History of the Town of Hampton, NH - Chapters 5-6



CHAPTER V. TOWN AND PROVINCE UNDER THE ROYAL GOVERNMENT, 1677-1689

A NEW JURISDICTION--JOHN CUTT, PRESIDENT

The decision having been made in England, that neither Massachusetts nor
Robert Mason had a right to rule New Hampshire, and that the validity of
Mason's claims could be determined only by trial on the place, there being
no court in England that had cognizance of it, it became necessary to
provide some other government for the four towns, which still constituted
the whole inhabited part of that territory; and for the trial of Mason's
title, "a new jurisdiction should be erected, in which the king might
direct the mode of trial and appeal his pleasure." The Massachusetts
government was officially informed of the king's intentions and required
to revoke all commissions in New Hampshire. A restraint was put upon Mason
also, forbidding the imposing of back rents, and limiting his future
charges to "sixpence in the pound," ad valorem.

The commission for the new government was passed, September 18, 1679;--in
an act, "which inhibits and restrains the jurisdiction exercised by the
colony of Massachusetts over the towns of Portsmouth, Dover, Exeter and
Hampton, and all other lands extending from three miles to the northward
of the Merrimack River or any part thereof unto the province of Maine."
(Farmer's Belknap, 88.) New Hampshire was created a Royal Province, to be
governed by a president and council. John Cutt, Esq., of Portsmouth, was
appointed the first president, and six men, of whom was Christopher
Hussey, of Hampton, were named as councillors, with instructions to choose
three more. Any five of these, with the president or his deputy, were to
constitute a quorum. They were, with the concurrence of an assembly,
authorized to assess taxes. The assembly, to consist of deputies of the
towns, was to constitute a part of the government so long as the king
should not see fit to order otherwise. Enactments were to be transmitted
to the Privy Council by the first ships, and to remain in force until
disallowed by that authority. All the other powers of this new government
were definitely set forth in the commission, which was received on the
first day of January, 1680.

The messenger by whom the commission was brought over from England was
Edward Randolph, known to be so devoted to Mason's interests, as to render
the people suspicious that their liberties were to be abridged or their
rights otherwise prejudiced. On his arrival in Portsmouth, the men named
in the commission as magistrates, perceiving that their appointment had
not been made out of respect for themselves, but as a stroke of policy,
designed to render the new form of government less odious to the people,
were reluctant to accept the offices. But the commission required--"all
excuses whatsoever set aside, yt they fail not to assemble and meet
together at ye sd town of Portsmouth in ye province of New Hampshire
aforsd within ye space of twenty days next after ye arrival of this
commission at Portsm. aforesaid."

Accustomed to yield obedience to the king, and fearing that, if they
should decline the offices tendered, other persons less favorable to the
interests of the people, would be appointed, they consented, after a delay
of nearly three weeks, but within the time named in the commission, to
qualify themselves by taking the oaths of allegiance and of office.

As one of their first duties, they proceeded to the election of three
councillors, to fill the board. They chose Elias Stileman, of Great
Island, then belonging to Portsmouth; Samuel Dalton of Hampton; and Job
Clements of Dover.

Having completed the organization, a proclamation was made, for all
officers to keep their respective places till further ordered. Shortly
after (February 4, 1680), a warrant was sent to the selectmen of each of
the towns, requiring that a list of the names of their inhabitants and
inventory of their estates be sent to the president and council at their
sitting on the 16th of the same month.

Being required by their commission, to call a General Assembly, and being
empowered to determine who should have the privilege of choosing deputies,
the president and council ordered: "that the persons hereafter named in
the several towns shall meet together on the first day of March next, by 9
of the clock in the morning, and having first each of them taken the oath
of allegiance (if they have not taken it already), which oath is to be
administered by the member or members of the said Council there residing,
choose from among themselves, by the major vote given in writing, not
exceeding the number of three persons, which persons so chosen are to
appear at Portsmouth on the 16th day of March following, by 9 o'clock,
there to attend his Majesty's service for the concerns of the said
Province of New Hampshire, provided that we do not intend that what is now
done be precedential for the future, and that it shall extend no farther
than to the calling this first Assembly." None were to be permitted to
vote except those mentioned in the list appended to the order, on penalty
of paying a fine of five pounds.

The list of names for Hampton follows:

Mr. Seaborn Cotton.     Thomas Nudd.
Nath'l Batchelder.      Abraham Perkins.
John Brown, Sen.        Isaac Perkins, Not app'd
Nath'l Boulter, Sen.    Francis Page.
Moses Cox.              Thomas Philbrick.
John Clifford, Sen.     Henry Robie.
John Clifford, Jun.     John Redman, Sen.
Henry Dow.              John Sanborn.
Godfrey Dearborn.       Isaac Marston.
Thomas Dearborn.        Henry Moulton.
Henry Dearborn.         William Sanborn, Sen.
Abraham Drake, Sen.     Samuel Sherburne.
Gershom Elkins.         Anthony Stanyan.
William Fuller.         Robert Smith.
William Fifield, Sen.   John Smith, Coop'r.
Benjamin Fifield.       John Smith, Tal'r.
Henry Greene.           Thomas Sleeper.
Isaac Godfrey.          Joseph Shaw.
Edward Gove.            Benjamin Shaw.
Morrice Hobbs.          Anthony Taylor.
Timothy Hilliard.       Daniel Tilton.
John Knowles, Sen.      Andrew Wiggins.
Thomas Leavitt.         Thomas Wiggins, Not app'd.
Thomas Marston.         Nathaniel Weare.
Ens. Moore.             Thomas Ward. Not app'd.
William Marston.        Thomas Webster.
Josiah Moulton.         Joseph Smith.
John Moulton.           Samuel Dalton, Esq.
John Marrian.

"John Roberts, of Dover, is chosen head Marshal of this Province, and
Henry Dow of Hampton, under him."

"At a General Assembly held in Portsmouth, in the Province of New
Hampshire, the 16th day of March, 1679/80: present of the Council:--
Richard Waldron, Esq., Deputy President," and eight others, of whom,
Christopher Hussey and Samuel Dalton Esqrs. from Hampton. Of the eleven
deputies present, Mr. Anthony Stanyan, Mr. Thomas Marston and Mr. Edward
Gove were from Hampton.


MARSHAL'S OATH

"You, J. R., being chosen Head Marshal for the Province of New Hampshire,
do swear by the ever living God that you shall perform, do and execute all
such lawful commands as shall be directed to you from lawful authority
constituted by his Majesty in this Province, without favor, fear, or
partiality, according to your best ability and the laws here established;
so help you God."

"John Roberts and Henry Dow took the oath for Marshals of this Province."

"The council finding a necessity of prisons, and keepers for them, for the
securing of offenders and other persons for debt, do order that the
prisons already at Hampton, Dover, and Portsmouth, shall be for the same
use still; and Jno. Souter of Hampton, and Jno. Tuttle of Dover, and
Richard Abbot of Portsmouth, be and are empowered prison-keepers to the
several prisons in the respective towns where they dwell; and to receive
all such prisoners as shall be committed to them by authority, and this to
continue during the pleasure of the Council."


PROBABLE POPULATION, IN 1680

It has been estimated that the white population of New Hampshire, in 1675,
was not far from four thousand. If this estimate is correct, and the
number remained the same is 1680, the ratio of the legal voters to the
whole population was very much less than it is at the present time. But
this estimate is probably much too high. It may be difficult to ascertain
the relative population of the several towns; but there are good reasons
for thinking that Hampton contained at least one-quarter of the whole
population of the province. Though it is uncertain what number inhabitants
was here in 1680, yet fortunately the number at the beginning of 1686, is
known, and it is hardly probable that during the six intervening years,
the number had diminished. From an entry in the diary of Capt. Henry Dow,
under date of Jan. 17, 1685-6, it appears that the whole number of
inhabitants in the town, was 707; and that, of this number, 495 lived on
the north side of Taylor's river, and 212 on the south side. The whole
number in the province did not probably exceed three thousand.

Preparatory to the meeting of the general assembly, a public fast was
observed, February 26, to ask for the Divine blessing and "the continuance
of their precious and pleasant things." The assembly met at Portsmouth, on
the 16th day of March, and was opened with prayer and a sermon by Rev.
Joshua Moody, the pastor of the church in that town.

One of the first acts of the government after the assembly had met, was to
prepare and dispatch a letter to the governor and council of
Massachusetts, expressing their regret at the separation that had taken
place, in which they had acquiesced only in submission to Divine
Providence and the commands of the king; and their desire to maintain
friendly relations, and to show themselves serviceable to the sister
province, should opportunity offer.

The assembly held four sessions, and, with the consent of the president
and the council, enacted such laws as were required. Inferior courts were
established in all the towns except Exeter. By whom the court at Hampton
was held, is not now known.


"LORD PROPRIETOR"

Near the close of the year 1680, Robert Mason came over from England, with
a writ of manudams from the king, and took his seat at the council board.
The principal object of his visit, at this time, was to obtain possession
of the estate, to which he firmly believed he had a just and legal title.
He hoped also that the inhabitants of the province would be induced to
take leases under him, of their houses and lands, according to the terms
required by the king. But he found the undertaking more difficult than he
had anticipated. He could not convince the people of the justice of his
claim; they still thought their own rights, derived from the purchase,
occupation and improvement of the lands on which they lived, and which
they had defended against a savage foe, at great expense of men and money,
paramount to his. Under the influence of disappointment, Mason appears
sometimes to have lost his self-control, and to have forgotten his
engagement to the king. Finding himself unable to persuade the people, he
undertook to intimidate them to compliance with his demands. In some cases
he forbade persons cutting timber or fuel, and even threatened to sell
their estates, claiming the whole province as his own, and assuming the
title of LORD PROPRIETOR.

So far from advancing his own interest by this course, Mason greatly
irritated the people and united them more firmly in opposing his claims. A
few persons, indeed, consented to take leases under him, but a much larger
number might probably have been gained by conciliatory measures, though
even then a large majority would have contended for what they regarded as
their just rights.

Each of the towns in its corporate capacity, and many of the people,
individually, applied to the president and council for protection.

At a town meeting held in Hampton, March 21, 1681, the subject was
discussed and measures were taken to secure to the people their rights.
Sergt. Joseph Dow and Edward Gove were appointed, in behalf of the town,
to draw up and prepare a statement of the case, and to assert the rights
of the inhabitants to their lands, and present the same to the council at
their next sitting. That all the legal voters might have an opportunity to
sign this paper designed as a petition, Lieut. John Sanborn and Sergt.
Thomas Philbrick were chosen to present it to all who were not present at
this meeting, for their signatures.

The council soon afterward published an order prohibitory of Mason's
proceedings. Irritated by this order, he refused to sit at the council-
board, when requested. After some further altercation, disappointed and
chagrined, he left the province on the 27th of March and, about three
months from the time of his arrival, set sail for England.


RICHARD WALDRON, PRESIDENT

A few days afterward, President Cutt, who had for a considerable time been
in feeble health, died at an advanced age, and was succeeded in office by
his deputy, Richard Waldron. In the course of the following summer,
another breach was made in the council, by the death, August 22, of Mr.
Dalton, at the age of about 52 years. The vacancies thus made were filled
by the election of Richard Waldron, Jun., son of the president, and
Anthony Nutter, both of Dover. John Roberts resigned the office of marshal
of the province, and Henry Dow, of this town, was appointed his successor.
Of Waldron's administration, Belknap remarks: "The common business went on
in the usual manner."


ANOTHER OVERTURNING - MASON AND CRANFIELD

Robert Mason went away a thoroughly disheartened man. He had evidently
thought, when the new government for New Hampshire was about to go into
operation, that the object for which he had so long and so assiduously
labored was about to be accomplished, and that under this government he
might render available his claim to the province. Buoyant with hope, he
had come hither to assert his claim, not doubting that it would be
admitted, and the people become his tenants, by taking leases of the
houses which they had themselves built and the lands which they had so
long occupied. From the rents accruing, he had anticipated a golden
harvest. But his sanguine expectations had not been realized. A few
months' residence among the people had taught him that they would not
willingly become his vassals, nor tamely surrender the rights, which they
claimed as proprietors of the soil, and owners in fee of the property in
their possession. The experience of a few meetings at the council board
had convinced him that the members of the board entertained the same views
and feelings as the people, and that from them he could not expect any
special favor. In a word, he despaired of realizing any substantial
benefit from his claims, unless the government should pass into other
hands. Therefore a new task was now before him: another change in the
government must be brought about. This he undertook to effect, and by an
agreement to divide the spoils with the king, he succeeded. In short, he
was allowed to make his own selection for governor, and to have conferred
upon him most arbitrary powers.

Edward Cranfield, a man as unprincipled and as greedy of gain as the king
himself, for a valuable consideration, consented to become Mason's tool;
and, armed with his governor's commission, he arrived in Portsmouth on the
4th of October, 1682, and at once entered upon that course which has made
his name odious to this day. The commission authorized him "to call,
adjourn, prorogue and dissolve, general courts; to have a negative voice
in all acts of government; to suspend any of the council, when he should
see just cause; to appoint a deputy-governor, judges, justices, and other
officers, by his sole authority; and to execute the powers of vice-
admiral." Mason and seven others of the former council were reappointed,
while Mr. Hussey and the younger Waldron were dropped, and Walter
Barefoote and Richard Chamberlain appointed in their places. Before a week
had passed, however, two members of the council were suspended; and soon
after, an assembly was called, which met on the 14th of November. The
members from Hampton were Edward Gove and two others, now unknown. On the
first day of the assembly, Cranfield restored the suspended members; and
thereupon, the assembly, hoping to detach him from Mason, voted him a
gratuity of two hundred fifty pounds. This the governor readily accepted,
and on the 1st of December ordered an adjournment.

The assembly met again on the second week in the next month, when there
was found to be an entire want of harmony between them and the governor;
and after some altercation--they refusing to pass a bill recommended by
him, and he to sign some bills passed by them--he dissolved the assembly
after a session of less than two weeks. This act of Cranfield's, though
allowed by his commission, was without precedent in New Hampshire, and
repugnant to the feelings, not only of the deputies, but of the people
generally, who regarded it as an arbitrary act, and an unwarrantable abuse
of power.


EDWARD GOVE'S INSURRECTION

The people of the province, ever jealous of their liberties, were
indignant at Cranfield's conduct, but, in general, demeaned themselves as
good citizens. A few only, under the leadership of EDWARD GOVE, of
Hampton, determined to revolutionize the government, or, at least, to
effect a reform. Gove was a person of considerable property, and somewhat
popular, and, as Mr. Randolph affirms, "a leading man and a great stickler
in the late proceedings of the assembly." Under the influence of
resentment, caused by a free use of ardent spirits, and by a want of
rest,--such is his own acknowledgment,--he resolved, almost single-handed,
to redress his own and others' grievances. He "made it his business," said
Randolph, "to stir the people up to rebellion, by giving out that the
governor, as vice-admiral, acted under the commission of his royal
highness, (The Duke of York, afterwards James II) who was a papist, and
would bring popery in amongst them; that the governor was a pretended
governor, and his commission, signed in Scotland. He endeavored, with a
great deal of pains, to make a party, and solicited many of the
considerable persons in each town to join with them to recover their
liberties."

Gove declared "that his sword was drawn, and he would not lay it down,
till he knew who should hold the government." The governor, having
received information of his movements, immediately sent messengers to
Hampton and Exeter, with warrants for the constables, requiring them to
arrest him; but fearing that his party might become too strong for the
civil power, he forthwith ordered the militia of the whole province to be
in readiness.

At first, Gove eluded or repulsed the marshal and other who attempted to
arrest him in this town, and hastened "to his party at Exeter, from whence
he suddenly returned with twelve men [principally] of that town, mounted
and armed with swords, pistols and guns,--a trumpet sounding and Gove with
his sword drawn riding into Hampton at the head of them." Here they were
all arrested and taken into custody by the militia of the town, except the
trumpeter, who, "forcing his way, escaped, after whom a hue and cry was
sent out to all parts."

When Governor Cranfield was informed of this arrest, he was just mounting
his horse to lead a part of the troop in pursuit of Gove and his party.

Randolph says: "This rising was, unexpectedly to the party, made upon the
27th day of January." He further asserts it as the general belief, that
"many considerable persons, to whose houses Gove either went in person, or
sent--calling upon them to come out and stand up for their liberties,
would have joined with him, had he not discovered his designs, or appeared
in arms at that time; for," he adds, "upon the 30th day of January, being
appointed by the governor, a day of public humiliation, they designed to
cut off the governor, Mr. Mason and some others, whom they affected not."

It seems hardly credible that a conspiracy so base, and to be executed on
a day of public humiliation, was ever formed by many, or even any, of the
leading men in New Hampshire. Its existence, so far as can now be learned,
depends entirely upon Mr. Randolph's statement, and the charge appears to
be not only untrue, but so improbable, that to one unacquainted with
Randolph's character, and his malignity towards the people of New England,
it would be difficult to account for such a statement; but taking into
consideration his character and his prejudices, it is even more
surprising, that he could keep so near the truth, as he does in some parts
of the narrative from which the foregoing extracts have been taken.

Gove and his associates having been arrested, the governor sent a strong
party of horse to guard them (then prisoners in irons) from Hampton to
Portsmouth. This was on Saturday. The next day, although it was the
Sabbath, they were taken separately before the governor and council, for
examination. The first one examined was Edward Gove. He did not deny what
he had lately said and done. He admitted that "he did sound, or cause to
be sounded, the trumpet being his own; and did draw his sword because his
own," and added: "The governor is no judge of this court, but a pretended
one, and a traitor to the king and his authority." Then addressing
Governor Cranfield directly, he said: "Your Honor is in more danger of
your life than I." Being asked what he meant, he replied: "God in heaven
will do me justice."

The examination of the other persons arrested, elicited but few facts
tending to criminate them of anything but being in Gove's company. Yet all
of them were committed to the prison at Great Island, where, on account of
the dilapidated state of the prison, they were still kept in irons, lest
they should make their escape.

No time was lost before bringing the prisoners to trial. On Monday, the
5th day February, 1683,--only nine days after their arrest--a special
court was constituted and holden at Portsmouth, for this purpose, before
Richard Waldron, Judge, and Thomas Daniels and William Vaughan,
Assistants, "and others, His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the
Province, then present."

The prisoners, eleven in number, were all charged with the crime of HIGH
TREASON.

A grand jury was impaneled and sworn in open court, "to make inquiry for
our Sovereign Lord the King."

The witnesses being sworn and examined, the grand jury found a true bill
against nine of them, viz.: Edward Gove, John Gove, William Healey, of
Hampton, John Wadleigh, Joseph Wadleigh, Robert Wadleigh, Thomas Rawlins,
Mark Baker, and John Sleeper, of Exeter. Upon the presentment of the grand
jury, a petit jury of the free-holders of the province, was returned and
impanelled for the trial of the persons indicted, who severally pleaded
"Not guilty."

From the depositions laid before the jury to prove the guilt of the
prisoners, a few statements only are selected to be introduced here, but
enough to give some idea of the object and character of Gove's movements.

From the testimony of Richard Martyn, of Portsmouth, it appears, that
Edward Gove was at his house on Thursday, the 25th of January, and that he
said, he was "on a design," and added: "We have swords by our sides, as
well as others, and will see things mended before we lay them down." He
said he was going to Dover and would be heard from in three or four days.

By the testimony of Reuben Hall, it was proved that Gove was at Dover on
Friday, the day after Martyn had seen him at Portsmouth, "having his sword
and boots on." In reply to Hall, who asked what was the matter with him,
he said: "Matter enough! we of Hampton have had a town meeting, and we are
resolved as one man, that these things shall not be carried on as they are
like to be; we all have our guns ready to stand upon our guard; and I have
been at Exeter, and they are resolved to do the some. I have my sword by
my side, and brought my carbine also with me. . . . . The Governor has
stretched his commission."

Edward Gove alone was adjudged guilty of treason; the rest were pardoned
and set at liberty; but upon this fellow-citizen of ours was passed
sentence as horrible as the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, --"That
he should be carried back to the place from whence he came, and from
thence be drawn to the place of execution, and there be hanged by the neck
and cut down alive, and that his entrails be taken out and burnt before
his face, and his head cut off, and his body divided into four quarter,
and his head and quarters disposed of at the king's pleasure." This
revolting sentence, however, was not executed. Gove was reprieved, sent to
England, and imprisoned in the Tower about three years; when he received a
full pardon, and returned to his family.


LEASES UNDER MASON RESISTED

Scarcely two weeks had elapsed after the close of these trials, when a
proclamation of the governor, requiring the people of the province to take
leases of their houses and lands from Mason, brought three prominent men
of Dover into direct collision with both these digni-taries, and stirred
anew the strife between oppression and revenge on one part, and on the
other, resistance to outraged liberties.

Mason's first suit was against Major Waldron; who, seeing that he had a
packed jury, made no defense, and the case went for the plaintiff.
Encouraged by his success, suit followed suit, with like result. Several
of the inhabitants of Hampton, against whom suits had been brought,
presented to the court a written statement of the reasons for declining to
join issue, viz.: "The refusal of Mason to comply with the directions in
the commission; the impropriety of a jury's determining what the king had
expressly reserved to himself; and the incompetency of the jury, they
being all interested persons;" and some of them, it was well known,
devoted to Mason's interest. Every objection was overruled, and, as to the
decisions of the court, Mason had no reason to complain; but here his
triumph ended. As "a horse may be led to water but cannot be made to
drink," so many estates were declared for sale, but none could force a
purchaser; and the rightful owners remained for the most part in
possession.

It does not comport with the plan of this work to mention all the
grievances of the people under this corrupt and oppressive administration.
In a word it may justly be said, not only that Cranfield was governor, but
that he was the government; for with a council of his own selection, and
wholly dependent on him for continuance in office, he assumed to legislate
without an assemply; and the courts were but the creatures of his will. He
also interfered with the rights and privileges of town, so far as to
forbid the constables to collect any town or parish taxes, till the
province tax had been paid and all accounts settled with the treasurer. He
even restricted the right of the people to assemble in town meeting, as
appears by the following order issued by him.

"BY THE GOVERNR."

NEW HAMPSHIRE. L.S. EDW: CRANFIELD.

For prevention of disturbance by unlawful Assemblies and Meetings, such as
we have too lately experienced, and such as may for ye future arise to ye
terror of his Ma't's [Majesty's] Subjects within ye sd Province: Ordered,
"That ye Trustees or Overseers of the several respective Towns therein, or
others, presume not to call any Public Meeting about any Town business, or
on other pretence whatsoever, Without leav first from ye Justice or
Justices of ye Peace of ye sd respective Towns, upon iust [just]
representation of ye necessaryness of such Town or Public meeting; on such
penalty as ye law directs, to be inflicted upon unlawful Assemblies.
Dat. ye 3d day of March, 1682[-3]."

Superscribed: "To the Constable of Portsmouth.--To be published, 1682."
[1682-3].


NATHANIEL WEARE'S MISSION TO ENGLAND

The inhabitants of Hampton and of the other towns in the province, had,
with a few exceptions, refrained from joining Edward Gove in his quixotic
attempt to reform the government; but they could not be insensible to the
tyranny of Governor Cranfield. They ever had been, and still were, ready
to assist in suppressing acts of rebellion; but they were not prepared to
yield to oppression without a struggle. They regarded it as their right to
pour their complaints into the ears of the king, and to ask for redress.
But under Cranfield's administration, it was dangerous, even to complain.
Still, this appeared the only proper course to be pursued, and after some
consultation, it was adopted. So careful and so cautious had been the
movements of the leading men, that their agent had been selected, funds
had been raised to meet his expenses, and he left the province, and was
already at Boston, about to embark for England, before the governor was
aware of their design.

The agent, selected and sent on this important mission, was Nathaniel
Weare, Esq., a leading citizen of Hampton. The confidence thus reposed in
him indicates that he had the reputation of being a man of ability,
prudence and integrity; and the result showed that their confidence had
not been misplaced.

Fear of being detained by the govenor, constrained Mr. Weare to hasten to
Boston, without waiting to obtain such evidence as would be needed to
substantiate the charges to be brought against Govenor Cranfield. He was
accompanied to Boston by Maj. William Vaughan, of Portsmouth, and to him
was intrusted the important service of procuring depositions to be
forwarded to England; but, on his return from Boston, he was immediately
arrested by the governer's order, and committed to prison, where he was
confined nine months, much to the detriment, not only of his own private
interests, but to those of an oppressed people, as this prevented him from
obtaining the evidence necessary for the agent. Other individuals, indeed,
undertook the work that had been assigned to Mr. Vaughan, but they were
denied access to the public records, and when they applied to the governor
to summon and swear witnesses for them, their request was not granted.
Hence it was necessary to go out of the province to have the depositions
properly authenticated.

When, therefore, Mr. Weare arrived in England, he was not prepared to
bring his complaints to the king, at once; but after waiting a
considerable time for depositions from home, and waiting in vain, he
ventured to prefer some general charges against Governor Cranfield. By
this means, a way was opened for procuring, in a few months, the needful
evidence, for, the complaint having been referred to the Board of Trade,
they transmitted a copy to the accused, that he might prepare a defense;
and at the same time ordered him to allow the complainants access to the
records, and to afford them every facility for obtaining and
authenticating evidence. However humiliating this order might be, it was
from such a source, that he dared not disobey. As he was charged with not
following the instructions of his commission, concerning Mason's claims,
but allowing those claims to be tried in courts not properly constituted,
he immediately, upon the receipt of this communication from the Board of
Trade, suspended the suits that had been brought, till a decision, as to
the legality of the courts, should be made by the proper authorities.

The agent in England, having received from home, the evidence needed,
presented his charges in a new and more specific form. A hearing was at
length had before the Lords of Trade [March 10, 1685], who reported to the
king "that Cranfield had not pursued his instructions with regard to
Mason's controversy; but instead thereof, had caused courts to be held and
titles to be decided, with exorbitant costs; and that he had exceeded his
power in regulating the value of coins." The agent had brought other
charges against the governor, but in relation to them, the Lords of Trade
expressed no opinion. The report, as made, was accepted by the king in
council.


GOVERNOR CRANFIELD'S SCHEMES TO OBTAIN MONEY

It will now be necessary to go back a little in the order of time, and
notice some other grievances, which the people of New Hampshire suffered,
under the administration of Governor Cranfield. When he accepted the
government of the province, he undoubtedly supposed the office would be a
lucrative one; and this, more than any other consideration, induced him to
accept it. But this pleasing anticipation was far from being realized.
Disappointment in his favorite object probably had no inconsiderable
influence in shaping the course of his administration. He had undertaken
to administer the government without calling an assembly; yet his want of
money became so pressing, that, for relief, he was under the necessity of
altering his policy, and issuing writs for the election of deputies. The
assembly convened at Great Island, January 14, 1684. The governor tendered
them a bill, which had already been passed by the council, for raising
money. The bill had been artfully drawn up, under pretext of danger of
invasion by a foreign foe, and the need of raising money for repairing the
fort and supplying it with ammunition, and "other necessary charges of
government."

After some discussion, the assembly adjourned. On flood tide that evening,
the members went up the river to Portsmouth, and returned on the next ebb.
Having met after their return, they refused to pass the bill. The
governor, in his wrath, immediately dissolved the assembly. But this was
not deemed a sufficient punishment for not yielding to his wishes. He
caused the speaker and several of the members to be appointed constables
for the ensuing year. If they refused to serve, a fine of £10 was the
penalty in each case. The members from this town were Anthony Stanyan,
Joseph Smith, and Lieut. John Smith, the last of whom, usually styled John
Smith, the cooper, was made constable.

Having failed to procure money by an act of assembly, the governor now
ventured on a hazardous experiment, the raising of money without the
intervention of an assembly. In his commission was a provision that he and
his council might "continue such taxes as had been formerly levied, until
a general assembly could be called." This was evidently intended to meet
any exigency that might occur at the beginning of his administration, when
money might be needed sooner than it could be raised by the ordinary
course of legislation. As such, it may have been a wise provision; but
beyond this, it was not designed to operate. Yet it served the governor as
a pretext for the authority which he now assumed, though it was clear to
every person, that it was only a pretext; for not only had there been
sufficient time for calling an assembly, but more than one had been
convened and dissolved since his administration began. Such were the views
of the council. When, therefore, the governor applied to them to take the
repsonsivility of continuing the tax that had last been levied by the
preceding administration, they hesitated. Soon it was rumored that a plot
had been discovered among the Eastern Indians to renew the war in the
following spring. The council were summoned February 14, in great haste.
The governor told them that for the defense and security of the province,
money was needed, and that it could not be raised in season in any other
way than by continuing such taxes as had formerly been laid. The council
now gave their consent, though their action was not immediately made
public, for the people were not yet prepared for it. By a further order of
the governor and council, the inhabitants of the province were required to
fortify the Meeting houses and establish convenient garrisons in other
parts of their several towns, and to provide themselves with a stock of
ammunition. Other measures were also adopted betokening imminent danger.

At this juncture, Cranfield met with an obstacle he had not anticipated. A
letter from the Lords of Trade directed him to levy no taxes on the
people, except by an act of assembly. What now will the governor do? Will
he obey this order? Yes--so far as to summon an assembly, but no farther.
Having ascertained that several members of the last assembly had been
elected again, he ordered an immediate dissolution; and then wrote to the
Lords of Trade, that, though in obedience to their commands, an assembly
had been called, yet he did not deem it prudent or safe to let them sit;
and that the election of those four constables to the assembly--who had
been ordered to serve in that office because they had acted independently
in the last assembly--looked like a design to disturb the king's peace. He
then intimated that the rate made in the time of Presidents Cutt and
Waldron, had been continued, but could not be safely published without the
presence of a small frigate.


RESISTANCE TO UNJUST TAXATION

The next step-despite the instructions from the Lords of Trade, and the
fears of the governor about publishing the order of the council to
continue a former tax--was to issue warrants to the constables of the
several towns, to collect the taxes. Will the people quietly submit to pay
taxes so illegally ordered? We shall see. The constable called upon the
inhabitants agreeably to their warrants; but so few responded to the call,
that they soon reported to the governor and council, that the people
refused to pay.

Special instructions were then given to the constables in regard to their
method of procedure. A warrant was issued September 15, to Nathaniel
Batchelder, the constable of Hampton, setting forth that it had been
proved by said Batchelder's oath before his majesty's justices of the
peace for New Hampshire, that several persons had refused and still
continued to refuse "to pay their respective rates, being the king's rate,
continued by virtue of his majesty's royal commission, bearing date the
9th of May, 1682." The constable was then empowered and required
immediately upon receiving the warrant, "to levy all and every the
respective rates of every person so refusing, by distress and sale of the
offender's goods and chattels."

But there was one person here--probably there were others also--designated
by name, against whom the constable was ordered to proceed. This was Henry
Dow, who before Cranfield's administration, had been marshal of the
province. The warrant, in this case, was signed by Walter Barefoote,
Richard Chamberlain and James Sherlock, justices of the peace and members
of the council. After stating said Henry Dow's refusal to pay his tax, the
warrant to the constable proceeds: "These are therefore in his majesty's
name to require you forthwith to apprehend the body of the said Henry Dow,
and convey him to the prison at Great Island, if he do not immediately
discover some part of his estate to satisfy the said rate; and the prison
keeper is hereby required him to recieve and safely keep, till he shall
pay the said rate, or give security so to do, according to an of this
province made the 14th of November, 1682; and this shall be your
sufficient warrant. Hereof fail not, as you will answer the contrary at
your peril. Given under our hands and seals at Great Island, the first day
of September, in the 36th year of the reign of our sovereign Lord Charles
ye second, king of England, &c, Annque Dmmi, 1684."

Whether Mr. Dow "discovered some part of his estate to satisfy this rate,"
or "gave security," or was imprisoned, cannot now be ascertained, but his
tax was not paid till more than four months afterward, as appears from the
original receipt, dated January 20, 1684[-5], and signed by James Sherlock.


PROVOST-MARSHAL, THURTON

When it became evident to the governor and council, that the constables,
either could not, or would not, collect the odious tax, some of them were
fined; and Thomas Thurton, the provost-marshal, was ordered to take charge
of the collection, both of the taxes and the fines.

One of the delinquent constables was John Foulsham, of Exeter, who at the
Quarter Sessions in November, 1684, was fined 50s. for neglecting the
duties of his office. A few weeks afterward, Monday, December 29, the
provost-marshal, attended by John Mason, of Hampton, a deputy marshal,
went to Exeter for the purpose of demanding this fine. The treatment they
recieved will serve to show the feeling then existing among the people,
although it was, in most cases, kept under restraint. Thurton, on his way
to Exeter, passed through Hampton. From this place, he and his deputy,
both wearing swords, were followed by ten or twelve Hampton men, all on
horseback, and armed with clubs, who, according to the marshal's account,
pushed, and otherwise maltreated both him and his deputy. On their arrival
at Exeter, other persons--and not a few, including Mr. Cotton, the
minister--joined with those from Hampton, in harassing the officers. While
the latter were at the house of a widow Sewall, to refresh themselves and
their horses, they were treated with much contempt, being thrust about and
repeatedly called rogues. The bridles were taken from their horses, and
the horses turned loose. When they went in search of them, the same
company followed, and one of them struck the marshal several blows with a
club, stunning and bruising him.

When the marshal and his deputy met Foulsham--whether before or after the
occurrences just mentioned, does not appear--he bade them beware of
levying at his house, if they would avoid a red-hot spit and scalding
water, telling them, that he should not regard a warrant from the governor
and council, nor from any of the justices of the peace. Foulsham had also
spirited coädjutors. Even the women warned the officers against calling
for rates, as they had boiling water on hand, and, in some instances, had
kept it constantly over the fire for two days, ready to give him a warmer
reception than would be agreeable to him.


THURTON AND ROBY'S ADVENTURE

The following Friday, the provost marshal went to Hampton, to the house of
Samuel Sherburne (The ordinary, on Rand's Hill), to demand the payment of
£5 imposed on him for alleged assault of Dr. Richard Hooper, a citizen of
the town and near neighbor of Sherburne's. On his refusal to pay, Thurton
"took the body of the said Sherburne in execution, and carried him to the
house of Henry Roby, Esq., one of his Majesty's justices of the peace."
Here a fracas took place between three Exeter men, Gilman, Leavitt and
Lamprey, on one side, and Thurton and Roby on the other, during which
Sherburne made his escape.

The cause of this fracas wsa, that Roby had just made out a warrant to
commit Leavitt to prison, for seditious language, and, on Gilman's
interfering, had made another warrant and handed it to the marshal, for
committing him likewise. Both men resisted, till a little son of Sherburne
entered and whispered a few words to them, when they said they would go.

Accordingly, in custody of three men, they went quietly, till, arrived at
Sherburne's house, they declared that they would go in there, and would
not go to prison. At the same time, three or four persons, Sherburne
himself among them, rushed out and rescued the prisoners. The same night,
Gilman, accompanied by four men armed with clubs, returned to Henry Roby's
house, and made several violent attempts to break down the door; but on
Roby's threatening to shoot them, they went away.

The provost-marshal, after losing his first prisoner, Sherburne, at Roby's
house, went in search of him; and finding him at his own house, in company
with twenty or thirty men, armed with clubs, attempted to re-arrest him,
when he was attacked by Sherburne's companions, and roughly treated.
According to his deposition afterwards, these persons, masked with
handkerchiefs, beat and attempted to strangle him, tied his hands and
legs, took away his sword and dragged him a quarter of a mile from the
house by the rope that tied his hands. There the crowd seem to have left
him; but two men then untied his legs and drove him forward another mile
and a half, beating him with a cudgel. Then being worn out, he sank in the
snow and cried "Murder!" in the hearing of several horsemen, inhabitants
of Hampton; but none came to his rescue. This was about nine o'clock in
the evening. Then, a stranger, coming from Hampton on horseback, was
waylaid by two ruffians, who seized his horse, flung Thurton, bound hand
and foot, across him, and so carried him about a quarter of a mile
further. The poor victim, "being in extreme pain and near death," as he
testified, prayed that he might ride the horse, and then be carried
whither they would. This small boon was granted, and they carried him out
of the province, to Salisbury.

The foregoing account of the disturbances in Exeter and Hampton, is
gathered chiefly from the depositions of Thurton and Roby them-selves, and
is probably altogether exaggerated.

In 1685, Cranfield, disappointed in his purposes, under censure of the
home government, distracted by the attitude of the people, was, at his own
request, relieved, and privately quitted the province; and Walter
Barefoote, the deputy governor, assumed his office.


MR. WEARE'S SECOND MISSION TO ENGLAND

Under him, matters went from bad to worse; and Mr. Weare was sent as
agent, a second time, to England. The exact date of this second mission is
not known, but it was probably not far from the spring of 1686. This time
he was unsuccessful, in combatting Mason's claims, but his own papers,
relating to the trial, are lost. He returned sometime previous to June 19,
1689, when a meeting of the proprietors of Hampton was held, to raise
seventy-five pounds in silver, to pay their proportion for the services of
Mr. Weare and Mr. Vaughan. This was on account of money already expended,
and was to be raised equally upon the shares, payable in five months.


SIR EDMUND ANDROS, GOVERNOR OF ALL NEW ENGLAND

In the latter part of the reign of Charles II, a scheme was originated,
for uniting the several provinces and portions of New England, and placing
them under one government. Through various machinations, well known in
history, this plan was consumated in the reign of James II; and, in
December, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros became governor of all New England. He
ruled with an iron hand. Out of his large council, any seven constituted a
council-board, and no larger number need be notified to attend any
meeting. The governor and council, any five of whom were a quorum, were
empowered, without the intervention of an assembly, to make laws, impose
taxes, appropriate money and grant lands, virtually, as they chose; and
they were not slow to avail themselves of their privileges.

Mason's fortunes seemed in the ascendency. The Lords of Trade and
Plantations reported in his favor; the king approved, and ordered the
verdict and judgment to be ratified and affirmed. Then Mason returned to
New Hampshire, to have his executions levied according to law. Here,
however, a new disappointment awaited him, in the opposition of Andros and
his council; and the courts refused to issue executions on the judgments
that had been recovered by him. Whatever the motives of Andros may have
been, the people were gratified, and their confidence was strengthened in
the belief previously entertained, that Mason's title was defective. Thus
encouraged, they persevered in resisting his claims. In 1688, Mason
suddenly died, leaving "two [grand]sons, John and Robert, the heirs of his
claim and controversy."

Among the other oppressive measures, Governor Andros forbade the people to
assemble in town meetings, except once a year, for the choice of town
officers, lest they consult for the redress of their wrongs; and none were
permitted to leave the country without his consent, lest complaints be
carried to the king. The proceedings of Hampton and the other New
Hampshire towns during this administration, will probably never be fully
known--the records are silent.

Tyranny is its own executioner;--relief came at last in the accession of
William and Mary to the throne of England, and the seizure and
imprisonment of Andros, in 1689.



CHAPTER VI. UNDER ROYAL GOVERNMENT (CONTINUED), 1689-1730

A CRITICAL JUNCTURE

New Hampshire was now without a government. No magistrates remained,
except justices of the peace, and some inferior officers; and "great
questions arose, whether justices retained their power, or any captain or
other officer, deriving his authority from him, so seized," that is, from
Andros. In this state of affairs, there were various attempts to make some
government till their majesties should take further order; but all proved
ineffectual. At first, "persons were chosen in the several towns," says
Nathaniel Weare, "to manage the affairs of government in this juncture of
time," but that plan was soon found futile. No record has been found, to
show who were chosen for this purpose in Hampton.


CONVENTIONS OF THE TOWNS

It was afterward proposed that deputies from each town should meet in
convention, and agree upon some form of government for the whole province.
With whom this plan originated does not appear. A letter, dated July 2,
1689, and signed " by several gentlemen of Portsmouth and Great Island"--
then belonging to Portsmouth--was sent to Hampton, inviting the town to
choose delegates to attend such a convention at Portsmouth, on the 11th of
the same month. To this the town agreed, and chose Ens. Henry Dow, Sergt.
John Smith and Mr. Joseph Smith as its representatives.

The powers conferred on these representatives of the town were not
adequate to the object intended. They were instrutcted to confer with the
members of the convention from the other towns, but were not authorized to
agree to any plan proposed. They were required "to bring a true account of
every particular," and report to the town, at an adjourned meeting on
Saturday--two days after the meeting of the Convention.

There is no record of any town meeting at the time named; and nothing has
been found to show even that the proposed convention was held. It might
have been ascertained before the time appointed that equal powers had not
been conferred upon delegates from the several towns, in which case, the
convention would be useless. The town of Portsmouth, for instance, had
"engaged themselves certainly to comply with" whatever delegates from that
town should promise to do; while those from Hampton could do nothing
whatever to bind the town. If the convention met, it is certain that
nothing effectual was accomplished.

The fault may have been and probably was, on the part of the people of
Hampton; for not long after, one with ample means of information, wrote as
follows: "The inhabitants of the town of Hampton began to be very jealous
of their friends and neighbors, that they would bring them under several
inconveniences, in commanding from them their men and money as they
pleased, and so they were very hard to be brought to anything."

Near the close of the year 1689, there was another proposition for a
convention. In this case, it seems to have originated in Hampton. The
town, "considering the unsettled state they were in for want of
government, and so the more incapacitated to defend themselves against the
invasion of an enemy," appointed delegates, to meet with such as might be
chosen by the other towns, "to consider and debate the matters" of common
concern. But here again the same jealousy appears as in the former case.
No greater powers were conferred on the delegates now chosen than had been
on those chosen in July. The delegates were: Mr. Nathaniel Weare, Capt.
Samuel Sherburne and Ens. Henry Dow.

As nothing further is found on record in regard to the proposed
convention, it may be presumed that the plan failed at that time also;
though it was revived not long afterward, the towns of Portsmouth and
Dover then taking the lead. Since the seizure of Andros, nine months had
already elapsed, and no orders had yet arrived from the new sovereigns of
England. The Indians were in a state of hostility, and the settlements
were exposed to imminent danger. This consideration was urged as a strong
reason for immediate action for the common defense. Under these
circumstances, Portsmouth and Dover each chose six commissioners, to meet
with commissioners from the other towns, "with full power to agree upon a
method of government."

In accordance with the invitation, a town meeting was held in Hampton,
January 20, 1690, when the town, satisfied that the late justices, the
only civil officers exercising any functions in the town, were powerless
to raise men and money for the common defense, chose six commissioners,
with more authority than had been given to the delegates on former
occasions. No pledge, however, was given, to abide by the measures of the
convention, unless a majority of the commissioners from this town should
agree to them. But, on condition of their approval, the town voted to hold
the measures of the convention as good and valid, and to obligate
themselves, "to yield all ready obedience thereto, until their majesties'
orders should arrive for the settlement of the government over them." The
commissioners chosen were Henry Green, Esq., Ens. Henry Dow, Mr. Nathaniel
Weare, Capt. Samuel Sherburne, Morris Hobbs, Sen. and Mr. Edward Gove.

The convention met at Portsmouth, on the 24th, all the towns being
represented. After free discussion, a method of proceeding was finally
agreed upon by every man present. It then became necessary that the
several towns should choose officers, to carry into effect the plan
adopted by the convention. This plan failed, chiefly, perhaps, through the
opposition to it in Hampton, where, as in the other towns, a meeting was
held, to ratify the doings of the convention and choose officers. But a
very large majority seemed to be fearful and suspicious that the other
towns did not intend to act according to their professions, but wished to
bring the people of this town under them. The minority regarded this view
as uncharitable and unjust; but they were referred by the majority to some
former acts of some of the towns, which appeared to afford ground for
being jealous of them. The town, therefore, voted not to choose officers,
according to the direction of the commissioners; and so the plan failed.


REUNITED TO MASSACHUSETTS, 1690

The necessity for a more efficient government still continuing, and there
being but a faint prospect that any plan which might be devised, would be
cordially received in all the towns, a petition was drawn up at
Portsmouth, addressed to the governor and council of Massachusetts, "to
take this province into their care and protection and government, as
formerly."

This petition was signed by nearly four hundred persons in the several
towns, of whom about forty belonged to Hampton. It was brought hither for
signatures, on Wednesday, the 26th of February, 1690, at which time the
soldiers had been ordered to meet, but for other purposes than signing
this petition, "so that," as was afterward said, "several children and
servants made up the number of names, when their parents and masters knew
nothing of the matter." The petition was immediately forwarded to Boston,
and readily granted by the governor and council, who gave orders that the
towns should meet at a time designated, to choose selectmen, constables,
and other town officers, according to former usage and custom. This order
was given to Henry Green, Esq., for this town, and was dated March 4,
1690.

The inhabitants of Hampton had always been strongly attached to
Massachusetts and had never desired to be separated from it. Gladly would
they now have been reannexed, if it could have been done on fair and
honorable terms. But the petition to that government, and the manner in
which it had been managed, caused great dissatisfaction among them; so
that, at the town meeting called, agreeably to the orders to Justice
Green, it was proposed, and by some even urged, to have the town determine
by vote, whether, or not, to acquiesce in, and comply with the petition
and return. A vote on the question was not indeed taken, for one of the
magistrates of Massachusetts told the people, that it would be of no
avail, or, as it was then expressed, "all would be knocked on the head at
one blow."

The grounds of this dissatisfaction may be briefly stated. The four towns
in New Hampshire, since the seizure of Andros, and the consequent
dissolution of the government, were so far independent of each other, that
no one of them felt bound by any act of the others, and the circumstances
of the several towns were so different, that, though the petition that had
been prepared, might be proper for the people of Portsmouth, yet it was
unsuited to those of Hampton; that while there were in this town about two
hundred male inhabitants over twenty-one years of age, this petition was
signed by less than fifty persons, some of them minors, and that it was
not even shown to some of the principal inhabitants, who would have
readily assented to a union with Massachusetts on favorable terms; that
formerly the people of Hampton had been allowed to choose their own
magistrates and public officers, and they could not understand how the
assistants or magistrates of Portsmouth could now excercise any authority
in Hampton, when the latter town had never authorized them so to do; and
lastly, that it was not competent for Massachusetts to exercise any power,
or appoint any governors over this people, till authority should be given
by the crown, or a request made by the town, or a majority of the legal
voters thereof, neither of which had been done. From all these
considerations, it was inferred, that "to be subjected to a government in
the province and principally at Portsmouth, which had been so much spoken
against by many in Hampton, would be very tedious." In a word, to have a
government so imposed, it was feared that there would follow
"distractions, heart-burnings, disobedience to the suposed commanders,
public declarations, remonstrances set forth, that might reach as far as
England, and so make way for a person to be deputed by the crown, that
might under color of a commission, exercise his own will." So wrote
Nathaniel Weare.

Though such opinions and feelings were prevalent here, yet as a matter of
prudence, it was thought best to acquiesce in what had been done, so that
"all might be healed as quietly and as silently" as possible, and that
this people might have peace and unity with those of Massachusetts. The
New Hampshire towns were allowed to be represented in the General Court,
as they had been during their former connection with that government,
though it does not appear that the people of Hampton availed themselves of
this privilege.


THE NEW CONNECTION SEVERED, 1692

Agents had been sent to England from Massachusetts, to solicit from the
crown a new charter for that colony, which was granted. The agents had
asked that it might include the New Hampshire towns, so that their
connection with Massachusetts might be permanent. Many of the people of
New Hampshire were in favor of such a union. But the interests of a
certain London merchant were, with king William, paramount to the
interests and the wishes of the people of Massachusetts and New Hampshire,
and the boon asked for was not granted. The newly formed connection was
severed.

Some time previous to this, namely, March 1, 1692, the heirs of Mason had
sold their interest in New Hampshire to Samuel Allen, the London merchant
referred to in the last paragraph, for the sum of £750; and he now
obtained from the sovereigns the governorship of the province for himself,
and the appointment of John Usher, as lieutenant-governor. Nine councilors
besides Usher, who was allowed a seat at the council-board, were named in
the governor's instructions, and provision was made for three others to be
added to the board. Three councilors constituted a quorum, though no
business, except in extraordinary cases, was to be transacted, unless five
at least were present. One of the councilors named in the instructions was
Henry Green, and one of the three added to the board, Nathaniel Weare.
These were the only members belonging to Hampton.

The popular notion that Usher was at this time son-in-law to Allen is
incorrect, as proved by records:

John Usher, son of Hezekiah and Frances, was born in Boston, April 17,
1648. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Peter and Elizabeth Lidgett (who
was born in the Island of Bbds [Barbadoes] November 4, 1651), on the 24th
of April, 1668. She died Aug. 17, 1698, six years after Usher's
appointment to the office of lieut.-governor. About seven months after her
death, Usher was married to Allen's daughter, in Hampton, by Rev. John
Cotton, pastor of the Hampton church. The marriage is entered thus on the
church record of marriages:

March 11   The Honourable
1698/9     Jn° Usher Esq
                &
       Madam Elizabeth Allen


ALLEN AND USHER

The new government went into operation in August, under the administration
of Usher, the lieutenant-governor, as Allen still remained in England.
Soon after, a House of Assembly was called, which convened early in
October. An act had been passed in England, altering the form and the
manner of administering the oaths to be taken by the members of Parliament
and of subordinate legislative assemblies. Hitherto it had been customary
in New England, for the person taking an oath, to use no other ceremony
than that of holding up the right hand. In England, the custom was to be
sworn upon the Bible. It was now required that the same form should be
observed here. When the assembly met, some of the members, and among them
the three deputies from Hampton, refused to be sworn in this manner. The
next day, it was ordered that the oath should be administered according to
former usage, to those who had refused to be sworn in the new form,
"considering the present troubles and circumstances of affairs" (from
hostile Indians).

Two of the members elect from Hampton, Lieut. John Smith and Mr. Joseph
Smith, were sworn according to this order; but the other, John Hussey,
withdrew from the assembly, declining to qualify himself by being sworn.

A new assembly convened at Great Island, in March of the following year.
The members from this town were Capt. Henry Dow, Mr. Thomas Philbrick, and
Mr. Joseph Swett, all of whom were sworn.

The council appointed its two members from Hampton, Green and Weare, "to
prepare & draw up a Bill for the maintenance of the ministry and school-
masters." The bill drawn up by them was passed without amendment and
approved by the lieutenant-governor, August 5.

It was unfortunate for Usher, that he had been connected with the late
unpopular and oppressive government of Sir Edmund Andros; and perhaps
equally unfortunate, that he was known to be interested in establishing
Allen's claim to the province. The people anticipated perplexities and
troubles from the new claimant, similar to those to which they had been
subjected by Mason; and they were as unwilling to hold their estates under
Allen as under Mason. Some of Usher's measures were approved, being in
harmony with their own views and wishes. His efforts were united with
theirs in defense against the Indians, with whom they had been for a
considerable time engaged in a distressing and desolating war. He was also
earnest in his efforts for the settlement of the boundary line between New
Hampshire and Massachusetts.

The line was generally understood to begin on the seashore, at the
distance of three miles north of the mouth of the Merrimac, and run
parallel with that river. Still, there was much uncertainty about it, as
it had never, in all its parts, been sufficiently marked out by monuments,
and the river, near its mouth, flowing over a bed of sand, often shifted
its channel. It was really difficult for the people who lived near the
line, to know on which side of it they were; and some of them pretended to
belong on one side or the other--to Massachusetts or to New Hampshire,
just as it suited their convenience. Hence it was difficult to collect
taxes assessed upon these persons. There were also disputes about timber
cut on the common lands.

Squamscott Patent, which had been connected with Hampton about thirty-five
years, was annexed to Exeter, November 29, 1692.

New Castle was incorporated as a town in 1693, and Kingston, as is
described more fully elsewhere, in 1694.

Usher was forward in all these transactions, hoping thus to ingratiate
himself with the people and induce them to furnish him a liberal support.
Failing in this, he dissolved the assembly; and, not receiving from Allen
his promised stipend, he asked to be relieved of his official cares.
Usher's request, however, had been anticipated, and at the desire of the
people, William Partridge, Esq., of Portsmouth, then in England, had
already been appointed to succeed him as lieutenant-governor, and
commander-in-chief, in Allen's absence.


WILLIAM PARTRIDGE, LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR

The appointment of Partridge was made known to the people, immediately
after his return from England, in January, 1697. Mr. Usher, then at his
home in Boston, very soon heard of the appointment; but as Mr. Partridge
for some reasons had not published his commission and taken the oaths
prescribed, he claimed that his own powers as lieutenant-governor had not
ceased.


USHER'S HARANGUE

Soon after this, Usher came to Hampton, and on Sunday, February 1, taking
advantage of the people being assembled at the meeting-house for public
worship, he addressed them on political affairs, and gave some orders in
regard to military matters, expecting his orders to be obeyed.

The proceedings of Usher at Hampton, being made known to the government, a
meeting of the council was held the next Sunday, to devise means to
counteract their influence. A proclamation was forthwith published, to
declare Partridge lieutenant-governor, and to give public notice that
Usher had no further power or authority in the province and that none were
to obey his orders or warrants for the future.

The council ordered that Maj. William Vaughan take with him as many men as
he can readily get mounted, to march to Hampton and Exeter, to suppress
any tumult and disturbance that may happen in the province. Major Vaughan
was also to cause to be published in those towns, the proclamation given
to him for that purpose; to give notice to all captains, and other
inferior military officers, to continue in their place until further
orders; and to arrest any disturbers of the peace.

The next day, a letter was prepared by the president and council, to be
sent to Lieut.-Governor Stoughton, of Massachusetts. After stating the
facts given in their proclamation, they say: "But notwithstanding all
this, Mr. Usher is pleased to exert his weak endeavors to give us some
disturbance; to ytt end [he] appeared at Hampton on the last Sabbath day,
and we hear, in the forenoon before Sermon, made a large comment on the
copy of this commission. He also gave out orders to sundry officers, civil
and military, to meet him at Hampton the next morning, and the two First
Companys of the towne to be then in arms; but miserably failing of his
expectations, he withdrew and left the Province on Monday afternoon;
assuring some of his creatures that Lieut.-Governor Stoughton had promised
him if he met with any opposition here, to give him assistance."

Whatever may have been the apprehension of the council, no serious
disturbance seems to have resulted from Usher's visit and harangue at
Hampton, or at least, none, which being seasonably met, was not easily
quelled; for we have no more notice of it in the records--nothing to show
that there was need of further action on the part of the board.


THE GOOD EARL OF BELLOMONT

But Usher sought redress from England, by sending over a special agent to
lay his complaints before the Lords of Trade; receiving from them
directions to continue in office till Partridge should qualify himself, or
till Richard, Earl of Bellomont, the newly appointed governor of New York,
Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire, should arrive. Usher then came
immediately to New Hampshire, in full confidence of triumphing over his
opponents. But a bitter disappointment awaited him, for the next day, the
14th of December, 1697, Partridge published his commission, took the oaths
and assumed the government.

This transaction must have been very disheartening to Mr. Usher, who, on
his way to Portsmouth, had been so elated with his prospects, that, as he
passed through Hampton, he had forbidden the people to observe a day of
thanksgiving that had been appointed. This led the lieutenant-governor and
the council, on the day that he entered upon the duties of his office, to
order, "that the selectmen of Hampton do notify the inhabitants thereof,
that the Thanks-giving day appointed by the President and Council, on
Thurs-day next, be observed as has been usual in such cases." They also
specially ordered that notice should be given to Mr. John Cotton, minister
of the town, to "observe & keep" the day.


GOVERNOR ALLEN'S ASSUMPTION OF GOVERNMENT

After the Earl of Bellomont's arrival in this country, but before he had
come to New Hampshire, and consequently before he had entered upon the
government of this province, Governor Allen came over and placed himself
at the head of the administration [August, 1698]. Usher soon after took a
seat at the council-board, claiming it as lieutenant-governor. His right
to a seat was disputed, but the governor decided in his favor.

The assembly met in January following. At that time, two new members were
added to the council, one of whom, Joseph Smith, was of Hampton. The
members of the assembly from this town were Capt. Henry Dow, Lieut. John
Smith and Lieut. Joseph Swett.

At the opening of the assembly, Governor Allen, having stated that he had
assumed the government because the Earl of Bellomont had not arrived,
advised them to send a congratulatory message to the Earl. The next day
the assembly informed him, that they had done this already, and the Earl
had answered them kindly and they were waiting for his arrival; intimating
also that no important business would be done in the assembly before his
arrival. This was not very flattering to the governor; but the assembly
went farther, and specified several grounds of complaint; and especially,
his having admitted Usher to a seat at the council board, notwithstanding
he had been superseded by Partridge's commission.

The decision of the governor to admit Usher to his seat, was far from
being satisfactory to some of the councilors. The question was raised by
two of them, Coffin and Weare, whether Usher was a member of the council.
After some altercation, a vote being taken, a majority appeared in his
favor. All the old councilors, except one, refused to sit with him. The
governor, indeed, forbade their departure, but his order was disregarded.
Mr. Weare remarked, as he retired, that he would not, by sitting there,
put contempt upon the king's commission-referring to the commission of
Partridge, who had been set aside by the governor, in favor of Usher,
under whose influence Allen acted.

The assembly had already voted to continue the customs and excise till the
next November. They now voted that the money, thus arising, should be kept
in the treasury till the arrival of the Earl of Bellomont. This was their
last act. The governor dissolved the assembly after a session of three
days.

The councilors had been appointed by the king, but the governor had
authority to suspend any of them, whenever, in his opinion, there should
be sufficient reason. If at any time, the number of councilors should from
any cause be reduced below seven, the governor might appoint from the
principal freeholders in the province, so many as would make up that
number, and those thus appointed were to be councilors till the king's
pleasure should be known. At this time, he appointed Sampson Sheafe, of
New Castle, and Peter Weare, of Hampton, son of Nathaniel Weare, who had
just refused to sit at the council-board with Usher. Sheafe was appointed
secretary, and Joseph Smith, of Hampton, treasurer.


BELLOMONT'S BRIEF ADMINISTRATION

The Earl of Bellomont came to New Hampshire and published his commission,
July 31, 1699. This event spread joy throughout the province. The people
"now saw at the head of the government, a nobleman of distinguished figure
and polite manners, a firm friend of the revolution, a favorite of King
William, and one who had no interest in oppressing them."

Partridge now resumed his seat as lieutenant-governor, and those
councilors whom Allen had suspended, were reädmitted to the board.

Allen and the people brought before the governor their respective claims
and complaints, in regard to the proprietorship of the province; whereupon
he advised the revival of courts of justice, in which the vexatious but
important controversy might be legally decided. To this end, the necessary
acts were passed by an assembly that had been called; but before the
judges had been appointed, the Earl retired from the province, where he
had remained less than three weeks, leaving the appointment of the judges
and the administration of the government in the hands of Partridge, the
lieutenant-governor. The Earl of Bellomont never returned to New
Hampshire. He died in New York the next spring, much to the grief of the
people.


COURTS OF JUSTICE REVIVED

The courts were organized, by the appointment of John Hinckes, chief
justice of the Superior Court, with three assistants; Richard Waldron,
chief justice of the Inferior Court, and Henry Dow, Theodore Atkinson and
John Woodman, assistants.


ALLEN'S CLAIM AND CONTROVERSY

The court, thus organized, afforded but little encouragement for Allen to
expect a favorable result, in any attempt to establish his claim as
proprietor of the province. Gladly, therefore, would he have availed
himself of the decisions previously given in Mason's suits; but there was
a want of legal evidence that judgment had been rendered in favor of
Mason, or that he had ever been put in possession of the property for
which he had sued. The portion of the records of the Superior Court,
needed for proof, could not be found. Allen was, therefore, under the
necessity of commencing the work anew. Of course, the decisions of the
courts were for the defendant. Allen appealed to the king, and the
litigations went on; in the midst of which, King William died and Anne
succeeded to the throne.

Then Allen petitioned the queen to be put in possession of the waste lands
of the province. All lands, unenclosed and unoccupied, were adjudged waste
lands, and Allen was declared the lawful owner of them all.

While this petition was under consideration, Mr. Vaughan, the people's
agent in England, remonstrated against its being granted. Much of the land
that had been long used by the inhabitants for the pasturage of their
cattle, was unenclosed, and therefore must, according to the opinion of
the attorney-general, be accounted waste land. The same was true of nearly
all the woodland in all the towns, and of the extensive salt-marshes in
Hampton, which were indispensable to the inhabitants.

But why present these facts to the consideration of the queen and her
advisers? Why show them that the prayer of the petition could not be
granted, without gross injustice to the inhabitants of the province? Why
remonstrate against the appointment of John Usher to the office of
lieutenant-governor of the province-an appointment which he was again
seeking? It was all in vain. Allen "entered upon the common land in each
of the towns, and took possession by turf and twig;" and Usher again came
into power. Meantime, Joseph Dudley had been appointed governor of
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. And Allen's suits went on. Again the
courts decided against him, and again he appealed.

But Allen had really become weary of the controversy, and did not wish to
prosecute the appeal, if the difficulty between him and the people could
be settled by mutual agreement. Many of the people, too, wished for a
compromise. Deputies from the several towns, therefore, met in convention
at Portsmouth, May 3, 1705, to discuss the subject, and, if possible,
agree upon terms of accommodation. The deputies from Hampton, chosen the
day before, were Mr. John Stanyan and Samuel Dow, who were "to join with
the representatives of the province, with full power from the freeholders
and the community, to discourse, debate and determine as might be most
advantageous for the peace and benefit of the province, relating to Mr.
Allen's claim. A few days before, the same persons had been chosen by the
freeholders, to meet the convention, but had not authority to agree to any
terms proposed, without first laying them before the town, to be voted
upon. More ample powers were needed; and in compliance with a precept from
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, they were granted, in
connection with the last choice of delegates.

The delegates met in convention at the time proposed, and the next day
passed the following Resolution: "That they had no claim or challenge to
any part of the Province without the bounds of the four towns of
Portsmouth, Dover, Hampton and Exeter, with the hamlets of New Castle and
Kingston, which were all comprehended within lines already known and laid
out, and which should forthwith be revised; but that Allen and his heirs
might peaceably hold and enjoy the said great waste, containing forty
miles in length and twenty in breadth, or thereabouts, at the head of the
four towns aforesaid, if it should please her majesty; and that the
inhabitants of the four towns would be so far from interrupting the
settlement thereof, that they desired the said waste to be planted and
filled with inhabitants, to whom they would give all the encouragement and
assistance in their power."

They further proposed, in substance, to give Allen £2000 current money of
New England, and 5000 acres out of the common lands in the towns and
hamlets,-1500 acres of which, to be laid out in Hampton-provided the
inhabitants should receive ample security forever afterward, against any
further disturbance from any person, on account of his or Mason's claim.
The proposed terms were to be presented to Allen for his consideration,
and it was supposed that he would accept them; but his sudden death, the
very next day, left the controversy still unsettled.

The following year, Mr. Allen's only son, Thomas Allen, of London, renewed
the suit, being obliged again to go over the whole ground; but no decision
was had before the death of Allen, in 1715, and this put an end to the
suit, which his heirs, being minors, did not renew. The Mason claims were,
indeed, revived for a brief season, more than twenty years later; but all
rights were purchased, and quitclaim deeds given to the several towns.


DUDLEY AND USHER SUPERSEDED

Governor Dudley and Lieutenant-Governor Usher held their offices till the
death of queen Anne, in 1714. During a large part of this time, a
disastrous Indian war was kept up. The course of both of them in regard to
the war was praiseworthy. The connection of Usher with former
administrations, and his interest in Allen's claim, prevented him from
gaining that popularity, which he would otherwise have attained. It is
well known that he expended considerable sums from his own private
fortune, to promote the interests of the province, while the compensation
received for his services was very meager. He was superseded in office by
George Vaughan, of Portsmouth, soon after the accession of George I to the
throne of England.

Governor Dudley resided usually in Massachusetts, coming occasionally to
New Hampshire. The people of this province considered him as a "prudent,
careful and faithful governor," and declared themselves "perfectly
satisfied with his disposal of the people and their arms and public
money." He was superseded in 1716.


SAMUEL SHUTE, GOVERNOR

In the golden month of October, of this year 1716, a grand cortége passed
through Hampton, en route for Portsmouth. The occasion was no less than
the visit of Governor Dudley's successor in office, Col. Samuel Shute, to
publish his commission as governor of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. He
left Boston on Monday, the 15th, with great pomp and ceremony; was met at
Cambridge by the faculty and students of Harvard, who escorted him to the
college and greeted him with an oration; met escorts of horse and foot,
and sumptuous entertainment everywhere on the route; and arrived at
Salisbury, near the province line, on Wednesday. Here he was met by
Lieutenant-Governor Vaughan of New Hampshire, members of the council,
sheriff and men of note, "being guarded with a troop of horse from
Hampton, and after that, met by a troop of horse from Exeter, and at
Hampton Town, four companies of foot were drawn up upon the common, before
Captain Winget's where the Governor dined." About 5 o'clock the same
afternoon, with his numerous and imposing retinue constantly augmented, he
made his entry into Portsmouth, greeted by the booming of cannon from
castle and ships, the Portsmouth regiment under arms and two troops of
horse. After publishing his commission, "the regiment discharged their
volleys and the people their huzzas." It was a hearty ovation, for no hand
lifted the veil, to disclose the inharmony of the future.


GEORGE VAUGHAN, LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR

A controversy, which was carried on with considerable warmth, soon arose
between the governor and the lieutenant-governor, about the power of the
latter, when the former was in his other province. Vaughan claimed the
right, in such a case, of administering the government himself, on the
ground that, when the governor was in Massachusetts, he was absent from
New Hampshire, and his authority here must be suspended till his return.
But Governor Shute contended that, his commission having been published in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire, he was commander-in-chief over both
provinces, while he had his residence in either. Each was tenacious of his
own opinion and determined to maintain his pretensions. After the
governor's return to Boston, he sent an order to Vaughan, probably to test
his obedience, requiring him to appoint a fast. This order the latter did
not obey. Governor Shute also ordered him "to prorogue the assembly;
instead of which he dissolved it without the advice of council." Mr.
Penhallow, one of the members of the council, very friendly to the
governor, opposed the pretensions of the lieutenant-governor, with such
vigor, at a meeting of the council, in September, 1717, the displeasure of
the latter showed itself in a very indiscreet and angry speech, which was
concluded in these words: "I suspend you, Samuel Penhallow, from sitting,
voting and assisting at the council-board till his Majesty's pleasure
shall be known."

As soon as Gov. Shute was informed of these proceedings, he hastened to
Portsmouth, summoned the council, re-instated Penhallow, and suspended
Vaughan. An account of the whole matter was sent to England and laid
before the king, who soon after removed the lieutenant-governor from
office.


HAMPTON'S ATTITUDE

These transactions are so undignified and so unbecoming the character of
men at the head of the government, that no account of them would have been
admitted to our pages, had not a knowledge of them been necessary to a
full understanding of some further proceedings of the governor and his
council, in which Hampton, in the treatment of its representatives, was
particularly concerned.

Let it be borne in mind, that the dispute between the governor and the
lieutenant-governor resulted from a difference of opinion, relative to the
powers of the latter, when the former was out of the province. It was a
nice question, and to many disinterested persons, it was not clear how it
should be decided. As long as it remained an abstract question, it excited
but little interest; but the acts of the two men primarily concerned,
rendered a correct decision of practical importance. If the opinion of the
lieutenant-governor was correct, then his act in dissolving the assembly,
however unwise, was not illegal, and those who had composed that body were
no longer vested with legislative powers, and in no way, except by a new
election, could they be entitled again to act as a legislative assembly.
Such was the view taken by the three members from Hampton, and they were
honest enough to avow it. When, therefore, Governor Shute ordered a
meeting of the assembly, they presented a remonstrance, setting forth
their views, and declaring that they could not act with the House unless
the members were reëlected. For this honest avowal they were called before
the governor and council, charged with a libel, and were put under bonds
of £400 each, for their good behavior.

The governor appears not only to have required of these men bonds for
their good behavior, but to have assumed the right of removing them from
the assembly, to which they belonged, if it was still a legal assembly,
and of ordering the town to make a new election. The record of the
proceedings of the town is as follows:

"Voted, that whereas wee of ye Town of Hampton did elect Colo Joseph
Smith, Major Peter Weare and Mr. John Tuck our Representatives to sitt in
Generall Assembly, which Assembly was dissolved by his majesties Lieut
Governor Vaughan, as appears to us of Record; and now having Receved a
precept from his Excellency Goverr Shute for a new choice to joyne with ye
said Assembly dismis'd as abovesd; In Answer to which, wee say, if ye
Representatives of our Town are dismist, the whole are dismissed; And wee
humbly declare wee are of opinion not to joyn Assembly men with such as
are not Legally chosen and quallified."

Such was the action of the town; and is not the view taken, correct? By
his commission, the governor had authority to suspend or remove any member
of the council, and to prorogue or dissolve the assembly; but to deprive
any particular members of their seats in the popular branch of the
government, is a very different matter, and is entirely inconsistent with
the liberties of the people.


JOHN WENTWORTH, LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR

Vaughan's controversy with his superior was productive of no good to
himself. On the contrary, as we have seen, it opened the way for his own
removal from office. John Wentworth was his successor. His commission was
published near the close of the year 1717. He was born in the province,
and had been a member of the council. For more than five years after he
was appointed lieutenant-governor, he had but a small share in the
administration; but in 1723, at the departure of Governor Shute for
England, he was left at the head of the government. This was during the
war with the Indians, known as Lovewell's war. So prudent was his
management in this war, that his course was approved, and he gained the
affections of the people.

In May, 1727, Mr. John Redman, a representative from Hampton, having
resigned on account of age and feebleness, the House, "Considering the
great age and Infirmness of the Said Mr John Redman Tho he hath been a
Serviceable member of this house--Resolved--That according to his Request
he be Dismissed." Capt. Joshua Wingate was chosen his successor.

The date of Mr. Redman's birth is not known, but he was married in 1667,
and was probably over 80.

After the death of King George I, in June, 1727, the assembly of New
Hampshire, chosen about five years before, was in consequence dissolved,
and writs for a new assembly were issued in the name of George II, his
successor. The new assembly met about the middle of December. The members
from Hampton were Nathaniel Weare, Esq. (of the Falls parish), Capt.
Joshua Wingate and John Sanborn, the first of whom was chosen speaker. An
act was passed and approved by the lieutenant-governor, by which the
existence of that and of succeeding assemblies was limited to three years,
the magistrate at the head of the government having power to dissolve the
assembly sooner than that, if he should deem it expedient. In consequence
of a controversy between the two Houses, Lieutenant-Governor Wentworth
prorogued, and soon after dissolved, the assembly.

A new assembly being called, it was found that nearly all the former
members had been reëlected. They again made choice of Nathaniel Weare for
their speaker. The lieutenant-governor negatived the choice and ordered a
new election. The House adjourned from day to day without transacting any
business. At length, on the ninth day of the session, the House passed a
resolution, that they regarded it as an infringement of a privilege that
they had always enjoyed, for the lieutenant-governor to disallow their
choice of speaker, considering it "their undoubted right to choose their
speaker, and that the confirmation thereof is only of course." They
further resolved-most of them having been members of the late assembly, of
which Mr. Weare had been the speaker-that they must justify him in his
proceedings in that assembly, believing that he acted uprightly, and for
the good of his country, and they still had confidence in him as a
suitable person for the office to which they had elected him. But as Mr.
Weare was then desirous to be released from serving as speaker, they would
grant his request and choose another person to fill the office.

Andrew Wiggin, Esq., was then chosen speaker, and the choice was approved
by the lieutenant-governor; but throughout the session there was a want of
harmony between him and the House.


WILLIAM BURNET, GOVERNOR

In 1728, a bill, providing for the annual payment of £200 sterling, or
£600 in bills of credit, to William Burnet, the newly appointed governor
of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, being before the House, it was passed
by the casting vote of the speaker--the three members from Hampton voting
in the negative.


JONATHAN BELCHER, GOVERNOR

Governor Burnet came to New Hampshire in September, but soon returned to
Massachusetts, and not long after, died.

Mr. Jonathan Belcher, of Massachusetts, was the next governor, his
authority extending over both provinces. On his first visit to New
Hampshire, in 1730, he was hospitably entertained by Lieutenant-Governor
Wentworth, the most friendly feelings seeming to exist between them. But
circumstances, which it is not necessary here to detail, soon wrought an
entire change, so that the most bitter opposition prevailed between them.
Mr. Wentworth himself was, indeed, soon removed by death; but his friends
continued active in the unhappy controversy. His successor in office was
Col. David Dunbar, a native of Ireland,--a man most unfriendly to Governor
Belcher, and ready to unite with the Wentworth party, in measures to
embarrass his administration.

One subject, on which the two parties were at variance, was the question,
whether New Hampshire should be annexed to Massachusetts, or entirely
separated from it in the administration of its government. The governor
and his party favored the former cause, and were consequently not very
desirous to establish the boundary lines between the provinces; while the
other party wanted New Hampshire to have a separate government; and they
were anxious for a speedy adjustment of the lines, and that too, in a
manner as favorable as possible to this province. The governor, however,
urged upon the Legislatures of both provinces, to adopt measures for
establishing the lines. This was done, not so much in accordance with his
own feelings, as in compliance with instructions received from England.