalty named, and all just damage to the person damnified.

The object aimed at, by this vote, was not fully attained, for about five
years afterward, the vote was in substance renewed, showing that occasion
for the regulation still existed. Indeed, the practice alluded to, of
letting cattle--and particularly, horses--run at large during the winter
season, was continued for a long series of years. In the summer, the
horses were usually pastured, where they could be found and taken at any
time, when wanted--generally for carrying their owners, or others, to mill
or to market, and, on the Sabbath, to meeting. In the winter, they were
suffered to roam upon the beach, and the marshes and meadows, and other
grounds in the vicinty, getting their living as best they could, by
cropping the tall beach grass, or grazing upon the rowen on the marshes
and meadows, where the tides kept the ground free from snow--oftentimes,
no doubt, when the creeks were frozen over, venturing far out into the
marshes, and making depredations upon the haystacks.

Possibly a few aged persons now living can remember when this custom still
lingered here, for it had not wholly ceased at the commencement of the
present century. Some, who have died within the last twenty or thirty
years, used to give humorous descriptions of the appearances of the horses
thus wintered. The poor beasts, exposed to storms and the cold, were
enabled to endured the inclemency of the weather, by a kind provision of
nature, causing their hair to grow thick and long, which, though unused to
the curry-comb or brush, seldom, when dry, became tangled or matted, but
stood out, as if under the influence of the electric fluid, giving them
the appearance of being plump. They were so in appearance only, however,
and when the hair was wet with rain or snow, or from their own
perspiration, their real condition was readily seen. Most of them were, in
fact, of an inferior breed, and, being thus kept, or rather left to the
care of themselves, before the return of spring they almost invariably
became lean and lank, and withal exceeding shy, so that feeding together
in droves, when any person went near them, they would throw up their heads
with a snort, and start off with all the speed of which they were capable,
appearing like so many skeletons.

"The first of April, 1671, a great storm of driving snow came out of the
northwest and drove up into drifts about 6 feet deep as appeared by those
that measured the banks of snow, and for the space of 14 days [after] it
was a sad time of rain, not one whole fair day in fourteen, and much
damage done to mills and in other ways by the floods that followed."

The above date is in Old Style, so that the storm was on the 11th of
April, as we now reckon time.


LAST DAYS OF GOODY COLE

Sometime previous to the year 1671, Eunice Cole had been released from the
prison at Boston, where she had been detained a prisoner ever since the
result of her trial for witchcraft, which was commenced in 1656, had been
finally settled by the Court of Assistants. She had now returned to
Hampton and was probably living in a small house near the foot of Rand's
hill, on the northeasterly side of the road. As the town had a few years
before, by order of the General Court, taken possession of her husband's
estate, it is most likely that the house occupied by her had been provided
by the town, as that was the source whence she derived her support.

Now, in 1671, the town ordered that the inhabitants should take their
turns, in the order in which they dwelt, in providing for her by the week
and that any person whose proportion in the rate (that had been made for
her support) amounted to less than four shillings, should join with his
next neighbor, for this purpose. They were to provide her with suitable
food and fuel, and each one having the care of her, was required to notify
his next neighbor to make provision for her the following week. This
course was adopted by the town, in order to lighten the burden of the
selectmen and constable.

But the poor creature's life seemed destined to turbulence to the end; for
in October, 1672, she was again arraigned on the old charge of witchcraft--
in appearing under various forms, as a woman, a dog, an eagle and a cat,
to entice a young girl, named Ann Smith, to live with her. The grand jury
found a bill against her, and in April, 1673, the Salisbury Court ordered
her once more to Boston jail to await further trial. After a few months,
the following remarkable decision finally disposed of the case, and Goody
Cole passed the remnant of her unhappy days in Hampton.

"In ye case of Unis Cole now prisoner att ye Bar not Legally guilty
according to Inditement butt just ground of vehement suspissyon of her
haueing had famillyarryty with the deuill

Jonas Clarke in the name of the rest."


LINE BETWEEN HAMPTON AND EXETER

Abraham Drake, Peter Johnson, James Philbrick and Joseph Dow were
appointed, February 9, 1671, to run the line between this town and Exeter,
from Ass brook to the extent of ten miles westerly according to the
court's order, and to mark it out with bound marks according to law; and
they were instructed to enter upon this work four days from that date, or
as soon afterward as the weather would permit.

The ten miles here mentioned, should not be reckoned from the starting
point named, but from a bound about one mile and three-fourths from it, in
a direction two or three points south of west, which bound is referred to
in the following extract from the report of a committee appointed by the
General Court to survey and determine the bounds of Exeter. The report was
signed by Samuel Dalton and Richard Waldron, and approved by the court at
the session which commenced April 29, 1668: "From the foot of Exeter falls
by the present Grist Mill, a mile and a half due south to Hampton Bound, &
from that south point to run upon a west and by north line Ten miles into
the woods adjoining to Hampton Bounds."


DEBATABLE GROUND

At this time, or a little earlier, there was a lawsuit between Mr. Samuel
Dudley, of Exeter, and John Garland, of Hampton, concerning a tract of
meadow, which the latter claimed, by virtue of a grant from the town of
Hampton, but which the former claimed, as belonging to Exeter. The case
was tried in the county court, and an appeal was taken to the Court of
Assistants. Before the time for trial, John Garland died, and the town
took up the case, appointing Nathaniel Weare as its agent, to defend the
grant to the heirs of the grantee. It was virtually a controversy between
the two towns.

On the 25th of April, 1672, the freeman of Hampton, desiring to
compromise, chose Capt. Christopher Hussey, Ens. John Sanborn, and Mr.
Samuel Dalton, not only to treat with Mr. Dudley and Mr. Gilman in regard
to this suit, but, provided the town of Exeter would give these two men
like powers, to settle the whole question of border disputes.

No satisfactory settlement having been reached on the 10th of May, Henry
Roby was appointed attorney for Hampton, to manage the case at law, which
was to be transferred to the General Court at the next session. Mr.
Seaborn Cotton and Samuel Dalton were appointed, to give him all the
assistance possible, either at Hampton or Boston, as the case might
require.

The very next day, however, an agreement was effected, the committee for
Hampton covenanting with Mr. Dudley and Mr. Gilman, that they should have
sixty acres of land in Hampton, adjoining to Exeter, lying eastward of the
foot-path--an old Indian path--leading to Salisbury, to be laid out by
Lieut. Ralph Hall, of Exeter and Mr. Samuel Dalton, of Hampton; provided,
however, that if they should alienate it, Hampton men should have the
refusal of it, "paying as any other chapman would do." Minor difficulties
were satisfactorily adjusted, and the land was laid out on the 24th of
June following.


HAMPTON AND PORTSMOUTH BOUNDS

In the Records of the General Court of Massachusetts, is found the
following entry, dated May 15, 1672: "In answer to the motion of the
Deputy of Portsmouth, the Court judgeth it meet to order that the Bounds
between Portsmouth and Hampton as to their Townships be determined &
settled; & that Mr. Elias Stileman [of Portsmouth], John Gilman, of
Exeter, & that Mr. Elias Stileman [of Portsmouth], John Gilman, of Exeter,
& Mr. Samuel Dalton, of Hampton attend this service, & make Return of what
they shall determine, to this Court."


THE FIRST INDIAN WAR

The first general war with the Indians, in New England,--usually styled
"King Phillip's War,"--began in 1675, and continued about three years--an
account of which may be found in Chapter 13.

A new Meeting-house was built this year--the third in order, about which
more will be stated in its appropriate place [Chapter 19].

June 30, John Smith, the cooper, was chosen to fill a vacancy in the
boardman of selectmen, occasioned by the sudden death of John Cass, a few
weeks before. At the same time, Lieut. Benjamin Swett was chosen as a
commissioner, to add to the selectmen for making the country rate.


JOHN HUGGINS' SUIT

A little previous to this time, the town had prosecuted John Huggins for
felling timber, and fencing in land belonging to the town, and
appropriating said land to his own use, without any authority from the
town, by gift, grant or sale; and had recovered damages. Afterward,
Nathaniel Boulter, as attorney for John Huggins, had brought an action
against the town for recovering the land in question. The case was tried
at the Salisbury Court, April, 1675, and decided in favor of the
plaintiff, giving him the land in controversy, with costs of court. From
this decision, the town appealed to the Court of Assistants to be held at
Boston, the next September.

Henry Dow, attorney for the town, assigned reasons for the appeal:--That
the town conceived their title to the land to be good, as it had been
confirmed to the town by the General Court in 1653, and had been set apart
as a common forever: That it had been proved by the testimony of John
Sanborn, Henry Green and Morris Hobbs, that Huggins had felled timber
there, and had fenced in , and builded upon the land, which was about a
mile within the common: That it had been shown by the testimony of Anthony
Stanyan and John Cass, that he had not only fenced in the land, but had
also broken up some of it, thus appropriating it to his own use: That
Huggins had been cautioned against meddling with the land.--As Huggins
claimed the land by virtue of a conveyance from one Barret, of Wells, to
Nathaniel Boulter, and from Boulter to himself, about the year 1660, the
town's attorney contended that such a conveyance could not be valid; and
asked how Barret, "though he were ensign of Wells," could sell this land
to Boulter, seven years after the General Court had confirmed it to
Hampton, as that town had not alienated it in the meantime.

The jury had stated that they founded their verdict on possession, and
that the town had owned that this land belonged to Huggins, as appeared
from the return of Abraham Drake, the marshal. But the attorney for the
town contended that Drake, "went aside his work in deputing the town's
land to Huggins;" that he had been ordered to put Huggins in possession of
a tract of land within his fence, but not the land in controversy, and
that he might as well depute all the commons to him as this land; that, in
fact, the land of which it had been proved before the jury, that he was in
possession, was not the land in question, but another tract, known as the
"Wall farm."

This appeal, however, was not prosecuted before the Court of Assistants,
but was settled in the course of the summer.

The town appointed Henry Roby, Robert Smith and Morris Hobbs to treat with
Nathaniel Boulter, attorney for Huggins, and agree with him about the
payment of the execution; and also authorized Henry Dow, who was then
marshal, to put John Huggins in possession of the land.


CULTURE AND USE OF TOBACCO

About this time occurs the first intimation on the records of the town, of
the use of tobacco, in any of its forms. From a vote passed by the town,
February 14, 1676, it is evident that it was then used here in smoking--to
what extent, is uncertain. It is equally uncertain whether the use of it
was confined to smoking. The vote is thus recorded: "To pr vent Danger by
fire itt is ordered thatt if any prson shall take any tobaco, or Carrie
any fire or make use of any fire in the new meeting house or the fortt
yard they shall forfitt ten shillings for Every such offence the one Halfe
to the Informer & the other Halfe to the Towne."

At the next term of the county court Hampton, beginning May 30, several
persons were fined for taking tobacco near the Meeting house where the
court was sitting. The record of the court is as follows: "Richard Scaman,
Humphrey Wilson, Jno. Redman Jun., John Clark, John Hobbs, Philip Towle
for taking tobacko neare ye meeting house in ye face of ye Court are find
each of them ten shillings according to law."

At a somewhat early period--no record shows how early--the cultivation of
the tobacco plant was commenced in this town, and for many years, probably
during the whole of the eighteenth century, it was a common article of
culture among the farmers, though none of them raised a large quantity.
The process of sowing and transplanting, and of keeping the ground free
from weeds, were nearly the same in the raising of tobacco, as in raising
the cabbage. Before the first autumnal frosts, the tobacco plants were
pulled and thrown together in heaps "to sweat." After sweating
sufficiently, the plants--stalks and leaves together--were hung up in some
open building to dry; or, sometimes, after the sweating, the leaves were
picked off and then dried for use. In some cases, the leaves after
becoming sufficiently dry, "spun," or worked up into "twists," and the
twists wound into rolls, when the article was ready for sale, or for use.

This was the kind of tobacco used here till a somewhat recent date; and
the use of it, for a long time, was almost wholly confined to elderly
people, the place of using it being by their own firesides, or at the
houses of their neighbors, when on social visits; and the manner of using
it, by smoking the pipe. This custom was more common among women than
among the men. But that tobacco was sometimes used in other places than
the fireside, is evidently implied in the vote already stated.

At a town meeting the next summer, Abraham Perkins, Sen., Francis Page,
Thomas Sleeper and Joseph Dow, were chosen to serve upon the Grand Jury,
for the following year. This may at first view appear to be a large
proportion of that body to be furnished by one town; but, in reality, it
was not unduly large, as there were but six towns in the county of
Norfolk, for which they were to act, and Hampton contained more than one-
sixth part of the population.

At the same meeting, a police regulation was made, for the purpose of
preventing damage by "violent and indiscreet riding in the town." It was
ordered that if, after the publication of the regulation, any person
should gallop through the town, or any street thereof, he should forfeit
for every such offence, 2s. 6d., one-half to the town, and the other half
to Anthony Taylor, who was appointed to carry the order into effect.


MORE WITCHES

In July, 1680, a little child of John Godfrey died, and the old cry of
witchcraft was raised again. An inquest was held, with twelve solid men of
Hampton for jurors, and a verdict rendered: "We find grounds of suspicion
that the said child was murdered by witchcraft."

Godfrey's wife and daughter, Sarah, deposed that Rachel Fuller came in
with her face daubed with molasses, and sat down by Goody Godfrey, who had
a sick child in her lap, and took his hand; when the mother, in fear, drew
the hand away and wrapped it in her apron. Then Rachel Fuller "turned her
about and smote the back of her hands together sundry times and spat in
the fire." Then she strewed herbs on the hearth and sat down again and
said: "Woman, the child will be well;" and then went out, beat herself
thrice with her arms, as men do in winter, to heat their hands, picked
something off the ground, and went home. The next day, the children told
their mother that Goody Fuller had said if they did lay sweet bays under
the threshold, it would keep a witch from coming in. So they laid bays
under the threshold of the back door all the way, and half way of the
breadth of the fore door; and soon after, Rachel Fuller came about to the
fore door, though she had always formerly come in at the back door, which
is next her house; and she crowded in on that side where the bays lay not,
and rubbed her back against the post so that she rubbed off her hat, and
sat down and made ugly faces and nestled about and would have looked on
the child, but not being allowed to do so, went out as she had come in,
after having looked under the door where the bays lay; and she had not
been in the house since.

John Godrey, Nathaniel Smith and Hezron Leavitt made depositions, equally
damaging.

Elizabeth Denham (wife of Alexander), deposed that Rachel Fuller told her
"Witches did so go abroad at night, they did lay their husbands and
children asleep;" and she said there were eight women and two men in the
town, who were witches and wizards.

The men's names were not given, but the women Goody Fuller reckoned as
witches were: Eunice Cole, Benjamin Evans' wife and two (?) daughters,
Grace (Swaine) Boulter, Mary (Boulter) Prescott, Isabella (Austin) Towle,
"and one that is now dead. " Goody Towle, was, in fact, arraigned about
the same time, on a different charge, and both she and Rachel Fuller were
committed to prison till the sitting of the Hampton Court, September 7.
Then, "The Court having heard ye case of Rachel ffuller and Isabel Towle
being apprehended and committed upon suspition of witchcraft doe ordr yt
they still continue in prisson till bond be given for their good behavior
of £100 a piece during the Courts pleasure."

John Fuller became bondsman for his wife; and Isaac Marston and John
Redman, for Goody Towle. They were discharged at the Dover Court the next
year.



CHAPTER IV. HAMPTON UNDER THE MASON AND MASSACHUSETTS CONTROVERSY,
1651-1677

STATUS OF THE FOUR NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWNS

HAMPTON, having been originally settled by a grant from the General Court
of Massachusetts, was from the first under that government, and hence less
liable to the fluctuating policy incident to independent and isolated
settlements. Nearly all the first settlers, before coming here, had been
living in Massachusetts--some, several years; others, only a few months--
subject to, and protected by, her laws. Their removal to this place was
merely a change of locality, not of government, nor of laws. The result
was what might have been expected. In all their proceedings the people
evinced a deference to the authority under which they acted, and to which
they felt themselves amenable. If at any time an individual in the little
community was aggrieved by acts either of other individuals, or of the
town; if any persons had trespassed upon the town's property, or were
charged with criminal acts; there were regularly constituted courts of
judicature, to which recourse might be had for trial by disinterested
persons, and where it might be hoped, strict justice would be awarded.
These advantages were not at first enjoyed by the other early settled
towns in New Hampshire. The settlements at Dover and Little Harbor--the
latter of which, being extended further up the Piscataqua river,
subsequently received the name of Strawberry Bank, and at a still later
day, of Portsmouth--were formed by persons sent from England for the
purpose of fishing and trading. They were in fact, independent
communities, subject to no government, but such as originated among
themselves, except so far as they were disposed to observe regulations
made for them by the Company of Laconia, by whom they had been sent, but
from whom they were separated, by the broad Atlantic. They were, indeed,
subject to the crown of England, but, situated as they were, they could
experience but few of the benefits or the restraints of English laws.

The settlement at Exeter, like the one at Hampton, was largely formed by
the people who had been living in Massachusetts, and who were influenced
by religious, rather than by mercenary, motives. But here the resemblance
ended, for while the people of Hampton were of the same religious
sentiments as those of Massachusetts generally and were countenanced and
cared for by that government, some of the leading men of Exeter had been
banished from Massachusetts, on the charge of heresy and sedition, or were
in full sympathy with those who had been thus treated, and had settled at
Exeter, because there they thought themselves out of the jurisdiction of
that colony. Convinced of the necessity of civil government and wholesome
laws, of which they declared themselves altogether destitute, they
combined together on the fourth day of July, 1639, to erect among
themselves such a form of government as their necessities required,
solemnly binding themselves "by the grace and help of Christ, and in his
name and fear," to submit to such godly and Christian laws as were
established in the realm of England, to their best knowledge, and to all
other such laws, as should, upon good grounds, be made and enacted among
themselves, to the end that they might "live quietly and peaceably
together in all godliness and honesty." Several men, who subsequently
removed to Hampton, signed this "Combination."

After more than fifteen years' experience, the inhabitants of Dover and of
Strawberry Bank were so fully convinced of the necessity of a more
efficient government, that they entered into negotiations for a union with
Massachusetts. The terms having at length been agreed upon, the union was
consummated April 14, 1641.

The people of Exeter managed their affairs according to their original
compact, till the autumn of 1642; but on the 8th of September of that year
they also, at their own request, were received under the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts.

Hampton and Exeter were both "joined to the jurisdiction of Ipswich," in
the County of Essex--the latter at the time of its reception by
Massachusetts, and the former on the second of June, 1641, when it was
also authorized "to send a grand juryman once a year to Ips-wich."


NORFOLK COUNTY AND COURTS

In 1643, a new county was formed, called the county of Norfolk,
comprehending all the towns between the rivers Merrimac and Pis-cataqua.
These towns were then six in number, viz.: Salisbury, Haverhill, Hampton,
Strawberry Bank, Dover and Exeter. Strawberry Bank and Dover, often called
the Piscataqua settlements, were in many respects separate from, and
independent of, this new count. They still continued to have to some
extent, as before, a jurisdiction of their own and courts for the trial of
their own causes, when not exceeding £20 in value. From these courts there
was a right of appeal at first to the board of Assistants at Boston; but,
at a later period, to the county courts of Norfolk.

The county courts were holden alternately at Salisbury and Hampton, and
these two towns might, with property, be called half-shire towns, as there
does not appear to have been any legislative act designating either of
them as the shire town, in distinction from the other, till more than six
years after the formation of the county, when Salisbury was declared to be
the shire-town; but even after that time, the same arrangement was
observed in holding the courts as before, and this continued till the
county was broken up by four of the towns being severed from Massachusetts
by royal authority, when the remaining towns were annexed to the county of
Essex.

In each town in the county, an inferior court was held, competent to try
all causes of twenty shillings value, or under. This was a court of
record, and its clerk was styled Clerk of the Writs. This court appears
not to have been different from the board of commissioners, previously
existing in Hampton, and first appointed when the town was incorporated.
Indeed, so nearly identical were the two, that there was no necessity for
a reorganization of the existing board, or a reappointment of its members.
Only a single change was made, William Easton being appointed in place of
John Cross, who had been in office two years.

The court or board of commissioners, in 1643, after the appointment just
mentioned, consisted of William Howard, James Davis and William Eastow.
Whether a clerk of the writs was then appointed, or whether the duties of
clerk were performed by one of the commis-sioners, as was the case at
Exeter in 1645, is not known. Such a court or board was continued here
till the separation of the New Hampshire towns from Massachusetts. The
members usually styled "Commissioners for small causes," were sometimes
appointed by the General Court, and sometimes chosen by the town.


THE MASON CLAIM

It has already been mentioned that the Council of Plymouth made certain
grants to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Capt. John Mason jointly, in 1622; and
to Mason alone, in 1629. Both these grants included the territory embraced
in Dover, Strawberry Bank, Exeter and Hampton. The two former places were
settled under the auspices of Gorges, Mason, and their associates. Captain
Mason appears to have acquired all the rights and interests of his
associates in this territory, and by virtue of the grant to him in 1629,
he claimed the whole territory as his own. The two settlements made in
1623, and more especially that near the mouth of the Piscataqua, may have
been under obligation to him, for the pecuniary and other substantial aid
which he furnished; but it admits of doubt whether either Exeter or
Hampton derived the least advantage from his interest in New Hampshire.
Their settlement was not earlier nor their growth more rapid than if
Captain Mason had never lived. On the contrary, these and the other towns
were, for a long course of years, perplexed and embarrassed, and subjected
to heavy expenses, in consequence of exorbitant claims set up by his heirs
and their assigns.

Captain Mason died November 26, 1635; and by his will, after making
several legacies, he gave to his grandson, John Tufton, the remainder of
his estate in Hew Hampshire, requiring him to take the surname of Mason.
He died in infancy; and his brother Robert, likewise called Mason, then
became heir to the whole estate, subject, however, to such rights as
belonged to Mrs. Anne Mason, the widow of Captain Mason, and executrix of
his will. Robert Mason became of age in 1650.

Hampton was settled about three years after the death of Captain Mason;
but neither from the executrix of his will nor from her agent was heard
any note of remonstrance, although Massachusetts, by the very act of
granting the place for settlement, virtually claimed the territory as her
own, regardless of the claims of Mason's heirs. But when the towns on the
Piscataqua come under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, the heirs of
Mason, or their agent, demurred a little; but, at that time, as has been
well remarked, "the distractions caused by the civil wars in England, were
invincible bars to any legal inquiry." (Belknap's History of New
Hampshire, I;86.)

In 1651, Joseph Mason coming over as agent of the executrix and finding
some of the lands claimed by her, occupied, brought actions against the
occupants in the county court of Norfolk, whence they were referred to the
General Court.


THE MASSACHUSETTS CLAIM

There was certainly no want of inclination on the part of the authorities
of Massachusetts, to find some pretext, at least, for retaining
jurisdiction over the New Hampshire towns and territory. The charter was
therefore "examined anew,"--as appears from record--concerning the north
line of their jurisdiction; and on the last day of May, 1652, the General
Court voted, "that the extent of this line was to be from the northernmost
part of the River Merrimac, and three miles north of that place, wherever
it might be found, be it one hundred miles, more or less, from the sea;
and thence upon a straight line east and west to the sea."(Mass. Rec.,
IV:93.)

Having given this construction to the charter, the General Court the next
year ordered a survey to be made, that this line might be accurately
determined. Accordingly, a committee was dispatched from that body,
accompanied by two surveyors, and several Indian guides, in search of the
most northern part of the Merrimac, which they were told by the Indians,
was Aquedochtan, the outlet of Winnipiseogee lake. Having reached that
point, they found by observation, its latitude to be 43° 40' 12" north;
and three miles added to this gave 43° 43' 12", as their true limit. The
next step was to find the same latitude on the coast, which was
ascertained to be on the extreme north part of Upper Clapboard Island, in
Casco bay. A line passing through these points and extended to the Pacific
Ocean--in other words, the parallel of 43° 43' 12", extended across the
continent--they determined to be their northern boundary. We shall see,
further on, the troubles to which Hampton in particular was subjected by
this decision.

This proceeding of Massachusetts, and several subsequent acts, were
exceedingly discouraging to Mrs. Mason's agent; and, as it appeared to him
that it would be futile to make any further attempt that time, to recover
Mason's estate, he went back to England. There, the heirs of Mason had but
little to hope for while Oliver Cromwell held the reins of government.


ROBERT MASON'S COMPLAINT

At the restoration of Charles II to the throne of England, in 1660, Robert
Mason preferred a petition to the king, in which he complained of "the
encroachment of the Massachusetts Colony upon his lands, their making
rents and giving titles to the inhabitants, thereby dispossessing him and
keeping him out of his right;" and he prayed that his grievances might be
redressed. The king referred the petition to the attorney-general for his
opinion, who reported that "Robert Mason, grandson and heir to Captain
John Mason, had a good and legal title to the Province of New Hampshire."
It does not appear, however, that any measures were then taken to put
Mason in possession of the lands which he claimed.


COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED

But other complaints than those of Mason had reached the royal ear--
disputes among some of the New England colonies about their boundaries and
jurisdiction, and petitions and addresses, entreating him to interpose the
royal authority to settle them. The king at length appointed commissioners
to visit the several colonies, "examine and determine all complaints and
appeals, in matters civil, military, and criminal; provide for the peace
and security of the country, according to their good and sound discretion,
and to such instructions as they should receive from the king, and to
certify him of their proceedings." This was in April 1664.

In the southern colonies of New England the commissioners were treated
with much respect; but in Massachusetts they were received with great
coolness, since the good and sound discretion of the commissioners was
placed above the laws, and in their proceedings they were to be governed
by this alone, except so far as they might receive instruction from the
king.


HAMPTON DISQUIETED

About the time when the commissioners were expected in New Hampshire, a
town meeting was held in Hampton, June 20, 1665, to consider what course
should be taken in relation to them. The town chose Mr. Seaborn Cotton--
pastor of the church--Ens. John Sanborn and Samuel Dalton, to express to
the commissioners, in writing, the views and feelings of the people, and
to assert their rights in the lands, which they had so long and so
peaceably possessed, by the grant of the Honorable General Court of
Massachusetts. The committee were instructed concerning their
remonstrance, "to grace the same with what reasons they might see meet,
and to make answers to any claims or objections" that should be make
against the town's right, or privilege of the township, "according to
their good discretion, and to present the same to the king's Hon.
Commissioners, if they should think it expedient." (Town Records)

Though no evidence has been found to show that such a remonstrance was
presented, yet the well known character of the committee forbids the
supposition, that they may have omitted to remonstrate. Possibly, there
was then no occasion for a formal assertion of their right to a quiet and
peaceable possession of their lands. The time for disturbing them in their
possession had not come, though the commissioners were preparing the way
for it. The first step towards this result was to sever the New Hampshire
towns from the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. This the commissioners
assumed the right to do, but they failed to accomplish their purpose
immediately.

They made some inquiries, and took the testimony of several persons,
concerning the bounds of Mason's patent and the northern line of
Massachusetts, according to the construction formerly given to the
charter. They called together the inhabitants of Portsmouth on the 10th of
October, and told them that "they would release them from the government
of Massachusetts, whose jurisdiction should come no farther than the bound-
house."

This determination, if carried out, would take away all power from the
officers who had derived their authority from Massachusetts, and leave the
people almost, or quite, in a state of anarchy. To provide against this,
the commissioners, in the plenitude of their power, appointed justices of
the peace and other officers, with authority "to act according to the laws
of England and such laws of their own as were not repugnant thereto, until
the King's pleasure should be farther known."

These proceedings were not regarded with favor, by the better portion of
the people, who, in general, were strongly attached to the government of
Massachusetts; but there were not a few, in some of the towns, who were
highly gratified. Some were disaffected towards Massachusetts, on account
of the ill-concealed design of those in authority, to extend her
jurisdiction beyond the limits evidently intended in the charter; and a
few restless spirits were eager for some change of government, which might
bring them into notice and confer upon them offices and honors.


ABRAHAM CORBETT'S SEDITION

Among the persons appointed to office was one Abraham Corbett, of
Portsmouth, who gained considerable notoriety by his course. He undertook
to act by virtue of this appointment. As he had never been commissioned by
the government, the General Court declared him guilty of a high
misdemeanor, fined him £5, and ordered that he stand committed till the
fine was paid. Irritated by this act of the court, he sought to be
revenged on the government. Accordingly, he drew up a petition to the
king, in the name of the four New Hampshire towns, complaining of the
usurpation of Massachusetts, and praying to be separated therefrom.
Through his influence, several of the inhabitants of Dover and of
Portsmouth signed the petition.

This proceeding aroused to action the friends of the government, and they
petitioned the General Court that "in some orderly way they might have an
opportunity to clear themselves of so great and unjust aspersions," lest
by their silence they should seem to be of the same mind with those who
framed the petition. The Court appointed a committee to come to New
Hampshire and inquire into the matter and report the result.

The committee repaired to Portsmouth, where the people repudiated the
petition and professed to be fully satisfied with the government. A
similar course was taken at Dover, with a like result. Mr. Dudley, the
minister of Exeter, assured the committee that the people of that town had
not done anything directly or indirectly, in aid of Corbett's design. From
Hampton also the committee received full satisfaction in relation to the
subject.

But the troubles and perplexities of the people were not yet ended. The
committee from the General Court issued a warrant to arrest Corbett and
bring him before them for seditious behavior, but he could not immediately
be found. The commissioners, on the other hand, endeavored to thwart the
purposes of the committee. They had indeed left the province and gone
eastward; but one of them, in the name of the whole, sent back a severe
reprimand to the committee, and forbade their proceeding against the
signers of Corbett's petition. Each of these parties claimed obedience
from the people.

The commissioners had received from the king certain instructions about
fortifying the harbors, and they issued warrants to the four towns to meet
at a time and place appointed to receive the king's orders. The Governor
and Council of Massachusetts dispatched two men to forbid the towns on
their peril, to meet or to obey the orders of the commissioners; but, on
their own authority, they directed a fortification to be built near the
mouth of the Piscataqua river, and made provision for the maintenance and
manning of the fort. In a word, though the commissioners had declared that
the four towns should be severed from Massachusetts, yet that government
continued to exercise authority here as before.

The commissioners, on their return to England, made a report very
unfavorable to Massachusetts, and this undoubtedly contributed much to
prepare the way for the separation of the four New Hampshire towns from
that government, which separation took place a few years afterward.


MASON AND RANDOLPH

Robert Mason was far from being unmindful of his interest in New
Hampshire, but for several years after the return of the commissioners,
little attention was paid him by the English government. Mason, however,
was not idle; and at a favorable opportunity, he again petitioned the king
to put him in possession of his rights. This petition was referred to the
attorney-general and the solicitor-general, for their opinion. In due time
they reported, that "John Mason, Esq., grandfather to the petitioner, by
virtue of several grants from the Council of New England, under their
common seal, was instated in fee in sundry great tracts of land in New
England, by the name of New Hampshire; and that the petitioner being heir-
at-law to the said John had a good and legal title to said lands."

In March, 1676, the Massachusetts government was ordered to send agents to
England within six months, to answer to the complaints of Mason and
Gorges. This order, with copies of the complaints, was sent over by Edward
Randolph, a relative of Mason. He was also directed by the Lords of Trade
and Plantations, to inquire into the state of the country.

Having delivered to the governor of Massachusetts the documents entrusted
to him, he came into New Hampshire, in July, where he openly proclaimed
the object of his visit, and publicly read a letter addressed by Mason to
the inhabitants, and endeavored to excite a feeling of disaffection
towards the government. He found individuals ready to complain of
Massachusetts, and to seek to be released from her jurisdiction; but the
great body of the people preferred to remain as they were, and were
indignant at Randolph's proceedings.

The people of Dover, in town meeting assembled, September 1, denounced
Mason's claims, professed satisfaction with the government of
Massachusetts and appointed Major Waldron to petition the king to let them
remain as they were.

The same day, at a town meeting in Portsmouth, it was voted that a similar
petition signed by the inhabitants of that town be sent to the king, and
four leading citizens were appointed to draft and forward it.

The next day, at a town meeting in Hampton, Mr. Seaborn Cotton, pastor of
the church, and Samuel Dalton were appointed "to draw up a declaration or
testimony, concerning their desires to continue under the Massachusetts
government, and to clear themselves from having any hand in damnifying Mr.
Mason, either in his lands or government; and for the full vindication of
their rights, to request the General Court to prosecute the same to full
effect."

By these instructions to their committee, the town probably intended to
declare that they did not consider Mason's claims as having any validity;
and, consequently, neither in refusing to pay him rents, nor in their
allegiance to Massachusetts, did they at all interfere with his rights
either of property or jurisdiction, or in any way do him an injury. On the
contrary, their own rights rather than his had been invaded: and these,
they called upon the government to vindicate and protect.


RANDOLPH'S LYING REPORTS

Edward Randolph soon returned to Boston, and not long after sailed for
England. In his report to the king, he stated that "he had found the whole
country complaining of the usurpation of the magistrates of Boston;
earnestly hoping and expecting that his majesty would not permit them any
longer to be oppressed, but would give them relief according to the
promise of the commissioners of 1665."

This report, however much it might favor Randolph's design to incense the
mind of the king against Massachusetts, in order to induce him to sever
from that government the four towns whose territory Mason claimed, is
sadly deficient in one very important element, namely, truthfulness, as is
abundantly shown by the results of the town meetings already mentioned.
Not less at variance with facts, is his report to the Lords of Trade and
Plantations. Yet these reports appear to have produced the effect
intended.


THE FOUR TOWNS SEVERED

After Randolph's departure, the Massachusetts government called a "special
council," and asked whether it were best to send agents to England, or
trust to letters only. The council advised to send trusty agents; and two
prominent men were at once dispatched. Arrived in England, they
disclaimed, before the lords chief justices of the king's bench and common
pleas, all title to the lands claimed by Mason, beyond their limit of
three miles north of the Merrimac. "The judges reported to the king, that
they could give no opinion as to the right of soil, in the provinces of
New Hampshire and Maine, not having the proper parties before them" since
the apparent proprietors, the people in possession, had not been summoned
to defend their titles. "As to Mason's right of government within the soil
he claimed, their lordships, and indeed his own counsel, agreed he had
none; the great council of Plymouth, under whom he claimed, having no
power to transfer government to any. It was determined that the four towns
of Portsmouth, Dover, Exeter and Hampton were out of the bounds of
Massachusetts," This report was accepted and confirmed by the king in
council, (Farmer's Belknap, 87.) in 1677.