Chapter 2 - Exeter Under the Mass Government from History of Exeter, Rockingham County, NH (1888) From: Ida Ransom - iransom@earthling.net Source: History of Exeter, New Hampshire by Charles H. Bell, publisher J. E. Farwell & Co, Boston, Mass., 1888 Page 44 CHAPTER II. EXETER UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNMENT. By the spring of 1643 an the New Hampshire plantations, except Exeter, were under the sway of Massachusetts. Hampton had orignally been settled from that colony; Dover and Portsmouth had been induced to submit themselves to her rule, partly by her claim that they fell within her patent, but more, perhaps, by the favorable terms which she held out to them. That church-mem- bership was a prerequisite to the privilege of voting in civil affairs, was a cardinal doctrine in Massachusetts. This was now surren- dered, and the citizens of the New Hampshire towns were to be allowed the elective franchise without reference to that quailifica- tion; a proof of the price which the Bay Puritans were ready to pay, to purchase an extension of their jurisdiction. Exeter was the 1ast to yield. A large part of her inhabitants felt that they had been treated with harshness and injustice by the authorities of Massachusetts, and some of them utterly refused to submit again to her dominion but quitted the place to avoid it. A petition, however, was forwarded in May, 1643, to the Massa- chusetts General Court, that Exeter might be received within their jurisdiction. It was subscribed by Thomas Rashleigh, Richard Bulgar, William Wenborne, Thomas Wardell, Samuel Walker, Christopher Lawson, John Legat, Henry Roby, Thomas Biggs, William Cole, Thomas Pettit, Robert Smith, John Cram, Nathan- iel Boulter, Robert Seward, Abraham Drake and William Moore. Eleven of these were signers of the Combination. The petition itself has been destroyed, and we can only infer its contents from the reception it met with. It could not have been an uncondi- tional surrender to Massachusetts, but must have stipulated for some terms which her rulers were unwilling to grant. The Gen- eral Court answered curtly, that "as Exeter fell within the Massa- chusetts patent, they took it ill that the petitioners should capit- ulate with them." In other words the Exeter people must accept such conditions as Massachusetts chose to impose. Page 45 Immediately afterwards a second petition was forwarded, couched in language sufficiently humble, as follows: To the Right Worshipful the Governor, the Deputie Governor and the Magistrates, with the assistance and deputyes of this honored Courte at present assembled in Boston. The humble petition of the inhabitants of Exeter, who do humbly request that this honored Court would be pleased to appoint the bounds of our Towne to be layed out to us, both towards Hampton & also downe the River on that side which Capt. Wiggons his farm is on, for he doth Clame all the land from the towne downwards, on the one Bide, & Hampton on the other side doth clame to be neere us, that we shall not be able to subsist to be a Towne except this honored Court be pleased to releave us. And we suppose that Capt. Wiggens his farme and a good way below it, may well be laid within our Township if this honored Court so please. Also we do humbly crave that the Court would be pleased to grant that we may still peaceably enjoy thouse small quantitie of meddows, which are at Lamperell river that Dover men now seeme to lay clarne to, notwithstanding they know we long since purchased them & allso quietly possest them with their consent. Likewise we do humbly request that this honored Court would be pleased to establish three men among us to put an Ishew to small differences amongst us, & one to be a Clarke of the writes, that so we might not be so troblesom to the Courts for every small matter. The three men which we desire the ending of Controver- sies are Anthony Stanean, Samuel Greenffield & James Wall & we do desire that John Legat may be the Clarke of the writes. Thus leaving our Petition to your Judicious Consideration & your- selves to the Lord, we rest and remaine ever ready to do you our best service. Samuel Greenfield* Henry Roby Anthony Stanyan Richard Carter Thomas Wight William M[oore] Nathaniel Boulter James Wall John Tedd* Humphrey Willson Robert Hethersay Ralph Hall John Legat John Bursley Abraham Drake Francis Swain Thomas Jones* John Davis Nicholas Swain Balthazer Willix Thomas King* John Smart Page 46 Of these twenty-two subscribers only four had set their hands to the Combination, and not one of them was in any way connected with the Antinomian dissensions of 1637. This petition bore date May 12 [1643], and apparently was pre- sented near the close of the current session of the General Court. The printed records make no mention of it then; but an indorse- ment upon the petition shows that both branches of the Legislature acceded to it. On the seventh of the following September the General Court formally received Exeter within the Massachusetts government and assigned it to the newly formed county of Norfolk. But it is a curious fact that in the appointment of permanent town officers the nominees of the accepted petition were rejected, and signers of the rejected petition and of the Combination were preferred. William Wenborne was appointed clerk of the writs, and William Wenborne, Robert Smith and Thomas Wardell were made magis- trateB to decide small causes. Massachusetts knew how to con- ciliate as well as to coerce. THE CONDITIONS OF ANNEXATION. The terms on which Exeter was admitted were substantially those accorded to the other New Hampshire towns: namely, "the same order, and way of administration of justice and way of keep. ing courts, as is established at Ipswich and Salem;" exemption from "all public charges other than those that shall arise for or from among [the people] themselves, or from any occasion or course that may be taken to procure their own proper good or benefit;" and the enjoyment of "all such lawful liberties of fish- ing, planting, felling timber as formerly they have enjoyed in the said (Pascataqua] river." The town was to send no delegate to the General Court, but this was no hardship, as the inhabitants could ill afford the expense which would thereby fall upon them, and their apparent need of a representative in the Legislature was small. At first it was ordered that Exeter causes at law should be tried at Ipswich; afterwards at the courts held in one of three or four towns (not including Exeter) in the county of Norfolk. There ample opportunities were afforded to the inhabitants for settling all litigated questions above the jurisdiction of the town magis- trates; and towns were compelled by presentments of the grand Page 47 jury to keep their meeting-houses, watch-houses, stocks. roads and bridges in good and serviceable order; while the General Court exercised a watchful and paternal care over their ecclesiastical and municipal concerns. The government of Exeter was of course modified, to conform to the usages of Massachusetts. Three townsmen were chosen, Richard Bulgar, Samuel Greenfield and Christopher Lawson, whose duties approximated those of selectmen of the present day. By a vote of the town, April 8, 1644, they were empowered to "make town rates; to distrain for all town debts; to pay the town's debts out of the town's treasury, or to make rates for it; to look to the execution of all town orders; to grant and layout lots, provided they be not above twenty acres; to receive into the town as inhabitants, or to keep out, such as they in their wisdom think meet." THE FISHERY. The fishery furnished a very important article of subsistence to the early inhabitants; indeed, for the first few seasons, before the land had been brought fairly under cultivation, it must have been well nigh indispensable. The river, above and below the falls, abounded in fish of various kinds, and the salmon, we learn from tradition, were especially plentiful. Still we can hardly give credence to the often repeated tale that the ancient indentures of apprenticeship in Exeter used to contain a proviso that the apprentices should not be compelled to eat salmon more than twice a week! No instrument containing such a clause has ever been found; and the story has been told of half a score of towns in England, and was, undoubtedly, an importation from that country. The salmon, for the excellent reason that they can no longer pass the dams to breed their young in the fresh water above, have long deserted the Squamscot; but the alewives still frequent the river, though probably not in such profusion as formerly. At first the latter were chiefly used as manure for the cultivated lands; and thus rendered necessary the stringent regulations that were adopted to prevent swine and dogs from feeding upon them. As early as the second of November, 1640, it was ordered by the town that "all creeks are free; only he that makes a weir therein is to have in the first place the benefit of it in fishing time; and no others may set a weir either above or below, and enjoy the same liberty." Page 48 On the twenty-eighth of June, 1644, the town granted to Christo- pher Lawson and his heirs "the right to set a weir in the river of Exeter" upon certain conditions, one of which was that the inhabi- tants should be supplied with alewives to fish their land, at three shillings a thousand, in such pay as the town afforded; and another that he should make flood gates "so that barks, boats and canoes may come to the town." The inhabitants reserved to themselves liberty to fish in the falls and elsewhere in the river, but not to set any other weir so as to forestall Lawson's. This monopoly, though formidable in sound, being extended to Lawson's "heirs forever," enjoyed but a brief span of life; for the very next year, April 26, 1645, the town resumed the control of the fishery by passing the following vote : All the creeks for fishing this year are divided into three divi- sions by lot, eleven or twelve persons to a division according as the lots lie, as follow: the first division of lots, from the mill downward, are to have Rawbone's creek and the creek above it; the second division from the mill downward, are to have all the creeks on the mill side of the river; and the third division are to have all the creeks on the town side of the river, except Mr. Needham's creek and the great cove creek, which two creeks lie common. This vote casts a little light upon the topography of the town at that early date. The mill (there was then but one) was Wilson's, on the eastern side of the island at the falls. The "mill side" of the river was the opposite from the "town side" which was, of course, the western. This indicates that, from the very begin- ning, the main settlement was on the western side of the river; though tradition asserts that two or three settlers planted their houses on the opposite bank, between what is now styled Powder- house point and Wheelwright's creek; and depressions in the soil, which may have been cellars, go to confirm the tale. The people of Exeter were not long in discovering that the Massachusetts control was to be no sinecure, but was to extend sometimes to their pettiest concerns. When, in 1644, they chose Samuel Greenfield to "keep a sufficient ordinary, and draw wine and strong waters, and trade with the Indians," the General Court "denied him to draw wine until they had a more full and satisfac- tory information of him." And when the town "took the minds of the trained bands for the re-establishing Richard Bullgar in his former office of lieutenant," the General Court "thought it not meet that he should be their lieutenant until further information Page 49 be given to this Court of said BuIlgar; in the meantime he to exer- cise the trainband as their sergeant." The first three or four years after Exeter submitted to Massa- chusetts appear to have formed a critical period in the history of the town. The departure of Wheelwright and other leading inhabi- tants was a heavy draft upon the little colony, not to be counter- balanced by the ordinary recruits of a frontier settlement. Relig- ious differences had crept in among the inhabitants to such an extent that the aid of the General Court was evoked to compose them. A committee of ministers was accordingly appointed to examine the ground of the complaints, and to do their best to bring about harmony. At the same time the town prayed to be excused from the payment of taxes "rate and head money,"-- no doubt upon the plea of their poverty and unsettled condition. The General Court, willing as they were to afford relief in spirit- ual matters, were not inclined, however, to remit their pecuniary obligations, but "conceived meet that they forthwith send in their rates to the Treasurer." Two events concurred, however, within the next three years, to give renewed strength to the town and tide it over the threatening period, to stability and prosperity. The first was the settlement in Exeter of Edward Gilman in 1647, and his relatives shortly afterwards, men of property and energy, who set up saw-mills and gave an impulse to the business of the place. The second was the engagement in 1650 of the Rev. Samuel Dudley as the minister of the town, who united the previously discordant religious elements, and became in every respect one of the most useful citizens. THE CARE OF THE CATTLE. On the first of May, 1649, the selectmen, in behalf of the town, entered into a written agreement with Gowen Wilson to drive, and take the oversight of the cows and other cattle of the inhabitants, for the season. As the transaction illustrates the customs of the times, the instrument is here given in full : It is covenanted and agreed upon between Gowen Wilson and the town of Exeter that the said Gowen is to keep all the neat herd of the town of Exeter from one-year-old and upward (work- ing cattle excepted) from the day of the date hereof until three weeks after Michaelmas, to go every morning through the town at Page 50 the usual time that cow-herds go forth, and so to have the cattle turned into the town street and the said Gowen to drive them into the woods, and all the day to keep them in such convenient places as may be best for their feeding, on both sides of the river, and at night to bring them home again, at the like usual time of herds coming home; in like manner to bring them through the street from the first house to the last who have cattle in that street, and to seek up or cause to be sought any that shall be lost from before him, and in like manner to keep them every third Sabbath day. And in consideration hereof the inhabitants of the town who have cattle are to pay or cause to be paid unto the said Gowen Wilson the sum of eleven pound, to be paid by every man's equal proportion according to the number of their cattle in manner as followeth, viz.: at the first entry to have a peck of corn a head for all and every the milch cows, and a pound of butter a cow, suddenly, after his entry upon the said work, as he shall have occasion to use it. And the rest of the aforesaid (11£) is half of it to be paid in good English commodities at price current, about the beginning of August next, and the other half of the pay to be paid in corn at harvest at 3s a bushel. Witness to this agreement the hands of us, GOWEN WILSON, JOHN LEGAT, JAMES WALL, HENRY ROBY. This writing discloses to us some facts of interest about the condition of the settlement and its people at that period. The cattle were compelled to gather their subsistence "in the woods," because so little of the surrounding country was as yet cleared from the forest growth. A cow-herd was necessary to keep them from straying; therefore it is clear that there was an absence of enclosures. "The town street" implies that as yet there was but a single thoroughfare, doubtless along the line of the present Water street. The fact that the herd was to be driven to pasture only "every third Sabbath," shows the respect entertained by the people for the Lord’s day. And the mode in which compensation was to be made, in corn, butter and English commodities, without a particle of cash, reveals the extreme scarcity of money among the people. Indeed, for long years afterwards, much of the Page 51 business of the place was carried on by barter, or "country pay," as it was termed, and would have been practicable in no other method. Up to the year 1650 the General Court had at intervals made appointments of local magistrates to end small causes in the town. In 1645 they were Anthony Stanyan, Robert Smith and John Legat; in 1646 Anthony Stanyan, Samuel Greenfield and James Wall. But when in May, 1650, the inhabitants made application for another similar appointment, it was refused by the General Court upon the ground that there was no need of such commis- sioners, as Captain Thomas Wiggin, an Associate, lived so near. But the town were allowed the privilege of choosing a constable, provided the person of their choice should be approved by the county court "as fit for the place." The fathers of Exeter early learned the need of a system of supervision of the conduct of their public servants. As early as August 26, 1650, a vote was passed that one of the duties of the townsmen should be to "call to account" their predecessors in office. And this, or some equivalent mode of auditing the accounts of the receiving and disbursing officers of the town, was maintained with great regularity afterwards, from that time to the present. THE STAPLE COMMODITY. The manufacture of lumber was, for more than a century, the chief source of revenue to the inhabitants. There was everywhere an abundance of the fittest oaks and pines that had survived their weaker brethren, and were truly monarchs of the forest. The land was owned in common, and a long period elapsed before much of it was divided. The lumber, therefore, cost the inhabi- tants nothing but the necessary labor in getting it out. Naturally, some secured much more than others; there was a great deal of waste; and non-residents did not hesitate to help themselves from the bounteous supply. To remedy these troubles, and to insure something like equality or equity among the inhabitants in the enjoyment of the products of their common domain, as well as to prevent strangers from encroaching thereon, the town from time to time adopted regulations; a brief summary of which will be presented. On the first of October, 1640, the felling of timber within half a mile of the town, except on one's own particular lot, or for Page 52 building or fencing, was prohibited under a penalty of five shillings per tree; and it was provided that none but inhabitants or town dwellers should have liberty to fell or saw any pine, oak or other timber under a like penalty to the offender. On the fourteenth of January, 1642, "upon the great complaint of the great destruction and spoil of timber about the town," it was ordered that the inhabitants who had felled timber for pipe staves or bolts, should have a year's time to work it up, except that those who had timber lying for a year unwrought, should have but six months more; after which if still unwrought, it should be forfeited. On the sixteenth of February, 1647, it was required that every inhabitant should cease felling timber for the present till further order. Such as had timber felled had liberty to work up so much of it as would complete their proportions formerly granted or legally purchased; and what they had felled more than their shares, they were to leave to the town's use. Every inhabitant should give an account to the townsmen what shares he had pur- chased and what timber he had already used. They who had not made up their proportional shares might fell timber and work it up, to the amount of their said shares. A penalty of five shillings was imposed "for every tree that any man shall transgress in." John Legat and Thomas Pettit were appointed cullers of pipe staves for the town, and sworn according to the order of the court. On the twenty-second of April, 1650, it was ordered "by the freemen and some others, chosen for the ordering of the sole affairs of the town," that every inhabitant should pay for every thousand of pipe staves made by him, two shillings, for the mainte- nance of the ministry; for every thousand of hogshead staves one shilling and six pence; and for every thousand of bolts, sold before made into staves, four shillings. On the twenty-sixth of August, 1650, it was voted by the town that none but settled inhabitants should have the privilege upon the Common to fell or use timber, and not future comers into town until they should be accepted for inhabitants; all others were prohibited. Only one person to each house lot was to enjoy the privilege, and he must build a good, habitable house thereon within six months. On the first day of May, 1657, it was voted that "for the preser- vation of pipe-stave timber, and that there might be some propor- Page 53 tion [fixed], that some might not have great [share] of timber and some none," it was ordered that from that time forward there should not be above one person in a family at one time employed in making of pipe staves, hogshead staves or bolts, or in any other work concerning white oak timber, except it be for saw-mills or building of houses or fencing stuff, on pain of forfeiture of ten shillings for each transgression, one-half to him who should give notice, and the other half to the use of the town. This order applied to work upon the Common, and on all ground not laid out. It was voted June 28, 1654, that the order theretofore made, debarring strangers from coming into town to fell timber and make staves, should be still in force; and that for time to come no man living in another town, should, under any pretence whatsoever, fell timber or make staves or bolts or any timber work, unless he became a settled inhabitant, approved of by the town, and resident three months in the town before he should make any improvement of timber. On the first day of December, 1664, "the town having taken into consideration the worth of masts, and that every year they may be still of greater consequence, and that his majesty for his own shipping may cause some to be transported from hence; for the preservation of such timber as may make masts," ordered that John Folsom be authorized to mark such trees as he thought fit for masts; to impose a penalty of twenty shillings upon anyone felling a tree so marked; and to sell such trees for the benefit of the town, at the following prices: "for those of thirty inches [diameter] and upwards, thirty shillings each; between thirty and twenty-four inches, twenty shillings; between twenty-four and twenty inches, ten shillings." At a town meeting March 3, 1673-4, it was ordered that thence- forth every single person w ho was legally admitted into the town should have liberty to make one thousand white oak pipe staves within one year, or the value of them in hogshead or barrel staves, red or white, and no more; and every family of less than four, servants excepted, three thousand; provided, that neither single persons nor families should sell their privilege to any other, but might hire men to work out their proper proportions. Samuel Leavitt and John Wedgewood were empowered to "seize upon" any transgressor of the order, and to have for their pains, one-half the overplus of his proper share; the other half to go to the town. Page 54 On the twentieth of April, 1652, the town agreed to pay to the Rev. Samuel Dudley twenty shillings for the use of his two bulls. Mr. Dudley, in addition to his qualifications as a religious teacher, was a notable man of affairs. He acquired numerous tracts of land, was interested in mills and in agriculture, was employed to keep the town books, was the general conveyancer and attorney of the place, and now seems to have added to his other cares the desire to improve the breed of the cattle of the town. The early records of Exeter are made up pretty largely of the elections of officers and of grants of land, but an occasional entry is met with which apparently most have had in its time a special significance. Such a one is a vote passed November 9, 1652, that the town book should be kept in Thomas King's house, and should not go therefrom unless there should be special occasion, and that by consent of the major part of the town; and that any person warned to be at a town meeting who should not be there at half an hour after the time appointed, should pay for the use of the town two shillings; and John Robinson was appointed to "gather up" any fines incurred for violation of this order. Curiosity is naturally excited to learn the occasion of such action. Had any unscrupulous hand attempted to tamper with the records? Had some obnoxious vote been prematurely sprung upon a town meet- ing? We ask these questions in vain. Interesting as the infor- mation might be, no clue to it has reached to our time. In the lumber business many transient persons were employed. If disabled by sickness or accident, there was danger that the town would be made liable for their support. To guard against pauperism from this source, the following vote was passed April 3,1665: Ordered that what person soever shall hire any servant for more or less time, if it happen that he that is hired shall be lamed or any ways unserviceable made in work during that time [he] shall be kept by the charge of him that hires him, if he be not able to keep himself, that so the town may be freed from such charges. This vote was supplemented by a rule promulgated by the select- men, August 30, 1671, as follows : Ordered that no man shall receive any person or persons into town without the consent of the selectmen, or security to free the town from any charge that may ensue thereby, upon twenty shillings a month forfeiture; and that no man shall come to Page 55 inhabit, by purchase or otherwise, without the consent of the selectmen, upon the same penalty. PROJECT FOR A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT. For nearly a quarter of a century after the death of John Mason, the patentee of New Hampshire, in 1635, little had occurred to remind the inhabitants that his representatives still claimed the title to the soil. They lived in England, and Robert Tufton Mason, to whom his grandfather's American estates descended, did not become of age till 1650. He was attached to the estab- lished church and the royal government; therefore it would have been idle for him, during the protectorate of Cromwell, to expect any aid from the ruling powers in regaining the lands of which he alleged that Massachusetts had dispossessed him. But upon the restoration of Charles II. to the English throne, in 1660, he peti- tioned his majesty for the restoration of the lands. The king's attorney general, to whom the subject was referred, reported that Mason had a good and legal title to the province of New Hamp- shire. Though no immediate action resulted therefrom, yet we shall see that this movement of Mason was destined ere long to produce momentous consequences. Until 1664, the king did nothing; but on April 25, of that year, in consequence of other complaints and petitions, respecting matters of dispute in New England, he commissioned Colonel Richard Nicholls, Sir Robert Carr, George Cartwright and Samuel Maverick to visit the several colonies of New England; to deter- mine all complaints; to provide for the peace and security of the country according to their discretion and to such instructions as they should receive from the king; and to report to him their doings. This commission was, exceedingly obnoxious to the rulers of Massachusetts, who were conscious that it was especially aimed at themselves and their conduct, and who claimed that it was an interference with rights vested in the colonists by their charter. The commissioners, however, pursuant to their instructions, visited the several colonies of New England, and their inquiries caused little friction, except in Massachusetts and her dependencies. They determined that the assumption of that colony to include within her charter limits and jurisdiction the New Hampshire settlements, was an act of usurpation; and gave the people of those settlements to understand that they would release them from the rule of Massachusetts, if that were their desire. Page 56 Accordingly a petition was drawn, addressed to the King of England, purporting to represent the wishes of the towns of Ports- mouth, Dover, Exeter and Hampton, expressing their great joy that his majesty had sent over the Commissioners, and sorrow at their ill treatment by the Bay government; and praying that the king would take the petitioners (towns) into his immediate pro- tection, that they might be governed by the known laws of Eng- land; and that they might enjoy the sacraments they had been so long deprived of. This petition, so far as known, contained but nine signatures, two of them of Exeter men, Edward Milton and John Folsom. The former was a moderate church of England man, the latter, who apparently was concerned in circulating the paper, was of a high and somewhat turbulent temper. There is no doubt that there was a party in New Hampshire disaffected to the government of Massachusetts, and had there been a reasonable probability that they would have bettered themselves by a demon- stration against it, a considerable number of names might have been obtained for that end. But the reflecting part of them had little confidence in the present movement, and prudently kept clear of it. The General Court of Massachusetts in their turn appointed a committee to inquire into the disposition of the New Hampshire towns towards their government. Respecting that of Exeter they interrogated the Rev. Samuel Dudley, who replied as follows: Concerning the question that is in hand, whether the town of Exeter hath subscribed to that petition to his majesty for the taking of Portsmouth, Dover, Hampton and Exeter under his immediate government, I do affirm to my best apprehension, that the town of Exeter hath no hand in that petition directly or indirectly. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that the action of the royal commissioners led to no change of government, but rather to a demonstration in favor of Massachusetts. The several New Hampshire towns united in a general collection to aid in building a new hall for Harvard College, to replace that which had been recently destroyed by fire. For this laudable purpose the town of Exeter contributed ten pounds. In connection with this subject it is worthy of mention that Samuel Maverick, one of the king's commissioners, had about the year 1660, made a brief report to his majesty, Charles II., respect- Page 57 ing the several settlements in the New England colonies, which he was, by his early and long residence in this country, well qualified to do. This paper, after lying unknown to historians for more than two hundred years, has recently come to light. Every scrap of information of that early date, is of interest. Maverick's notice of Exeter, therefore, meagre though it is, is entitled to a place here: Exeter. Above this (the saw-mill on Lamperell creek), at the fall of the river Pascataqua, is the town of Exeter, where are more saw-mills; down the south side of this river are farms and other straggling families. Taxation was probably no more agreeable to property holders in former times than it is at present. In February, 1672, the selectmen gave notice to the inhabitants to bring in a list of their estates, both of outlands and all else, to one of the selectmen, together with an account of all debts due them from the town, on or before the next sixth day of March; under the penalty of forfeiting what was due them from the town, upon their neglect to bring in an account thereof, and of the payment of two shillings by everyone who should not bring in a list of his estate to make a true rate by. We can imagine that this rule would cause the exhibition of all claims against the town; but whether it would bring to light all taxable property, might depend much on the amount which the rate payer would be liable to be assessed. The year 1675 was made memorable by the fierce outbreak of Indian hostilities known as King Philip's War. The loss of life with which Exeter was visited, is related in detail in another chapter. To defray the growing charges of the Indian war the General Court of Massachusetts on the thirteenth of October levied upon the New Hampshire towns seven single country rates. The proportion of Exeter was eight pounds, eight shillings for a single rate, and the entire tax required of the town was twenty-five pounds, four shillings in November, 1675, and thirty-three pounds, twelve shillings in March, 1676. Happily, the war was of brief duration. On the eleventh of March, 1679, Edward Smith, Edward Gilman and Peter Folsom were appointed by the town a committee to ascertain the town debts and the legality of the same. It thus appears that we have an early precedent for incurring a town debt; and the report of the committee having fortunately been preserved, Page 58 is given here, as an example of the formal manner in which agents of the town performed their functions two hundred years ago. Theis may certifie all whome it may concerne that whereas wee underwritten, at a Towne meeting ye 11th of March 1678 [9] were appointed a comittee to examine ye Towne Debts & ye legallity thereof, and ye Towne standing to ye same as wee should bring in or Judgmts, doe declare & informe as followeth; that wee under- written as aforesd haveing tryed & examined ye accounts, charges and disbursments of Captn. John Gi11man, doe find for & allow unto him, Errors excepted, -- 77£. 19s. 00d. The last Barrll of powder Wch Captn. Gillman bought for ye Towne stock is not included in ye Sume aboue written: EDWD SMITH. EDWARD GILMAN PETER X FOLLSHAM. Exeter continued under the laws of Massachusetts between thirty-six and thirty-seven years, until New Hampshire, in 1680, was erected into a royal province. The rule of the sister colony was on the whole equitable and beneficial; and the little town exhibited marked improvement, both in respect to material advan- tages, and in the temper and harmony of the people. NUMBER AND NAMES OF INHABITANTS. The population made but a very gradual increase, as was to be expected, for there was little in the frontier settlement to attract new comers. It was those who were content to endure hard work and hard fare, in the faith of securing better thing8 in the future, who were the bone and sinew of Exeter. Yet there was a gain in numbers. On the twelfth of October, 1669, the General Court appointed John Gilman lieutenant of the military company, at the same time declaring that there were "about sixty soldiers in Exe- ter." This, if the usual ratio holds good, would imply that there were about three hundred inhabitants of all classes. A fair pro- portion of the early settlers had passed their lives in the town, and were succeeded by their children. Others had come in, some for a temporary, others for a permanent residence. The new names that appear upon the town records between 1640 and 1680 will be given here, together with others derived from other sources. No Page 59 complete list is to be found, on the books of the town, or else- where, and it is probable that the fullest that can now be gathered, is quite imperfect. NAMES FIRST ON THE TOWN BOOKS BETWEEN 1640 AND 1680. John Barber, . . . . . April 1, 1678 John Bean, . . . . . January 21, 1660-1 Thomas Biggs, . . . . . September 5, 1643 Nathaniel Bolter, . . . . . May 6, 1646 Robert Booth, . . . . . February 10, 1647-8 Richard Bray, . . . . . October 10, 1664 William Bromfield, . . . . December 1, 1664 John Bursley, . . . . . September 5, 1643 Philip Cartee, . . . . . March 29, 1668 Philip Chesley, . . . . . January 21, 1664-5 John Clark, . . . . . August 29, 1661 Jeremy Connor, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Thomas Cornish, . . . . . January 12, 1648-9 Christian Dolloff, . . . . . March 30, 1668 Abraham Drake, . . . . . June 10, 1644 Nathaniel Drake, . . . . . April 22, 1649 Teague Drisco, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Biley Dudley, . . . . . April 1, 1678 Samuel Dudley, . . . . . May 13, 1650 Tbeophilus Dudley, . . . . . December 1, 1664 Eleazer Elkins, . . . . . March 3, 1673-4 Ephraim Folsom, . . . . . April 1, 1678 Israel Folsom, . . . . . October 10, 1664 John Folsom, . . . . . November 4, 1647 John Folsom, Jr., . . . . . September 28, 1668 Nathaniel Folsom, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Peter Folsom, . . . . . March 30, 1670 Samuel Folsom, . . . . . October 10, 1664 John Garland, . . . . . August 26, 1660 Charles Gilman, . . . . . September 28, 1668 Edward Gilman, Sr., . . . . . May 10, 1652 Edward Gilman (Jr.), . . . . . November 4, 1647 John Gilman, . . . . . January 12, 1648-9 John Gilman, Jr., . . . . . April 1, 1678 Moses Gilman, . . . . . February 10, 1647-8 Charles Glidden, . . . . . March 30, 1674 James Godfrey, . . . . . March 16, 1660-1 Alexander Gordon, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Samuel Greenfield, . . . . . May 19, 1644 William Hacket, . . . . . October l0, 1664 Page 60 Joseph Hall, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Samuel Hall, . . . . . March 11, 1678-9 Robert Hathersay (Hersey), . . . . August 5, 1644 William Huntington, . . . . . February 27, 1644-6 Edmond Johnson,. . . . . . August 26, 1650 Thomas Jones, . . . . . . August 5, 1644 Joel Judkins, . . . . . . April 2, 1675 Duny (?) Kelley, . . . . . October 10, 1664 James Kidd, . . . . . March 11, 1678-9 John Kimming, . . . . . . October 10, 1664 Thomas King, . . . . . . January 16, 1644-5 Nathaniel Ladd, . . . . . February 18, 1678-9 Cornelius Lary, . . . . . October 10, 1664 David Lawrence, . . . . . March 30, 1674 Jeremy Leavitt, . . . . . March 30, 1670 Moses Leavitt, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Samuel Leavitt, . . . . . September 28, 1668 John Legat, . . . . . October 20, 1642 Nicholas Liston, . . . . . January 12, 1648-9 Henry Magoon, . . . . . April 2, 1664 Thomas Marston,* . . . . . January 16, 1644-5 Richard Morgan, . . . . . March 29, 1668 Nicholas Norris, . . . . . August 30, 1671 George Person (Pearson), . . . . March 18 (about), 1679 Thomas Pettit, Jr., . . . . . May 20, 1652 Robert Powell, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Thomas Rashleigh . . . . . May 6, 1643 John Robinson, . . . . . April 20, 1652 Jonathan Robinson. . . . . . March 3, 1673-4 Jonathan Rollins, . . . . . October 10, 1664 Thomas Rollins, . . . . . March 30, 1670 John Saunders, . . . . . January 16, 1644-5 Edward SewaIl, . . . . . April 2, 1670 Jonathan SewaIl, . . . . . April 1, 1678 Robert Seward, . . . . . April 1, 1678 John Sinclair, . . . . . October 10, 1664 John Smart, . . . . . January 16, 1644-5 John Smart, Jr., . . . . . April 22, 1649 Robert Smart, . . . . . April 22, 1649 Edward Smith, . . . . . March 30, 1670 Nicholas Smith, . . . . . March 4, 1658-9 Francis Swain, . . . . . March 31, 1645 Nicholas Swain, . . . . . December 16, 1646 Richard Swain, . . . . . November 4, 1647 *Probably never came to live in Exeter. Page 61 Joseph Taylor, . . . . . March 4, 1658-9 William Taylor, . . . . . June 26, 1650 John Tedd, . . . . . November 4, 1647 Jonathan Thing, . . . . . January 22, 1659-60 Jonathan Thing, Jr., . . . . March 30, 1670 Thomas Tyler, . . . . . May 20, 1652 Robert Wadleigh, . . . . . March 15, 1667-8 John Warren, . . . . . April 22, 1649 Thomas Warren, . . . . . October 10, 1664 John Wedgewood, . . . . . March 3, 1673-4 William Whitridge, . . . . April 3, 1649 Gowen Wilson, . . . . . November 24,1650 Humphrey Wilson, . . . . . June 17, 1644 John Young, . . . . . March 30, 1670 In addition to the foregoing, the following names of persons belonging to Exeter within the period referred to, appear on the records of old Norfolk county, to wit : John Barsham, 1669 John Goddard (?) 1678 Isaac Cole, 1671 Thomas Hithersea, 1650 Isaac Cross, 1651 Henry Lamprey, 1666 David Gushing, 1655 Edward Littlefield, 1651 And the following additional names are extracted from a list of those who took the oath of allegiance and fidelity to the country, November 30, 1677, at Exeter; all, with a few possible excep- tions, inhabitants of the town. John Clark, Jr. David Robinson James Daniel George Roberts Stephen Dudley Edward Roe Mr. Michael French James Sinclair Daniel Gilman Mr. Richard Smart Jeremy Gilman Robert Smart, Jr. Moses Gilman, Jr. Jonathan Smith Kinsley Hall Mr. John Thomas Armstrong Horn John Wadleigh William Morgan Joseph Wadleigh James Perkins ********************************************************************** * * * NOTICE: Printing the files within by non-commercial individuals and libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter information is included. Any other use, including copying files to other sites requires permission from the submitters PRIORto uploading to any other sites. We encourage links to the state and county table of contents. * * * *The USGenWeb Project makes no claims or estimates of the validity of the information submitted and reminds you that each new piece of information must be researched and proved or disproved by weight of evidence. It is always best to consult the original material for verification.