History of the Town of Hampton, NH - Chapters 10-12



CHAPTER X. TOWN AFFAIRS - NATURAL PHENOMENA - RYE 1708-1736

CLAIMS AT THE NEW PLANTATION CONSIDERED

The Return of the laying out of the New Plantation had been lost; and as
sundry persons claimed land there by virtue of grants from the commoners
to themselves, or to persons under whom they claimed, it was considered
important to ascertain the validity of these claims. The commoners,
therefore, on the 17th of June, 1708, appointed for this purpose a
committee, consisting of John Stanyan, John Gove, John Sanborn, Sen., Dea.
Samuel Shaw, Benjamin Batchelder and Jonathan Marston, who, together with
the lot-layers, were to state the bounds of the Plantation as nearly as
they could, by considering the terms of the grant formerly made; and
divide the whole anew into four ranges, as formerly, and then assign to
every person to whom grants had been made, his proper proportion. Those
who claimed land there were to be at the charge of surveying the lots, and
were also to defend the same at their own cost and charge. Any individual,
upon satisfying the committee of the justice of his claim, might have his
lot or share bounded out to him, so far as the town had a right to do it,
he having first paid the committee, the lot layers and the surveyor, for
their services.

The committee, lot-layers and surveyor were also required to measure such
land as had been unlawfully fenced in, or built upon,by any person, on any
part of the cow common, and report to the selectmen, to whom full power
was given to prosecute such trespassers; the charge to be borne equally by
the commoners and those to whom they had made grants. The next year, more
lenient measures were adopted, allowing compromise or sale, in case of
small trespasses.


THE "BACK ROAD"

At this meeting, Joseph Taylor informed the commoners that he was about
fencing in a way passing across his lot, unless they would let him have an
equal number of rods at the east end of his lot. In that case, he would
let the way still remain for their use. Ens. Thomas Robey and Josiah
Sanborn were chosen, to examine the case, and, if they should think it
expedient, "to lay him out rod for rod." This way was a part of what is
now called the "Back Road," leading to the sawmills, on Little river.


LAWSUIT ABOUT LAND AT THE NEW PLANTATION

About this time, a controversy, which excited considerable interest, arose
between Peter Weare and the freeholders and commoners, whom he "arrested,"
for not performing a grant to John Marston, late of Andover. At a meeting
held by them, February 23, 1709, to consider the case, they authorized the
selectmen appoint an agent, with power of attorney, to defend them;
agreeing that all charges incurred should be paid by the commoners, in
proportion to their rights in the commons, and raised by the selectmen for
the time being. Nathaniel Weare and Abraham Cole dissented.

This case was tried the next summer and decided in favor of the plaintiff,
costing the defendants more than £50. The following autumn, the selectmen,
in behalf of the freeholders and commoners, petitioned Governor Dudley
concerning the case. The facts, as set forth in the petition, dated
November 13, were these: The suit was brought in consequence of the town
not laying out a tract of land at the New Plantation, which at the date of
the petition was in the town of Kingston. The grant in question had been
made to John Marston, who had sold all his rights in Hampton, more than
forty years before, to Dea. Francis Page, who had been in possession till
the summer of 1708, when Weare produced a paper, purporting to be a deed
of conveyance to him from John Marston, written and signed at Andover, and
the same day acknowledged in New Hampshire, before Nathaniel Weare, Esq.,
the father of the grantee.

The validity of this deed was doubted. It had not been produced till after
Marston's death, and it was represented as questionable, whether he was
alive on the day of its date. It was also stated, that for several years
previous to his death, he had not, by reason of age, been of a sound and
disposing mind and memory; that he had not been able to attend public
worship, and far less able to travel in so short a time to New Hampshire,
a distance of nearly twenty-five miles, to acknowledge a deed; nor would
it have been necessary, for there were several Justices nearer, and,
indeed, directly on his way. The petitioners further allege, that some of
Marston's near relatives heard him say that Peter Weare hand been to him,
for the purpose of buying this land at the New Plantation, but that he had
refused to sell it.

Under these circumstances, it would seem reasonable that the plaintiff
should have been required to prove the authenticity of his deed; but he
insisted that, in order for a successful defense, it devolved on the town
to prove that he had never received from John Marston any such deed. This
might not have been easy to prove. The selectmen, therefore, as the agents
of the freeholders and commoners, asked that Nathaniel Weare, Esq., should
be required to state positively, whether he had ever seen John Marston in
this province, since the date of the deed, claimed to have been given to
his son, Peter Weare. Being questioned on this point, he stated before the
governor and council, that Marston acknowledged the deed to his son,
before him, at Andover, the 13th of May, 1708; and he declared that
Marston was "then in his right senses."

This testimony, if not satisfactory, was direct and decisive, whatever may
be thought of the validity of an acknowledgment made before a justice,
when he was out of his jurisdiction.

On the 15th of September, the freeholders and commoners appointed Lieut.
John Smith, Isaac Green and Ens. Samuel Marston, a committee, to join with
the selectmen in selling some of the lots that had not been disposed of,
in the north and west division, to satisfy the judgment that Peter Weare
had obtained against the commoners, and to pay other charges incurred in
the case. If the sales of these lots should fail to furnish a sufficient
sum to pay all demands against them, than an assessment should be made on
all to whom shares of the commons had been granted.


A PROTECTIVE MEASURE

March 8, 1709, the commoners voted, that no man should fell, on the
commons, any pine timber to be hewn square, to send out of the town, under
penalty of 10s. a tree; and if any such timber should be found at any of
the land-places, or on any rafts in the rivers, it should be forfeited,
one-half to the informer and the other half to the use of the town. If any
person should pretend that the timber thus found was intended for his own
use, it should still be subject to the penalty named, unless he could
prove the truth of his assertion, by two witnesses. Lieut. Peter Weare and
Mr. Joseph Chase were chosen, "to look after the timber."


IRON MINES

About this time, there was some excitement among the inhabitants, on
account of a belief in the existence of iron mines, or ores of iron, in
some part of the commons, which, it was supposed, might be made to yield
some revenue. The commoners, fearing that some of these ores would be
carried away without their permission, and to their detriment, appointed
the selectmen a committee, to look after their interests; and passed an
order, forbidding any person from digging any of these ores, without first
agreeing with the committee about the terms, under penalty of 40s. The
bubble burst, however, for the mines proved a failure.


SHARES IN THE COMMON TO BE ASSESSED

No taxes appear to have been hitherto assessed on shares in the commons,
except to meet expenses incurred in improving or defending them. Now, June
20, 1709, the selectmen and assessors were empowered to assess on these
shares, a part of the province tax, that was about to be raised.
At the same time, it was ordered, that the sweepage of the common thatch-
ground should be distributed among the poor of the town, at the discretion
of the selectmen; but that none of the thatch should be mowed till the
latter part of August, and no person, without permission, should mow any
of the thatch-ground, under penalty of 12d. per rod.


GRANT TO "THE FIVE FARMS"

At a meeting of the freeholders and commoners, in the winter of 1709, two
privileges or shares in the cow common on the south side of Taylor's river
were granted to each of the five farms, thus increasing the number of
shares on that side to one hundred fifty seven, while the number on the
north side of the river remained as before. This change was made, to meet
the claims of the owners of the farms, founded on an agreement of the
town, when the ownership of the common was settled, in 1646.

The year 1710 is memorable for the death of Rev. John Cotton, pastor of
the church, and the beginning of Mr. Gookin's ministry.


ANNUAL TOWN MEETING TO BE IN MARCH

At the annual election of town officers, December 29, 1712, it was voted,
that the selectmen and constables, chosen a year before, should continue
in office, till the first Monday in the following March. From that time to
the present, the annual town meeting has been held in the month of March.
At the same meeting as above: Voted, "That there shall be twenty shillings
more aded to the former twenty for him that kills a woulf within the
Bounds of our Town till the Town null the acte by uote."


MALT

At a commoners' meeting, held December 29, 1712, it was voted that Ephraim
Marston should "have half a quarter of an acre of land by the fort in the
swamp to set a malt-house on," and to enjoy the same as long as he should
improve it in making malt for the people of the town, but the land should
revert to the town whenever Marston or his heirs should cease to use it
for the purpose for which it was granted.

This vote suggests a custom long prevalent here, and in other parts of New
England, that of malting barley, and brewing beer to be used as a common
beverage among the people. So accustomed were they to the use of this
drink, that it was regarded as indispensable to their comfort. We have not
now any means of ascertaining the quantity used in the town yearly, but,
evidently, it was somewhat large. It was considered of so much importance,
that the town and Rev. John Cotton in agreeing upon the terms of his
settlement as the minister of the town, in 1696, stipulated at what price
per bushel malt should be received by him in part payment of his salary.


AGAINST PETITIONS PRIVATELY CIRCULATED

Another vote of the commoners brings to light one of the expedients
sometimes resorted to for obtaining grants of land, and other privileges.
The usual course in making grants was to have the subject brought before
some public town or commoners' meeting, and there freely discussed before
any vote had been taken. In this way the people were prepared to act
understandingly. In come cases, however, individuals who were anxious to
obtain a mill-privilege, or a particular tract of land, prepared a
petition, and carried it from house to house, to procure signatures
privately. In some instances persons were induced to sign it through
ignorance of the value of the grant sought, who, after a public
discussion, would have given their votes against the grants.

To prevent abuses of this kind, the commoners made it a penal offence for
any person to carry about a petition, or endeavor to persuade any man to
sign one, in favor of granting any common land, stream, or other
appurtenance belongs to the common land, otherwise than in a public
meeting -- the fine for each offence being 20s. to be paid to the
selectmen for the use of the poor. They also ordered that every person
that should sign such a petition, should pay a fine of 2s. 6d., to be
applied to the same use.


A SHEPHERD'S CONTRACT

April 2, 1714, "in the twelfth yeare of her majesties Reigne Queen
Anne" -- Morris Hobbs, Ephraim Marston, Benjamin Lamprey, Samuel Marston,
Josiah Sanborn, William Sanborn, and Seth Fogg agree with the selectmen to
keep the flock of sheep this following summer, from April 12 to November
10, "without the snow shall come to hinder them from their feed" -- will
do it themselves or by those the selectmen shall approve of -- to go with
the sheep one day to North Hill way, and one day to Ship Rock way, and one
day to Little River way -- no man to go two days of his turn to Little
River way -- each man of them to provide a good and convenient pen for the
sheep to lie in from the dust and from danger of the wild creatures, --
the sheep to go at no time without a keeper -- to be let out every morning
by sun half an hour high -- not to pen them before sunset at night. They
give bonds of 40 shillings to perform their equal part in every
particular -- to be sued before a justice of the peace by any man who can
prove the above articles not fulfilled. Two witnesses. Benjamin Lamprey's
name apart from the rest, as if added later, and an additional witness:
"Samuel Dow Jr. See Benja. Lamprey Signe this couenant."


JOHN TUCK

On the 20th of June, 1714, Dea. Samuel Dow, the town clerk, died. He had
been chosen to succeed his father in that office, at the death of the
latter about seven years before. The vacancy now occurring was filled by
the election (July 5) of John Tuck as town clerk. The same day he was also
chosen clerk of the commoners, these two offices being usually, though not
necessarily, held by the same person.


THE GREAT OX COMMON DIVIDED

Six years before this time, namely, in November, 1708, the Great Ox Common
began to pass into permanent possession of the proprietors. The shares
had, like the marshes farther north, been drawn for once in six years; but
now, the drawings for shares in the thatch ground were by vote, to be
"forever." In September, 1714, the shares of upland, and a month later,
those of marsh, came to a final drawing; and this tract, which, in 1641,
had been set apart for a common "to the world's end," now, after 73 years,
ceased to be a common, though a portion of it has ever since retained the
name.


HOGPEN FARM

Hogpen Farm, so called, was originally granted to Rev. Seaborn Cotton, and
was laid out in 1668. The farm had since been sold, and considerable
inconvenience -- not to say injury -- was experienced by those owning land
adjoining it, by the present owners refusing to show the bounds of the
farm. The selectmen judging it necessary to have the bounds accurately
determined, in order to prevent controversy, directed that the farm should
be re-surveyed. They gave seasonable notice to the owners, of their
intention to meet on the farm for this purpose, on the first day of
November, 1714. They also notified to be present all persons owning land
adjoining, and "other persons who dwelt on or near ye sd farme 40 or 50
years" before, to give the best information they could, relating to the
bounds. The selectmen, surveyors and lot-layers accordingly met at the
time appointed. The selectmen then requested the owners of the farm, who
were present, viz.: Edmund Johnson, John Green and Benjamin Green, to show
them the bounds thereof. They replied, that they had never known them.
Information was then sought from aged men, who had been acquainted with
the property many years; and having fully satisfied themselves in relation
to some of the bounds, the selectmen and lot layers made the survey, and
marked out the farm by metes and bounds. Their Return was entered on the
Town Book. "Hogpen meadow," belonging to the farm, was surveyed the
following February.


BOUNDARY DISPUTE WITH EXETER

A few month before this time, the inhabitants and freeholders had chosen
Maj. Joseph Smith, John Redman, Sen. and Lieut. Nathaniel Weare, a
committee, to petition the governor to settle and survey the bounds of the
town, and to grant a confirmation of them as they had been established
more than seventy years before. This course was adopted for the purpose of
terminating a dispute between this town and Exeter, concerning their
boundary line. Without waiting for an answer to their petition, the
freeholders and commoners resolved to make another effort for an amicable
settlement of the dispute by the two towns. They accordingly, on the 28th
of January 1715, voted that the town of Exeter should once more be
notified through the selectmen to send a committee of three men to join
with a committee of the same number from this town, "to renew and re-
survey the ancient bounds of Hampton towards Exeter," and to meet at "Ass-
Brook-Tree," on Tuesday, the first day of the following month. The
committee on the part of this town consisted of Maj. Joseph Smith,
Nathaniel Weare and Lieut. James Philbrick. In case of refusal on the part
of Exeter, the committee that had been chosen to petition the governor,
were now empowered to petition the council, or the Superior Court, to
order disinterested persons to establish the line.

The town of Exeter seems not to have united with Hampton in the
proposition "to renew and re-survey" the boundary line between the towns.
A petition was therefore presented to the council, February 4, agreeably
to the vote of the town just mentioned. This petition having been read at
the council board, it was ordered that the selectmen of the two towns
should be notified to appear before the board the next Monday, for a
further hearing of the petition, a copy of which should be furnished to
the selectmen of Exeter.

On the day appointed, the 7th, the petition was again read at the council
board, the selectmen of both towns being present, and upon hearing the
parties, it was ordered "that ye lines between Hampton Exeter be seen and
perambulated wthin fourteen days, & yt each town appoint a town meeting
forthwith to choose a Committee to run the said lines, and that Capt.
James Jeffrey be ye surveyr to do yt service & make his return to this
board, ye towns paying his charge." [Prov. Pap. II: 670]

A little more than a year afterward, the views of the town were expressed
by the following vote: "Whereas there is a Committee appointed out of the
respective towns in this province to state the bounds of towns and
parishes within the province, we do declare, that we will not consent to
the settling any other bounds to Hampton, but the ancient bounds settled
and established by a Committee appointed for this purpose by the Honorable
General Court at Boston, in the year 1642, or 1643, which have ever since
been considered as the true bounds."


AURORA BOREALIS

The first appearance of the Northern Lights in New England, on the 11th of
December, 1719, caused considerable alarm, it being regarded by many, as a
precursor of the last judgment. Such was the case in Hampton; but
tradition informs us that one man -- Abraham Cole -- either more
skeptical, or more philosophical, than the others, having retired to rest
before the aurora appeared, on hearing the cry of alarm that was raised,
calmly inquired whether the stars were falling from heaven. On being
answered in the negative, he remarked that there was, then, no ground for
alarm; and he remained quiet in his bed.


MEASURES TO PROTECT THE BEACH

In the spring of 1718, a vote was passed at a meeting of the freeholders,
allowing the inhabitants to build a fence from Dea. Tuck's mill straight
to the mouth of Little river, which then flowed into the sea at that part
of the beach which is now called Plaice Cove. The design in building this
fence was to prevent cattle from running at large on the beach, and
feeding down the beach-grass and other vegetation growing there, which
served the important purpose of presenting the sand from being blown away
so as to expose the land lying back of the beach to inundation from the
sea. Permission was also given to set up a gate and fence across the lane
at the westerly end of the bach causeway, to prevent cattle from going
upon the beach upon that side. These precautionary measures were
important, but, as we shall find hereafter, they were not effectual in
preventing the sea from making inroads upon the land.

At the same meeting of the freeholders, it was voted to impose a fine of
20s. on each and every person who should at any time carry off any drift-
wood from any part of the beach between Little River and Great Boar's
Head, without leave from the selectmen.

By law, in 1718, the town stock of ammunition was "a barrel of good
powder, two hundred weight of bullets and three hundred flints, for every
sixty listed soldiers, and after that proportion, for the listed soldiers
of each town, whether more or less."


THE JENNESS DISPUTE

The measures adopted on several occasions at an earlier period for
preventing encroachments on the commons, by portions of them being fenced
in, and in other ways, having been found ineffectual, the commoners again
met, May 10, 1720, to consider the subject and determine upon some other
course to be taken with the trespassers. They agreed that three men should
be chosen, who, or any two of whom, should prosecute offenders according
to law. They were not, however, to be hasty in commencing prosecutions.
Upon complaint being made, they were to give notice to individuals
complained of, to show their bounds according to the return of the laying
out of their land, and then, if it should appear that a trespass had
really been committed, to prosecute the offenders without delay. The
selectmen for the time being were authorized to draw upon the town clerk,
for money of the commoners deposited with him, to meet expenses incurred
by the committee, in carrying on any suits that might be commenced by
them. In case the money deposited with the town clerk should not be
sufficient to meet their wants, a meeting of the commoners was to be
called, to instruct the committee what further should be done. The men
selected for this purpose were Mr. Nathaniel Weare, Capt. Jabez Dow, and
Lieut. Jonathan Marston. This action of the commoners was nearly
unanimous, only four persons dissenting, viz.: Thomas Marston, Simon Dow,
Richard Jenness and John Jenness.

The principal ground of complaint appears to have been in relation to the
course taken by the two men last named. They lived in the extreme
northeasterly part of the town, near the Piscataqua line and not far from
the seashore, and claimed and had fenced in more land than the commoners
considered them entitled to. That a settlement with them might be made
peaceably, the committee met with them early in the next month, when it
was mutually agreed to submit the case to arbitration; and at a meeting of
the commoners on the 27th of June they ratified the doings of their
committee, and voted to abide by the award of the arbitrators, whatever it
might be.

The arbitrators agreed upon were John Plaisted, George Jaffrey, Joseph
Hammond, Henry Somerby and Joshua Moody. The parties in controversy gave
bonds to each other to abide by their award. After a two days' hearing and
a careful examination of all the evidences, and papers relating to the
premises, they made their award August 31: The said John and Richard
Jenness, and their heirs and assigns were forever to hold unmolested, all
the land that they had fenced in, on the south side of a certain brook
running from Cedar Swamp; and they were to quitclaim all right to any
other land in the North Division, on either side of the brook, than that
which was then fenced in; and all controversies, lawsuits and differences,
relating thereto, were thenceforth to be at an end.

"Memorandum. The Principal Considerations upon wch ye bounds is Confirmed
to Jennis according to ye fence is that it appears to us that Jennises Lot
was laid out in ye year 1675 upon a South Southwest line whereas it ought
to have been on a West Southwest line."

(Signed by all the arbitrators.)


UNAUTHORIZED RETURNS NOT TO BE RECORDED

Towards the close of the year, at a meeting of the proprietors of the
undivided lands known as the cow commons, a vote was passed, forbidding
the town clerk to record any return of land laid out by James Jaffreys, or
any other lot-layer, unless of land which the person making the return had
laid out by order of the proprietors or commoners, and the return accepted
by them. The occasion for this prohibition is not mentioned, but it may be
inferred from the language of the record, though we should hardly have
conjectured that any lot-layer would take the responsibility of laying
out, and making a return of any lot without being duly authorized.
At the same meeting, on the 5th of December, 1720, John Redman, Ephraim
Marston and Capt. Jabez Dow are chosen as a committee "to hear the demand,
proposal, or complaint, of those men that had lost their shares in the
North Division, and to make their report at the next meeting of the
commoners." What was done by this committee does not appear from any entry
on the records; but about fifteen months afterward, at a meeting of the
proprietors of the common lands, it appearing that some persons had said
that they had lost all their land in the First North Division, it was
voted to choose a committee of five men "to take, in behalf of the
commoners, a quitclaim from these men of all their rights in that
Division, so lost, and then to lay out in way of exchange, one third of
the number of acres, which they said that they had lost," if on examining
their claims they should find them to be just.

The committee chosen for this purpose were Capt. Jabez Dow, Dea. Nathaniel
Weare, Capt. Joshua Wingate, Sergt. Ephraim Marston and Christopher Page.
The time allowed them for doing their work was from the 10th of May to the
last day of July following. On the 9th day of July, 1722, the committee
made their report; having laid out about one hundred sixty acres of land
to more than twenty men, in lots varying from two to twenty acres.


THE FIVE DIVISIONS; COMMONERS' MEETINGS

At the last named commoners' meeting, another committee was chosen for a
different purpose, consisting of the following men: Capt. Jabez Dow,
Christopher Page, Simon Marston, Elisha Smith, Dea. Nathaniel Weare,
Benjamin Hilliard, Capt. Joshua Wingate and Joseph Tilton.

A large portion of the land had been laid out and disposed of at an
earlier period, but a considerable quantity, in different parts of the
town, was still held in common by the proprietors. The committee was
appointed to view this common land, and to determine, in case they should
think it expedient to make any division, into how many parts the commons
should be divided, with the understanding that the people of each part of
the town should have their proportion in the part nearest to them. The
committee was instructed to report at an adjournment of the meeting, one
week later.

At the adjournment, the commissioners chose Col. Peter Weare, Dea. John
Tuck, Dea. Nathaniel Weare, Capt. Jabez Dow, Ephraim Marston, Christopher
Page and Capt. Joshua Wingate, a committee "to receive the claims of any
on the commoners' land, and give in their opinion at the next commoners'
meeting" -- said committee to report who have just claims, and who have
not.

The committee appointed to consider the condition of the common lands, and
to recommend what new measures to adopt concerning them, after giving
considerable attention to the subject, agreed upon certain measures, which
were reported to the commoners, and adopted by them, November 5, 1722.
Hitherto, when any business was to be transacted about the commons, it had
been necessary to call a legal meeting of all the commoners. At first,
when they all lived within a moderate distance from the meeting-house,
where their meetings were held, it subjected them to but little
inconvenience; but as the settlement was extended, the commoners were
spread over a much larger territory, some living remote from the center,
so that they could not attend the commoners' meetings without the loss of
considerable time. To obviate this, the committee recommended, that the
town should now be divided into five portions, to be called Divisions ,
and numbered from one to five, beginning on the easterly side of the town.
In general, the ungranted, or common land, lying in each of these
divisions, was to belong to, and be managed by the commoners living in, or
near, the same division. As, however, it was not practicable to make the
divisions in such a way that the quantity of common land in each of them
should exactly correspond with the rights of the commoners living in the
same divisions, it was necessary that some provision should be made to
meet the case.

Accordingly, it was agreed "that the eastermost part of the commoners
should belong to the First Division, until their proportion should take up
all of it, and so successively round the whole town, reserving always
lands for such highways to other lands and grants, as might be thought
convenient and be appointed for that end. In case there should not be land
enough in the Fifth Division to satisfy the claims of the Falls people,
the deficiency was to be made up from a tract of land lying within the
limits of the First and Second Divisions, though not considered as a part
thereof, but as forming a small division by itself. This tract was
situated between Joseph Taylor's and Simon Dow's -- probably including the
southern portion of Black Swamp and of the Twelve Shares, and the whole of
the Plains. If, on the other hand, there should be any common land
remaining in the Fifth Division, after the Falls people had received their
shares, it was to be shared equally by the commoners.

It was also voted, agreeably to the recommendation of the committee, that
the majority of the owners of each division should have power to manage
the affairs thereof as fully as all the commoners could do. If any lawsuit
should be commenced against any of the cow-commoners concerning their
land, the expense should be borne by all the commoners, and the gain or
loss shared among them all in proportion to their interest in the commons.
It was further agreed to reserve sufficient land to satisfy all claims
that the commoners considered just.

The parsonage shares were to be laid out in the first three divisions --
one share in each of them.

A committee was chosen to complete the arrangement by ascertaining who
were the lawful owners of the commons, and assigning to each one his
proportion, -- the committee to be upon oath. They were also authorized to
employ some surveyor not belonging to the town -- Mr. Wade being
preferred. The committee chosen, were: Lieut. Jonathan Marston, Sergt.
Joseph Taylor, Simon Marston, Capt. Joshua Wingett, Lieut. Benjamin
Hilliard.

Soon after the survey of the common lands had been completed, there was a
meeting of the proprietors of the "Five Divisions" (October 26, 1722), at
which they authorized the committee previously appointed for the laying
out of these divisions, to determine the rights of claimants, and "to
settle men in their rights." It was considered important, also, as each
division had been empowered to manage and order its own affairs, that some
rule should be established, to which all the divisions should conform, in
calling their meetings. It was therefore voted that the owners of ten
shares in any division should have power to warn a meeting of the
proprietors of that division, and that all votes passed at such a meeting
should "stand good in all respects," and such votes as the proprietors
should order to be placed upon the Town or the Commoners' Records, should
be entered there by the town clerk -- "they paying ye fee" -- and any
entry thus made, was to be regarded as a good and sufficient record.


"THE CHESTNUT COUNTRY"

This year, the town of Chester was incorporated. With few exceptions, the
grantees were non-residents, more than half of them being of Hampton and
Hampton Falls. As early as October, 1719, "The Society for Settling the
Chestnut Country," composed mostly of Hampton men, began to keep records,
called later, "The Town Book" and "The Duplicate Book," the latter of
which was in custody of Capt. Joshua Wingate, at Hampton, at whose house
many of the proprietors meetings were held. Capt. Henry Sherburne and Dr.
Edmund Toppan were, a few years later, chosen a committee, to compare the
two books, and see that they exactly agreed. In 1720, a grant of the
township was obtained, and in 1722, Chester was given full town
privileges, the grantees gradually selling their rights to settlers.


HIGH TIDE; THE MEADOW POND CREATED

A great storm, attended with a very uncommon tide, was experienced in New
England, on the 24th of February, 1723, an account of which is given by
Dr. Cotton Mather and quoted by Mr. Coffin, in these words: "An unusual
high tide, higher by twenty inches than was ever known before. At the same
time, the sea at Hampton broke over its banks for some miles together, and
continued running for several hours." Dr. Holmes adds, that at Hampton it
"inundated the marshes for many miles." Regarding the date, Dr. Holmes
writes: "He (Mather) probably used the old style, which protracted the
year to 25th March. I have therefore inserted the article under 1724."
[Holmes' Annals, I: 534.] With this opinion, Mr. Drake disagrees, and
says: "I think, had that been the case, Mather would have written 1723-24.
Besides, I find no allusion to the matter in some News-papers consulted,
printed then in Boston. Again, Dr. Mather says it was on 'the Lord's day,'
and Lord's day did not happen on Feb. 24th, 1724, but it does fall on the
24th, of 1723." Had Dr. Drake looked a little farther, he would have found
one contemporary paper, The Boston News-Letter, which contained an account
of the storm. This paper may be seen to-day in the library of the
Massachusetts Historical Society. The communication begins as follows:
"Feb. 25, 1723. Yesterday, being the Lord's Day, the Water flowed over our
Wharffs and into our Streets to a very surprising height. They say the
Tide rose 20 Inches higher than ever was known before. The Storm was very
strong at North-east." The date is therefore conclusively fixed as
February 24, O. S. or, according to present reckoning, March 7, 1723.
The importance of establishing the date will be seen by the results in
Hampton; for the tradition about this wonderful tide and its ravages is
substantially as follows:

Inside of the banks of sand which lay along the shore, and served as
barriers against encroachments of the ocean, was a large tract of low,
swampy land, extending southward from Nut Island, a mile or more. This
tract, known as Huckleberry Flats, was dotted over with hassocks, on which
grew huckleberry bushes and alders. The spaces between the hassocks were
usually wet, though covered with grass, whose numberless roots closely
intertwined, together with grass, whose numberless roots closely
intertwined, together with the grass itself, formed a sort of mat, resting
on the soft mud beneath, on which a man might walk, though the grassy mat
trembled at every step taken. Through this tract flowed a large brook, or
rivulet, called Nilus. [Charles M. Lamprey, Esq., who owns land in this
tract of meadow, has found stumps of trees, deeply embedded in the mud,
furnishing proof that the land was once wooded.]

At the time of the storm, the hassocks, filled with the roots of the
bushes, the spaces between them, with their net-work of grass-roots, and
the mud and water beneath, were firmly frozen to a considerable depth. The
severity of the storm and the extraordinary height of the tide gave such
force to the waves, that they swept away the sandbanks on the shore, and
the whole of the tract described and hundreds of acres of salt-marshes
were inundated. The surging waters soon found a way under the thick, hard-
frozen crust on the flats, and raising and breaking up a large portion of
it, bore the fragments along with the current, over the marshes, til they
found a resting place, or were swept into the ocean.

When the storm had ceased and flood subsided, a large part of the swampy
tract that has been described had become a POND, covering several acres.
Into this pond, the brook Nilus flowed; but southerly of the pond, where
it had run nearer the seashore, passing below the end of the causeway, as
sit now is, and the road to Great Boar's Head, about thirty or forty rods,
and then turning to the west into the marshes, where traces of the "old
river" are still seen, the brook had been filled up with debris, so that
an outlet was made by digging a wide ditch from the pound to the river
below. This outlet is called the Eel-ditch.

About the first of March, a boat with three men and a boy -- their names
not given -- coming from the Piscataqua river to Hampton, was driven off
to sea, and one of the men perished with the cold. The others succeeded in
reaching the land on the third day, running their boat ashore upon our
beach. The boat was lost. Those on board saved their lives, but were all
of them much frozen. [Boston Gazette, March 9, 1724.]


THUNDER STORMS

The year 1727 is noted for its thunder storms and its earthquake. Two
instances of danger to life and yet of escape from injury, by lightning,
are related of Hampton people, by the Rev. Mr. Gookin.

"A little after break of day [April 10], a thunder storm came over this
town. At first the thunder was but low, and seemed to be at a distance;
but all at once came on an amazing clap; the lightning then fell upon the
house of Mr. Edward Shaw. It took off all that part of the chimney which
was above the roof, and broke down all the fore part of the chimney in the
northeast end of the house till it came to the chamber hearth. In the
lower room of that end of the house, where the man's mother [Mrs. Esther
Shaw, 82 years old] and one of her grandchildren lodged, it took a small
table, within four feet of the head of her bed, and carried off the leaf
of it, throwing it towards the bed. It went from thence down into the
cellar, where it moved two hogsheads, which stood near the foundation of
the chimney; one of them, which was full, was turned partly upon its head;
the wooden hoops upon it were all loosened, but the iron hoops were not
moved. In its passage into the cellar, it went through the hearth, where,
after the rubbish was removed, was found a large hole that was made by it;
and in the foundation, a little over one of the hogsheads, was observed a
small hole, where it is probable the lightning had its vent. In the
southwest room of the house, where the man and wife lodged, it entered
into a small cupboard, where it broke divers earthern dishes, but yet the
door of the cupboard was not burst open . . . . . No person in the family
hurt."

"In the afternoon of July 5th we had another thunderstorm: Mr. Samuel
Palmer, Junr (Esquire Palmer) was then riding towards the woods, having
behind him his little son, a child of about seven or eight years old. As
they were travelling along there came a very terrible clap of thunder: the
lightning struck two trees (twelve feet asunder) which were but a hundred
yards before them, and but about fifteen yards on one side of the path in
which they were going; it tore one of the trees all to pieces, and threw
some of the splinters into the path. They were riding a good pace, so that
in less than a minute they would have been up with the place where the
lightning fell, and so would probably have been killed by it. There was as
it were but a step between them and death."

This summer of 1727 was one of extreme heat, which continued many weeks
without rain, so that the fields became dry and parched and "many wells
and springs of water failed that never had before.
. . . . . . In the midst of this sultry heat and in the evening of a very
parching day (August 1), the heavens broke out into a continued blaze of
flame and thunder, horrible to behold and hear, for two hours together.
The flashes of lightning were without intermission, and consequently, the
peal of thunder perpetual in our ears."


EARTHQUAKE OF 1727

This was the second great earthquake since the settlement of New England.
It occurred about half past ten o'clock in the evening. In the afternoon
before, Rev. Nathaniel Gookin, pastor of the old church, preached a
sermon, which, at the request of his people, was published, together with
three other discourses, two of which were occasioned by the earthquake. In
an appendix to the volume containing these sermons, is given "some account
of the earthquake as it was at Hampton." A considerable portion of this
account is transferred to these pages:

"The earthquake, which was felt throughout the country, in the night
between the 29th and 30th of October, 1727, was in this town much as it
was in other places, of which there are divers printed accounts."

"The shake was very hard, and was attended with a terrible noise,
something like thunder. The houses trembled as if they were falling;
divers chimneys were cracked and some had their tops broken off. It was
especially so in the south parish, where the hardest shake seemed to be on
the hill, where the house of God stands. Three houses on that hill had
their chimneys broken, one of which was the house of the Reverend Mr.
Whipple. When the shake was beginning, some persons observed a flash of
light at their windows, and one or two saw streams of light running on the
earth; the flame seemed to them to be of a bluish color . . . . The sea
was observed to roar in an unusual manner. The earth broken open, near the
south bounds of the town and cast up a very fine bluish sand. At the place
of the eruption there now [This account was written Jan. 25, 1728.]
continually issues out considerable quantities of water; and for about a
rod around it, the ground is so soft, that a man can't tread upon it
without throwing brush or some other thing to bear him up. It is indeed in
meadow ground, but before the earthquake, it was not so soft but that men
might freely walk upon it. A spring of water, which had run freely for
fourscore years, and was never known to freeze, was much sunk by the
earthquake, and frozen afterwards like any standing water."

The writer goes on to state, that there were other shocks the same night,
and that the sound and the shake were very perceptible, at times, every
day for a fortnight. Afterward it was heard, but less frequently.

On December 24th, at night, there were two shocks; the first of which was
very loud and jarred the houses. There were also shocks felt the next
month, on the 1st, 6th, and 16th; and on the night of the 24th, there were
two shocks, which made the houses tremble.

"It is hard to express the consternation that fell on both men and beasts,
in the time of the great shock. The brute creatures ran roaring about the
fields, as in the greatest distress; and mankind were as much surprised as
they, and some with very great terror."


RING SWAMP

November 29, 1727, there was a meeting of the proprietors of the Second
Division, which included "Ring Swamp," when that tract was divided into
north and south parts; and these laid out, the north part into eighteen,
and the south into twelve lots, which are severally described. The
descriptions, however, being in part unintelligible now, are of little
interest, except in a few allusions. The "burying-place" and the "ten rod
road" are familiar. "The malt-house quarter acre and a way 1 rd. wide from
the road to the malt-house ground" are mentioned. This ground was probably
an enlargement of the original half a quarter of an acre, granted to
Ephraim Marston fifteen years earlier. Probably the fort had been removed,
as no mention of it is made in this division of the Ring.

The "school-house acre which is 10 rds. wide on the road, running 16 rds.
south, of uniform width," is named. Also, a "common ground behind ye
meeting-house." This ground has, in modern times, been now and then
claimed by the abutters. "Two acres for ye ram pasture," were situated
opposite Mr. Isaac Emery's.

September 29, 1746, it was voted, "that the selectmen should meet at
Ensign Leavitt's on the first Tuesday in November, to sell the ram pasture
to the highest bidder." Thomas Rand bought it; and two years later, it was
voted, to give him £5 old tenor on account of its falling short in
measure.


CHICHESTER

May 20, 1727, the charter of Chichester was granted to sundry persons,
partly at least, of Hampton, whose names do not now appear. The conditions
were that the proprietors, within three years, build sixty houses, clear
three acres of ground, settle families there and pay the town charges. A
meeting-house was to be built within four years, and some minor
stipulations were made.

Sometime after the three years had expired, on May 5, 1731, Joseph Towle,
Thomas Marston and more than ninety others, inhabitants of Hampton,
Petitioned the Legislature for a grant of waste land for a township,
somewhere in the province, suggesting that Chichester had been originally
intended for Hampton, but that its charter had been forfeited by a neglect
to comply with its provisions; and that, on account of the loss of that
township they were now entitled to favor. The proprietors stated that,
having met with more trouble and greater difficulty in running boundaries
and clearing the way to said township than they had anticipated, they had
not been able fully to comply with the conditions of the charter, and
asked for more time; and one year was granted. Among the proprietors at
that time were Nathaniel Weare, Richard Jenness, John Samborne.

February 28, 1733, a committee of the proprietors asked for a further
extension, on the ground that their meeting-house and some dwelling-houses
had been consumed by fire. The numerously signed petition for a grant in
the waste lands seems to have come to naught. Chichester was not settled
til 1758, and then not from Hampton.


COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS

By an act of the General Court in December, 1730, three of the terms of
the courts of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, and Inferior court of
Common Pleas were removed from Portsmouth to Exeter, Hampton and Dover,
where they were to be held in March, June and September respectively.
The next year, in June, a pillory was built in this town by order of His
Majesty's Court of Sessions then sitting here. The whole charge was forty
shillings, which was allowed by the General Court, and paid out of the
treasury. By the laws of the province, several offences were at that time
punishable by sitting in the pillory; and as a term of the courts was now
held at Hampton, this instrument of punishment was needed to facilitate
the execution of such sentence.

The town "voted that ye Corte may beheld in ye meeting-house."


HOGREEVES

March 9, 1731, among town officers chosen, were "Timothy Dalton and
Ezekiel Moulton, to see ye Law executed Concerning yoking and ringing
Hogs;" --hogreeves, in fact -- an office continued year after year, from
early times down into the present century, as long as swine were suffered
to run at large. The ring in the snout prevented the animal from rooting,
and the yoke, of specified dimensions, secured gardens and other
enclosures from mischievous intrusion. Woe to the hapless wight whose
swine were found at large by the vigilant hogreeve, unyoked or unringed! A
fine for each offence was rigidly exacted.

A few years later: -- Voted, "that for the futter if any person shall have
any stray sheep in his or their costidy, and do not cry the same in the
space of fifteen days on the meeting House door shall pay a fine of ten
shillings, one half to him or they that do inform or come plain of such
concealing of sheep, the other half to ye select men for ye use of the
Town."


INVENTORY IN 1732

In 1732, the quantity of land in Hampton, rated as "planting and mowing
land" was 2378 acres; as "pasture land," 2546 acres; the number of "Head,"
257; of houses, two stories high, 142; one story high, 29; oxen, 241;
cows, 486; three year olds, 198; two year olds, 201; one year olds, 277;
horses, 158; swine, 45. The assessment on Dr. Sargent's negro slave was
£12; on Jonathan Elkins' and Capt. Thomas', £20 each; on Dr. Toppan's
slave, £18.

The invoice, from which the above is taken was made by Capt. Jabez Dow and
Samuel Palmer, Jun., who were chosen by the town for that purpose. They
certified the same, April 12, 1732.

In Hampton Falls, which then included all the territory lying on the south
side of Taylor's river, which formerly belonged to Hampton, the number of
polls was 256; of two-story houses, 144; and of one-story houses, 46. The
whole amount of property invoiced, belong to Hampton, was £9974 14s. --
and to Hampton Falls, £9575. Of a province tax of £1014, raised in 1732,
Hampton was required to pay £94 12s. 6d. and Hampton Falls, £90 16s. 3d.
Hence it appears that the two towns formed from what was originally
Hampton, were nearly equal in those respects in which they are here
compared. The province tax paid by both towns was more than one-sixth part
of the whole sum raised in the province.

Once before, in 1724, Capt. Jabez Dow performed a similar service for the
town, when, the council and assembly having ordered an election of
delegates, to meet in Portsmouth on the first Monday in September, to make
a new apportionment of the province tax, he was chosen to represent
Hampton.


TAVERN BURNT AND REBUILT

About the middle of March, 1733, the tavern house of Widow Mary Leavitt,
which stood on the Portsmouth road, near where the house of the late
Samuel G. Carswell now stands, took fire and was entirely destroyed. It
was the Sabbath, and the fire broke out in time of public worship, when
nearly all the people were at meeting, so that for want of help, most of
her goods were lost. A correspondent of the Boston Weekly News Letter,
writing from Hampton the next Friday, March 23, says: "The next day after
the fire, the neighbors got together with eight-score oxen, as we hear, to
draw her timber for a new house, which is now almost framed, and would
have been raised this day, if the storm yesterday had not prevented." The
house which Mrs. Leavitt's neighbors so kindly and so promptly assisted
her in building, a large two-story house, was, many years afterward
removed to another site, and is the one now owned and occupied by the
heirs of David Towle, on the road to Drake Side.


TERRITORY ANNEXED TO RYE

In the autumn of 1730, the families of Joseph Brown, James Fuller, Joseph
Marston, Francis Locke, John Jenness, Richard Jenness and Joseph Philbrick
were, with their estates, severed from Hampton and annexed to Rye. The act
of the General Court was rather loosely drawn, was susceptible of
different constructions, and was, in fact, very differently construed in
the two towns interested. In this town, it was held that it transferred to
Rye, as the estates of those named in the act, only the land on which they
lived and other land of theirs adjoining thereto; while in Rye, it was
construed to include all the lands then owned or that might afterward be
purchased by them, in whatever part of Hampton they might lie; and that,
by the Jennesses and Philbricks mentioned in the act, were intended all
persons in Rye bearing those names; and that all the lands owned by them
belonged to and were taxable in that town.

In consequence of these different constructions of the act, the same
persons and estates were, in some instances, taxed in both towns. In the
month of March, 1738, Benjamin Lamprey, Jun. was actually imprisoned by
the constable of Rye, for refusing to pay certain taxes assessed by that
town, although he lived a considerable distance in upon the second North
Division in Hampton, no part of which division had been included in the
act referred to.

Previous to the imprisonment of Lamprey, the selectmen of this town had
petitioned the governor and the General Court for an explanation of the
act. After more than a year's delay an act was passed, November 16, 1738,
defining the former act, and describing the line between the two towns. By
this explanatory act, the construction of the people of Hampton was
confirmed, without any material variation.

About eighteen hundred acres of land, much of it of good quality, and now
valuable on account of its location, as well as sits fertility, were thus
severed from Hampton -- the tract embracing all the land now included in
Rye lying southerly of Jenness' beach in that town, and a considerable
quantity on the north side of it. The line thus established was a very
irregular or zigzag line, and so it has ever since continued, though
altered somewhat in the course of years.


THROAT DISTEMPER

A new epidemic disease, not limited to any one town nor any small section
of country, made its first appearance in May, 1735, in Kingston. This
epidemic soon became known as the throat distemper, or, throat-ail. It was
often spoken of as the putrid sore throat. Dr. Belknap says of the
disease: "The general description of it was a swelled throat, with white
or ash-colored specks, an efflorescence on the skin, great debility of the
whole system and a strong tendency to putridity." He relates that the
first person seized was a child, who died in three days. About a week
after, in another family at the distance of four miles, three children
were successively attacked who also died on the third day. It continued
spreading gradually, in that township, through the summer, and of the
first forty who had it none recovered. In August it began to make its
appearance at Exeter, six miles northeastward; and in September, at
Boston, fifty miles away southward; though it was October, before it
reached Chester, the nearest settlement on the west of Kingston.

"On its first appearance in Boston, it was supposed to be nothing more
than a common cold; but when the report of the mortality in New Hampshire
was received, and a young man from Exeter, whose brother had died of it,
was seized (October 1735), the house was shut and guarded, and a general
alarm spread through the neighboring towns and colonies. Upon his death,
no infection was observed in the house or neighborhood; but the distemper
appeared in other places, which had no communication with the sick. The
physicians did not take the infection, nor convey it to their families,
nor their other patients. It was therefore concluded that it was not like
the small pox, or the plague, communicable by infection, from the sick or
from clothes; and the physicians, having by desire of the selectmen, held
a consultation, published their opinion, that it proceeded entirely from
'some occult quality in the air.'" [Weekly News Letter, April 29, 1736.]

In Hampton Falls, according to Belknap, twenty families buried all their
children; and more than one-sixth part of the inhabitants died within
thirteen months; while in the whole province, not less than one thousand
fell, of whom above nine hundred were under twenty years of age.

The disease broke out in Hampton in the autumn of 1735, the first victim,
a son of Thomas Brown, dying on the 1st of October; after which, seven
more deaths from the same cause occurred to the close of the year, and
sixty-four during the next year, fourteen of which were in March. The town
then included North Hampton.

The mortality was greatest among children, forty-seven of the deaths,
about two-third of the whole number, being of children under ten years of
age. Of the rest, fourteen were between the ages of ten and twenty; nine,
between twenty and thirty; one, just past thirty; and one, more than
ninety.

By the close of 1736, the scourge had about spent itself, but one or two
case proving fatal the next year.



CHAPTER XI. NORTH HAMPTON, 1719-1742

FIRST PETITION FOR A PARISH

The original settlement around the "meeting-house green" be came, in time,
too limited for the increasing population, which spread out, not always in
close proximity to the old homes, but now and then in isolated spots whose
present condition or future prospects seemed desirable. Such a settlement
grew up in the north part of the town. Naturally, the interests of these
families clustered largely about their own locality. As numbers increased,
the new ties were strengthened, the old ones correspondingly weakened.
Why, they began to ask, should they be at the inconvenience to take the
long way to the old church every Sabbath? Why not have a church and a
pastor of their own?

As early as 1719, therefore, they petitioned the government to form a new
parish in that part of the town. The selectmen also appeared at the
council board, to make their objections. After a hearing on both sides,
the council ordered that the prayer of the petitioners be granted, and
that Mark Hunking, Shadrach Walton, Nicholas Gilman and John Gilman,
Esqrs. be a committee to determine the boundary line between the old
parish and the new.

The committee made their report on the 29th of May, as follows: "That the
said Parish at the north end of Hampton aforesaid, should take its
beginning at the North Tree betwixt Hampton and Portsmouth, and to measure
three miles south from said North Tree, and there to make a bound mark;
and from thence east-south-east, two degrees east down to the sea; and
from said bound mark three miles to the south of said North Tree
aforesaid, west-north-west two degrees west, till they meet Hampton line
which runs betwixt said North Tree and Stratham;" and these lines, when
run out, to be the boundaries of the parish. The project, however, failed
at that time, as sit was not acted upon by House of Representatives, and
no further attempts were made to form a new parish til 1734, a period of
fifteen years. In the meantime, about eighteen hundred acres of this tract
had been annexed to Rye.


OPPOSITION

Not for a moment, did the petitioners abandon their purpose, but a reason
for this long postponement of their hopes seems probable from the next
attempt. It does not appear that any opposition was made at first, in the
proposed parish itself; but in the autumn of 1734, a second petition,
signed by thirty-five persons, was presented to the Legislature, setting
forth the facts in regard to the former petition and the action thereon,
and also stating that they had since erected a meeting-house; and they now
asked that the parish in the north part of the town might be ratified,
confirmed and established, within the limits proposed in 1719, except the
portion that had been annexed to Rye. A remonstrance was also presented,
signed by twenty-six persons living within the limits of the proposed
parish.

On the 9th of October, a day of hearing was appointed, and an order of
notice to Hampton made, by the Council and the House. On the 15th of
October, the petitioners and remonstrants were heard by themselves and
counsel; and the House voted that the petition be dismissed. The project
then slumbered four years longer.

In November, 1738, after the refusal of the town to free the inhabitants
of North Hill from paying their proportion of Rev. Ward Cotton's salary,
[Chapter XXII] they again petitioned the General Court, twenty-eight men
giving their signatures to the paper, representing the difficulties under
which they had labored in attending public worship in the old town of
Hampton, so that they had erected a meeting-house of their own; and
praying that they might have liberty to maintain and support the worship
of God among themselves; and that they, their estates, their polls and the
polls under them, might be excused from paying any of the town rates or
taxes.

The town sent Christopher Page, Senr. and Samuel Palmer to the court, to
remonstrate.


NORTH HILL PARISH

The petition was so far granted, that the North Hill people were
discharged from the ministerial and school taxes of the old town of
Hampton, so long as they should support an orthodox minister, and a
reading and writing school master among themselves; but they were required
to pay their proportion of the grant made by the town to Madam Dorothy
Gookin, and all other town and province charges, ministerial and school
taxes excepted. The act conferred authority to call meetings, choose
officers, assess and collect taxes, and to do whatever might be necessary
for accomplishing the object in view. It was approved by the Governor,
November 17, 1738.

The first meeting of the new parish, under this act, was called by Daniel
Sanborn, and was held at their meeting-house on the 21st of December. John
Dearborn was chosen moderator; John Wedgwood, clerk; Benjamin Hobbs, John
Godfrey and Jonathan Thomas, assessors; Job Chapman, collector; and Daniel
Sanborn and Jeremiah Dearborn were chosen a committee to agree with Mr.
Nathaniel Gookin, to preach in the North Hill meeting-house for three
months.

At a parish meeting, March 20, 1739, having agreed to receive as a member,
Mr. Joseph Dearborn, it was voted to be at the charge according to every
one's ability. when a proper season should present, to have him poll from
Greenland to the society at North Hill.

Mr. Gookin, who had been supplying the pulpit, appears to have closed his
labors at this time. A committee was chosen to settle with him and to
procure a minister for one year; Benjamin Hobbs and Joseph Dearborn were
appointed a committee to ask advice of neighboring clergymen about
settling a minister; £100 were raised to support the ministry and a
school; and Daniel Sanborn was elected schoolmaster for the parish.

The meeting-house, though built several years before, still remained
unfinished. It was now voted to give liberty to certain individuals to
build a flight of stars and to lay the gallery floors at their own cost
and charge. These improvements seem not to have been made at this time,
but at a later period and in a different manner.

May 8, 1739, the society voted to settle a minister within one year.
Preparatory to this, they greed to observe the 24th of May as a day of
fasting and prayer. A committee was chosen to secure the attendance of
five ministers; and another committee of four men, to consult with the
ministers when assembled, to obtain their advice in the choice of a
scholar to settle in the work of the ministry. Of this assemblage, and the
advice given, there is no record. It is evident, however, that the
attention of the people was soon turned towards Mr. Nathaniel Gookin
himself, as a candidate for settlement, and on the 12th of the next month,
negotiations were opened.

The society voted that so long as Mr. Gookin should continue with them in
the work of the ministry, they would give for his support £110 a year for
the first two years, and then add thereto £5 a year until it should amount
to £140, which should thenceforth be his stated salary, but that one-third
of this should be paid in provisions at such prices as should be agreed
upon at the next meeting. They also voted that, if necessity should
require and their ability admit, they would make further additions. Among
the supplies;lies specified, the people agreed annually to furnish a
sufficient quantity of firewood, and procure a convenient parsonage of at
least ten acres of land, and fence the same, and build upon it a suitable
house and barn for Mr. Gookin's use. At an adjourned meeting, June 25th,
it was voted that they should look upon Mr. Gookin as in the work of the
ministry, and so entitled to the salary, though he should be taken from
the public service of the Sabbath by bodily indisposition. The prices of
provisions to be furnished as a part of the salary were fixed as follows:
Indian corn at 7s. per bushel; wheat, 10s. and barley, 6s; beef, 6d. per
pound; port, 8d.

It was agreed at the same meeting, to raise a tax of £19 to defray the
expense of completing two flights of stars in the meeting-house and of
laying the east and south parts of the gallery floors; making the "fore-
seats" around the gallery; and placing six pillars under the girts. A
committee of three was appointed to superintend the work. Mr. Gookin, on
the 28th of July, gave the parish the following answer:

"Brethren;
You having invited me to settle with you in the work of the ministry, I
would certify you that I cannot suppose the salary you offer is sufficient
to support a family. But seeing that, according to your present
circumstances, it is a generous offer, and manifests your good
disposition, honorably to support the gospel ministry among you, I depend
upon it that you will lay out yourselves to the utmost, to keep my family
from want, and will, as your abilities increase, make further additions to
the salary. I accept your invitation, demanding of you, as you will answer
it at the great day, that you give diligent heed to the truths I shall
bring you from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and practice according to them;
also that you be continually earnest at the throne of grace for me, that I
may be a faithful and successful laborer in the Gospel among you.

I am yours to serve in the Gospel of Christ,
Nathl Gookin."

Previous to this time, no church had been formed in connection with the
new parish. Now it appears to have been arranged that a church should be
formed and the pastor inducted into office at the same time. Preparatory
to this, a considerable number of members of the first church, living
within the new parish, asked of the church, September 23d, a dismission,
in order to their being united in a church state at North Hill. [Chap.
XXII] Displeased with the whole proceeding, and probably piqued that the
new parish had been established, notwithstanding their remonstrances, the
church refused. The next month, a second application for dismission was
equally unsuccessful. A council was convened on the 30th of October, when
some communications passed between that body and the old church, which,
however, still adhered to its former votes. The council then proceeded to
organize a church and ordain the candidates without the concurrence of the
old church. These transactions were on the 31st of October.

The next onward step for the new parish followed as a natural sequence.
They had now grown strong and able to conduct their own affairs; and they
aspired to the full privileges of a township. Accordingly, in the summer
of 1742, a petition to the effect was presented to the General Court.
Opposition by the people of Hampton had now largely given way; and the
freeholders chose two of their number "to appeare at ye General Court at
there next setting in ye behalfe of ye Town to answare in ye affaire of ye
pititioners of north hill. That we are willing that those parsons ye
pititioners which are desirous to belong to the parish at North hill
should with their Estates belong there." The parish itself, however, was
not unanimous; for, while the case was pending, a counter petition, signed
by forty-seven persons was presented, "agst the Return for a Line &c. & yt
if ye Line be settled yt they may be Pol'd off to the old Town." Five days
later, November 25, the following petition was also presented: [Prov. Pap.
IX: 359.]

"The Humble petition of us the Subscribers Most Humbly sheweth -- that the
houses and habitations of your petitioners are in the northeastly part of
the town of Hampton at or near Littel Bores Head near Lettel River or near
the Sea and that we live most as near upon a Line to the meeting house at
the town as to that at North hill and that it is much easier for us to go
to Meeting at the town than to North Hill by reason of the Goodness of the
way to the town and there not being any way for us to go to meeting at
north hill nor ever like to be unless we travil much farther than to go to
the meeting house at the town.

Your petitioners Humbly pray that your Excellency and Honours would be
pleased to take this petition into consideration and in your grate
Goodness exempt us from paying to the support of the ministry at North
hill and that we may still remain -- and be taxed to the support of the
ministry and the other Publick charges of the town as we used to be and
your pititioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.

John Batchelder
Mosies(*) Lampre
Thomas Hains
Obadiah Marston
Jeremiah Page
Stephen Brown"
(* Probably should be Mories (Morris))


THE TOWN OF NORTH HAMPTON

Both adverse petitions were dismissed, and immediately after, November 26,
in the House, the "North Hill bill [was] read three times and past to be
Enacted." On the 30th, it passed the assembly and was approved by the
governor; and North Hill became thenceforth the town of North Hampton,
under the following act: [Prov. Pap. V: 174.]

"Voted, That there be a Line settled, viz: Beginning at a large Rock in
the Highway that leads from Portsmouth to Hampton over North Hill, Between
the dwelling houses of Caleb Marston & Joseph Tole jun, & is the first
great Rock in the Highway to the Southward of ye widow Levitt's dwelling
house & from sd Great Rock to run on a Strait line to the sea at the mouth
of ye little River where it now Empties itself into the Sea & yn to begin
at the aforesaid great Rock & from thence to run on a strait Line to the
lower Bounds Between Stratham & Exeter as Hampton line, that the Estates
in the old Parish that belongs to the Poles in ye North Parrish shall pay
Rates to the anew Parrish and the Estates belonging to the Poles of e old
P'ish that lies in ye North P'ish shall pay Rates to ye old P'ish, and
where ever the owner of the land lives there he & his Estate shall pay
notwithstanding ye Line settled, & if any stranger purchase the Land in
either of the P'ishes he shall pay where the Land lies. It always intended
yt every p'son in each P'ish pay the grant to Mrs. Dorothy [Gookin] as
usual by ye whole Town, & yt ye Rates for ye present yeare be pd as they
are ready made, & yt ye selectmen in each P'ish join in making Pro: Rates
as also ye both P'ishes joyn in choice of the present till further order."

Complications resulting in lawsuits grew out of these conditions in later
years.

Hampton had now yielded from her territory three townships and part of a
fourth, and had shrunk to essentially her present proportions; --
Kingston, including also East Kingston, Hawke (now Danville) and Sandown,
[Only a small part of Sandown, however.] in 1694; Hampton Falls, including
Kensington and part of Seabrook, in 1718; a large tract annexed to Rye, in
1730, and North Hampton, in 1742.

What wonder that the old town sometimes parted reluctantly with her people
and her lands! There is a pathos in this rending of ties, scarcely
understood by us, who have passed beyond the period of royal edict and
savage onslaught and the hard toil of pioneer life. But hearts beat warmly
between town and town, and many a lover crossed the boundaries for his
bride. Solidly those sturdy men and women stood against common dangers and
hardships, and worthily they strove to plant the seeds of our prosperity.



CHAPTER XII. REGULATIONS - LAWSUITS - CASUALTIES, 1733-1780

FIRST TOWN TREASURER

At the annual town-meeting in 1747, Samuel Dow was elected town
treasurer -- the first, as far as appears from the records, ever chosen by
the town.

It was voted that all money due to the town by bond, or in any other way,
except the taxes assessed by the selectmen, and also the powder money,
should be delivered into the hands of the treasurer, as it might from time
to time be paid in; and he was authorized to loan the same at his
discretion. For whatever sums he received he was expected to give a
receipt, but no bond for the faithful performance of duty appears to have
been required.

Voted: "The money the powder was sold for shall be laid out for powder
again for the town stock, by Capt. Jonathan Marston."

It was also voted, though not without opposition, to see by public auction
the house and barn, that the town had several years before built for Madam
Gookin, [Chap. XX.] who was now living with her daughter at Kingston.
Subsequently (March 23), Philip Towle, Henry Fifield and Amos Towle were
authorized to see the buildings and one acre of land around them, and make
a conveyance thereof in behalf of the town. The property was sold to Mr.
Thomas Rand, and the proceeds divided with North Hampton. The town
afterward ordered that £100 should be delivered to the selectmen towards
paying the expenses of the town, so that the taxes of the next year might
be diminished. Madam Gookin died the next year, and her funeral charges
were paid from the remaining portion, the residue being passed into the
treasury.


FIRST DIVISION APPORTIONED

It has already been mentioned that the town allowed a fence to be built
straight from Deacon Tuck's mill to the mouth of Little river, where it
formerly flowed into the sea, to protect the beach against cattle feeding
upon it. When the Five Divisions were established, in 1722, this portion
of the common land came into the First Division. At a meeting of the
proprietors of that Division, November 29, 1733, it was proposed to
dispose of a tract of muddy ground or flats, sometimes called "The
Huckleberry Flats," lying on the south side of the line of the fence
between the fresh meadow and the beach, for the purpose of building and
maintaining a fence, agreeably to the order of the town. It was planned to
divide the whole tract into twelve lots to be assigned and secured to any
who would engage to build and keep in repair a fence on this line.
Eighteen men pledged themselves, and in 1738, gave bonds to do this, six
of them to build one-twelfth of the fence each, and the other twelve to
build one twenty-fourth part each.

"Great bodies move slowly." This tract, since known as The Plantation, was
laid out July 13, 1747, by a committee consisting of Christopher Page,
Sen., Dea. Josiah Moulton and Simon Dow, with Samuel Palmer as surveyor;
and their return was accepted by the proprietors. The same day, these lots
were drawn for by the men who had nine years before given bonds to keep up
the fence. The result was as follows, where the numbers of the lots are
followed by the names of those to whom they fell:

No. 1 Samuel Palmer, Junr.
No. 2 Heirs of Amos Knowles, deceased.
No. 3 Christopher Page & James Hobbs.
No. 4 Thomas Brown.
No. 5 William Moulton.
No. 6 Simon Dow & Stephen Batchelder.
No. 7 Joseph Rollins & Joseph Redman.
No. 8 John Batchelder.
No. 9 Jeremiah & Elisha Marston.
No.10 Dea. Josiah Moulton & Morris Hobbs.
No.11 Joseph Batchelder.
No.12 Benjamin Lamprey.

This tract of land is described by the committee in their return, as lying
southward of the line from Deacon Tuck's mill and the mouth of Little
river, between said line and the northerly line of John Dearborn's grant
in the old fresh meadow near the beach, and between the pon or river in
said fresh meadow and Philbrick's Island and the beach. In laying out the
land, they proceeded in the following manner: Beginning at the northwest
corner of Dearborn's grant at the side of the pond, t hey measured
eastwardly on the northerly side of said grant, thirty-one rods to a stake
standing at the northeast corner of the grant, "and from said stake [on] a
straight line, running north fifty-six degrees east, over a large rock on
the westerly side, on the upland on the island sometimes called Nut
Island, in the range of John Batchelder's house at Little Boar's Head,
until it comes to the aforesaid line from Tuck's mill to Little River's
mouth."

Before the lots were drawn for, it was voted, that "no person should, on
any account whatsoever, cut any grass or anything growing between the line
forming the eastern abutments of the lots, and the beach," without the
consent of the majority of the proprietors.

Although Huckleberry Flats was a small tract of land, and not of great
value, yet nearly fourteen years elapsed from the time when the first
movement was made for laying it out, before the business was finished. In
the meantime, however, the proprietors of the First Division had caused
all the rest of their common land to be surveyed and laid out, and
assigned by lot to the proprietors.

In the spring of 1748, William Moulton, Philip Towle and Moses Perkins
were chosen a committee, to take charge of the town's stock of snow-shoes
and moccasins, and dispose of them as advantageously as possible for the
town, giving one pair of the snow-shoes, however, to Elisha Johnson.


THE LITTLE SHARES

The proprietors of the Ox Common, most of which was finally divided in
1714, continued to regulate their affairs as to fencing, sweepage and
feedage much as before. October 31, 1749, it was voted: "That all the
undivided marsh between the pines, so called, and the River's mouth, shall
be laid out."

"That all the flats and beach grass to the southward from the pines, so
called, to the River's mouth, belonging to the ox-commoners, shall be laid
out within ten rods of the sea bank."

"That is the sea bank should extend further westward, the shares shall
draw back and keep the same distance above-mentioned."

"That Dea. Josiah Moulton, Dea. Joseph Philbrick and Benjamin Dow shall be
a committee to lay out the above-mentioned marsh, flats and beach grass."

At an adjourned meeting, November 14, 1749, the report of the committee
was accepted, and the shares divided "by the last list, when the shares
were drawed forever." This was the origin of what are still known as the
"Little Shares."

At the annual town meeting, March 12, 1751, Jabez Smith, Esq., Dea.
Jonathan Tuck and Mr. William Stanford were chosen "to examine into the
accounts of the town treasurer and committees and selectmen for the year
past, and make report to the town." This appears to have been the first
board of auditors.


BROWN AND SHAW CLAIMS AT THE NEW PLANTATION

Before the close of 1751, the town had become involved in lawsuits growing
out of grants of land, that had many years before been made at the New
Plantation. Jonathan Shaw was appointed town agent, and with him was
associated John Nay, to manager such suits as were then pending. Soon
afterwards, however, Mr. John Smith was appointed agent, with full powers,
to defend an action commenced against the town by Benjamin Brown, of South
Hampton, and his wife Abigail (Longfellow) Brown. Subsequently, at Mr.
Smith's request, Mr. Philip Towle was joined with him as an agent in this
case.

Another suit was brought against the inhabitants in the right of one
Benjamin Shaw, deceased, to recover damages for not laying out a tract of
land alleged to have been granted to him within the tract called and known
as the New Plantation. The inhabitants being apprehensive that other
actions might be brought in the same way, but yet believing that there was
no just ground for sustaining them, determined to have the subject
thoroughly investigated. In January, 1753, therefore, they chose a
committee to consider what defense might be made in all case of claims
"against the inhabitants of that which was called Hampton at the time when
such grants are said to have been made." For this purpose the committee
were to ascertain what grants, rights titles, interest or property in
lands had heretofore been made by the town, to any, in satisfaction for
grants at the New Plantation. The committee chosen consisted of Samuel
Palmer, Esq., Dr. John Weeks and Capt. Ephraim Marston; and the town gave
them full power to act according to their discretion, either alone, or in
conjunction with any other committee, or committees, that might be chosen
by any other legally incorporated parishes or parts of what at an earlier
period constituted the town of Hampton. They were also directed "to
pursue, prosecute and carry into execution any and all such measures as
they should agree in considering necessary for the defense of the
inhabitants."

As in this case the cooperation of the inhabitants of the other parishes
would be important, the committee now chosen, sought to obtain it by
making to them a statement of the case. The following letter was addressed
to the selectmen of Hampton Falls:

GENTLEMEN:

As you have doubtless heard that a claim founded on the supposed Rights of
land in that [tract] called in Hampton the New Plantation, has been
revived and prosecuted against the Inhabitants of what is now called the
town of Hampton, and as you are sensible the Grant, or what is supposed to
be a Grant of Land to those mentioned in the Records relating to that
matter, was made by the town as it was in the year 1663, and in that view
is a thing of considerable consequence to all those Estates comprehended
within those limits, which, if any thing is recovered, must be finally
liable to make it good, we can't but judge it prudent for us all to advise
and consider what measures to take to answer any such claims, we therefor
request you to insert a clause in your warrant for calling the next parish
meeting, to choose a committee of three or more of your ablest men
(especially as you have some ancient men among you who are acquainted with
and knowing of what was formerly done in this matter) to advise with our
committee, and resolve upon the best means they are capable of for the
general safety herein.

We are, &c.
Hampton, February 8, 1753.
Samuel Palmer,
Ephraim Marston, Committee
John Weeks.

A copy of the above letter was found among files of town papers some years
ago, and no answer from the selectmen of Hampton Falls was filed with it,
or has since been found, so that it is uncertain what was the result.

Following the usual course of lawsuits these cases dragged their slow
length along, as will be seen farther on.


SECOND APPEARANCE OF THE THROAT DISTEMPER

In 1754, the town was again visited by the malignant throat distemper, the
same disease that had made such fearful ravages eighteen years before.
Whatever hopes may have been at first entertained, it soon appeared that
the disease had lost none of its virulence. Two cases in which it proved
fatal had occurred in the preceding autumn, and a few others in the
spring; but it was not till the month of June, that it excited much alarm.
At that time it attacked several members of the family of Mr. Elisha
Towle, and three of his children between three and seven years of age died
in the course of five days, the first on the third, and the last on the
seventh day of the month.

Mr. Amos Towle, a cousin of Elisha, having lost a daughter by this
disease, a few months before, now became very much alarmed, lest he
himself should fall a victim to it; and in order to avoid all contact with
it, he shut himself up in his own house. But it was of no avail. The dread
disease again entered his dwelling, and on the 13th of July, one of his
children -- a son nearly ten years old -- died. Mr. Towle himself died
three days afterward. Deaths now occurred in rapid succession. Before the
middle of October, that is, in less than four months and a half, thirty-
two persons had died. After that time only five cases proved fatal til the
next May; but during that month six others fell; so that there were forty-
three deaths from this disease alone, and with fourteen from other causes,
the alarming total swelled to fifty-seven-seven in the space of twelve
months.


EARTHQUAKE OF 1755

On Tuesday, November 18, 1755, occurred the third great earthquake felt in
New England since its first settlement. This has been considered more
violent than either of the others. It occurred "in the morning about an
hour and a half before day." "The weather was remarkably serene, the sky
clear, the moon shone bright, and a solemn stillness pervaded all nature
at the time it commenced." The shaking of the earth was so great that
several chimneys in this town were thrown down. The agitation was as
perceptible on the sea as on the land. The shock was so severely felt on
the vessels in Portsmouth harbor, the men on board thought they had struck
on the rocks. The earthquake occurring at an hour when the mass of the
people were asleep, many of them being suddenly awakened, were very much
terrified, not immediately perceiving the cause of the commotion. The
older people, however, had not forgotten the earthquake of 1727, and now,
as on that occasion, they recognized the hand of God in the occurrence.
Two days afterward a meeting was held in Hampton, at which the pastor of
the church preached from Psalm CXIX: 120."My flesh trembleth for fear of
thee and I am afraid of thy judgments."

Shocks were frequently felt during the next fortnight. The most
considerable one occurred in the evening of Saturday of the same week,
about half-past eight o'clock. One who experienced it, calls sit "a very
great shock." He says: "Our house trembled very much. To our surprise it
was cloudy and rainy all night long."

About two weeks after the first shock, the people of this town observed a
day of fasting and prayer, "occasioned by the terrible earthquake and the
war, [French and Indian war] by which God is seeming to frown upon us by
the aspects of these judgments which we see and hear." Sermons were
preached by Rev. Joseph Whipple of Hampton Falls, and Rev. Jeremiah Fogg,
of Kensington, the former from the first clause in Jeremiah II:22, and the
latter from Amos III:4-8.


NEW PLANTATION LAWSUITS SETTLED

Early in the year 1756, Nehemiah Brown, of Kensington, and Anne his wife
made a claim in her right to one hundred acres of land, said to have been
originally granted by the inhabitants of Hampton to the right of Thomas
Ward, to be laid out and satisfied on some part of the common land in the
town not previously laid out and appropriated to any private or particular
use. The right, it was claimed, had been vested in Nathan Longfellow, late
of Hampton Falls, and by him bequeathed to his daughter Anne, the present
claimant, who now with her husband demanded that the quantity of land
claimed should b laid out to them. A writ was served on the inhabitants by
the sheriff and the damaged laid at £1500.

This case was similar to others previously brought against the inhabitants
for not laying out land at the New Plantation, according to certain grants
made in 1663. The principal ground of defense seems to have been, that by
the act of the government, incorporating the town of Kingston in 1694, the
town of Hampton had been precluded from making good these grants, as a
considerable portion of the New Plantation, lying within the limits of the
new town, had been thus put beyond their control.

On this occasion, they held a meeting, February 16, and appointed Col.
John Weeks and Mr. Philip Towle as their agents, with full powers to
manage the case in their behalf. The same men were also empowered to act
as agents in any other suit or suits that might be brought against the
inhabitants and freeholders, with like powers as in this case, and to do
any other matter and thing, that they might judge proper in the premises,
and also to confer and join with any committees chosen by any of the
parishes formerly included in the town of Hampton. The suit of Brown and
wife was entered at the Inferior Court of Common Pleas, where it was
expected to come to trial in June.

At the next annual town meeting, March 15, 1757, the selectmen of the last
year were authorized to settle accounts with the three agents, Col. Weeks,
Philip Towle and John Smith, about all the cases brought against the town
by Jonathan Longfellow, who was the attorney in the several suits in
satisfaction for early grants at the New Plantation.


CAST UP BY THE SEA

"A large whale, 40 or 50 feet in length, having 3 irons in her, drove on
shore at Hampton" about the first of November.

The wreck of a Hampton-built vessel occurred, which is thus announced in
the New Hampshire Gazette of December 13, 1756: -- "Last Monday Night
between 8 and 9 o'clock, a new Ship belonging to this place [Portsmouth],
was cast away upon Ragged Neck [in Rye] in coming round from Hampton,
where she was built. She is so bilged and broken, that there are no hopes
of getting her off again."

In 1758, another shipwreck occurred, the only account of which that now
remains, as far as can be ascertained, being this item from the New
Hampshire Gazette of February 24:

"Mr. [Wm] Long sailed from Lisbon in a Brig, bound to Marblehead, and
yesterday sennight was cast away on Hampton Beach. Her cargo which is salt
is entirely lost; but it is hoped the Brig will be got off again. The men
were all very much frozen."


SMALL-POX

In the spring of 1758 a few cases of small-pox occurred in the town. It
was brought by an Irish woman, who came into the family of Mr. Joseph
Redman, and died there on the first day of May. The disease was
communicated to the family, and Mr. Redman and his wife both died; the
latter, on the fourth of May, and the former, on the fourth of June.

In the meantime the infection had been communicated by Dr. Emery, the
attending physician, to his own family. The selectmen now thought it best
to provide a pest-house, agreeably to the provisions of the law. They
accordingly impressed dwelling houses of Samuel Palmer, Esq., and Jeremiah
Moulton -- standing near each other -- and appropriated them to this use.
The next day the family of Dr. Emery were removed thither. His wife and
daughter and one of his sons, then, or soon after, had the disease, but
they all recovered, and the infection spread no farther. The houses were
not cleansed, so as to be again occupied by the owners, till the thirtieth
of June -- having been used as pest-houses seven weeks.

The owners of these houses demanded of the selectmen £250 each, old tenor,
as damages. As payment was refused or delayed, Mr. Moulton sued the town
the next February for £270; but as the records furnish no evidence that
such a suit was carried on, it is probable that a settlement was effected
between the parties.

A suit had also been commenced by the town against Dr. Emery, for the cost
and charges occasioned by removing his family to the pest-houses, and
providing for them while they were there. This was done agreeably to a
vote of the town, to which, however, there had been considerable
opposition. Capt. Jonathan Moulton and Col. John Weeks were chosen agents
for the town, and clothed with ample powers for carrying on the suit. The
case came to trial and was decided in favor of the defendant.

Many of the inhabitants now wished for a settlement of the controversy,
and the selectmen were requested to call a town meeting to consider the
subject, but they refused. A meeting was then called by Jabez Smith and
Meshech Weare, Esqrs. two Justices of the Peace, at the request of thirty
or more of the freeholders and inhabitants. This meeting wholly failed of
accomplishing the object aimed at. Every motion made for this purpose was
negatived. The next day the selectmen posted a warrant for another meeting
to consider the subject.

This meeting was held March 15, one week after the other. No disposition
was manifested by the majority, to settle the suit as the court decided;
and at another meeting five days after, the town voted to have the case
reviewed, and chose Thomas Nudd to join with the former agents in its
management. It is probable, however, that a different course was taken and
that the case was settled without a review.

The dread of small pox was much greater at that time than it is at
present. The proper treatment of the disease was not so well understood,
and on this account a much larger proportion of the cases which occurred
proved fatal. Vaccination has also done much towards removing this dread,
by acting as a preventive in most cases, and by mitigating the severity of
the disease, when contracted.

In the instance here cited, such was the feeling in relation to it, that
the meetings on the Sabbath for several weeks were not held at the meeting-
house, which was in the vicinity of Dr. Emery's residence, but at private
houses. Public worship was not resumed at the meeting-house till the 27th
of August, when the pastor preached from the 84th Psalm, beginning thus:
"How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of Hosts!"

In the spring of 1760, it was proposed in town meeting, to seel a part of
the ten-rod road round the Ring, thus diminishing the width of the road.
The proposition met with but little favor. The town not only refused to
sell any part of the road, but voted also "to dismiss that affair and
never to act upon it more."

At the same meeting, it was left with the selectmen to let out two-thirds
of the school house acre for eight or ten years.


"THE STAGE IS COMING"

The first stage ever run in America, as is supposed, began its regular
trips from Portsmouth to Boston and return, passing through Hampton,
Monday, April 20, 1761. It was a curricle and span with room for three
passengers. It made Ipswich the first day, Charlestown ferry the next, and
was back in Portsmouth on Friday. Fare for the round trip, six dollars.
A crowd of children assuredly gathered about Toppan's corner, each eager
to be the first to shout "The stage is coming." Women rushed to the doors
and windows along the route, and many a man took a long gaze from his work
in the fields. In these days of easy travel, one can scarcely realize how
great an event it was.

At the annual town meeting in 1761, it was voted that pasture and woodland
should be "rated" that year. Before that time no taxes appear to have been
assessed on such land.

Samuel Palmer, Esq., was allowed £130, old tenor, "for all his trouble in
letting out the Town's money for ten or eleven years past." Dea. Joshua
Lane was allowed £10 for similar service.

Two years afterward, the selectmen were directed to see the town's stock
of powder, balls and flints, and to put the powder at £3 per pound.

In 1764, the town made provision for rebuilding the bridge over the river
on the road to Hampton Falls, which was to be wharfed up with timber from
the parsonage land, -- the work to be done under the direction of the
selectmen.


THE MAST-SHIP

For a long series of years even till the Revolution, the sovereigns of
England claimed exclusive right to every white pine tree in New Hampshire
and elsewhere, fit for a mast for the service of the royal navy. Such
trees, growing outside the townships granted before the 21st of September,
1722, were branded with the "broad arrow," and no man might dare cut them
down, even on his own land, under heavy penalty. Large ships brought to
our shores goods we were forbidden to provide for ourselves, and carried
away cargoes of our best pines. What wonder then, that, as the exactions
of England grew more and more rigorous, a "mast ship" became a hated
object!

Such a ship, with a valuable cargo, was wrecked on Hampton beach on the
night of November 30, 1764, not, it is believed, on account of rough
weather, but owing to the pilot's ignorance of the coast. The ship drove
on to the sands a little to the south of the present line of fish-houses
on the north beach, whence the crew, without much difficulty, go ashore.
The pilot, Capt. Willliam Branscomb, afterward settled in this town, and
became the third husband of Prudence Page (nicknamed "Old Prue").

The disaster of November 30, was announced in the next issue of the New
Hampshire Gazette as follows:

"Portsmo, Dec. 7, 1764. -- Last Friday Night, the Mast Ship, St. George,
Capt. Mailard, bound from Boston for this Port, was cast away off Hampton.
She had Goods on board to the value of about Ten Thousand Pounds Sterling
belonging to sundry Merchants here; great part of which are much damaged.
The Men's Lives were saved, but the Hull of the vessel will be entirely
lost."

The master of the vessel hastened to Portsmouth, to report to the Court of
Admiralty. Meanwhile, so exciting an event as a shipwreck on their shore
attracted large numbers of people to the spot. Some of these, either
through ignorance or avarice, appropriated and carried away goods found
strewn upon the beach. As soon as possible, therefore, keepers were
appointed, viz.: Col. Christopher Toppan and Col. (afterwards Gen.)
Jonathan Moulton.

On the 20th of December, The Court of Admiralty issued the following:

"Province of New Hampshire.

Pursuant to a Decree of said Court, the Goods saved out of the wreck of
the St. George Mast Ship will be exposed to sale by Auction on Thursday,
the 27th Instant at the stores of Samuel Maffatt and John Sherburne,
Merchants in Portsmouth; And the Hull of said Ship, stores, Rigging,
Anchors, and other Goods (which cannot now be transported), at Hampton, at
the store of Jonathan Moulton Esq. -- on Tuesday following. -- The Goods
at the Respective Places to be seen the day before the Sale, where
Attendance will be given for that Purpose.

Per curiam, John Sherburne, D. Rec."

The above decree, while it shows that all that could be saved from the
wreck was secured within a month from th time of the disaster, gives no
hint of the difficulties encountered. Many looked with envy and malice
upon Colonels Moulton and Toppan, claiming that they had no more right
than others to carry off the goods, and that they were enriching
themselves on false pretences. A riot ensured, as is shown by the
following order issued by the governor a month later:

"Province of} By his excellency Benning Wentworth, Esq., Capt.
New Hamp.} Generall, governor & commander-in-chief in and over the
Province aforesaid: --

To the Honble Meshech Weare, Esq., Coll of the Third Regiment of Militia
in sd Province or to the Lieut. colo or Major thereof: --

Whereas it has been represented unto me by his majesty's Attorney general
& by the High Sheriff that some ill disposed persons having purloined
sundry goods from the Lading of a ship lately stranded on Hampton Beach in
this Province while the ship & cargo was under the direction of & in the
custody of the admiralty court; & warrants being issued for the
apprehending sundry persons supposed to be guilty of the said Breach of
the Law, who being apprehended for the same & in custody of the officer,
when as is further suggested, the prisoners were by a number of evil-
minded persons in a violent, riotous & tumultuous manner & being
disguised, did assault the officer & him beat, wound & evilly entreat &
did release the sd prisoners & let them go at large whereby they made
their escape & that since the abovesd action (which was on the 28th day of
this inst) a great number of the inhabitants of the sd town of Hampton
have in a riotous, roysterous & tumultuous manner assembled, & being armed
with clubs & staves, have menaced & threatened the officer & bid defiance
to all lawful authority, & tho his Majesty's Proclamation agreeably to the
law of the Province has been read to them, they still repeat their
unlawful assembly to the great Terror of his majesty's good subjects, &
the Sheriff of the Province having supplicated the aid & assistance of a
suitable number of the militia with proper officers might be ordered to
attend him in the execution of such precepts as he might receive from the
civil authority to disperse & apprehend the offenders & bring the authors
and abettors to justice, being apprehensive he shall meet too great
opposition in the execution of his office without the assistance & aid of
the Posse, which being lawful and at this time necessary:

You are therefore respectively impowered & directed upon the application
of the High Sheriff or his deputy, to detail as many men under arms out of
your Regiment under the direction & command of an officer, as may be
necessary to assist the sd Sheriff & his deputy in the execution of any
lawful precept that may be directed to him to separate the said rioters &
to apprehend the authors and abettors of the aforesaid violet & illegal
practices, that they may be dealt with as to law & justice doth appertain,
& for which is your authority.

Given at Portsmouth in the Province aforesd this 29th day of January in
the 5th year of his Majesty's reign annoque Domini, 1765.

B. Wentworth."

Though the meaning of the above order is clear, a grammatical analysis
would be difficult.

While Colonel Toppan was at the beach, engaged in unloading the mast ship,
one of his vessels, a brig from the West Indies, appeared off the coast,
passing along inside of the Isles of Shoals and so near the main land as
to be easily recognized as his own vessel. The next day, he went to
Portsmouth expecting to find her in port, but was disappointed. He
afterward learned that the brig had been spoken some days before, and that
the crew were badly frozen. In the evening after she was seen off our
coast, the wind veered to the northwest and blew with great violence. It
was supposed that the crew, in their suffering condition, were unable to
manage the vessel, and that she was blown off and lost, with all on board.
The supercargo was Benjamin Hobbs of North Hampton, a graduate of Harvard
College.

Near the close of the summer of 1768, a large schooner owned by
Christopher Toppan, Esq., sailed from Hampton, bound on a fishing voyage
to the Grand Bank, having eight men on board. The vessel was lost, and
here captain with all his crew perished. Benjamin Randall, the captain,
belonged at Rye; the crew at Hampton.


THE GRAY RAT

Dr. Belknap says: "The town of Hampton, though adjoining the sea, and one
of the earliest settlements in New Hampshire, had no gray rats till the
year 1764, when an English mast-ship was wrecked on the beach." This is
not entirely correct. The gray rat was introduced here from a vessel
wrecked on our beach near Great Boar's Head sometime before the mast-ship
came ashore.


CONSTABLES

Any person chosen for constable was by law required to accept the office
and perform the duties (unless he were excused by the town), or be
subjected to a fine of £20, old tenor. Such were the duties to be
performed by constables, -- or perhaps so meager their pay -- that there
was a general reluctance among the people to holding the office. On one
occasion, after it had been voted to have two constables for the ensuring
year, five men were chosen in succession, and each of them refused to
serve, and paid his fine. At an adjourned meeting two weeks afterward, it
was voted to choose one constable for the whole town and to give him the
£100 fine money received from those men who had refused to serve. Jeremiah
Dow was then chosen constable, and he procured his brother Simon Dow as
his substitute, and the town accepted him for the office.

Several years later, the town tried the experiment of setting up this
office by vendue to the lowest bidder. In this way it became known who
would accept the office, and on what terms. The town then went through the
formality of electing a constable by vote. This was the customary course
for many years, though in the opinion of some of the voters, its legality
was questionable.


COLONEL MOULTON'S BUILDINGS BURNED

On the 15th of March, 1769, town-meeting day, occurred the most
destructive fire with which the town had ever been visited. The following
account of it is taken from the Boston Chronicle of March 20, where it
appeared as a communication from Portsmouth, under date of March 17.

"Last Wednesday morning, about 4 o'clock, the large mansion of Col.
Jonathan Moulton of Hampton, together with two stores contiguous, was
wholly consumed by fire. This melancholy accident, it is supposed, was
occasioned by a beam taking fire under the hearth in his parlor. The
flames had got to so great a height before the discovery, that it was with
great difficulty the family escaped with their lives. Col. Moulton saved
no other clothing than a cloak, & a gentleman who happened occasionally to
lodge at the Colonel's was obliged to jump out of the chamber window. When
he was first called upon he did not know the occasion and had put on most
of his clothes before the smoke apprised him of his danger. There were
between 15 & 20 souls in his house, who through the good providence of
God, were all saved unhurt. All the furniture, which was very good and
valuable, was wholly consumed, but the shop-goods, books, bonds, notes and
other papers, which were in the stores, were happily saved. The loss is
estimated at £3000 sterling."

Colonel Moulton subsequently built the large mansion house now owned by
Mrs. Elizabeth F. Mace, locating it about forty rods farther south than
the one destroyed. The old road leading to "Drake side," left the "main
country road" near the former house. After the erection of the new house
Colonel Moulton opened from it a new road through his own land to meet the
Drake side road -- probably a little beyond where the Eastern Railroad now
crosses the highway. Some of the inhabitants, wishing to have this new way
made a public road, caused an article to be put into the warrant for a
town meeting, April 8, 1771, to see whether the town would exchange with
Colonel Moulton, the old road for the new. At that meeting the selectmen
were authorized to "lay out said new road," and to "shut up and give to
said Moulton the old road in lieu of the new one .... in case said Moulton
shall give his obligation always to give free liberty for the inhabitants
of said town to pass and repass with their cattle and sleds through said
Moulton's land where the old road leads from the country road to Drake
side road, or nigh by it, during the winter season while there is
sufficient snow for sledding." The selectmen accordingly laid out the road
and made their return to the town clerk on the 19th of the same month.

The Journal of the House of Representatives, under date, April 3, 1771,
contains the entry: Colo Jona Moulton of Hampton, allowed for money burnt
with his house, £5."

On Sunday, August 22, 1773, there was a heavy shower of rain, accompanied
with much thunder and lightning. The lightning struck eight trees within a
short distance of Capt. Henry Elkins' house [Philip Towle's MS].


LAWSUIT WITH NORTH HAMPTON, ABOUT TAXES

We have already noticed the special provision made for the taxation of
real estate in the towns of Hampton and North Hampton at the incorporation
of the latter town in 1742. A considerable part of the woodland owned by
the people of Hampton lay in the town of North Hampton, while residents in
the latter town owned large tracts of salt marsh in Hampton; sos that
neither town, by this arrangement gained or lost much in the amount of
taxes received; and each was saved the necessity of collecting a large
amount of non-resident taxes. But from time to time changes occurred in
the ownership of property. Lands that had been owned and taxed in one of
th towns, having been sold to persons living in the other, of course
became taxable in the latter. In consequence of changes thus occurring, in
the course of thirty-five years, or more, some of the people of North
Hampton, thinking that this method of taxation was working to their
disadvantage, petitioned the General Assembly, in March, 1779, to alter
it, and make the real estate of the two towns taxable in all cases in the
town where it lay -- averring the the paying of taxes sout of the parish
where the property taxed is situated, is very inconvenient, and tends to
create disputes, and may in time by frequent transfers from people of one
of the towns to people of the other, render those of the former town
wholly incapable of paying their parochial taxes.

The Assembly ordered that a hearing should be had on the second Wednesday
of the next session, and that in the meantime notice, the selectmen called
a town meeting, May 17, at which a committee was chosen to show cause why
the prayer of the petitioners should not be granted. The committee were
Capt. Josiah Moulton, Joseph Dow, Esq., and Ens. Philip Towle, who were
authorized to employ counsel.

The petitioners failed to procure the change sought, and for about eighty
years longer the taxes in the two towns continued to be assessed and
collected in the same way as before. During that time there were many
changes in the ownership and comparative values of salt marshes and
woodland, but the changes were not all in the same direction. In 1859, the
case was again brought into court by the selectmen of North Hampton, and
the next year decided in their favor, so that all real estate has since
been taxed in the town where it lies.


THE DARK DAY

The 19th day of May, 1780, was unprecedented in New England for its great
darkness. The sun was visible a little while in the morning, but was soon
obscured by clouds. For some days previous the air had been filed with
smoke, arising, it was supposed, from extensive fires, somewhere raging in
the woods. Prevailing westerly winds had spread the smoke over a very
great extent of country. On the morning of the 19th, the wind, though
variable, was principally from the eastward, and brought with it a dense
fog from the ocean. This meeting and mingling with the clouds and smoke
formed a mass almost impervious to light. The darkness became noticeable a
little before eleven o'clock, and rapidly increased. Domestic fowls went
to roost, and cattle collected around the barn yards, as at the approach
of night. About noon it became necessary to light candles, and these were
needed through the remainder of the day, thought he darkness was greatest
from twelve to one o'clock. The darkness of the evening was scarcely less
remarkable than that of the day. Dr. Belknap says: "It presented a
complete specimen of as total darkness as can be conceived. About midnight
a light breeze sprang up from the north or northeast, which dispersed the
clouds and vapors, and it soon began to grow light.

The darkness extended over several thousand square miles, though differing
much in intensity in different places. Nowhere, perhaps, was it greater
than in this vicinity. The day was appropriately called, and is still
known, as THE DARK DAY.


AN ACT FOR OPENING LITTLE RIVER

On the 27th of June, 1780, an act was passed by the Legislature, for
improving the salt marsh drained by Little river:

"Samuel Jenness, Jeremiah Dearborn, Benja Philbrick, and John Lamprey Jun.
in a petition, set forth that there is a certain piece of Salt Marsh and
Meadow land lying in Hampton & North Hampton, containing about one hundred
& twenty acres, that for some years past has been made Salt marsh by a
river running through the seawall beach, so called, but for three years
past the said river hath been stopt by means of gravel & stones washing
into the same; and thereby the said marsh & meadow land was damnified --
Wherefore they prayed that they might be impowered to clear out said river
& let the water off said marsh & meadow land at the proper cost of the
owners thereof, and to assess the said owners for that purpose, which
appearing to be reasonable,

Be it therefore enacted" --etc. that the above named men, or a major part
of them "be, and hereby are appointed a committee to clear out said
river" --etc. according to the petition, assessing the cost on the owners,
"and to appoint a collector and cause the same to be collected as town
charges are usually collected.

This act to continue and be in force for the space of Ten years & no
longer."

The same difficulty is still experienced, in keeping Little river open at
the point indicated, now called "The Breach;" and still the marsh becomes
"damnified" unless it is occasionally cleared out.