Skip to main content

Full text of "History of the town of Canterbury, New Hampshire, 1727-1912"

See other formats


of the 

Town of Canterbury 




Editor of History of Concord , N. H. 
Author of the Life of Edward H. Rollins 


Volume One 


Concord, N. H. 










"St. Leon raised his kindling eye, 
And lifts the sparkUng cup on high: 

'I drink to one,' he said, 
'Whose image never may depart, 
Deep graven on this grateful heart, 
Till memory be dead; — 

" ' To one whose love for me shall last 
When Hghter passions long have past — 

So holy 'tis and true; 
To one whose love hath longer dwelt, 
More deeply fixed, more keenly felt. 

Than any pledged by you.' 

"Each guest upstarted at the word. 
And laid a hand upon his sword. 

With fur}' flashing eye; 
And Stanley said, ' We crave the name. 
Proud knight, of this most peerless dame 

Whose love you count so high.' 

"St. Leon paused, as if he would 
Not breathe her name in careless mood, 

Thus hghtly, to another; 
Then bent his noble head, as though 
To give the word the reverence due. 

And gently said, 'My Mother.' " ' 

The Knight's Toast. — Atwnymoui, 




The charter and the proprietors. Bounding the town. Drawing the lots. 
Promoting a settlement. First settlers with places of their locations. 
Cutting a road from Durham to Canterbury. Provisions for a saw 
mill, a minister, a meeting house and a fort. The first preacher, Rev. 
James Scales. The Gospel Lots. Sale of the pew ground in the meet- 
ing house. Deed of the parsonage lot 1-26 


Provision for an Indian trading post. Apprehension of Indian raids. 
Christo. Garrisons at the fort. Scouting parties. Attack upon 
Canterbury, 1746. Muster rolls. Stealing negro slaves. KUhng of 
Sabattis and Plausawa. Arrest of the murderers and their rescue. 
Action of the Pro\'incial Government. Raid of 1757. Capt. Jeremiah 
Clough, Sr. Attesting the charter. Thomas Clough and Josiah 
Miles 27-45 


Growth of the town. Censas returns, 1767 to 1775. Tax payers, 1762 
to 1771. Facts about the early settlers. Division of the town. 
Loudon set off in 1773 and Northfield in 1780. Tax payers, 1774 
to 1785 and U. S. Census of 1790. An invoice of 1769. The Mark 
Book 4&-74 


Bounding the home lots. Controversies over the Canterbur}- Gore. 
Early highways. The Webster-Blanchard Ferrj-. Fencing the 
parsonage lot. Efforts to settle a minister. Rev. Robert Cutler. 
Rev. Abiel Foster. Dismissal of Mr. Foster and his subsequent pubhc 
service. Diaries of Rev. Timothy Walker and Judge Timothy Walker. 
The Pound. Authenticating the proprietors' records. Duties of con- 
stable and collector 75-106 


The period of the Revolution. Association Test and Signers. Com- 
mittees of Safety. Promoting enlistments. Accusations of disloyalty. 
Arrest of Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Jr. His confinement and vindica- 
tion. Formation of a state constitution. Supplies for the army. 
Paper currency 107-128 





Roster of enlistments from Canterbury. Service of men from Bunker 
Hill to Yorktown. Town and state records. Train Band and Alarm 
Lists, Alphabetical list of soldiers credited to the town . . . 129-167 


Condition of the meeting house. Efforts to secure a settled minister. The 
Rev. Frederick Parker. His sudden death. Calling of Rev. William 
Patrick. Protests against church taxation. The "Shell Church" 
and its history. Care of the poor. Petitions for a new county. The 
militia. Pubhc cemeteries 168-188 


Early postal facilities. Industries and business. The blacksmith shops, 
saw and grist mills, taverns and stores. Liquor licenses and legisla- 
tion. Libraries. Highway districts. War of 1812 .... 189-212 


Early legislation for the support of pubhc worship. The Toleration Act. 
Separation of town and church in Canterbury. Controversy over the 
location of a town house. Use of the old meetmg house as such. The 
Moral Society. Poor Farm and House of Correction. Controversies 
over Canterbury Bridge Charles G. Haines 213-238 


The parsonage fund and lot. Action on surplus revenue of the United 
States. Calling town officers to account. The annual town meeting 
of a former generation. Litigation over new highways. Attitude 
of Canterbury on the hquor traffic. Vote on abolishing capital pun- 
ishment. Town hearse. Heating the town house. Soapstone 
industry 239-261 


Anti-slavery agitation. Partisan politics. Exciting election in 1860. 
Call to arms for the Civil War. Filling the quotas of the town. Boun- 
ties to secure enlistments. Debt at the close of the war. Roster of 
the enlistments from Canterbury. First printed town report. Move- 
ment for a county almshouse 262-289 


Conditions at the close of the Civil War. Causes of the subsequent 
decline in population and wealth. Farmers and Mechanics' Associ- 
ation. Town fairs. Grange. Divorce of town and state politics. 
Educational Society. The war debt paid. The Choral Union. Village 
Improvement Society. Town clock. Telephone. History of the 
town 290-303 




The Center CongregationaL Church. Early records lost. Covenant. 
Building a meeting house. Owners of pews. Pastorate of Rev. 
William Patrick. Condemning the use of intoxicating hquors. Anti- 
slavery controversy. Recognition of women. Formation of the 
Congregational Society. First Sunday School. Pastorate of Rev. 
Howard Moody. Settlement of Rev. James Doldt. His successors. 
Deacons 304-315 


The early FreewiU Baptists. Trial and persecutions. Experiences of 
vi-siting elders. Organization of the first Freewill Baptist Chm-ch of 
Canterbury. Pastorate of Elder Winthrop Young. First meeting- 
house. Early members of the church. Dr. Joseph M. Harper. 
Trouble with the Osgoodites. The denominational name. Elders 
John Harriman, Joseph and Jeremiah Clough and Jonathan Ayers. 
Advance ground on temperance and slavery. Opposition to a trained 
ministry. Building a new meeting house. Elder Alpheus D. Smith 
and later pastors 316-337 


A second Freewill Baptist Society. Members. A " Free Meeting House." 
Its destruction by fire. No settled pastor. Efforts to unite with the 
Congregational Society in support of public worship. Later cooper- 
ation .... 338-343 


The Worsted Church at Hill's Corner. Established for joint use of Con- 
gregationalists and Baptists. The coming of Mrs. Monmouth. Her 
decoration of the interior of the building and her work in the com- 
munity. Loss of her property and her last days 344-349 


The Shakers. Mother Ann Lee. Coming to America. Settlement in 
New York. Proselyting in New England. Forming communities. 
The Canterbury society. Its early members. Obligations and cove- 
nant of the Shakers. Principles of their faith. Early form of worship. 
Dress. Industries. Education. Progress. Relations with the 
town 350-369 


Osgoodites. Their founder and his ex-periences. Obtrusive proselyting 
and plain speaking. Objection to the "hireUng priest," the doctor 
and the lawyer. Character of Osgood's followers. Their Sunday 
services. Protests voiced in prayer, exhortation and song. Simplicity 
of their burial service. Quaint hymns and epitaphs. . . . 370-375 




Schools. Early legislation in New Hampshire. First votes in Canterbury 
and first school master. Meager provisions until after Revolution. 
Eivision of town into classes and later into districts. First school 
houses. Inspectors. The "school dame" and women's schools. Ex- 
amination of teachers. Prudential Committees. Reports of Super- 
intending School Committees. Decline in number of scholars. 
Reduction in number of districts. Present conditions. Kezer 
Seminary . 376-410 


Blanchard School District No. 1. An old part of the town. A Moore 
settlement. Here was the first tavern in Canterbury. Location of 
homesteads 402-410 


West Road School District, No. 2, originally including No. 10, the Depot 
District, No. 11, the Upper Intervale District, and No. 12, the Carter 
District. Here was located the fort. Probable sites of early settlers' 
homes. Location of later homesteads 411-417 


Borough School District, No. 3, sometimes called Pallet Borough. Set- 
tled mostly after the Revolutionary War by families prominent in the 
history of the town. Location of homesteads 418-421 


Baptist School District, No. 4. Settlements here followed the close of 
the Revolution. Early settlers. A farming community. ^Location of 
homesteads. 422-426 


Hackleborough School District, No. 5. The pioneers. A Foster settle- 
ment. Later arrivals. Industries. Character of schools. Location 
of homesteads 427-439 


Hill's Corner School District, No. 6. The old^trail. ' Early .settlers. Loca- 
tion of homesteads. School houses. Distinguished natives and resi- 
dents. Industries. Taverns and stores. East Canterbury Band. 440-461 


Center School District, No. 7. Within its limits the first school house 
was built. Here also was the log church and first frame meeting house. 
Some of the early settlers. Location of homesteads. . . . 462-468 


Ingalls School District, No. 9. A family neighborhood. United to 

Loudon for school purposes in 1880. Location of homesteads 469-472 



Ancestral Homes of the Morrill Family 26 

Daniel Foster House 57 

Morrill Lot in Cemetery at Canterbury Center .... 186 

Moore-McCrillis-Blanchard Tavern 196 

Home of Col. David M. Clough 236 

Home of Elder Jeremiah Clough, "Master" Parkinson House, 

Stevens-Bradley House, Residence of Herbert L. Brown . 254 

Home of Col. Asa Foster, Birthplace of Stephen S. Foster . 262 

Town Fair 294 

Residence of Leroy A. Glines. Probable Site of Capt. Jeremiah 

Clough, Jr.'s, Settlement 294 

Home of Thomas Clough, Old Canterbury Bridge, Brick School 

House, Congregational Church at Center .... 306 

Home of Edward Osgood, Original and Present, Baptist Churches, 

Kezer Seminary 322 

Views of Shaker Village and Shaker Barns 354 

Views of Shaker Turning Mill and Pond and Shaker Cemetery 366 

First and Second Types of School Houses 384 

Clough Pond 422 

John Foster Home 435 

Hill's Tavern, Worsted Church, Interior of Worsted Church, 

Shaker Church • . . . 460 



Few traditions have survived in Canterbury prompting in- 
quiry to verify the facts upon which the stories were based. 
The generations are gone, who heard from ancestors the story of 
the struggles of the early pioneers of the town and of the part 
taken by the immediate descendants of these ancestors in the 
Revolution. With them have disappeared all diaries of indi- 
viduals and all memoranda throwing light upon this period. 
In fact, there is httle information to be gleaned from the inhab- 
itants now living of occurrences antedating the second half of 
the nineteenth centurj'. This history, therefore, for the hundred 
and twenty-five years following the granting of the charter of 
the town, has necessarily been drawn from its records and such 
•data as the state has compiled of this community. 

At first thought this situation might be regarded as a handi- 
cap upon the writer, for, while tradition is frequently unreliable, 
it is nevertheless helpful in pointing the way to research, which, 
if it does not confirm the fireside story, discloses facts that would 
otherwise remain undiscovered. But in the absence of the old 
settler's account of what his forefathers did, the quest became 
all the keener to understand the meaning of the meager records 
made by the town clerk of what the voters did in their collective 
capacity. Hasty conclusions, often prompted by the survival 
of oral testimony, were thus avoided. Colonial and state action 
upon questions of interest to the people frequently explain arti- 
cles in the warrant calling a town meeting upon which no vote 
was taken and also obscure passages in the record of transactions. 
Apparently unrelated paragraphs in these records were found 
upon investigation to be the complements of one another. If 
the narrative lacks the spice of the personal equation, as it was 
handed down from generation to generation in the household 
^nd at public gatherings, the account of what occurred in Canter- 
bury from 1727 to 1850, as here set forth, is at least the history 
of what was done, rather than a compilation of what is remem- 
.bered to have happened. 



Except when the clerk of the Proprietors resided at Oyster 
River Parish in Durham, from which locaHty a number of the 
early settlers came, the records of the town have been well kept. 
A plan of the lots into which the present Canterbury was orig- 
inally divided is in existence. The Province Registry of Deeds 
with its excellent card index contains many of the conveyances 
made in town prior to the division of New Hampshire into coun- 
ties, which took effect in 1771 under the act of 1769. It is the 
most authentic evidence of who were the first settlers, aside 
from a few tax lists which survived destruction. The State 
Papers have often supplemented the information of the town 
books or supplied it when local records were deficient. The 
historical sermon of the Rev. WilHam Patrick, written in 1833, 
thirty years after his settlement as pastor of the town church, 
preserved some facts not elsewhere recorded which came within 
his knowledge, but he accepted as reliable only part of the ac- 
counts of the Indian raids given to him by the immediate descend- 
ants of the participants. 

These are the sources from which the story of Canterbury 
has been taken for the greater part of its existence. 

The original grant of the town was an extensive area, for it 
embraced not only Canterbury as it now is found upon the map, 
but Loudon and Northfield as well. The former was set off in 
1773 and the latter in 1780. Prior to 1760 the settlements were 
almost wholly within the limits of the present township of Canter- 
bury, and confined to that section within a mile or two of the 
intervale lands on the Merrimack River. After the close of the 
French and Indian War had removed all apprehension of the 
savages, the colonists and newcomers spread out, going south 
into Loudon and north into Northfield. The town church at 
the Center became inconvenient for those inhabitants who had 
settled in these remote sections, and they asked to be incorpo- 
rated into separate parishes. No opposition to this separation 
was made by the original settlers, and the petitions to the pro- 
vincial and state legislatures, to create two new townships out 
of the grant of 1727, were immediately approved. The history 
of Canterbury begins with the charter for its settlement, and is 
the story of the whole town up to the time of these divisions. 
After that it concerns only the inhabitants of the parent com- 
munity shorn of its children. 


Among the archives of the town were found some old tax 
lists covering the period from 1762 to 1785. These have been 
compiled in tables and published for the reason that they show 
who were the inhabitants for almost a quarter of a century after 
the close of the French and Indian War, when freedom from 
Indian attacks permitted the development of the community 
beyond the limits of the first settlements. To these is added 
the first United States Census of Canterbury, Loudon and North- 
field. This was taken in 1790, only seventeen years after Loudon 
was made a separate township and only ten years after North- 
field w\as given town privileges. A comparison of these tax 
lists with the Census of the United States will show the migration 
of the inhabitants from the parent settlement to Loudon and 

Plans of the highways of each school district have been made 
and the locations of existing and abandoned homesteads are 
indicated thereon by figures. The succession of inhabitants 
at each homestead is given in the subsequent text. This work 
is comparatively complete for those sections of the town, like 
Hill's Corner and Hackleborough, where the settlements did not 
take place until about the time of the Revolution or later. In 
describing the location of an abandoned homestead, it is suffi- 
ciently clear to the present generation to say that it is next to 
that of a living inhabitant, but, in years to come, the latter 
location may also be destroyed, and then all trace of both is lost. 
So long, however, as the highways are maintained, or, if closed, 
their outlines are apparent, it will be possible to trace the sites 
of former residents. 

In dealing with the town church, the settlement of the early 
ministers, the opposition to taxation for the support of preaching, 
the Shaker community, the schools, the poor farm, the local 
house of correction and some other topics, the occasion for action 
by the people of Canterbury is explained by brief references to 
colonial and state legislation and to current history, while through- 
out it has been the purpose to show in the narrative the reason 
for the attitude of the inhabitants when the records do not make 
this clear. Some of this information is obtainable only from 
statutes and miscellaneous publications. Much material had 
to be rejected as beyond the purpose of this work, but its 
examination shows the necessity for the writing of a history of 


New Hampshire, that the part the people of this one of the orig- 
inal thirteen colonies had in the founding and development of a 
nation may be accessible to the student as well as to the genera- 
tions that are to form the future population of the state. If 
this book shall have more than local value as a history, it will be 
due to the suggestions made and the help given by Albert S. 
Batchellor of Littleton, editor of the N. H. State Papers, whose 
inspiration led me to give it a somewhat wider scope than a mere 
narrative of the happenings of a township. 

The most difficult task has been the gathering of material for 
genealogy. Some of the early families are either extinct or the 
residences of their descendants are unknown. The offspring 
of others have widely scattered, and, when they have been lo- 
cated, too often they have been indifferent to this work. Looking 
back upon the labors of the History Committee and the early 
discouragements that confronted them, the marvel is that they 
secured so much material for this interesting part of a town his- 
tory. To a large extent, the preparation of the genealogies has 
been made to conform to the method of compilation adopted by 
the New England Historic and Genealogical Society. In a few 
instances of lengthy genealogies prepared by the family, the 
genealogy has been published as received to avoid mistakes 
liable to occur in copying. It has been impossible to send proofs 
after printing to the different families for their examination, but 
the effort of both the committee and the publishers has been to 
avoid errors. 

Some one has said that the writing of a town history is a life 
work, so numerous are its details and so infinitely does inquiry 
lead to subsequent research. This is in a large measure true. 
The time, however, that can be devoted to such work is for a 
variety of reasons limited. While something of value could be 
added to the history of Canterbury by delaying the pubfication 
for a year or two, the fact remains that at no time would its 
narrative be entirely free from omissions. Longer delay to 
secure details of minor importance would have a tendency to 
lessen the interest of those engaged in the enterprise and of 
subscribers who await its publication. 

To Mrs. Henry L. Clough belongs the credit for starting the 
movement that has resulted in this history. Her appeal to me 
to undertake the writing of the narrative, lest it be not done at 


all, was a reminder of my early obligations to the people of Can- 
terbury. When I started in life, they honored me with their 
confidence. The least I could do in discharge of that debt was 
to contribute my share towards preserving in permanent form 
the records of the town and the achievements of its citizens. 
The narrative is my gift to the town. Any public-spirited action 
is a stimulus to others. In this instance it has secured the hearty 
cooperation of the people of this community in carrying the 
history to a successful conclusion. 

The unanimous vote of the town to loan its credit for the 
publication of the book was the first expression. The willing 
contribution of time and labor by members of the History Com- 
mittee followed. This committee consisted of Henry L. Clough, 
Alfred H. Brown, Olwyn W. Dow, Miss Mary E. Clough, and 
Mrs. Almira J. Sargent. Especially are the people of Canterbury 
indebted to Miss Clough, Mrs. Sargent, Miss Josephine M. 
Brown and Miss Katherine Pickard for w^ork, covering a period 
of several years, in the preparation of the genealog3^ Without 
the assistance of Miss Clough my part in the enterprise would 
have been greatly delayed. Her knowledge of local happenings 
and her historical instinct have insured accuracy and prevented 

Assistance has not been confined to residents of the town. 
The accompanying maps, one a reproduction from the County 
Map of 1858 with a plan of the town lots superimposed, the other 
showing locations and inhabitants at the present time, are the 
gifts of Howard P. ]Moore of Albany, N. Y., the plan of the town 
lots having been prepared without expense by Augustine H. 
Ayers of Concord. Two former residents, Levi Badger Chase 
of Sturbridge, Mass., and George R. Foster of Milford, Mass., 
have furnished much data relating to the Hill's Corner and 
Hackleborough school districts. Photographs for the illustra- 
tions have been supplied by Luther M. Cody from his collection. 
To Otis G. Hammond, assistant state librarian, I am also in- 
debted for assistance in finding both published and unpublished 
data relating to the town. 

Note. — The references in the footnotes of this volume to the Provincial 
Papers, the N. H. Town Papers, Bouton's Town Papers and the N. H. State 
Papers are to the series of volumes published by the state and edited by Rev. 
Dr. Nathaniel Bouton, Isaac N. Hammond and Albert S. Batchellor. 




George, By the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and 
Ireland, King, Defender of Faith etc. 

To All People to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting : 

Know ye that we of our special knowledge and meer motion 
for the due encouragement of settling a new plantation, by and 
T\ith the advise and consent of our Council, have given and 
granted and by presents, as far as in us lies, do give and grant in 
equal shares unto sundry of our beloved subjects whose names 
are entered in a schedule hereunto annexed, that inhabit or shall 
inhabit within the said grant within our Province of New Hamp- 
shire all of that tract of land within the following bounds, viz: 
To begin at the head of the town of Chichester and to run north- 
west by the town of GilmantowTi to Winassosawque (Winnepi- 
seogee) Pond, or River that runs westerly of said pond, and from 
the first place where it began then to run southwest seven miles 
on the head of the aforesaid town of Chichester, and then to run 
northwest to the aforesaid river that comes out of the pond afore- 
said, and then the river to be the bounds on the northwest end, 
provided it do not intrench on any former legal grant, and that 
the same be a town corporate by the name of Canterbury to the 
persons aforesaid and to such associates as they shall admit, 
forever. To have and to hold the said land to the said grantees 
and their associates and their heirs and assigns forever upon the 
conditions following: 

IN. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 524. 


First, That the Proprietors within three years build seventy 
dwelHng houses and settle a family in each house or cause the 
same to be done, and clear three acres of ground fit for planting 
or mowing, and that each proprietor pay his proportion of the 
town charges when and so often as occasion shall require the 

Second, That a meeting house be built for the public worship 
of God within the term of four years. 

Third, That upon the default of any particular proprietor in 
complying with the conditions of this Charter, upon his part 
such delinquent proprietor shall forfeit his share of the said land 
to the other proprietors, which shall be disposed of according to 
the major vote of the said proprietors at a legal meeting. 

Fourth, That a proprietor's share be reserved for the first 
minister of the gospel that shall be there settled and ordained, and 
another for a parsonage, and another proprietor's share for the 
benefit of a school in the said town. 

Provided, nevertheless that the peace with the Indians con- 
tinues for the space of three years, but if it shall happen that a 
war with the Indians do break out before the expiration of the 
aforesaid three years that then the said term of three years shall 
be allowed to the proprietors after the expiration of the war for 
the performance of the aforesaid conditions. 

Rendering and paying therefor to us, our heirs and successors, 
or such officer or officers as shall be appointed to receive the same, 
the annual quit rent or acknowledgment of one pint of Indian 
Corn, in the said town on the first Friday in March yearly for- 
ever (if demanded) reserving also unto us, our heirs and suc- 
cessors, all mast trees growing on said land according to Acts 
of Parliament in that case made and provided. 

And for the better order, rule and government of the said town 
we do by these presents for ourselves, our heirs and successors, 
grant unto the said men and inhabitants, or those that shall 
inhabit said town that yearly and every year upon the third 
Thursday in March, forever, shall meet to elect or choose, by 
the major part of the proprietors then present, Constables, 
Selectmen and other town officers, according to the laws and 
usages of our said Province, with all the power, privileges and 
authorities as other towns and town officers within our aforesaid 
Province have and enjoy. And for notifying and caUing of the 


first town meeting we do hereby appoint Paul Gerrish, Paul 
Wentworth and John Smith to be selectmen for the said town 
of Canterbury, and they to continue in said office as selectmen 
until the third Thursday in the month of March which shall 
be in the Year of Our Lord, 1728 and until other selectmen shall 
be chosen and appointed in their stead, in such manner as in 
these presents is expressed. 

In testimony whereof we have caused the seal of our said 
Province to be hereunto affixed. 

Witness John Wentworth Esq., Our Lieutenant Governor and 
Commander in Chief in and over our said Province of New Hamp- 
shire, the twentieth day of May in the fourteen year of Our 
Reign, Annoq Domini 1727. 

John Wentworth 

By order of His Honor, the Lieutenant Governor with advice 
of the Council. 

Richard Waldron Cler: Con. 

Admitted Associates: His Excellency and Honorable Samuel 
Shute Esq., and John Wentworth Esq., each of them 500 Acres 
and a home lot. Col. Mark Hunking, Col. Walton, George Jaffret, 
Richard Wibird, Archibald McPhreadris Esq's. 

Canterbury Charter Certified 

Richard Waldron Cler: Con. 

Entered and recorded according to an attested copy which 
having been exhibited by Josiah Miles and Thomas Clough, a 
committee appointed by the town of Canterbury to petition the 
Governor and Council to have the foregoing copy entered upon 
record in the Secretary's office, which petition and copy was laid 
before the board and it appearing to be a true copy, the original 
being as the Council supposed burned in the Secretary's office, — 
it was ordered to be recorded here, in obedience to which order it 
was recorded this 17th day of February, 1756 (7). 

Theodore Atkinson Secretary. 

This grant embraced all of the present towns of Canterbury, 
Loudon and Northfield, Loudon being set off as a separate town- 
ship in 1773 and Northfield in 1780. 


The original proprietors, as shown by the records of the town 
when they drew their 40 acre or home lots, with the number of 
the lot drawn by each, follows : 

Allen, John 16 

Ambler, John 146 

Atkinson, Theodore 119 

Adams, Samuel 86 

Bickford, Eliezer 22 

Bennets, Job 153 

Bickford, John 64 

Burnam, John 32 

Bussell, John 58 

Bennick, (Bennett) Abra- 
ham 1 

Bowers, Jonathan 85 

Bussell, WilHam 31 

Burnam, James 41 

Bickford, Joseph 192 

Bassf ord, James 42 

Blanchard, Richard 124 

Burnam, Robert 148 

Blagdon, John 35 

Bamford, Robert 121 

Brock, William 186 

Brown, William 72 

Chesley, Ichabod 37 

Coffin, Tristram 161 

Carle, Samuel 160 

Chesley, Jonathan 165 

Chesley, Samuel 173 

Conner, Hugh 120 

Carter, John 169 

Chesley, George 30 

Clark, Eh 103 

Chesley, Joseph 51 

Chesley, Philip 106 

Conner, James 69 

Critchet, EHas 10 

Clemmens, Job 52 

Davis, Jabez 56 

Davis, James 3d 180 

Doe, John 115 

Davis, Col. James 199 

Da\'is, Joseph 133 

Davis, Joseph, Jr 88 

Downing, Capt. John. .. . 170 

Durgan, Francis 33 

Davis, Samuel 57 

Demmeret, Eli 176 

Durgan, James 105 

Davis, Ephraim 13 

Daniels, Joseph 43 

Doe, Samuel 100 

Drew, Thomas 145 

Demmeret, John 149 

Davis, Daniel 5 

Dennet, Ephraim 193 

Demmeret, William 44 

Davis, James, Jr 89 

Davis, Da\ad 75 

Davis, Thomas 7 

Dearborn, Joseph 28 

Evans, Benjamin 131 

Emerson, Samuel 70 

Evans, Joseph 126 

Evans, Edward 156 

Emerson, Micah 127 . 

Ellis, Joseph 179 

Eustis, Joseph 110 

Footman, John, Jr 144 

Frost, Charles 167 

Follet, Ichabod 154 

Fellows, Wilham 61 

Frost, Capt. John 23 

Gibson, James 14 

Gray, John 49 

Gilman, John, Esq 53 

Glines, William, Jr 84 

Giles, John 162 

Ghnes, John 9 

Gerrish,Paul 113 

Gilman, Capt. John 187 


Gooding, or Goodwin, 

James 137 

Hill, Samuel 47 

Hill, Nathaniel 82 

Hicks, Joseph 182 

Hays, John 80 

Huggins, James 189 

Hanson, James 164 

Huggins, Robert 123 

Hunking, Col. Mark 92 

Hodgsdon, Israel 50 

Hodgsdon, Israel, Jr 174 

Huggins, John 99 

Hill, Valentine 68 

Hussey, Joseph 159 

Jeffrey, James 

Jones, Joseph, Jr 83 

Jeffrey, George, Jr 125 

Jeffrey, Cyprian 195 

Jones, Joseph 147 

Jennings, Richard 65 

Jenkins, Joseph, Jr 21 

Jeffrey, George, Esq 151 

Jenkins, William 76 

Jones, Stephen 117 

Jones, Benjamin 134 

Jenkins, John 94 

Jones, Stephen, Jr 36 

Jenkins, Joseph, Jr 96 

Jenkins, Joseph 102 

Kent, Robert 114 

Knight, John 45 

Kennestone, James 194 

Leathers, Ezekiel 18 

Lummaks, Nathaniel. .. . 95 

Leathers, William 185 

Moor, John 177 

Morrill, Nathaniel 112 

Minister 12 

Mason, Joseph 48 

Marstine, (Marston) 

James 116 

McMath, John 104 

Mason, Peter 135 

McPhreadris, Archibold. 171 

Matthews, Abraham .... 74 

Matthews, Francis, Jr. . . 107 

Mattoone, Richard 93 

Mason, Benjamin 91 

Matthews, Francis 152 

^ Odiorn, Capt. Jotham 
Odiorn, John, Jr 

Pitman, John . . 
-Parsonage . . . . 
Perkins, Joseph. 
Pearl, John .... 
Plaistead, John . 




Rand, John 19 

Rendell, (Randall) Na- 
thaniel 168 

Rendell, (Randall) Samuel 166 

Rynes, William 172 

Rynes, Thomas 200 

Rawlings, John 196 

Runnells, John 108 

Russell, Eleazer 184 

Reed, John, Atty 3 

Roe, John 17 

Sias, Samuel 

Shepherd, Samuel . 

Sias, John 


Stevens, Hubbard . 
Smith, Benjamin. . 
Stevens, Ebenezer. 
Stimson, Thomas . . 
Smith, Samuel, Jr. 
Smith, Samuel . . . . 

Sanborn, John 

Smith, John 3d ... . 













'Also assigned lot 191 of forty-acre division. 

» No drawing was made of a parsonage lot in the forty-acre division. 


Smith, Joseph 6 

Smith, Capt. John 130 

Smith, John, Jr 97 

Shepheard, John 143 

Shute, Samuel, Esq 150 

Tibbets, Benjamin 59 

Tibbets, Edward 158 

Thompson, John, Jr . . . . 2 

Thompson, Robert 138 

Tibbets, Thomas 198 

» Tibbets, Henry i ^^^ 

Tibbets, Timothy 46 

Thompson, John 73 

Tilley, Samuel 98 

Tibbets, Henry, son of 

Nath'l 175 

Tibbets, Samuel 55 

Thompson, Jonathan. ... 29 
Tibbets, Joseph, son of 

Joseph 129 

Tibbets, Joseph 71 

Wentworth, Paul . 


Wiggin, Andrew 

Westbrook, Col. Thomas 
Wentworth, Gershon. . . . 

Wibird, Richard, Jr 

Woodman, Jonathan . . . . 

Wingate, John 

Weare, Peter, Esq 

Waldron, John 

Weare, Ebenezer 

Wibird, Richard, Esq. . . . 

Willee, John 

Woodman, John 

Willee, Thomas 

Woodman, Jonathan, Jr. 
Waldron, Richard, Jr. . . 

Williams, Samuel 

Waldron, Richard, Esq . . 

Willee, John, Jr 

Watson, Col. Shadrick . . 

Watson, Isaac 

Wentworth, Benjamin. . . 
Wentworth, John, Esq. . . 

York, Benjamin, 
York, John .... 
Young, Thomas . 


























The proprietors were called together by the selectmen named 
in the charter October 31, 1727, and organized with the choice of 
Samuel Smith as clerk. Their first effort was to ascertain the 
extent of their grant, and a committee was selected to join with 
committees of towns contiguous to Canterbury and granted 
about the same time "to settle the bounds between town and 
town." Nothing appears to have come of this vote, which may 
have been due to the delinquency of the proprietors of the neigh- 
boring towns. There is no record of another meeting of the 
Canterbury proprietors for nearly two years. October 6, 1729, 
they chose Jonathan Chesley, Thomas Young and William Hill 
a committee to lay out and bound their grant and make a return 
to the next meeting. As Chesley and Young were the members of 
the first committee, it is probable that they had difficulty in 
arranging joint action with the other towns. They were now 
authorized to act independently. At the annual meeting March 
25, 1730, they were voted forty pounds for "laying out andbound- 

'Also given lot 178 in forty-acre division. 


ing out said town of Canterbury," and there was also appro- 
priated for each of the committee twenty shillings "to pay for 
drink after they came home." Whether they went to Canterbury 
late in the fall of 1729 or after the March meeting is not shown 
by the record. Although their return is not recorded until 
March 28, 1732, it is evident that their work was performed 
some time before that date. 

Immediately following this action to locate and bound their 
grant, the proprietors arranged for dividing it into lots and pro- 
vided for dra^\dng the same among themselves. The first division 
of the town was of the home lots so called, which were of forty 
acres each, with a later provision that each proprietor should have 
an equal share of intervale land. The drawing of the home lots 
occurred May 27, 1731, at the meeting house of Oyster River 
Falls in the town of Durham, where, T\'ith one exception, all of 
the proprietors' gatherings were held until August 2, 1750. At 
the same time that the lots were drawn, a committee was chosen 
to arrange for building a meeting house in Canterbury, and in 
July, 1731, it was voted to leave the size of the building to the 
discretion of this committee. 

How early the settlement of the town began is uncertain. The 
great majority of the proprietors had no intention of becoming 
pioneers in the clearing of a wilderness. Their grant had cost 
them nothing except the obligation to promote a settlement, in 
doing which their holdings would become more valuable. In more 
recent times, they would have been called land grabbers and 
promoters. What the charter required them to do to avoid the 
forfeiture of their grant they did with some show of interest, but 
few of them ever saw the town whose future was left so largely 
in their hands. Almost immediately they began to speculate in 
the land they had acquired, sales of lots being made in some 
instances even before the location or ownership was determined.^ 
After the home lots were bounded and drawn, the conveyances 
of them are of frequent occurrence, but, while the record of deeds 
shows numerous transactions, there are few direct sales from the 
original proprietors to actual settlers. 

The warrant for the proprietors' meeting March 20, 1734, 

1 Deed of John Glines of Dover to John Woodman of Dover October 18, 
1730. N. H. Prov. Deeds, Vol. XVIII, page 472. Deed of John Plaisted of 
Portsmouth to Tobias Langdon of Portsmouth July 18, 1731. Idem, Vol. 
XVIII, page 66. 


recites that "A sufficient number of inhabitants of Canterbury- 
have requested by petition under their hand to have a minister 
the ensuing summer and to have a mill built for their benefit." 
The next year the proprietors "voted that the inhabitants of the 
town of Canterbury have a minister four Sabbaths on the town's 
charge between this^ and the month of March next ensuing." 

An assessment was laid upon the proprietors at this meeting 
for clearing "a passable way" from Durham to Canterbury, and 
it was voted "to grant to some proper person or persons a privi- 
lege and land for building a saw mill." 

A year later, June 30, 1736, the proprietors "voted £50 
for the support of the ministry at Canterbury, that is to pay for 
the charge the inhabitants have been at already in hiring a min- 
ister and to support the charge of the minister until the next 
annual meeting in March." 

By petition 2 dated February 25, 1741-42, to His Excellency 
Benning Wentworth, governor, and the council and house of 
representatives in general court convened, Thomas Young of 
Newmarket, innholder, and Samuel Adams of Durham, physi- 
cian, as agents and in behalf of the proprietors of Canterbury 
and in behalf of the inhabitants of that town set forth that 
"The said proprietors have for several years last past apphed 
themselves more closely than at first to the pursuit of proper 
measures for settling of said township and among other things 
thought proper for that end have built a meeting house and from 
time to time hired a minister to preach to the inhabitants which 
has encouraged the settlement so that there are about thirty 
famihes now upon the spot. 

"That said proprietors have with considerable expense cut a 
way from Durham up into the country upwards of twenty miles 
towards said township of Canterbury which, if cut through, will 
be of great advantage not only to that place but to the Province 
in general and which they are not able to affect and (which) must 
fall through for want of proper laws to compel such proprietors 
as neglect to pay their proportion of the charge and of such 
necessary taxes as have from time to time been laid upon them." 

Wherefore they "ask that an act be passed to enable the said 
proprietors by their selectmen and other officers to compel such 

» June 30, 1735. 

* Bouton's Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 87. 


proprietors as have not paid their proportion to pay forth- 

It appears from the foregoing that thirty families had settled 
in Canterbury before the date of this petition in 1742. The 
averments of the petition, however, must be taken with some 
allowance for exaggeration of what had been accomplished. The 
proprietors were in default of the terms of their charter, which 
required them to build seventy dwelling houses and settle a 
family in each house within three years, provided peace continued 
with the Indians. More than double that time elapsed after the 
granting of the charter before there was cause for apprehension 
of Indian raids. Then again, the petition sets forth that a meet- 
ing house had been built. Yet, at a proprietors' meeting two 
years later, 1744, it was voted to use the money appropriated for 
building a meeting house towards erecting a fort and to postpone 
the former enterprise until the next year. The statement that 
there were "about thirty families now upon the spot," in 1742, 
must be construed as meaning less than thirty families rather 
than exactly that number. That there were more than thirty 
famihes in Canterbury before 1750, when the proprietors prac- 
tically turned over the control of the internal affairs of the town 
to the inhabitants, is shown by the conveyances recorded in the 
Province Registry of Deeds, the proprietors' and the provincial 
records. Who were these early settlers? 

Some of them were founders of families long identified with 
Canterbury or those parts of the town that were set off in 1773 
and 1780 as Loudon and Northfield. Of this class were Jeremiah 
and Thomas Clough, John Moore and his sons, Samuel Ames, 
John Glines, Ezekiel Morrill, William and Josiah Miles, John 
and William Forrest, Jr., James and Samuel Shepard, Benjamin 
Blanchard and John Curry. The descendants of others are 
found as tax payers for a generation or two, and then, to improve 
their fortunes, they moved elsewhere. One branch of the Hackett 
family migrated to Gilmanton. Solomon Copp and Josiah Miles, 
Jr., took up new land in Sanbornton. John Dolloff probably went 
to Conway. James Scales, the first spiritual adviser of the settlers 
received a call to Hopkinton. 

Of the remainder little is known beyond the fact that their 
names appeared in various records for several years. A few were 

1 Act approved March 19, 1741-42, Vol. II, Manuscript Acts 1741-1765, 
page 20. 



scouts sent by the provincial government to protect the inhab- 
itants from the Indians, and they remained in town for a brief 
period after their mihtary service ended. Others may have 
had no descendants. The probable time of the arrival of the 
first settlers of Canterbury is shown by the data that follows, 
but some of them may have come even earlier. 

July 28, 1733, Samuel Ingalls of Chester conveyed to Richard 
Blanchard of Canterbury home lot No. 35, and the Province 
Registry of Deeds shows no grantor or grantee as an earlier inhab- 
itant of the town. This, however, is not conclusive evidence that 
he was the first settler. The early pioneers may have explored the 
territory with the privilege of purchasing later if conditions were 
found to be satisfactory. The actual conveyances of these lots 
in Canterbury were made at Durham, Dover or some other 
settlement in the southern part of the state where there was a 
justice of the peace before whom the deed could be executed.^ 
Hence, there may have been inhabitants who did not secure 
title to their property until they had an opportunity to return to 
civilization, which may have been several years after settlement. 
Then, it was quite as natural to describe the grantee in a deed as 
the inhabitant of a town from which he emigrated as of Canter- 
bury, a community that was not accorded town privileges until 
1741. The warrant for the proprietors' meeting March 20, 1734, 
which recites as one reason for calling it that "a sufficient num- 
ber of inhabitants of Canterbury have requested by petition 
under their hand to have a minister the ensuing summer and 
a mill built for their benefit," confirms this view. Richard 
Blanchard was probably one of the proprietors of Canterbury. 
One of that name drew home lot 124, but sold it soon after. 

There is evidence that John Glines, the proprietor who drew 
home lot 9, was a settler. He may have immediately prospected, 
and not finding his lot satisfactory, disposed of it. In May, 1733, 
John Glines of Durham bought home lot 29, which five years 
later he exchanged with James Lindsey for home lot 63. Upon 
the latter lot he finally made his home. In 1736 he is described 
in a deed as of Canterbury. His coming to town was between 
1733 and 1736. 

James Lindsey is first described as a citizen of Canterbury in a 

I James Scales was the first resident of Canterbury to hold a commission as 
justice of the peace. The earliest acknowledgment taken before him that has 
been found bears date of 1744. 


deed bearing date of 1736, when he bought home lot 17. Two 
years later, he purchased home lots 29, 30 and 31. One half of 
these he conveyed in 1749 to his daughter Elizabeth, who mar- 
ried Nathaniel Perkins. The latter reconveyed to her father in 
1752. In 1767, Lindsey deeded the easterly half of these lots to 
Jeremiah Clough, Jr., "together with the buildings and orchard 
on said land." Three years later, he deeded the remainder to 
Clough. Lindsey bought and sold other lots in this section of the 
town adjacent to the fort and undoubtedly resided in this locality 
until his death. ^ 

James Head is given in the Province Registry of Deeds as a 
resident of Canterbury in 1733. He bought one half of home lot 
94 and the whole of home lot 30. The latter he sold to James 
Lindsey in 1738 and the former to Archelaus Moore in 1749. He 
purchased home lot 104 in 1749, and here he made his home until 
1761, when he sold it and lot 105 to Samuel Moore, describing it 
as his home place.^ 

Lieut. William Miles, who came from Dover, was an early 
purchaser of land in Canterbury. In 1732 he bought home lot 
32 and in 1737 he acquired home lot 19. These were contiguous 
lots east and west. In the deed of lot 19, he is described as an 
inhabitant of the to^^^l. His coming, therefore, dates between 
1732 and 1737. 

Josiah Miles was a son of William Miles. He was born in 1719 
and undoubtedly accompanied his father to Canterbury when 
still a minor. He is first found as a land owaier in 1740, when he 
bought home lot 18. 

Capt. Jeremiah Clough is not described in any deed as a resi- 
dent of the town before 1738, although tradition calls him the 
first settler. He was chosen a selectman by the proprietors that 
year, and, as he was the first inhabitant to be elected to office, he 
was probably the pioneer of the settlement. His first purchases 
included home lots 68 and 69 near the fort. His son, Jeremiah 
Clough, Jr., whose birth was in 1736, is said to have been the 
first white male child born in Canterbury. 

William Curry was in Canterbury in 1733, for, as a resident of 
the town, he purchased home lot 103 that year. Later he bought 
home lots 33, 99 and 100. Upon the two last he made his home. 

1 See Prov. Registry of Deeds. 
» Idet7i, Vol. LXXV, page 55. 


John Dolloff, who was a son-in-law of William Miles, came to 
Canterbury as early as 1740. That year William Curry deeded 
to him half of home lot 33. In this deed he is given as a resident 
of the town. He resided on home lot 32, which was given to his 
wife by her father.^ 

Although Ensign John Moore is not named as of Canterbury in 
any recorded deed until 1741, the proprietors' records show his 
election as highway surveyor the year before. As early as 1733, 
he sold his homestead in Durham to Samuel Smith of that town 
and bought of the latter his right to home lot 106 in Canterbury, 
the covenant containing these significant words, "provided he 
settle. "2 Here he made his home, buying other land after his 
settlement. He should be regarded as one of the earliest settlers. 

William Forrest, Jr., bought home lot 93 in 1733. He was then 
a resident of Newmarket, but he was in Canterbury before 1750, 
when as a resident of that town he bought home lot 58 of Samuel 

Samuel Shepard came to Canterbury as early as 1741, for that 
year James Lindsey deeded to him half of home lot 17. 

James Scales of Rumford (Concord) bought land in Canterbury 
in 1739. He did not move to town until 1742, and he was soon 
after licensed to preach.^ That year he purchased home lots 
66 and 67, and in 1753 he acquired contiguous land, the whole of 
home lot 83 and part of 84. Until 1753, his home must have been 
on the former lots, for, at the annual meeting in 1752, the town 
voted that, "When Mr. Scales has got his barn frame fit to raise, 
then the proprietors and inhabitants are to raise said barn without 
any cost to the said Mr. Scales." From 1753 to 1757, he may 
have built on either lot 83 or 84. 

Thomas Clough's first purchase in Canterbury was in 1740, 
when, as a resident of Salisbury, Mass., he bought home lot 73. 
His next acquisition was home lot 79 in 1743, and the deed of this 
lot gives him as an inhabitant of Canterbury. It was in this 
section of the town that he resided. 

Ephraim Hackett came to the new settlement as early as 1743, 
as his purchase that year of a home lot was as an inhabitant of 
Canterbury. Later deeds describe him of Salisbury, Mass., and 

' Prov. Registry of Deeds, Vol. XXXII, page 71. 

' Genealogy of the Moore Family, by Howard P. Moore of Albany, New York. 

' History of Concord (1903), Vol. II, page 1206. 


he may have migrated between the two places for several years. 
In 1757 he bought home lots 110, 113, and 114. On the last two 
he established his permanent residence. 

Joseph Symonds bought home lot 22 in 1743, but that same 
year he conveyed it to James Lindsey. Some of these early 
deeds were probably mortgages given to secure loans. Occasion- 
ally the records show a discharge of an obligation where the con- 
veyance is in the form of a deed. Sj'monds' deed to Lindsey may 
have been of this character. 

John Forrest appears in a deed as of Canterbury in 1743. In 
1746 he is a purchaser of home lot 183 and in 1750 James Lindsey 
gives Forrest's wdfe home lot 23. Airs. Forrest was Eleanor 
Gibson, the daughter of Mrs. Lindsey by her first husband. As 
Lindsey resided in this localit}', it is probable that John Forrest 
established his home on lot 23. 

Archelaus Aloore and other sons of Ensign John Moore followed 
their father to Canterbury. Archelaus appears first as a land 
owner in 1743. Two years later he bought home lots 56 and 57, 
where he settled. He later acquired other land in this neighbor- 

Wilham Moore, the eldest son of Ensign John IMoore, was 
elected a field driver in 1744, but he does not appear in any deed 
until 1748, when he buys home lots 55 and 95, contiguous lots. 
It was in this locality that he established his residence. 

Samuel Moore, another son of Ensign John Moore, had deeded 
to him home lot 61 in 1748. Among his later acquisitions was 
home lot 62. Here he built his house, which became the first 
tavern in town. 

The Proprietors' Records show Ezekiel Morrill appointed on a 
committee to examine the selectmen's accounts in 1744. He 
gave the parsonage lot to the town in 1756 and became prominent 
in its affairs. 

Samuel Ames came to Canterbury in 1749, and his brothers 
Daniel and Simon followed within a year. He bought home lots 
85, 86 and 137. The second he sold to Simon and the third to 
Daniel. On these lots the brothers settled. 

The Proprietors' Records show John Gibson elected hogreeve 
in 1744 and Benjamin Blanchard as his successor in 1745. Wil- 
liam Ghnes was chosen a tithing man and Wilham Gault and 


Simon Rumril hogreeves in 1750. This Benjamin Blanchard was 
probably a son of Richard Blanchard. There is no record, how- 
ever, of his being a land owner in the present Hmits of Canter- 
bury. William Ghnes may have been a brother of John Glines.^ 

Simon Rumril appears to have been an Indian scout employed 
in several commands from 1746 to 1748. 

The names of Henry Elkins and James Shepard appear on a 
petition to the provincial government asking for "wages and 
billeting in keeping garrison at Canterbury" ^ in 1747. Both are 
on tax lists at a later date. 

James Shepard, John Bamford, Benjamin Blanchard, James 
Gibson, Solomon Copp, John Gibbons, Samuel Shepard, Jr., and 
Joseph Elis appear on a petition for the remission of their tax 
in Canterbury ^ for the year 1754. Samuel Shepard, Jr., probably 
came with his father. He owned home lot 64 in 1756 and resided 
there until he sold to Samuel Moore in 1764. 

The following plan indicates where the early settlements were 
made. The roads radiating from the center are drawn along 
present lines, except that the highway south from the fort follows 
the lines it is said to have taken past Jeremiah Cogswell's over the 
steep hill below his house. This part has since been discontin- 
ued. The sites of the locations may have been in some instances 
on the opposite side of the road from where they are placed, 
A number of these settlers changed their location after dwelling 
in town for a time. The sites, however, are intended to mark 
their first permanent habitations. This and subsequent plans of 
highways are not drawn to any scale. They merely show in a 
general way the homesteads of inhabitants. 

The foregoing settlers came to Canterbury between 1733 and 
1750. Probably most of them were inhabitants of the town prior 
to the dates here given. If there were not thirty families in town 
in 1742, as set forth in the petition of the proprietors to the pro- 
vincial government, there was that number three or four years 
later. The population at this time was probably between one 
hundred and one hundred and twenty-five. The two wars with 
their menace of Indian raids which occurred between 1744 and 
1763 interfered with the rapid settlement of Canterbury. Yet, 

« See Glines Genealogy. 

• N. H. Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 90. 

'Idem, page 91. 







John Forrest. 

Joseph Symonds. 

James Lindsey. 

Nathaniel Perkins. 


John Dolloff. 

Lieut. WiUiam Miles. 

Josiah Miles. 

Samuel Shepard. 

Jeremiah Clough, Sr. 

11. Richard Blanchard. 

12. Samuel Shepard, Jr. 
1.3. John Glines. 

14. Samuel Moore. 

15. William Forrest, Jr. 

16. Archelaus Moore. 

17. William Moore. 
IS. William Curry. 

19. James Head. 

20. Ensign John Moore. 

21. Log Meeting House. 

22. Old Cemetery. 

23. Ephraim Hackett. 

24. Daniel Ames. 

25. Meeting House prior to 1800. 

26. Samuel Ames. 

27. James Scales. 

28. Simon Ames. 

29. Ezekiel Morrill. 

30. Laban Morrill. 

A. Location of present railroad station. 

B. First school house. 

C. Center. 

D. James Scales probably moved here in 1753. He sold to John Gibson in 1757 who sold to 

Rev. Abiel Foster in 1770. The latter resided here until his death. 

E. Residence of Rev. Robert Cutler during his stay in Canterbury. 
The dotted lines indicate roads once used but since discontinued. 


in 1767, when the first census was taken by the selectmen, the 
population numbered five hundred and three. 

In writing of the pioneer days of Canterbury, there is difficulty 
owing to the incompleteness of the early Proprietors' Records. 
The first clerk, Samuel Smith, who held the office from 1727 to 
1749 inclusive, was not only a poor penman but also an indifferent 
clerk. Apparently the records were not made up at the time the 
meetings were held, for some are not in chronological order while 
others are sadly defective.^ In 1756, the inhabitants of Canter- 
bury were put to the expense of sending a committee to Mr. 
Smith to recover the records from his possession. In some 
instances the colonial records supply information which should 
have appeared in the records of the proprietors or they help to 
confirm the conclusions reached after a careful study of the latter. 

The privations, hardships and dangers endured by the first 
settlers of Canterbury were those incident to the people of all 
frontier towns. They were a long distance from the settlements 
near the coast and they had to blaze their way through the almost 
unbroken wilderness to reach their destination. Going first 
without their families, they probably returned to their homes 
between seed time and harvest while their first crops were grow- 
ing. Ensign John Moore made several trips to Durham after he 
sold his homestead there before establishing a permanent resi- 
dence in Canterbury. Capt. Jeremiah Clough, who appears to 
have been a representative of the proprietors, must have taken 
business journeys at least once a year. Others may have gone 
back at certain seasons to earn at their trades the money necessary 
for stocking their farms. Their locations in Canterbury were 
scattered, for they came as individual pioneers rather than as a 
collective company. A few were neighbors near the site of the 
old fort, but most of them passed solitary lives while clearing the 
forest and preparing the ground for cultivation. The log hut 
with its meager furnishings was their earliest shelter, and to it 
they brought their wives and children when they felt that they 
could maintain the family from the products of their new posses- 
sions. Even then they were separated by the wilderness from 
other communities. Of the neighboring towns of Concord, Bow, 
Chichester, BoscaWen, Gilmanton and Sanbornton, none except 

» Some of the minutes of the proprietor's clerk were not recorded until thirty 
years after they were made. N. H. State Papers, Vol. IX, page 95. 


Concord was settled as early as Canterbury. Their market and 
their source of supplies continued for many years to be Durham 
and Dover, from which localit^^ the}' largely came. 

Therefore, the first concern of the proprietors was the cutting 
of a road from Durham to Canterbury. In 1735 a committee 
was appointed \o obtain the consent of the town of Chichester, 
through which the road was to pass, and an assessment of the 
proprietors was made to defray the expenses of building it. The 
work of constructing this highway proceeded slowly, for, in 1741 
and 1742, committees were appointed to prosecute the under- 
taking, the vote in 1742 expressing literally its arduous character 
in the instruction to the committee "to plow the way through 
from Durham to Canterbury." The petition of Thomas Young 
and Samuel Adams to the general court in 1742, before referred 
to, shows that only twenty miles of the distance had then been 
built, and two j'-ears later a committee of the proprietors pre- 
sented a petition to the colonial legislature asking that "a bridge 
be built over the Suncook River on the road cleared by them from 
Durham to Canterbury at the expense of the proprietors." To 
this petition the provincial government responded in a resolution 
as follows: 

"Provided the proprietors of the town of Canterbury build 
a bridge this year sufficient for carts and carriages to pass 
and repass over Suncook River where the way is now cut for 
travel from Durham to Canterbury and will warrant to main- 
tain the same bridge for ten years, that there be paid to the 
said proprietors the sum of £50 Bills of Credit out of the interest 
arising on the £25,000 loan, out of that part of said interest 
appropriated for building roads." ^ 

Lack of funds in the provincial treasury delayed the building 
of this bridge for several years. May 9, 1746, the subject was 
again before the provincial legislature.- The importance of the 
undertaking to the defense of the frontier was emphasized in the 
vote passed to provide means for completing it.^ 

Of equal importance to the settlers of Canterbury to having a 
highway leading to civilization was the erection of a saw mill in 
to\Mi. In 1735 a grant of land was voted to some proper person 
who would build such a mill and a committee was appointed "to 

1 Bouton's To^-n Papers, Vol. IX, pages 88, 89. 
'Idem, Vol. V, page 412. 
' Idem, Vol. IX, pages 88, 89. 


agree upon the price of boards and how long the mill should be 
kept in repair." Nothing came of this vote. Three years later 
the proprietors elected another committee "to lay out a saw mill 
to be built in Canterbury at the charge of the proprietors." As 
there is no further reference in the early records to a saw mill, it 
is probable that such a mill was in operation within a year. It 
is said to have been located on the brook or stream near the 
present residence of Albert B. and Mary E. Clough. This was the 
home of Thomas Clough, one of the first settlers. There are traces 
of two former dams on this brook and also of a canal leading from 
the mill pond above. The location was favorable for power and 
possibly as central as any for the early inhabitants. 

To encourage settlements in Canterbury, it was necessary for 
the proprietors to provide a minister for the inhabitants and 
build a meeting house. In 1735 provision was made for a minister 
for four Sabbaths from June 30 to the annual meeting in March, 
1736. In the latter year, the proprietors voted £50 "for the 
support of the ministry in Canterbury," and again in 1738 an 
assessment of 10s. in money was laid upon each proprietor for 
this same purpose. In 1743 and 1744, the ministry is one of the 
subjects referred to in the calls for the annual meetings of the 
proprietors, but there is no record of any action taken. There is 
no further reference to this subject until 1750, when it was "Voted 
that there be constant preaching in Canterbury till a minister 
be settled there." 

Who the ministers were that preached in Canterbury from 1735 
to 1742 and where they came from are facts that cannot be ascer- 
tained. In 1742, the Rev. James Scales was licensed to preach ^ 
and became an inhabitant of the town that same year. There is 
every reason to believe that for part of the time, if not all, during 
the next twelve years Mr. Scales ministered to the spiritual wants 
of the inhabitants. The first notice of him in the Proprietors' 
Records as a preacher is not until 1752, when, at the annual meet- 
ing, it was "Voted that Mr. James Scales have £20 old tenor and 
34 days work for preaching the year past to the last annual meet- 
ing, and likewise, when Mr. Scales has got his barn frame fit to 
raise, then the proprietors and inhabitants are to raise said barn 
without any cost to the said Mr. Scales." 

> History of Concord, Vol. II, page 1206. 


At the annual meeting in 1753 it was "Voted that James 
Scales have £3 old tenor per Sabbath for the year past with what 
he has received. William Forrest and William Moore entered 
their dissent against this vote." 

Thus early were the inhabitants divided in the support of the 
ministry, a division which was frequently manifested so long as the 
"town and the church acted together in the settlement of the clergy 
and the inhabitants were taxed for their support. At first dissat- 
isfaction was with the individual, later with the doctrine that he 
preached. For forty years, from 1753 to 1791, when the Rev. 
Frederick Parker began his ministry, the inhabitants appear to 
have had almost constant difficulty in settling ministers and 
almost equal trouble in keeping them. 

In 1754, at the regular March meeting, it was "Voted that Mr. 
Scales be paid 40s. old tenor per Sabbath for his preaching the 
last year. William Forrest, William Curry and John Moore 
entered their dissent against this vote." 

Mr. Scales' ^ services as minister at Canterbury ceased about 
this time, although he continued to reside in town until 1757. 
He was a native of Boxford, Mass., and graduated from Harvard 
College in 1733. An early settler of Concord, he was the first 
teacher whose name is found in the Proprietors' Records of that 
town. A diligent student, he employed his leisure hours in the 
study of theology, giving some attention also to the acquirement 
of a knowledge of law and medicine. Removing to Canterbury 
in 1742, he was there licensed to preach. In 1757 Mr. Scales 
went to Hopkinton, where he was settled as pastor of the Congre- 
gational Society. He continued in the ministry until about 1770, 
after which he practiced law in a small way until about the time 
of his death, July 31, 1776. 

While at Canterbury, Mr. Scales was twice elected town clerk 
and he was the first justice of the peace commissioned in town. 
He was employed as a surveyor, practiced medicine ^ some and 
probably followed his first occupation as a teacher in connection 
with his ministerial duties. Several letters of his in behalf of the 
settlement at Canterbury appear in the Provincial Papers, and 

» History of Concord, Vol. II, page 1206. 

2 July 23, 1746, the house of representatives "voted that Doc. James Scales 
Esq. be allowed 6 shillings, 3 pence in full for physick &c administered Nath'l 
Ladd while sick at Canterbury in his Majesty's service." Prov. Papers, Vol. 
V, page 434. 


he enlisted in a company to go in pursuit of hostile Indians in 
1746. He seems to have been a most estimable and useful citizen. 

The warrant for the annual meeting in 1755 contained an 
article "To see if the proprietors will choose a man to see that 
Canterbury is supplied with preaching for the year ensuing." 
The proprietors at this time were evidently weary of assessing 
themselves to support preaching and concluded to do at once 
what would relieve them of further importunity from the settlers. 
So at a meeting held in Canterbury May 20, 1756, at which John 
Wentworth, one of the proprietors, presided as moderator, they 

"Voted that the proprietors will settle a minister in Canter- 

"Voted and granted one thousand acres of the common 
and undivided land in Canterbury aforesaid for the use of the 
inhabitants for the support of the gospel ministry in said Canter- 
bury, — which grant shall exempt all of the nonresident proprie- 
tors considered as such forever from all and any charges towards 
supporting the gospel ministry in said Canterbury. 

" The said granted track of land is to begin by the river called 
Merrimack River at the north westerly corner of the hundred 
acre lot No. 9 and extending up the said river as the common 
land hes till the whole track is completed." 

This grant of land was divided into ten lots of 100 acres each 
They are called the "Gospel Lots" ^ in the History of Northfield. 
They were sold to the following parties: 

Capt. Jeremiah Clough 
James Lindsey 
Jeremiah Clough, Jr. 
Capt. Jeremiah Clough 
Capt. Jeremiah Clough 
Thomas Clough 
John Dolloff 
Josiah Kentfield 
Samuel Moore 
Thomas Clough 


The value of the pound was stated in the terms of the sale at 

» They were all located in that part of the town called the North Fields. 
See map, History of Northfield, page 4. 





















£ s. 













forty-five shillings per dollar. This would equal S738, probably 
of the value of the SiDanish dollar. The funds derived from this 
sale were placed in the hands of a committee consisting of Thomas 
Clough, Samuel Ames and Samuel Moore, who were to let it out 
at interest, the income to be used for the purpose specified in the 
grant. These funds were afterwards referred to in the records 
as the "Town Bank." 

Concurrent ysiih the various acts of the proprietors to provide 
preaching for the inhabitants of Canterbury were their efforts 
to erect a meeting house. It will be recalled that the petition of 
Thomas Young and Samuel Adams to the general court in 1742^ 
set forth that the proprietors for the encouragement of the settling 
of the town had among other things built a meeting house. The 
first reference in the proprietors' records to this subject is at a 
meeting May 27, 1731, when it was "Voted that there should be 
a committee of five men to lot out the meeting house to be built 
in the town of Canterbury." 

The following Juh' it was "Voted that the meeting house that 
was to be built in the to^Aai of Canterbury was to be left to the 
discretion of the aforesaid committee, the bigness of said house." 

In the call for the annual meeting March 20, 1734, there is an 
article " To agree with proper persons to take care of and underpin 
the meeting house." There is no record of the proceedings of 
this meeting. The meeting house is not referred to again until 
1743 when it is mentioned in the warrant for the annual meeting. 
The record of this meeting is also missing. At the !March meeting 
in 1744, the proprietors voted to use part of the mone}^ that had 
been voted to build a meeting house in the erection of a fort and 
that the building of the meeting house be postponed to the follow- 
ing year, and they further voted "That the remainder of the 
money voted for the meeting house be disposed of for the use of 
the ministry and other charges." 

It becomes necessary to pass to the record of 1750 to learn what 
was done in 1743. The meeting of the proprietors August 2, 1750, 
was held at the house of Capt. Jeremiah Clough in Canterbury. 
In the warrant for this meeting is an article, "To see if the said 
proprietors will comply with and confirm a vote which was passed 
by the said proprietors at a meeting held in said Canterbury 
September 21, 1743, about building a meeting house for the pub- 

1 Bouton's Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 87. 


lie worship of God in said Canterbury, the prosecution of which 
was hindered by the late war."^ 

The votes on this article in the warrant were as follows: 

"Voted that a vote September 21, 1743, concerning building 
a meeting house for the pubUc worship of God in Canterbury 
aforesaid respecting the dimensions of said house be confirmed. 

"Voted that the meeting house be raised, the outside finished, 
the windows made and glazed and a lower floor laid at or before 
the last day of September in the year 1751. 

"Voted that Archelaus ]\Ioor, Josiah Miles and Thomas 
Clough be a committee to determine on what part of the lot 
No. 116 the said meeting house shall be set. 

"Voted that Ezekiel Morrill, Capt. Jeremiah Clough and Josiah 
Miles be a committee to prosecute the affair of building the said 
meeting house. 

"Voted that the committee chosen to prosecute the affair 
of building the meeting house be empowered to sell so much 
of the proprietors' undivided land as shall be necessary to defray 
the charges of the business proposed and voted at this meeting." 

This is the only reference in the Proprietors' Records of a meet- 
ing held in Canterbury prior to 1750. The fact of its being held 
in Canterbury and that it was not the regular annual meeting 
may be the reason why no account of the proceedings was 
recorded by Samuel Smith, the proprietors' clerk. He probably 
did not attend and, if any minutes were made at the meeting, 
he failed to get them or neglected to record them. 

One hundred acres of the common and undivided land of the 
proprietors was sold in 1752 at public auction to James Lindsey 
"for £320 in passable Bills of Credit of the old tenor" for the 
purpose of defrajnng the charges of building a meeting house in 
said town.2 At the next annual meeting in IMarch, 1753, Ensign 
John Moore, Samuel Shepherd and Ephraim Hacket were ap- 
pointed a committee to call to account the committee authorized 
to build the meeting house and "see what they have done with 
the money." 

At a meeting August 9, 1756, James Lindsey, Thomas Clough 
and John Gibson were appointed a committee "to receive the 
meeting house as far as it is done, viz., the outside finished and 
the under floor doubly laid." 

This was probably the first frame meeting house in Canterbury, 

1 No record of this meeting. 

« Abner Clough was vendue master. 


and it is the building now used by the citizens as a town house. 
The records show that it was not accepted until 1756. Yet it 
must have been under its roof that the people gathered at their 
annual meeting in 1753 which was held at the meeting house. 
If they met in any other building used for church services, why 
were the annual meetings of 1750, 1751 and 1752 held at private 

That there was an earlier building where church services were 
held is the statement of the Rev. William Patrick.^ He says that 
the people met for worship in a log structure situated about half 
a mile south of the Center. It was located on the hill beyond 
John P. Kimball's residence. This may have been the building 
referred to in the petition of Thomas Young and Samuel Adams 
to the General Court wherein they asserted that the proprietors 
had built a meeting house in Canterbury.^ 

At the same time that the meeting house was accepted by the 
town, Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Lieut. Josiah Miles and Ensign 
Archelaus Moore were appointed a committee to lay out the 
"pew ground" and sell it at "publick vendue." It was provided 
that there be "eighteen pews in said meeting house and that 
each pew have its due proportions." The sale took place at the 
house of Samuel Moore, "innholder in said Canterbury," August 
9, 1756. The conditions of the sale were "one third part of the 
purchase money on demand, another third at or on the ninth of 
August, 1757, and the remaining third part at or upon the ninth 
of August, 1758, and give good security to the committee chosen 
for said sale, and such purchaser to build his pew within two 
years in a handsome, workmanlike manner on forfeiture of said 
pew ground. No person shall bid under twenty shillings old 
tenor. The Committee to give such purchaser on the conditions 
aforesaid a good title to them, their heirs and assigns in the said 
pew ground." 

The following is a copy of the conveyance made to the pur- 
chasers, which gives their names and the location of the pew 
ground acquired by each : 


That we Jeremiah Clough, Josiah Miles and Archelaus Moor 

1 Historical Sermon October 27, 1833. 

» Bouton's Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 87. 


of Canterbury in the Province of New Hampshire, Gentlemen, 
being legally chosen a committee for selling the Pew Ground 
within the Meeting House erected for the public worship of 
God in said Canterbury for and towards raising money to defray 
the charges of building and erecting a pulpit, parsonage pew, 
and other work and materials toward finishing the inside of the 
same, we the said committee for and in consideration of the several 
sums of money of the old tenor paid to us or secured to be paid 
at or before the enseahng and delivery of these presents from 
the persons hereafter mentioned severally : 

Have granted, bargained and sold, and in and by these pres- 
ents do hereby grant, bargain, sell and confirm for the consid- 
eration of Forty Pounds of the old tenor aforesaid the Pew 
Ground marked No. One on the right hand of the front door 
on the east side to Thomas Clough, Yeoman. The Pew Ground 
No. Second on the left hand of said front door on the west side 
for Thirty-six Pounds like money unto Lieut. Wm. Miles. 
The Pew Ground next adjoining to the left westward No. Seven 
for Thirty-three Pounds of like money unto Sam'l Moor, Yeoman. 
The Pew Ground next adjoining westward partly under the 
west gallery stairs No. Eighteen for Twenty-seven Pounds 
like money unto Capt. Jeremiah Clough. The Second Pew 
Ground on the east side of the front door No. Six for the sum 
of Thirty-three pounds like money of old tenor unto Ens'n 
Archelaus Moor. The Third Pew Ground on the east side of 
the front door partly under the east gallery stairs No. Seven- 
teen for the sum of Twenty-eight Pounds of like money unto 
Thomas Clough, Yeoman, aforesaid. The Pew Ground on the 
east side of the front door above the alley leading to the east gal- 
lery stairs No. Four for the sum of Thirty-four Pounds of like 
money unto Capt. Jeremiah Clough. The next Pew Ground ad- 
joining on the east side thereof No. Ten for the sum of Thirty-one 
Pounds of hke money of the old tenor unto Josiah Miles, Gentle- 
man. The Pew Ground above the alley leading to the west 
gallery stairs No. Five for the sum of Thirty-seven Pounds of 
like money of the old tenor unto James Gibson, Yeoman. The 
next Pew Ground on the west side thereof adjoining No. Eleven 
for the sum of Twenty-nine Pounds of like money unto Nathan- 
iel Moor, yeoman. The Pew Ground on the south side of the 
east door of said Meeting House No. Thirteen for the consid- 
eration of the sum of Thirty-two Pounds of like money of the 
old tenor to Wm. Moor, Yeoman. The Pew Ground on the north 
side of the east door No. Nine for the consideration of the sum 
of Forty Pounds of like money unto James Shepheard, Yeoman. 
The next Pew Ground on the north side of the east door being 
in the northeast corner of said Meeting House No. Sixteen 
for the sum of Twenty-nine Pounds of like money unto Ezekiel 
Morrill. The Pew Ground on the east side next adjoining to 


the pulpit No. Three for the sum of Thirty-six Pounds of like 
money unto James Lindsey, Yeoman. The Pew Ground be- 
tween the above and the northeast corner No. Twelve for the 
consideration of Twenty-eight Pounds of like money of the old 
tenor unto James Head, Yeoman. The Pew Ground on the west 
side of the parsonage Pew in the northwest corner for the consider- 
ation of the sum of Twenty-seven Pounds of like money No. 
Fifteen unto Capt. Jeremiah Clough. The Pew Ground on the 
north side of the west door of said Meeting House No. Eight 
for the consideration of Thirty-nine Pounds of like money to 
John Gibson, Yeoman. The Pew Ground on the south side of 
the west door No. Fourteen for the sum of Twenty-six Pounds of 
the like monev of the old tenor unto John Glines, Jun'r, Yeoman, 
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all and singular the several Pew 
Grounds hereinbefore granted, bargained, sold and confirmed 
unto the several respective persons hereinbefore named, their 
heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from the day of 
the date hereof for and during the term and time that the said 
Meeting House shall stand and be in Canterbury: Provided 
nevertheless and it is the true intent of these presents that, 
if either of the said persons to whom the respective and several 
Pew Grounds are granted and sold as aforesaid shall neglect 
or refuse to pay the several sums afore mentioned by the said 
committee or their orders at the times and days mentioned 
in the conditions of sale bearing date the ninth day of this 
instant August or shall not within the space of two years from 
the day of the date of said sale build, erect and finish in an 
handsome workmanlike manner on each of said Pew Grounds to 
each of them hereby bargained and sold according to the intent 
and true meaning of these presents, that then for all or either 
of the causes aforesaid it shall and may be lawful to and for 
the said committee into such Pews or Pew Grounds to reenter 
and the same to have again to the said proprietors' use, benefit 
and behoof these presents or anything herein contained to the 
contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding. In witness 
whereof the said Jeremiah Clough, Josiah jNIiles and Archelaus 
Moor, the said committee, their hands and seals have hereunto 
set this seventeenth day of August in the twenty-ninth year of the 
reign of our most gracious sovereign lord King George the Second 
and in the year of our Lord 1756. 

Jeremiah Clough [seal] ) 

Josiah Miles [seal] >• Committee. 

Archelaus Moor [seal] ) 

Signed and delivered in presence of 

Thomas Clough, 
Nathaniel Perkins. 


According to the warrant of the town meeting of August 9, 
1756, the money derived from the sale of the pew ground of 
the meeting house was to be used for building the pulpit, the 
parsonage pew and finishing the inside of the church. 


Ezekiel Morrill to Canterbury Proprietors. 

I, Ezekiel Morrill of Canterbury &c, for and in consideration 
of 100 acres of the common and undivided land in Canterbury 
which agreeable to a vote of the Proprietors of Canterbury, 
aforesaid passed at their meeting on the 2oth day of June 1752, 
I was to have where I would chuse it in the undivided land in 
Canterbury and which I have chosen adjoining to the home 
lots against the ends of the first & second long ranges of said 
home lots which together with the particular bounds of said 
hundred acre lot may fully appear by the Proprietors book of 
records reference thereto being had. 

Have given, granted &c unto the Proprietors of Canterbury 
and inhabitants of the same &c for a Parsonage forever, forty 
acres of land in Canterbury aforesaid, butted & bounded as 
follows: Beginning at the west end of the lot No. 115, about 
the middle of the end of said lot at a stake and stones, then 
running north by the west end of the lots 156 rods to the North- 
west corner of the lot 118 to a stake and stones there. Then 
running East on the North side of said lot 100 rods to a stake 
and stones. Then running South about 21 degrees West to 
a stake and stones near the Meeting House against the North- 
easterly corner of said meeting house so that from that bound 
due west to the west side of said land is 20 rods. Then from that 
bound running southerly to a stake and stones 20 rods from 
the last bound. Then running southwesterly 38 rods to the 
first mentioned bound, including within the bounds mentioned, 
two acres which I formerly gave to the proprietors & inhab- 
itants of Canterbury by deed to set the Meeting House upon & 
also a two rod highway running across the said land on the 
northerly side of the Meeting House. 

Dated June 28, 1756. 

The deed is witnessed by Stephen and James Scales and 
acknowledged before the latter as Justice of the Peace. ^ 

1 Prov. Registry of Deeds Vol. LXX, page 342. 



To protect the early settlers of Canterbury against hostile 
Indians was a business the proprietors and provincial authorities 
tad to consider in a very few years after the first settlement in 
town. The inhabitants do not appear to have had much cause 
of alarm before the breaking out of King George's War in 1744. 
In fact, just prior to this time, the Indians were asking the 
provincial government to establish a truck house or trading 
post in this locahty.^ At a meeting of the council in Portsmouth 
October 10, 1743, an Indian called Coaus appeared on this 
errand.- It is said that James Scales of Canterbury accompanied 
him to protest against building a depot for supphes at the 
Pond, namely, Winnepesaukee Lake, though by what authority 
is not known.^ The council records report Coaus as asking for 
a truck house "near the river Pemidgwasset where they might 
Iiave such supplies as were necessary for their furs that they 
might not be imposed upon, as they often were when they came 
to the lower towns." This location was probably at the junction 
of the Pemigewasset and Winnepesaukee Rivers at Franklin. 
The governor asked him if for the present orders were given to 
.some suitable person at Canterbury, it would answer their end, 
to which he replied that ''It would do very well." Coaus was 
then informed by the governor that he should meet the assembly 
in November, when he would recommend that they be furnished 
with such articles as they desired. Upon being asked what 

> Prov. Papers, Vol. V, page 95. 

« Council Records of Province, Vol. I, page 9. 

3 Merrimack Journal, September 12, 1873. 


things would be most suitable, he replied, "Powder, shot, bullets^ 
flints, knives, blankets, shirts, cloth for stockings, pipes, tobacco 
and rum." 

Whether a trading post was afterwards erected in Canterbury- 
is not clear, but provision was made for it. John Odiorne and 
Hunking Wentworth were appointed a committee "to purchase 
£30 worth of goods to send up to Canterbury for a supply to 
trade with Indians to be laid out in the following manner:^ 

"Rum £ 3 15 s. 

Blankets 10 

Cloth suitable for Indian stockings 3 15 

Linen for shirts 5 

Powder, Shot, Bullets & Flints 5 

Knives, Pipes & Tobacco 2 10 


"And when the said committee have purchased said goods,, 
they shall convey the same to the town of Canterbury and 
deliver them to Mr. James Scales, who is hereby empowered to 
sell the same to the Indians and receive the pay in furs, etc. 
and the said James Scales shall render an account 
of the sale of all such sales of said goods as he shall dispose of to 
the Indians to the general assembly within six months of the 
date hereof." 

It is doubtful if Mr. Scales added to the varied list of his 
attainments that of Indian trader, for the proprietors voted 
March 15, 1744, to build a fort in Canterbury. This fort was 
constructed of hewn, white oak timber and was located on the 
hill near the house occupied by Billy E. Pillsbury. Capt. Jere- 
miah Clough was chosen to take command of the inhabitants 
of the town and put them in a posture of defence. His dwelling 
house is said to have stood near the fort.^ 

The Proprietors' Records furnish no further information of 
Indian trouble. It is from the provincial records in the votes 
of the assembly and the orders of the governor and council, 
and Potters' "Military History of New Hampshire," that the 
facts are obtained, supplemented by such traditions as the Rev. 

■ N. H. State Papers, Vol. XI, page 262. 

» Historical Sermon of Rev. William Patrick, October 27, 1833. 


William Patrick, who was settled as minister in 1803, thought 
worthy to perpetuate in his historical sermon written thirty 
years later. Mr. Patrick undoubtedly talked with the younger 
of the participants and with the descendants of those who suf- 
fered from Indian raids. As he rejected some of the stories 
that were related to him as being too far removed in point of 
time from the actual occurrence to be credited without corrobora- 
tive evidence, the instances he recites may be accepted as accurate 
in their main features, though some allowance must be made for 

The fort could hardly have been completed in Canterbury 
before it became the rendezvous of scouting parties sent out by 
the provincial government, for in July, 1744, there were twenty 
men under command of Capt. Jeremiah Clough on duty in this 
vicinity, the muster roll showdng six there twenty-five days and 
the entire number fourteen days. Another roll indicates that 
there were six men under Captain Clough in the garrison from 
September 26 to December 18.^ From January to March, 1745, 
a small force was kept on duty at the fort.^ When the time 
came for spring planting, provision was made for protecting the 
settlement. Captain Clough with six men was on duty from 
April 17 for a month and three days.^ This force was increased 
to ten men from June 19 to September 6, 1745, for which Captain 
Clough was allowed £68, Is. 4(i.* Later in the year he was 
voted by the provincial government £30, 9s. 3^(i. "in full for 
the muster roll of the men at the garrison in Canterbury and 
scouting thereabouts" and "50s. for his trouble and expense in 
transporting a great gun to Canterbury and making up the 
muster roll." ^ 

Captain Clough's command was not the only scouting party 
in this part of the state. Lieut. William Miles, with thirteen 
men, was on duty for twenty-eight days from September 9, 1745, 
as scouts about the Pemigewasset and its branches.^ The follow- 
ing is the muster roll of his command: 

» Potter's Military History of N. H., pages 55, 56. The only Canterbury 
name besides that of Captain Clough is James Gibson. 

2 Idem, page 60. With Captain Clough were Josiah Miles and John Gibson. 

' Idem, page 76. 

« N. H. State Papers, Vol. V, page 381. 

' Idem, Vol. V, page 389. 

• N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 903. 


William Miles, commander. Joseph Simons, sergt. 

Philip Call. Josiah Miles, sergt. 

Richard Jackman, sergt. Josephen Whidden. 

John Fowler. James Gipson. 

John Brown. Joseph Vaunce. 

Samuel Shepherd. Samuel Moor. 

Benja Blanchard. Simon Rummery. 

These were evidently precautionary measures, as was the 
action of the assembly April 11, 1745. In the preamble to a vote 
passed that day, it is recited that several allowances had been 
made for the support and pay of the Indian, Christo, "and this 
house being apprehensive that it may be of very dangerous con- 
sequences to help him any longer at Canterbury, now the season 
of the year advances when, if this Christo has any treacherous 
designs to perpetrate, he may be instrumental in destroying 
all the people where he is. 

"Voted that this Province be not at any further charge about 
the pay and support of said Christo unless he be kept at Fort 
William and Mary." ^ 

Christo had a wigwam on the bank of a little brook which 
emptied into the Merrimack just below Amoskeag Falls. There 
he lived by hunting and fishing, and in the early days of the 
settlements at Concord and Canterbury he was upon most 
friendly terms with the whites. In fact, he was employed as 
scout by the provincial government as late as the early part of 
the year 1745. The following bill was presented for his board and 
services at about the time that the legislature voted to discon- 
tinue his employment unless he removed to Fort William and 

"The Province of New Hampshire to Jeremiah Clough Dr,^ 

"To keeping Christo by order of the Captain General 30 
days from the 19th of December to the 19th of January 1745. 

"To billeting at 30s. per day £4 10s 

" To his wages , 5 17 

£10 7s. 
"Jeremiah Clough." 

« Prov. Papers, Vol. V, page 312. 

s N. H. State Papers, Vol. V, page 339. 


At a later date this bill was reduced and paid. Christo 
appears to have returned about 1747 to the St. Francis Indians, 
to which tribe he claimed to belong. That year he is said to have 
been concerned in the raid upon Epsom. He continued upon 
friendly terms, however, with the Canterbury settlers until 
prior to the breaking out of the French and Indian War, as will 
later appear. His death probably occurred at St. Francis.^ 

The muster roll of Captain Clough's scouts who were on 
duty at Canterbury from seventy-four to seventy-nine days 
following June 19, 1745, is in existence, but the names are not 
those of Canterbury settlers, with the possible exception of 
Simon Rumril. Having furnished his command with "victuals 
and powder," Captain Clough asks allowance of his bill from 
the provincial government. Attached to the muster roll is a 
bill of 10/6 (probably 10s. Qd.) of Doctor James Scales "medi- 
sens and tendance of some of the above soldiers in sickness." 
Both bills were ordered paid.^ 

The year 1746 was one of constant alarms and attended by at 
least one raid of Canterbury by the Indians. A small guard 
was kept at the garrison from November 23, 1745, to April 16, 
1746.^ The latter month the council advised the governor "to 
enlist or impress 10 men" to be placed at Canterbury.* In May 
the house voted that there be ''delivered to Capt. Jeremiah 
Clough by the treasurer to be lodged in the Fort at Canterbury 
and to be used only upon extraordinary occasions one half a 
barrel of gun powder and half a hundred weight of bullets."^ 
The muster rolls show Captain Clough and eleven men in the 
fort from April to July, 1746, and Sergt. Joseph Gass and nine 
men on duty there from April 21 to May 19 that year.^ 

June 3, 1746, a party of fourteen men with horses started 
from Portsmouth with a month's provisions for thirty men 
who were at that time serving with Captain Clough at 

1 The Farmers' jNIonthly Visitor, September, 1853. Chandler E. Potter, 

2 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, pages 899, 900. 
' Potter's Mihtary History of X. H., page 81. 

* Prov. Papers, Vol. V, page 107. 
5 Idem, Vol. V, page 412. 

• Potter's Military History of X. H., pages 82, 84. 
» Idem, page 89. 


Captain Clough's activities were not confined to Canterbury. 
With nineteen men he was "scouting on the borders of Winnepe- 
saukee Pond, Pimegiwaset River" from May 29 to June 29, 1746.^ 
The muster roll shows no Canterbury names, the settlers having 
all they could do to protect their own families. It was during 
Captain Clough's absence on this scouting expedition that the 
Indians raided Canterbury. Of this attack the Rev. Wilham 
Patrick says : ^ 

"At this early period of the settlement, the intervale lands 
bordering upon the Merrimack River were owned in small lots 
by the inhabitants. Upon them they depended to raise most of 
their bread, (they) supposing that Indian corn could not well be 
cultivated upon the upland. In the proper season the men 
repaired thither in small bands with their hoes and guns to 
cultivate the soil, and, while one stood sentinel, the others per- 
formed the labors of the day. They were careful to return 
before the shades of evening should give any advantage to an 
enemy that might be lurking in ambush to take their lives or to 
carry them into captivity. As early as the j^ear 1746 we find 
that a company of infantry was sent to assist the inhabitants of 
Rumford (Concord) and those in the vicinity against the encroach- 
ments of the hostile Indians. 

"A Mr. Benjamin Blanchard, who then occupied the farm 
where Colonel (Morrill) Shepherd now lives, wishing some one to 
accompany him from the fort to his dwelling house, Mr. Samuel 
Shepherd consented to go. On their return to the fort, at the 
westerly end of the Soper orchard, so called, and not more than 
two rods distant, seven Indians rose from behind a pine log and 
discharged their guns and, strange as it may appear, neither 
of them were hurt. They returned the fire, but without ex- 
ecution. They both ran, and Shepherd made his escape, but 
Blanchard who was a corpulent man, was overtaken, knocked 
down and scalped. He also received a slight wound in the leg 
by an arrow supposed to have been dipped in poison. This was 
on the 11th of June, 1746. The report of the muskets soon drew 
forth the effective men from the fort, who found Blanchard, the 

» Potter's Military History of N. H., page 88. 

= Rev. William Patrick's Sermon, October 27, 1833. 


blood streaming from his head. He was conveyed to the garrison 
when, after twelve days extreme suffering, he expired.^ 

"Such were the dangers and toils to which our forefathers 
were exposed. About this time, Mr. (James) Scales, while 
employed in his domestic concerns, discovered a party of Indians 
near his house, made his escape, gave the alarm and prevented 
their murderous design. Near the same time it is supposed, the 
family of Mr. Samuel Shepherd narrowly escaped death or 
captivity. Mrs. Shepherd one evening, by the light of the 
moon, discovered a party of the savages skulking around their 
buildings. To flee was impossible. She artfully hit upon a 
plan which succeeded. Having furnished her husband and 
children with those domestic utensils which were calculated 
to make the most noise, she gave the signal by crying aloud, 
'Stand to your arms!' They then struck their discordant music; 
the enemy were intimidated and fled. Tradition relates many 
other providential escapes; but length of time has so far obscured 
the facts, that they can not be related with historical accuracy." 

The news of this attack upon Canterbury was carried to Ports- 
mouth as early as possible. July 9, 1746, the house authorized 
a force of from thirty to fifty men to start in pursuit of the 
Indians, making Captain Clough's fort their headquarters. ^ 
There were twenty-three men under Captain Barnett,* a larger 
force under Captain Clough, twenty-four men with Captain 
James Gilmore, twenty-three men with Capt. Andrew Todd, 
and twenty-three led by Thomas Wells scouting about Canter- 

1 There is doubt whether it was Benjamin or Richard Blanchard who was 
scalped by the Indians. There is nothing in the Province Registrj^ of Deeds 
showing that any Benjamin Blanchard was a land owner in Canterbury in 
1746. The farm described by Mr. Patrick was lot 3.5 deeded to Richard 
Blanchard in 1733 and at a much later date owned by Col. Morrill Shepard. 
(Prov. Reg. Deeds,Vol. XXIV, page 532.) This Richard Blanchard died before 
1750. (Deed of Samuel Moore to Daniel Ames Oct. 19, 1750, unrecorded) which 
indicates that he might have been the victim (Seealso "History and Description 
of New England" by A. J. Coolidge and J. B. Mansfield, page 433). The Rev. 
Timothy Walker, minister at Concord, 1730 to 1782, made two contempo- 
raneous notations of the event in his diary, in one of which he gives the name 
as Benjamin and in the other Richard. A Benjamin Blanchard was on the 
muster rolls of Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. from July 4 to December 4, 1746, 
and he was probably the first settler in Northfield in 1760. The father of 
this Benjamin is said to have been scalped by the Indians. (History of Merri- 
mack County, page 519.) If the father's name was Benjamin, then Richard 
may have been his grandfather. See also account of Richard in Chapter III. 

2 Prov. Papers, Vol. V, page 439. 
' Moses Barnett. 


bury and guarding the settlers during the remainder of the 

The following is the muster roll of the men under Captain 
Clough on duty at Canterbury during the winter of 1746-47.2 

Sergt. Jeremiah Clough Dec. 5 to Jan. 4. 
Cen'l Samuel French, Dec. 5 to Jan. 4. 
Ezek'l Clough, Dec. 5 to Jan. 4. 
Henry Elkins, Dec. 5 to Jan. 4. 
John Manuel, Dec. 5 to Jan. 4. 
Philip Call, Dec. 5 to Jan. 4. 
Thomas Clough, Dec. 5 to Jan. 4. 
James Scales, Dec. 5 to Dec. 20. 
Moris Ervis, Dec. 5 to Dec. 20. 
Wm. Preston, Dec. 5 to Dec. 20. 
Henry Ervin, Dec. 5 to Dec. 20. 
Steph'n Call, Dec. 5 to Dec. 20. 

A company of scouts under Capt. Daniel Ladd of Exeter was 
sent in the summer of 1746 to protect the inhabitants of the 
frontier towns. The following is an extract from the diary of 
Abner Clough, the clerk of the company. 

"Aug. 17, 1746, Sunday. Marched to Canterbury and went 
to meeting some part of the day; on the 18th went down 
to the intervale in order to guard some people about their 
work, but it rained all day. — 19th. Went to the intervale to 
guard some people. In the afternoon scouted some, made no 
discovery. But Capt. Tolford with his men discovered where 
there had laid some Indians in ambush, and also where the 
Indians had roasted some corn. — 21st. Went down to the lower 
end of the town to guard some people about their work. — 22d. 
Went to the same place for to guard the people. — 23d, Early in 
the morning marched from the fort to go to the intervale to 
guard &c, but when we had marched about half a mile we crossed 
a field and found where there lay two Indians, and had but just 
gone, for the grass seemed to rise up after them. We ranged 
about the woods but could see nothing of them, but found several 
more had laid. We supposed these two Indians laid them for 
spies. — 24th Sunday. Marched across the woods &c.; returned 
to the fort. — 25th. Scouted some, made another discovery. 

» Prov. Papers, Vol. V, pages 454 to 467. 
» N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 915. 


Returned to the fort just after sunset. The watch m Canterbury 
said that they discovered an Indian, plain. Looked after him 
but it soon grew dark. — 26th. Returned to Rumford." 

On Captain Ladd's muster roll are found the following names 
of men who were then or later identified with Canterbury : Joseph 
Mann, John Forrest, Moses Danforth, Simon Rumril, Samuel 
Shepard, Jr., Samuel Moore, John Dolloff, Josiah Miles and John 
Moore, (Potter's Mihtary History of N. H., pages 94 and 95). 

Early in the year 1748, the inhabitants of Concord, Canterbury 
and Boscawen petitioned the provincial government to have the 
garrison which had been abandoned at the grist mill of Henry 
Lovejoy in West Concord renewed. They set forth that "the 
two last mentioned places are greatly distressed for want of a 
suitable grist mill . . . and that it is the only mill in 
all three towns that stands under the command of the guns of a 
garrison. That the ill consequences of abandoning the said 
garrison the past year has been severely felt by us. That the 
said Lovejoy appears desirous of residing there again, provided 
he might be favored by such a number of soldiers, as just to keep 
his garrison with a tolerable degree of safety." ^ This not only 
shows the apprehension of Indian raids the inhabitants of Can- 
terbury had at this time but also the distance many of them had 
to travel to a suitable grist mill. If there were any other grist 
mills in town, they appear to have been crude and inadequate and 
entirely unprotected. The follo\ving are Canterbury names 
found upon the petition: Jeremiah Clough, Thomas Clough, 
Archelaus Moore, James Gibson, William Forrest, William 
Forrest, Jr., William Miles, James Head, William Moore, Samuel 
Shepherd, James Scales, John Gibson, John Forest, Benjamin 
Blanchard, Samuel Moore, Thomas Danforth, Josiah Miles and 
Moses Danforth.2 

A petition for wages and billeting addressed to the provincial 

government and signed by Jeremiah Clough, Philip Call, Samuel 

French, Thomas Clough, Ezekiel Clough, Henry Elkins, Samuel 

Moor, Samuel and James Shepherd reads as follows:^ 

"That whereas your humble Petitioners, by Order his Excel- 
lency the Governor, kept the Garrison at Canterbury in the 
Province of New Hampshire aforesaid, as follows, viz : 

1 N. H. Town Papers, Vol. XI, page 391. 

2 Boiiton's History of Concord, page 176. 

' N. H. Town Papers, Vol. IX, pages 90, 91. 


PI ■]■ r fi (.begin with ye 5th of Jan. 1747 — to 

o ^ n-r v. C 3'e 20th of November foUowinp;. 
Sam 1 French ) -^ '= 

Thorn's Clough "^ beginning w-ith ye oth of Jan. 

Ezek Clough \ 1747 to yeSthof ]\Iay follo^\'ing. 

Henry Elkins beginning ^A-ith ye 5th of Jan. 1747 

to ye 12th of August following. 
Sam'l ]Moor ] beginning with ye 9th of ^lay 

Samuel Shepherd \ 1747 to ye 20th of November 

James Shepherd beginning with ye 13th of August 

1747 to ye 20th of November following. 

"And faithfully & effectualh' performed all necessary Duties 
in said Garrison, according to our respective stations so that the 
Enemy never took any advantage to the Damage & Hurt of 
said Garrison, or of any that belonged to it, during the whole 
time above mentioned. And yet your humble Petitioners have 
never as yet been allowed any wages, or Billeting for our service, 
except £100 new tenor towards Billeting, received pr. Capt. 
Clough, tho' other Soldiers who served since we did have been 
paid both "Wages & Billeting. Therefore we your humble 
Petitioners humbly praj' j'our Excellency & Your Honours to 
take our Case into your -u-ise Consideration, & to grant us Wages 
and Billeting, for the time which we have served, as afores'd. 
For which Goodness, your Humble Petitioners for your Excel- 
lency & your Honours, as in Duty bound shall ever pray." 

The foregoing petition was not presented until 1754. The 
Council had it read and sent to the house of representatives. 
The latter bodj' voted that it be dismissed. 

The following is the muster roll of a company of twenty-three 
men on duty at Canterbury from July 4 to December 4, 1747. 
Most of the names will be recognized as those of Canterbury 

Jeremiah Clough, Capt. Henr}- Ervin. 

James Scales, Sergt. Robert Thurston. 

^yilliam Preston, Sergt. Archelaus Moore. 

Samuel French. "William ]\Iiles. 

Henry Elkins. James Lindsey. 

Ezekiel Clough. Samuel Shepard. 

Philip Call. William Forrest. 

Nathaniel Ladd. James Head. 

Thomas Clough. Benjamin Blanchard. 

Stephen Call. John Gibson. 

John Manuel. Thomas Danforth. 
Moses Evers. 

» N. H. Adj. Gen. Report, Vol. II, page 97. 


All through the years 1747 and 1748 there were Indians lurking 
about Canterbury, Contoocook and Concord. Settlers were 
killed, their cattle slaughtered and various depredations were 
committed by the savages. The inhabitants were in constant 
fear of attack, but the people of neighboring towns suffered more 
than those of Canterbury. Scout and garrison duty were con- 
stantlj^ performed by the settlers and by soldiers sent to the 
neighborhood by the provincial government.^ King George's 
War closed in 1748, and for the next four years the inhabitants 
of Canterburj^ were comparatively free from Indian alarms. 

Although the French and Indian War did not begin until 
1754, Indians were troublesome about Canterbury two years 
earlier. Christo, to whom reference has already been made, 
and Sabbatis appeared in town late in the spring of 1752. They 
were hospitably treated and Sabbatis lodged at the house of 
Josiah Miles for eight or ten days. On the 8th of May, the 
Indians disappeared carrying away with them two negro slaves 
belonging to Miles and his neighbor James Lindsey. These 
negroes were named Peer and Tom. Three days later Peer 
made his escape and returned to his master's house, reporting 
that Christo and Sabbatis had made them prisoners. Lindsey 's 
slave was sold to the French in Canada and never came back. 

A year later Sabbatis - returned to Canterbury with another 
Indian of the St. Francis tribe, named Plausawa.^ They re- 
mained in Canterbury several days. Calling at the house of Mr. 
Miles while he was in the field at work, Sabbatis wap reproached 
by Mrs. Lindsey, who was present, with stealing her slave. Upon 
this the Indians assumed a hostile attitude and threatened the 
lives of both Mrs. Lindsey and Mrs. jMiles if anything more 
should be said about the stolen slaves. At length their conduct 
became so menacing that some of the inhabitants ve them 
notice that, if they remained, they did so at their peril. Sabbatis 
and Plausawa then left Canterbury and took up their abode 
across the river in Contoocook (Boscawen). Here they contin- 
ued their insolent manner, boasting of the robberies they had 
committed in the neighborhood and of the murders they had 
perpetrated in previous wars and threatening to do the Hke again. 

» Prov. Records, Vol. V, pages, 120, 543, 573, 576; Vol. IX, pages 90, 91. 
* Sabbatis, a corruption of the French name, Jean Baptiste. 
' Plausawa, a corruption of the French name, Francois. 


While in Contoocook, these Indians were much in the company 
of two white men, Peter Bowen and John Morrell. The former 
was a reckless borderer, hunter and trapper, well acquainted with 
savages in general and Sabbatis and Plausawa in particular. 
There is little doubt that the inhabitants of Canterbury and Con- 
toocook were apprehensive of these Indians and that most of 
them felt that their only safety was in getting rid of them. 
Sensing this feeling of the people, Bowen proceeded to put it into 
execution. Obtaining hquor from Rumford (Concord) he gave 
it freely to Sabbatis and Plausawa. After they were intoxicated, 
they were taken into the woods, the charges drawn from their 
guns, and both of them killed by Bowen. The part Morrell had 
in the affair appears to have been that of an accessory both 
before and after the fact. Bowen freely acknowledged the deed, 
but claimed that it was done in self defence.^ 

The news soon spread, and as the colonies were at peace with 
the Indians, the governor of New Hampshire, upon complaint of 
the governor of Massachusetts, v*^ho feared trouble on account of 
this affair, took steps to have Bowen and Morrell apprehended 
on the charge of murder. They were arrested and lodged in 
Portsmouth jail to await trial. Their trial was fixed for March 
21, 1754. The night previous, a party of men from Canterbury, 
Contoocook and neighboring towns, under the leadership of 
Simon Ames of Canterbury, appeared in Portsmouth, broke 
open the jail and released the prisoners. This act produced the 
greatest excitement. Governor Penning Wentworth made it 
the subject of a special message to the assembly. The sheriff 
was instructed to arrest all those participating in the affair, and 
rewards were offered for the recapture of Bowen and Morrell. 

Ames was arrested in Canterbury as the ringleader of the con- 
spiracy. "I will go with you„" was his prompt reply to the 
Sheriff, "but we will have dinner first." The latter was pleased 
to accept the generous hospitality of his prisoner. 

"You will allow me to ride my own horse to Exeter," said 

The sheriff had no objection, as he and his assistants were 
mounted. After dinner the party started and rode until nearly 
sunset, reaching Brentwood. The officers, one on each side, had 

I Chandler E. Potter's account in the Farmer's Monthly Visitor, September, 


enjoyed the society of their prisoner. They were ascending a 
hill, the officers' horses were jaded, having been used since morn- 
ing, while that of Ames was comparatively fresh and very fleet. 

"I declare," said Ames, "it is most sunset. Good evening, 
Gentlemen. I do not think I will go with you any farther to- 

In an instant he was gone. At a touch of the rein the horse 
wheeled and the rider, bowing politely, disappeared. The officers 
were taken completely by surprise and sat upon their horses in 
blank astonishment. Pursuit was useless, for it would have been 
impossible to have overtaken Ames unless fresh horses could be 
obtained. This would have been difficult, as public sentiment 
was on the side of their prisoner.^ 

No further action appears to have been taken, except that 
Governor Wentworth, acting upon the advice of Governor 
Shirley of Massachusetts, made presents to the relatives of these 
Indians as an atonement for blood spilled in time of peace. 
Bowen and ]Morrill were never apprehended, although soon after 
their release they went openly about their business. They were 
considered to have performed a meritorious deed. Some of the 
most substantial men of Canterbury and Boscawen were engaged 
in their rescue, by act or advice, and the government would 
have found it difficult to have convicted them if they had been 
arraigned. 2 

That the inhabitants of Canterbury were constantly on the 
alert the first year of the war is shown by a petition^ to the 
provincial government "for the remission of their part of the 
Province tax for the year 1754 and until the pressing danger 
and difficulties of war are over" signed by the following settlers: 

Jeremiah Clough, Thomas Clough, William Miles, Josiah 
Miles, John Bamford, Samuel Shepard, Solomon Copp, Benjamin 
Blanchard, John Gibbons, John Dolloff, James Gibson, James 
Lindsey, Samuel Shepard, Jr., James Shepard, Joseph Simonds, 
Joseph Elis, James Scales, Ezekiel Morrill, William Moore and 
Henry Elkins. 

1 History of Boscawen, page 62. 

2 For affidavits of Lieut. William Miles, Josiah Miles and wife and James 
Lindsey and wife regarding the stealing of the slaves, see Prov. Papers, Vol. 
VI, pages 301 to 306. For action of the Colonial Government in reference to 
the killing of Sabbatis and Plausawa and the rescue of Bowen and Morrill, see 
Prov. Papers, Vol. VI, pages 2.5, 262 to 266. 

» N. H. Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 91. 


In the spring of that year the Indians made an attack upon 
Contoocook (Boscawen), carrying off captives. The council 
advised the governor to enlist men to be sent immediately for the 
protection of Contoocook and Canterbury.^ 

In 1756 the selectmen asked for the remission of the province 
tax of Canterbury for the years 1755 and 1756.- They set forth 
in their petition that, being a frontier town with few inhabitants, 
they are "exposed to the incursions and depredations of the 
enemy and that by reason of the war this year (1756) and last 
year with the Indian enemy, it is with great difficulty that they 
are able to maintain and support themselves." 

The Rev. William Patrick gives the following account of an 
Indian attack the next year : ^ 

"In 1757, the people of this town having heard an alarm, re- 
tired to the garrison. After remaining for some length of time 
in this strong enclosure, and no Indians appearing, they began 
to feel less of their danger and to attend to the necessary labors 
of the field. But their peace was soon interrupted. Four 
Indians of the St. Francis tribe appeared near the house of Mr. 
Thomas Clough, which they entered and took from it a small 
quantity of meal, but their object being to take captives, they 
concealed themselves behind a long fence. They soon perceived 
a young lad, by the name of Moses Jackman, a nephew of Mr. 
Clough, and Dorset, the negro man of Mr. Clough hoeing in the 
orchard. They suddenh* leaped over the fence, and two of them 
secured young Jackman, and the other two pursued Dorset, who 
fled to the woods. The poor fellow made an obstinate resistance, 
and received much abuse by their beating his face and head, but 
his cries of IMurder! Indians! were heard by some lads, who had 
been sent on an errand to the low ground between this house 
and the fort, about the distance of half a mile from each other. 
The lads returned to the fort with the intelligence. Mrs. Clough 
narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the Indians. Not 
apprehending danger, she went that day from the garrison to her 
house to bake and prepare for the return of the family. Going 
directly to her meal chest she discovered some traces of the 
Indians, and concluded that the enemy was near. With remark- 
able presence of mind she stepped to the door, and called aloud 
for the boys, saying come quickly! Continuing her calls as she 
advanced, still bending her course toward the garrison, she 
safely passed the ground of danger; ran to the fort, and confirmed 

» Prov. Papers, Vol. VI, page 27. 

> N. H. Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 92. 

» Rev. William Patrick's Historical Sermon, October 27, 1833. 


the sad tidings. Exertions were made to recover the captives, 
but in vain. 

"They were conveyed to Lake Champlain, thence to St. 
John's and to Montreal. At Montreal, they were imprisoned 
for a fortnight, while the Indians were employed in selling their 
furs. The prisoners were then, to their no small grief, separated 
— Dorset being sold in Montreal, and Jackman to a Frenchman 
in St. Francis, from whom, after a tedious captivity, he was 
released in 1761, after the restoration of peace. His widowed 
mother employed a person to go in pursuit of him, by whom he 
was conducted to his friends in Boscawen, where he was living 
in 1823. Mr. Clough, having received intelligence that for a 
moderate sum he could obtain his servant, sent and redeemed 
him; but on his return, Dorset missed his way, and from his 
exposure, to the severity of the cold, was so badly frozen that he 
lost both of his feet. He was, however, brought back to Canter- 
bury and his old master supported him comfortably until his 
death, which happened at quite an advanced age. We may form 
some idea of the situation of this people by an extract of a letter 
written to the inhabitants of this town, in answer to inquiries 
which they proposed to the convention of ministers in regard to 
the settlement of a man in the work of the gospel ministry. 
These Fathers in the ministry say, — 'We are properly affected 
with your circumstances, as dwelling in the wilderness, and 
exposed to the insults and barbarities of a cruel and savage 
enemy.' This letter was dated September 28th, 1756. 

"About this time, Samuel and George Shepherd, sons of Mr. 
Samuel Shepherd, were soldiers in the old French war, and were 
stationed near the frontiers of Canada. These young men, with 
others, were selected and sent upon an important despatch under 
the command of a Captain Burbank. The captain imprudently 
permitted his soldiers to shoot pigeons. The report of the guns 
gave notice to the Indians, who collected in superior numbers, 
and placed themselves in a situation where they could fight 
to advantage. They commenced the action which was warm 
and bloody, the English expecting no quarters, if overpowered. 
While fighting those in front, Samuel Shepherd was approached 
by an Indian in the rear, seized by the hair of his head, drawn 
back a few rods and bound to a tree. George narrowly escaped 
the blow of a tomahawk, which was aimed at his head. Missing 
his object, the force of the blow fell upon the Indian, who received 
a wound in his leg. Being made prisoners, these brothers, as 
they passed down the lake, recognized the scalps of their captain 
and comrades belonging to the little band. They were taken 
to Montreal and sold to the French. After the close of the war, 
they were permitted to return home and enjoy the tranquillity 
of peace." 


That the year 1758 was full of anxiety to the people of Canter- 
bury is shown by the letter of Thomas Clough dated July 18 of 
that year. Referring to his appointment to acquire a gore of 
land between Canterbury and Rumford, he says that he "should 
have forthwith waited upon said Lords Proprietors but the 
posture of our affairs is such at present that I can not possibly 
come down, our hay, Indian corn and other things being almost 
spoiled for want of taking care of, being surprised almost every 
day on account of the Indians and hardly dare stir from one garri- 
son to another without a large company together." 

This letter indicates that there was more than one garrison in 
Canterbury. Those outside of the main fort, built by the pro- 
prietors, may have been only stockades, but that there were 
several fortified inclosures, called forts, is shown by a vote at a 
town meeting March 16, 1758, when, in appropriating money for 
schools, it was provided, "that each fort's people shall enjoy 
the benefit of their own money in their own fort." 

In this war Capt. Asa Foster of Andover, Mass., father of the 
five Foster brothers who settled in Canterbury, was in command 
of a company in an expedition against Ticonderoga in 1758. He 
was accompanied by his son Daniel, who was then twenty-one 
years of age. Captain Asa kept a diary during a part of the time 
he was on this expedition, which has since been published.^ The 
period covered by the diary was from June 10, 1758, to October 6 
of that year. Captain Foster's command was stationed at or near 
Fort Edward. They appear to have participated in an engage- 
ment July 20 in which some of the company were killed. The 
inadequate provisions for quartering the troops, they being mostly 
without tents, produced much sickness, from which both Captain 
Asa and his sons were sufferers. Finally, they were sent back to 
Albany with others who were unfit for duty. While on this 
expedition, Captain Foster received news of the death of his wife. 
How or when he and his son returned home is not known. It 
is possible that, when upon this expedition. Captain Foster heard 
of the Canterbury settlement, to which his son, the Rev. Abiel 
Foster, was called as the minister two years later. Daniel fol- 
lowed his brother Abiel to this frontier town well equipped by his 
experience to become a pioneer in the wilderness. 

Capt. Jeremiah Clough, who was authorized to take command 

1 N. E. Historical and Genealogical Register, April, 1900. 


■of the inhabitants of Canterbury by vote of the proprietors in 
1744, when provision was first made for their protection against 
the Indians, was undoubtedly the leading spirit of the town 
in colonial days. His influence continued until his death. Care 
must be exercised, however, not to confuse him with his son of 
the same name and military title who took part in the Revolution- 
ary War. The father was evidently a strong character, eminently 
fitted for the services of leader of the pioneers who had made 
their home in the wilderness. He possessed the confidence of the 
provincial government, as is seen by the votes of the House of 
Representatives and the orders of the council. The proprietors 
honored him with an election as selectman as early as 1738, a 
position to which he was repeatedly chosen by the inhabitants 
after they were permitted to take charge of their town affairs. 
He frequently served as moderator at town meetings and was a 
member of nearly all important committees selected to transact 
town business. It was he, rather than his son, who was a deputy 
with Rev. Abiel Foster to the Provincial Congress which met at 
Exeter May 17, 1775. In both civil and military hfe, he acquit- 
ted himself with credit. It is to be regretted that the archives 
of the town furnish so little information of this distinguished 
ancestor of a family who have ever been prominent in the history 
of Canterbury.^ 

In the midst of their troubles with the Indians it was discovered 
by the inhabitants that the transcript of the charter in the 
records of the town was without attestation. As many public 
documents had been destroyed at the time the house of Richard 
Waldron, the secretary of the Province, was burned, they were 
naturally apprehensive that the original charter was among these 
papers. Upon this charter rested the title to their estates. 
Knowing the litigation which had come to their neighbors of 
Concord because of a conflict of grants made by Massachusetts 
and New Hampshire, of the same territory, they were duly 
alarmed. Unless they could have their charter confirmed, they 
or their descendants might be ousted of their landed possessions 

I Capt. Jeremiah Clough removed to Loudon in 1785 or earlier for as "Jere- 
miah Clough, senior," he signs a petition that j^earasan inhabitant of Loudon. 
(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XII, page 488) and as "Jeremiah Clough," Esq.) he 
heads a recommendation for the appointment of a justice of the peace for that 
town under date of April 30, 1789. He died at Loudon between April 4, 1792, 
the date of his will and April 26, 1792, the date of its probate. 


at the whim of the next governor of the Province. At once they 
took steps to repair this defect in their title as will appear by the 
following : ^ 

"Humbly Sheweth Josiah jNIiles Yeoman and Thomas Clough 
Housewright both of said Canterbury in said Province & a Com- 
mittee appointed by the said Town to appi}' to your Excel- 
lency & Honours on the Following acc't viz: That the Township 
of Canterbury was Granted by the Late Hon'ble John Wentworth 
Esq'r Lieut. Governor and Commander in Chief in and over said 
Province dec'd to a number of persons whose names are in a 
Schedule herewith presented attested by the Late Sec'y Richard 
Waldron Esq'r dec'd as Clerk of that Council and said Grantees 
procured a Copy of said Charter and Recorded the same in their 
Town book of said Canterbur^^ a Copy of which Charter attested 
by the Town Clerk of said Canterbury is herewith also pre- 
sented, and as the Inhabitants of said Township have been at 
Great Trouble & pains in settling said Township and have been 
a Great part of the time since obtaining the Charter aforesaid 
Labouring under an Indian War (and many Rumors thereof when 
it was not an actual Warr) and said Township being a frontier 
the Inhabitants had as much as they could Subsist under to 
maintain their Respective familys without making any Enquiry 
into their Charter privileges. But at length some people found 
a Transcript thereof in their Town Book but without any attesta- 
tion and on further Enquiring Could not find the Original Charter 
nor any attested Copy thereof anywhere nor any Record thereof 
in the Sec'y office and as the aforesaid Secy Waldron's house 
was burnt with manj^ publick papers of the Province they are 
apprehensive the said Original Charter was then burnt. 

"Wherefore the said Josiah and Thomas as aforesaid pray that 
the said Copj's aforesaid may be Recorded in the Secy's office and 
they confirmed in their Respective Estates as tho they now had 
the aforesaid Original Charter, and they as in Duty bound shall 
Ever pray. 

"Portsmouth Jany 16, 1756 

"Josiah Miles ) --, ... 
"Thomas Clough I ^°^™^^^^ 

"In Council Jany 17, 1756 

"The Within Petition read & order'd that the Secy record 
the Copy said Charter & Schedule it appearing to the Council 
that the Copys are Genuine. 

"Theod. Atkinson, Secy." 

Thomas Clough, who served on this committee, was a brother 
» N. H. TowTi Papers, Vol. IX, page 92. 


of Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Sr. He was as distinguished in the 
civic affairs of the to^vTi as his brother was in its defence. For 
many years he served as town clerk and selectman, besides 
acting upon important committees. Several times he was 
entrusted with missions that concerned the welfare of the com- 
munity, making journeys to Durham and Portsmouth. He 
appears to have discharged his duties with tact and discretion 
and to have succeeded in all his public undertakings. A house- 
wright by trade, his dwelling was probably the first frame struc- 
ture in Canterbury. His descendants have been prominent in 
the affairs of the to^^^l even to the present day. 

Josiah jNIiles, the other member of this committee, was the 
son of Lieut. William iMiles. The latter came as a pioneer to 
Canterbury from Dover. He was the ancestor of all those of the 
Miles name who settled in to^^'n. Both William and Josiah 
were selectmen prior to 1753, the latter being elected to the 
office several times. The toAra records show that the father died 
January 1, 1761.^ In 1759, Josiah was selected by the voters 
of Canterbury to present their claim to a gore of land in dispute 
between them and the proprietors of Bow.^ He was a large 
land owTier and as such he was a strong factor in the community 
from the time of his arrival. A son of the same name was an 
early settler in Sanbornton. Other members of his family moved 
to that part of the original grant that was set off as Northfield in 
1780, of which his son Archelaus JNIiles was the first town clerk. 
There are now no known descendants of Capt. Josiah Miles 
within the limits of either Canterbury or Northfield. 

1 Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths. 
' See Chapter IV. 



The fall of Quebec in 1759 removed the last apprehension of 
the settlers at Canterbury of Indian raids. As a matter of 
fact, several months before the surrender of this stronghold to 
the English, it was proposed in town meeting to sell the fort 
which the proprietors had built, and, although the proposition 
was defeated at that time, the sale was authorized in August 
1759, the proceeds to be laid out in mending the highways of 
the town.^ The people were now free to pursue their work in 
peace, which was an inducement for new settlers to come to 
Canterbury. King George's and the French and Indian Wars 
had discouraged emigration to the frontier towns and very few 
new settlers came to Canterbury between 1744 and 1759. What- 
ever the increase of population during that period, it came almost 
wholly from births. This is confirmed by an invoice of the 
polls, stock and improved lands of the town in 1761 returned 
by Ezekiel Morrill, Thomas Clough and Ephraim Hackett^ 
the selectmen of that year.- This invoice showed: 

Polls 57 Oxen 52 

Houses 33 Cows 98 

Planted land. . . 62 acres Cattle 3 years old ... 22 

Mowed land ... 189 acres Cattle 2 years old . . . 29 

Orchard land . . 4 acres Cattle 1 year old ... 37 

Pasture land. . . 146 acres Horses 35 

Negro 1 

These figures tell more eloquently than words the story of 
the isolation, trials and dangers of the people of Canterbury. 

1 The fort was made over into a house and was occupied by Bjlly E. Pillsbury 
for a number of years. 

2 N. H. Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 73. 


In a little over a quarter of a century they had assembled but 
a small company of daring spirits in the wilderness. The polls 
here enumerated included the male inhabitants between six- 
teen and sixty years of age. Taking the enumeration made 
six years later as a guide, when the proportion of males to females 
was 273 to 227 and about half the people were adults, the pop- 
ulation of Canterbury in 1761 must have fallen short of two 
hundred. If the settlement had remained almost stationary 
for fifteen years, its growth from this time forward was to be 
rapid. New names appear in the records and the population 
spread out to other sections of the town. About this time there 
was also a movement to the "North Fields" which two decades 
later gave birth to the new town of Northfield. 

The growth and development of Canterbury can be traced 
in the enumeration of the people of New Hampshire taken 
by order of the provincial government in the j^ears 1767, 1773 
and 1775.^ There is also a return of the number of inhabitants 
of the towns to the state government in 1786. The figures of 
these enumerations are here given : 


Unmarried men 16 to 60 42 

Married men 16 to 60 82 

Boys from 16 years and under 138 

Men 60 years and above 11 

Females unmarried 140 

Females married 83 

Widows 4 

Male slaves 3 


CENSUS OF 1773. 

Unmarried men from 16 to 60 66 

Married men from 16 to 60 96 

Boys 16 years and under 150 

Men 60 years and upwards 10 

Females unmarried 164 

Females married 104 

Widows 5 

Male slaves 5 

Total 600 

1 Prov. Papers, Vol. VII, pages 170, 730. N. H. State Papers, Vol. X, 
pages 625, 640. 


CENSUS OF 1775. 

Males under 16 years of age 199 

Males from 16 to 50 not in the armj^ 124 

IXIales above 50 j'ears of age 30 

Persons gone in the army 35 

Females 331 

Negroes and slaves for life 4 

Total 723 

A total return of guns fit for use 45 

Guns wanting 109 

Stock of powder 80 w. t. 

John Farmer is quoted b}' Doctor Bouton as saying that 
the census of 1775 "is probably the most correct estimate of 
the number of people in the State of New Hampshire which 
was ever made" up to that time.^ A return of the number 
of inhabitants of Canterbury of every age and sex taken April 
1, 1786, shows a population of 860, including three slaves.^ 
The first United States Census, that of 1790, gives a total pop- 
ulation of 1,048. In comparing the returns of these different 
years it must be kept in mind that Loudon was set off from 
Canterbury in 1773 and that Northfield was created out of 
the territory of the parent town in 1780. 

If the invoice of polls made by the selectmen in 1761 is reason- 
ably accurate, there must have been an influx of new settlers 
in the next six years, for the population of the towTi more than 
doubled. Between 1767 and 1773, when the first two enumer- 
ations of the inhabitants of New Hampshire were made, is also 
a period of six years, but Canterbury included Loudon in 1767, 
while Loudon was created a separate township in 1773 and 
enumerated separately. The return of the population of the 
latter township was as follows: 

1 Prov. Papers, Vol. VII, page 724. 

2 N. H. State Papers, Vol. X, page 640. 


LOUDON 1773, 


Unmarried men from 16 to 60 12 

Married men from 16 to 60 36 

Boys 16 years and under 58 

Men 60 years and upwards 2 

Females unmarried 54 

Females married 38 

Widows 3 

Female slaves 1 

Total 204 

If the population of Canterbury and Loudon is combined, 
it gives a total of 804 or an increase in the six years from 1767 
to 1773 of 301. The enumeration of 1775 was the first census 
after New Hampshire ceased to be a province and was taken 
immediately before it formally became an independent state for 
the purpose of establishing an adequate representation of the 
people in the legislature. As it occurred so soon after Loudon 
separated from Canterbury, the returns of the former town are 
here given for the purpose of comparison. 

LOUDON 1775. 

Males under 16 years of age 90 

Males from 16 years to 50 not in the army. ... 85 

All males above 50 years of age 9 

Persons gone in the army 3 

All females 161 

Negroes and slaves for life 1 

Total 349 

The population of both Canterbury and Loudon in 1775 was 
1,072, an increase in two years of 268, of which Loudon showed 
the larger gain. When the next enumeration was made, eleven 
years later in 1786, Loudon had a population of 822 ^ while 
Canterbury had only 860. But Northfield had in the mean- 
time been separated from Canterbury and in 1786 showed a 
population of 349.^ Nevertheless, Loudon's growth from the 

' Prov. Papers, Vol. X, page, 625 

! N. H. State Papers, Vol. X, page 644. 

' Idem, page 645. 


date of its incorporation as a township for a period of two 
decades was more rapid than that of Canterbury. 

These reports of population to the provincial government 
were not house to house canvasses like the more modern census. 
They were taken partly by enumeration and partly by estima- 
tion from tax lists prepared by the selectmen/ yet they were 
approximately correct. 

A few tax lists of Canterbury for some of the years before 
the town was divided are still preserved. They were prepared 
for various purposes, such as an inventory of the polls and 
estates for the province, town and school taxes, for defraying 
the charge of "billeting the school master," for fencing and 
clearing the parsonage, and for making up the minister tax 
and the wood rates, the people supplying the minister with fuel 
as well as paying taxes for his support. These lists are for the 
years 1762, 1764, 1767, 1769, 1770 and 1771. Apparently 
each is a complete document, yet there are a few omissions of 
well-known residents in the first two lists for which no expla- 
nation can now be given. Appearing as these early settlers 
do in later schedules, it is evident that they were still living. 
Whether such omissions as the names of Jeremiah Clough, Sr., 
James Lindsey, James and John Gibson from the lists of 1762 
and 1764 indicate a mistake on the part of the selectmen in 
making the inventory, or that these men were exempt from 
some rate, or were given special consideration for some reason, 
it is impossible to ascertain. Occasionally there is a break 
of a year or two in the sequence of taxation of some individuals. 
Yet, taking the lists together as they are grouped in the follow- 
ing table, they present the only authentic information of the 
families of Canterbury a generation after the first settlements 
and before the town was divided. 

Daniel Ames 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Samuel Ames 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Samuel Ames, Jr 1767 1769 

Simon Ames 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

John Ash 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Abraham Bachelder 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Abraham, Jr 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Daniel Bachelder 1771 

Isaac Bachelder 1769 1770 

Jacob Bachelder 1769 1770 1771 

Jethro Bachelder 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. VII, page 724. 


Jethro Bachelder, Jr 

Nathan Bachelder 

Nathaniel Bachelder 

George Barnes 

John Bean 

Benjamin Beedle 

Thomas Beedle 

William Blaisdell 

Benjamin Blanchard 

Benjamin Blanchard, 2d 

Benjamin Blanchard, 3d 

Benjamin Blanchard, 4th 

Edward Blanchard 

Richard Blanchard 

John Boynton 

Joshua Boynton 

Henry Y. Brown 1762 

Jacob Brown 

Anne Bumford 

William Burkes 

Joseph Burle}' 

Dr. Josiah Chase 

Jeremiah Clough 

Jeremiah Clough, Jr 1762 

Jonathan Clough 

Nehemiah Clough 

Thomas Clough 1762 

Thomas Clough, Jr ' . . . 

Samuel Clough 

Joseph Cockes 

Edmund Colby 

Humphrey Colby 1762 

Benjamin Collins 

Solomon Copps 1762 

John Cross 

Stephen Cross 

Ann Curry 

William Curry 

John Danforth 

Samuel Danforth 

Obadiah Davis 

Thomas DaA'is 

William Davis 

John Dolloff 1762 

John Dolloff, Jr 1762 

Amaziah Dow 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Jacob Eaton 1762 1764 

Samuel Eaton 1762 

Jonathan Elkins 1762 

Henry Elkins 

Richard Ellison 

William Ellison 

Da\'id Emerson 

Daniel Fifield 1762 

John Forrest 

William Forrest 

Thomas Foss 

Timothv Foss 

Asa Foster 1762 

Daniel Foster 














































































































































David Foster 1767 1769 1770 

Jonathan Foster 1769 

Samuel French 

Daniel Gale 1770 

WilHam Gault 1767 1769 1770 

George Graham 1764 

Moses Gerrish 1769 1770 

Samuel Gerrish 1769 1770 

Stephen Gerrish 1767 1769 1770 

James Gibson 1767 1769 1770 

John Gibson 1767 1769 1770 

Daniel Giles 

John Singelear Gibson 1770 

Israel Glines 1762 1764 

James Glines 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 

John GUnes 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 

Joseph GUnes 1767 1769 1770 

Nathaniel Glines 1764 1767 1769 1770 

Richard Glines 1767 1769 1770 

William Glines, Jr 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 

William Glines, 3d 1770 

Alexander Gordon 1770 

Jonathan Guile 1770 

Ephraim Hacket 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 

Ezra Hacket 1764 1767 1769 1770 

Hezekiah Hacket 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 

Jeremiah Hacket 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 

John Haight 

Thomas Haight 

Jacob Hancock 1767 1769 1770 

Joseph Hancock 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 

William Hancock 1770 

William Hare 1769 

James Head 1762 1764 1769 1770 1771 

James Head, Jr 1764 1767 1769 

Moses Head 1762 1764 1769 1770 

Benjamin Heath 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Caleb Heath 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Ezekiel Heath 1769 

James Heath 1762 1764 

Jonathan Heath 1762 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Joshua Heath 1762 1764 

JohnHolden 1769 1770 1771 

John Hoyt 1767 1769 1770 

Zachariah Hunneford 1764 1767 1769 1770 

Peter Huntoon 1770 1771 

Dudley Hutchinson 1769 1771 

Elisha'Hutchinson 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Jonathan Hutchinson 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Richard Jackson 1762 

Benjamin Johnson 1769 1770 1771 

Josiah Judkins 1769 1770 1771 

George Keasor 1764 1767 1769 1770 1771 

William Kennistoni 1762 

Josiah Kentfieldi 1762 1764 

Ebenezer Kimball 1770 1771 

John Knox 1771 

1 History of Sanbornton gives them as settlers of that town in 1768. 





























William Knox 

Daniel Ladd 

James Lindsey 

Samuel Locke 

Thomas ]\Iagoon 

Joseph Maun 

James Maloney 

John Alaloney 

John IMcDaniel 

James Marsten 

Gershom ]Mathes 

Archelaus IMiles 

Josiah Miles 1762 

Josiah Miles, Jr 

Samuel Miles 

Archelaus Moore 1762 

Ensign John Moore 1762 

John Moore, Jr 

Nathaniel Moore 1762 

Samuel Moore i 1762 

William Moore 

David Morrill 1762 

Ezekiel Morrill 1762 

Ezekiel ]Morrill, Jr 

Laban Morrill 1762 

Reuben Morrill 1762 

Daniel Morrison 

James Moulton 

Henry ]\Ioulton 

Da\-id Xorris 

Moses Ordwaj- 

Moses Ordway, Jr 

Nathaniel Perkins 

Stephen Perkins 

George Peterson 

Moses Randall 

Eliphalet Rawlins 

William Rines 

Eliphalet Roberts 

John Robinson 

John Robinson, Jr 

John Sanborn 

Aaron Sargent 

Samuel Sargent 

George Shannon 

Daniel Shepard 

James Shepard 1762 

John Shepard 

Joseph Shepard 

Samuel Shepard • 

Benjamin Sias 

Charles Sias 1762 

Eli Simons 

John Simons 

Joseph Simons 1762 

William Simons 

Benjamin Simpson 

Wilham Simpson 

Joseph Singelear (Sinclair) 

Joseph Soper 























































































































































1769 1770 1771 


Abiel Stevens 1767 1769 1770 

Barnard Stiles 1767 1771 

Dudley Sweesey 1769 1770 1771 

Enoch Thomas 1767 

Samuel Torrv 1770 

Jacob Towle" 1770 1771 

Enoch Webster 1767 1769 

William Williams _ 1767 1769 1770 1771 

Jonathan Woodbury 1762 

Jonathan Young 1770 1771 

The foregoing list includes nearly all the active and prominent 
men of Canterbury for a generation after the first settlement. 
They left no diaries of their transactions and but little is known 
of them outside of what is found in the town records. No trace 
of some of the families can now be discovered. A few of these 
pioneers may have abided in Canterbury only a little time. 
The divisions of the town in 1773 and 1780 by which Loudon 
and Northfield were set off severed the connection of others 
from the history of this community. The following facts relating 
to such founders of the town as have not already been noticed 
were gleaned however from records and other sources.^ 

Ensign John Moore, the ancestor of the Moores of Canter- 
bury and of numerous descendants in all parts of the United 
States, was one of the proprietors of the town. He drew home 
lot No. 177, which he occupied temporarily at least about as 
early as any settler who came to Canterbury. The cave can 
still be seen in this locahty where he made his dwelling place until 
he could erect a log house. He seems to have alternated between 
his old home in Durham and his new abode in Canterbury for 
several years, probably working at his trade as a shipwright 
to earn money for the support of his family and for further 
purchases in the new settlement. For four years, from 1750, 
when the inhabitants first made selection of town officers from 
among themselves, he was one of the selectmen, twice being 
chairman of the board. His prominence in the community is 
further attested by several elections as moderator and tithing- 
man. He was a large land owner, purchasing for himself and his 
family. After twenty years of activity in town affairs, he 
appears to have given over the burden to his sons Archelaus 
and Samuel. 

These two men were influential citizens until their death. 

1 James Scales, Jeremiah and Thomas Clough, William and Josiah Miles in 
Chapters I and II. 


Besides holding all the important town offices, they were among 
the early justices of the peace for Rockingham County, residing 
in Canterbury. Samuel was also a deputy sheriff in 1772 and 
1773. He kept the first tavern in town and left a large estate 
at his death, which occurred in his fiftieth year. Until his 
removal to Loudon late in Hfe the name of Archelaus Moore 
constantly appears in the town records both as an office holder 
and as a member of important committees. Wilham and 
Nathaniel Moore, the eldest and youngest sons of Ensign John, 
were early honored by elections to important positions. In 
the building of the town and in the shaping of its affairs no 
family in Canterbury was more potential for half a century 
than the Moores. 

John Dolloff was chosen a tithingman by the proprietors in 
1744. He was a member of the committee to examine the 
selectmen's accounts in 1750, and he was elected a constable in 
1757. In 1762 and 1763, he is recorded as holding minor offices. 
His name and that of his_ son, John Dolloff, Jr., disappear from 
the tax lists after 1764. He probably moved to Conway.^ 

Solomon Copp's name is first seen in 1754 on a petition for 
the remission of the province tax. In 1762 he is voted six 
pounds "for his reward" as the "sweeper and superintendent 
of the meeting House." He was evidently the first sexton of 
the town church. This same year he was chosen a tithingman, 
and the next he was elected hogreeve. No further mention of 
him is found in the records of Canterbury. He removed to 
Sanbornton between 1765 and 1768.- 

The names of John and William Glines, Jr., appear in the 
list of original proprietors of Canterbury. Quite likely these 
proprietors were also settlers. Whether they were brothers is 
not known, but presumably they were. A Wilham Ghnes was 
elected tithingman in 1750 and served as constable in 1752. 
John Ghnes held the latter position in 1753. They were probably 
the early settlers bearing those names, as the next generation 
was too young to be thus early honored by election to important 
town offices. John Glines died in 1757 and left a will which 
showed that he was quite a landed proprietor. He mentions 

> Prov. Registry of Deeds, Vol. LXXXIX, pages 520, 521, U. S. Census of 

» History of Sanbornton, Vol. I, page 54. 


as sons Israel, John, James, Nathaniel, Richard and William. 
The original William, who was called "Junior" in the list of 
proprietors, may have had a son William 3d and possibly a son 
Joseph, which would account for all the Glines family whose 
names appear on the foregoing tax lists. John and Israel Ghnes, 
sons of the elder John, were in youth trappers and hunters and 
penetrated to the northern part of New Hampshire. The 
Israel and John rivers in Coos county are said to have been named 
from these brothers. 

There is convincing evidence that Richard Blanchard, the 
proprietor who drew home lot 124, was a settler in Canterbury. 
He conveyed this lot to Richard Maloney of Portsmouth October 
11, 1731, his wife Sarah releasing her right of dower. His 
home at the time of his making this conveyance was Oyster 
River Parish, now Durham.^ He later resided at Dover, coming 
to Canterbury about 1733, as he is described as an inhabitant 
of the latter town in a deed conveying to him home lot 35, the 
original right of John Blackdon.- The church records of Rev. 
Hugh Adams "principally of Oyster River Parish," show that 
a Richard Blanchard was married to Sarah Head at Durham, 
September 3, 1719, and that a Richard Blanchard was baptized 
February 18, 1727, probably a son of this marriage.^ In 1732 
Richard and Sarah Blanchard of Dover convey land and build- 
ings in Dover,'* and in 1736 Richard Blanchard of Canterbury 
deeds six acres of common land in Durham.^ In all of these 
documents he signs by making his mark. The natural conclusion 
from the foregoing facts is that the Richard Blanchard of Durham, 
Dover and Canterbury is one and the same man. He died 
before October 19, 1750, for a conveyance on that date from 
Samuel Moore to Daniel Ames of lot 124, of forty acres, recites 
that it is "the home lot of Richard Blanchard of Canterbury, 
deceased."^ This is the same lot drawn by Richard Blanchard 
the proprietor.'^ 

» Prov. Reg. of Deeds, Vol. XVIII, page 210. 

« Idem, Vol. XXIV, page 532. 

« N. E. Gen. and Hist. Register, Vol. XLIX. 

♦ Prov. Reg. of Deeds, Vol. XXVIII, page 506. 

» Idem, Vol. XXII, page 356. 

' Unrecorded deed from Samuel Moore to Daniel Ames of home lot 124 and 
dated October 19, 1750, in possession of John S. Blanchard of Concord. 

' Whether it was Richard or Benjamin Blanchard who was killed by the 
Indians in 1746, see Chapter II. 


One of the witnesses to the will of John Glines of Canter- 
bury, dated March 1^, 1757, is Richard Blanchard. He signs 
without making his mark. The name appears on the tax lists 
of the town from 1767 to 1780, the latter year being the date 
when Northfield was set off from Canterbury and became a 
separate township. The inference is that this Richard Blanchard 
is a son of the proprietor who was baptized at Oyster River in 
1727 and probably accompanied his father to Canterbury. 
He very likely settled in the northern part of the town. If 
so, he is the Richard Blanchard referred to in the Northfield 
History as ''Old Sergeant." ^ 

The exact date when the brothers Asa, Daniel, David and 
Jonathan Foster came to Canterbury is not known. Another 
brother, the Rev. Abiel Foster, was called to be the minister 
of the town in December 1760. It was his first and his only 
parish.- His brothers followed him to this frontier communit}", 
their names appearing on the tax lists from 1762 to 1769 in 
the sequence of their ages. 

These five brothers and two sisters who accompanied them 
to Canterbury were the progenitors of many descendants attain- 
ing distinction in New Hampshire and in other states. The 
Foster family from the beginning were prominent in the affairs 
of the town of their settlement and of their nativity. The 
ancestors who came to Canterbury were men and women of 
strong mental eciuipment and positive convictions, character- 
istics plainly seen in their numerous progeny. Asa and David 
were early elected to important offices, the latter being chairman 
of the board of selectmen for ten years in succession, a marked 
test of the confidence of his fellow townsmen. Asa was fre- 
quently moderator and later representative from Canterbury 
in the legislature. Daniel appears from the records of the 
town to have been averse to accepting public positions while 
Jonathan, the youngest, was an early volunteer in the Revolu- 
tion, responding to all subsequent calls for enlisted men. 

Simon, Samuel and Daniel Ames, brothers, were the sons of 
Daniel Ames of Newmarket. Simon and Samuel came to Can- 
terbury as early as 1749 and Daniel a year later. Samuel Ames, 

1 History of Northfield, Part II. page 24. See also Canterbun,' Register of 
Births, Marriages and Deaths for Richard Blanchard's second marriage in 1768. 
» See Chapter IV. 


Jr., was the son of Samuel Ames and accompanied his father, 
but located in Boscawen soon after reaching his majority. 
The elder Samuel was elected constable in 1754, his brother 
Simon in 1755 and 1756, while Daniel filled the same office in 
1763. The family was prominent in colonial days, holding 
various town offices. Samuel Ames was elected a deputy from 
Canterbury to the Provincial Congress in 1775, and he was 
the same year chosen a member of the town's first Committee 
of Safety. A long line of descendants sprang from these hardy 
pioneers, but only the offspring of Samuel are identified with 

Ezekiel Morrill was the ancestor of the Morrills of Canterbury. 
The proprietors recognized him early by appointing him on a 
committee to examine the selectmen's accounts in 1744. He 
served as town clerk one year and as moderator, selectman 
and tithingman several years. His activities in towai affairs 
continued until 1768, and he appears to have been a potential 
force in the settlement. Of his fifteen children, three sons, 
David, Laban and Masten settled in Canterbury and became 
prominent citizens. 

James Lindsey was a large land owner in Canterbury, as 
shown by the Province registry of deeds. As has been previously 
noted, some of these deeds may have been mortgage deeds 
and he may have merely held land as security for loans made to 
the settlers. He came into prominence early, holding the office 
of assessor in 1750, constable in 1751 and selectman in 1753. 
Filling minor positions at various times until 1766, he dis- 
appears from the tax lists after 1771. Except his daughter, 
who married Nathaniel Perkins, there is no evidence that he 
left descendants. 

Ephraim Hackett was the ancestor of William H. Y. Hackett 
of Portsmouth and his descendants, a family prominent in state 
affairs for several generations. Hezekiah, Ezra and Jeremiah 
Hackett were the sons of Ephraim. The first two disappear 
from the tax list after 1771 and probably migrated. Jeremiah 
remained in town until his death. It is through him that the 
Portsmouth Hacketts trace their descent. The ancestor, 
Ephraim, was active in the town business almost from the time 
of his permanent settlement, being a tithingman in 1750 and 


succeeding years, moderator of the annual meeting of 1752 and 
selectman in 1757 and 1761. 

Little is known of Samuel Shepard except that he did scout 
duty in the Indian wars. He was a tithingman in 1753 and 
held minor offices until 1763. On only one tax fist does his name 
appear, that of 1767. James Shepard became prominent at 
a later date when he had command of a company in the Revolu- 
tionary War. William Curry, the ancestor of the Currys of 
Canterbury and Northfield, died in 1763. He seems to have 
had the confidence of his fellow townsmen, for he was chair- 
man of the board of selectmen in 1752. 

Dr. Josiah Chase, according to the Rev. William Patrick, was 
the first "regularly bred physician" in Canterbury.^ He began 
practice in town about 1762, and, except a short service in the 
Revolutionary army, resided in Canterbury fifteen years. His 
professional calls extended as far north as Sanbornton until 
that towTi had a physician.- He was a "surgeon's mate" under 
Col. John Stark at Bunker Hill. Removing to Maine after 
1780, he was accidentally drowned in the Saco River. The 
town appears to have been without a resident physician for a 
decade after Doctor Chase's departure. 

Joseph Simons was born in England in 1688. At the age 
of twenty-two he emigrated to America and settled in Connec- 
ticut. Here he married and removed to Canterbury, settling 
on the intervale, a mile and a half above Boscawen Bridge. 
His son, John, born in 1739, was highway surveyor in 1768, 
1770 and 1773. Prior to the incorporation of Northfield he 
removed to that town.^ 

The brothers, John and William Forrest were among the 
pioneers. They were natives of Ireland emigrating with their 
father to this country. They settled in Canterbury. John 
was a tithingman in 1757, 1761, 1766 and 1768 and constable 
in 1759. William was a tithingman in 1758 besides holding 
minor town offices in early years. Their descendants were prom- 
inent citizens of both Canterbury and Northfield. 

1 Historical Sermon, October 27, 1833. 

« History of Sanbornton, where it is also stated that "A Mrs. Symonds offi- 
ciated here (Sanbornton) as midwife in the early settlement of the town, and 
it is said she rode on horseback on a common saddle when called upon for 
professional services." 

i History of Merrimack County, page 523. 


Stephen and Samuel Gerrish were the ancestors of the Gerrish 
family identified with both Canterbury and Boscawen. They 
were leading men of Canterbury, Stephen being selectman in 
the early days of the settlement and Samuel moderator and 
selectman for a number of years during the quarter of a century 
following the Revolutionary War. 

Abraham and Jethro Batchelder and !Moses Ordway were 
the earliest settlers in that part of the town which afterwards 
became Loudon. "While Ordway's name does not appear 
in the tax list of 1762, all three are said to have been in 
toMTi as early as 1760.^ All of the Batchelders whose names 
are found in the foregoing tax lists were undoubtedly^ settlers in 
the southern part of the original town. Abraham and Jethro 
were brothers and Nathan and Nathaniel Batchelder their 

Others whose names are found on these tax lists of Canter- 
bury and who also appear on the first tax list of Loudon, after 
it was made a separate touaiship in 1773, are George Barnes, 
Jonathan Clough, Samuel Danforth, William Davis, Daniel 
Ladd, Samuel French, Samuel Locke, Gershom iMathes, Thomas 
Magoon, Ezekiel !Morrill, jNIasten Morrill, Stephen Perkins, 
Eliphalet Rollins, John Sanborn, Benjamin Sias, Charles Sias 
and Dudley Swazey. Ezekiel IMorrill and Hasten jMorrill were 
probably non-resident taxpayers. Between 1760 and 1773, 
quite a number of people had settled in Loudon. 

John and William Forest, brothers,^ Nathaniel Perkins and 
some of the immediate descendants of Capt. Josiah Miles moved 
to the "Northfields" before that section of Canterbury was set 
off from the original grant. At least one branch of the Blanchard 
family, the Hancocks, William Keniston and William Williams 
were original settlers in Northfield. 

The next table, which comprises tax lists running from 1774 
to 1785 and the heads of famihes as found bj" the United States 
census of 1790 shows the absence of the names of settlers in 
that part of Canterbury w^hich in 1773 was set off as Loudon, 
and again after 1780 the list is further depleted by the names of 
those inhabitants who had located in the northern part of the 

> N. H. State Papers, Vol. IX, page 827. 
s History of Merrimack County, page .500. 

' Descendants of John, and of another brother, Robert, remained in Canter- 


original grant and who were incorporated that year into a to\\ii 
by the name of Northfield. 

Loudon is said to have derived its name from a Scottish land- 
lord, the "Lord of Loudon," the word Loudon meaning a low 
hilly country in Scotland. The hills of Loudon are but a few 
hundred feet in height and the general configuration of the 
surface suggests that it is a hilly to"v\ai.^ 

In 1772 the people in the southern part of Canterbury found 
that it was inconvenient for them to attend church at the town 
meeting house and that their interests were more closely con- 
nected with one another than with the remainder of the town. 
They therefore petitioned to the provincial government to be 
incorporated as a town by the name of Loudon. There appears 
to have been no opposition to this division of the original grant. ^ 
Most of the petitioners were permanent settlers in that section 
of Canterbury. Not all of the names on the petition appear on 
the tax hsts from 1762 to 1771, but those whose names are not 
found on these inventories undoubtedly located there within the 
next two years, for which the tax lists are missing. The peti- 
tion set forth that the signers "live at a distance of ten or twelve 
miles, as roads now go, from the meeting house, that the roads 
are very bad and, therefore, they cannot without great difficulty 
attend public worship or any public affairs of the town." ^ 

This petition was signed by John Danforth, Daniel Batchelder, 
Ezekiel Morrill, Jr., Masten Morrill, Eliphalet Rollins, Nathaniel 
Batchelder, Samuel Danforth, Henry Aloulton, Jethro Batchelder, 
Samuel Morrill, Isaac Morrill, Moses Ardua, Moses A.rdua, Jr., 
George Barnes, Dudlej^ Swazey, Amasa Dow, Samuel Dow, 
Samuel Lock, Joseph Magoon, Jacob Towle, Enoch French, 
Solomon Sias, Benjamin Sias, William Davis, William Boynton, 
Charles Sias, John Glines, Jethro Batchelder, Jr., Samuel 
Rogers, Abraham Batchelder, Abraham Batchelder, Jr., John 
Sanborn, Samuel Sargent, John Rines, Samuel Carter, Jonathan 
Smith, John Smith, Samuel French, Gershom Mathes, Stephen 
Perkins, Nathan Batchelder, Jonathan Clough, Joseph Tilton, 
John Drew, Abel French, Thomas Drake, Thomas Swett. 

Names on T.ajs Lists from 1774 to 1785 and ix Census of 1790. 

David Ames 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Lieut. Samuel Ames 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

^ Histor}^ of Merrimack County, page 477. 

'The legislature gave its approval January 22, 177-3, and the first meeting 
of the inhabitants of Loudon was held March 23, 1774. 
8 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XI, page 263. 


Simon Ames 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Joseph Ayers 1785 1790 

Peter Asten 1790 

Thomas Ast en 1 790 

Elijah Babson 1785 

Enoch Bartlett 1785 

Gideon Bartlett 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

John Bean 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

John Bean, Jr 1774 1775 

Henry Beck 1790 

Benjamin Beedle 1779 

Steadman Bigelow 1785 1790 

John Blake 1790 

Benjamin Bickford 1778 1779 1780 

Abiel Blanchard 1779 

Benjamin Blanchard 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Benjamin Blanchard, Jr. . . 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 
Benjamin Blanchard, 3d ... 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

David Blanchard 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Capt. Edward Blanchard. .1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

James Blanchard 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Jonathan Blanchard 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Peter Blanchard 1779 

Richard Blanchard 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Simon Blanchard 1785 

Stephen Blanchard 1790 

Edmund Boynton 1775 

William Boynton 1785 

Joshua Boynton 1774 1775 1776 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Ichobod Brackett 1790 

Simeon Brackett 1790 

Benjamin Bradley 1790 

Jonathan Bradley 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Timothy Bradley 1785 

John Brier 1790 

Henry Y. Brown 1785 

Simeon Brown 1790 

Jacob Bumford 1780 

Nathaniel Burdeen 1775 ^ 1785 1790 

Benjamin Burnam 1779 

Joseph Carr 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Dr. Philip Carrigan 1779 1780 

Daniel Carter 1785 1790 

Ephraim Carter 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Jeremiah Carter 1785 

John Carter 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Nathaniel Carter 1790 

Noah Carter 1778 

Orlando Carter 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Samuel Carter 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Lieut. Winthrop Carter. .. . 1785 

Ebenezer Chandler 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Edward Chase 1785 1790 

Dr. Josiah Chase 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Satchel Clark 1780 

Nathaniel Clement 1779 1780 1785 1790 

William Clement 1779 1780 1785 

AbnerClough 1785 

Abner Clough, Jr 1785 

Abner Clough, 3d 1785 


Henry Clough 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Jacob Clough 17g5 

Jeremiah Clough, Esq 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Jr. 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Jeremiah Clough, 3d 1790 

Joseph Clough 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Leavitt Clough 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Nehemiah Clough 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Obadiah Clough I779 1730 1790 

Thomas Clough 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Thomas Clough, Jr 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Thomas Clough, 3d 1780 

Ebenezer Cogswell 1785 179Q 

John Cogswell . 


Moses Cogswell 1785 1790 

Edmund Colby 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Humphrey Colby 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 

Samuel Colby 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Nathaniel Colcord 1780 1785 1790 

John Coffin 1785 

Benjamin Collins 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

John Cotter 1785 

Jesse Cross 1774 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

John Cross 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

John Cross, Jr 1780 

Stephen Cross 1774 1775 1776 1777 

Widow Hannah Cross 1779 1780 

Thomas Cross 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Parker Cross 1778 

Isaac Cummings 1776 

Simeon Currier 1785 1790 

Widow Ann Curry 1774 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

John Curry 1775 

Robert Curry 1780 

Thomas Curry 1785 1790 

Elkiner Danforth 1780 

Jedediah Danforth 1780 

Jeremiah Danforth 1790 

Moses Danforth 1778 1790 

Simeon Danforth 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Samuel Daniels I79O 

Ephraim Davis 1774 1775 

John Davis 1785 1790 

Jonathan Davis 1785 1790 

Moses Davis 1779 1780 

Obadiah Davis 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Samuel Davis 1790 

Stephen Davis 1790 

Henrv Dearborn 1777 1778 

John Dearborn 1778 1779 1780 

Nathaniel Dearborn 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Shubael Dearborn 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Shubael Dearborn, Jr 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Thomas Dearborn 1785 1790 

Josiah Dow 1780 

Abraham Durgin 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Joseph Durgin 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Henry Dwendell 1790 

William Dyer 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Benjamin Eastman 1785 


Miriam Eastman 17S5 

Josiah Edgerly 1778 1785 

Elizabeth Ellison 1774 1775 

Joseph Ellison 1785 

John Elhson 1785 

Richard Ellison 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Daniel Fletcher 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Daniel Fletcher, Jr 1785 

James Fletcher 1785 

Phineas Fletcher 1776 1780 

James Forrest 1785 

Jane Forrest 1775 1778 

John Forrest 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

John Forrest, Jr 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Robert Forrest 1777 

William Forrest, Jr 1774 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 

WilUam Forrest, 3d 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Jacob Foss , 1780 1785 

John Foss 1777 1778 

Josiah Foss 1790 

Moses Foss 1774 

Timothv Foss 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Thomas Foss 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Rev. Abiel Foster 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Abiel Foster Esq 1785 1790 

Asa Foster 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Ens. Daniel Foster 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Daniel Foster, Jr 1785 1790 

David Foster 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Jacob Foster 1790 

James Foster 1790 

Jonathan Foster 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Abner Fowler 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Daniel Fullerton 1778 

John Fullerton 1778 1779 

Joseph Garman 1778 1779 1780 

Samuel Gault 1785 

William Gault 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Samuel Gerrish 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Stephen Gerrish 1774 

Edward Greeley 1780 

Jonathan Greeley 1779 

Enoch Gibson 1785 

James Gibson 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

James Gibson, Jr 1780 1790 

John Gibson 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 

Widow Margaret Gibson . . 1780 1785 

Thomas Gibson 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Wilham Gibson 1785 

Jonathan Gile 1774 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 1790 

Lieut. Thomas Gilman. . . .1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 
Lieut. Charles Glidden. . . .1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Benjamin Glines 1785 

Lieut. James Glines 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

John Glines 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Joseph Glines 1774 1775 

Nathaniel Glinesi 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1785 1790 

Nathaniel Glinesi 1790 

Richard Glines 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

I Two of same name with families given in the United States Census of 1790. 


William Glines 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

William Glines, Jr 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

William Glines, 3d 1774 1775 

John Glover 

Alexander Gordon 1774 

Lieut. Jeremiah Hackett. . .1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Widow Sarah Hackett 

Dr. John Hall 

Obadiah Hall 

Joseph Ham 

John Ham 

Abner Haines 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Matthias Haines 

Richard Haines 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Samuel Haines 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Stephen Haines > 

Walter Haines 1774 1776 1777 

George Hancock 1776 1777 1778 

Joseph Hancock 1774 1775 1776 

Jacob Hancock 1774 

Abigail Hancock 1778 

Dorothy Hancock 1775 

Elizabeth Hancock 

Martha Hancock 

Mary Hancock 

Judith Hancock 

WiHiam Hancock 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Peter Hunniford 1777 1778 

James Hardy 

Stephen Hardy 

Robert Hastings 1777 1778 

Peter Hastings 

Barnes Hazeltine 1778 

William Hazeltine 

Benjamin Heath 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Caleb Heath 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Jacob Heath 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Jonathan Heath 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Reuben Heath 1777 1778 

Simon Heath 1785 1790 

Widow Sarah Hicks 1777 1778 1780 

Miles Hodgdon 1790 

EHzabeth Holden 1779 

John Holden 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Abner Hoyt 1777 1778 

Abner Hoyt, Jr 

Thomas Hoyt 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

John Ingalls 

Moses Ingalls 

Joseph Jackson 

Moses Jackson 

Patience Jackson 

Samuel Jackson 

Benjamin Johnson 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

John Johnson 

Benjamin Jones 

David Keniston 

William Keniston 1775 1776 1777 1778 

John Kent 1785 

John Kent, Jr 1790 


1779 1780 1785 


1779 1780 1785 


1779 1780 1785 









1779 1780 1785 


1779 1780 1785 


1779 1780 1785 



1779 1780 

1779 1780 

1779 1780 

1779 1780 

1779 1780 

1779 1780 

1779 1780 

1779 1780 



1779 1780 


1779 1780 1785 


1779 1780 1785 


1779 1780 1785 


1779 1780 

1779 1780 




1785 1790 

1785 1790 

1785 1790 
1785 1790 





1785 1790 






Edmund Kezer 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

George Kezer 1774 1775 

Reuben Kezer 1774j 1780 

Ebenezer Kimball 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1790 

John Kimball 1790 

Jeremiah Ladd 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Edmund Lange 1790 

Jonathan Lange, Jr 1790 

Moses Lange 1 1790 

Simeon Lange 1790 

Gideon Leavitt 1779 1780 

Jonathan Leavitt 1779 1780 

Joseph Leavitt 1780 

Thomas Lewis 1790 

James Lougee 1785 

Edmund Lougee ' 1785 

Jonathan Lougee 1785 

Jonathan Lougee, Jr 1785 

John Lougee 1778 

Joseph Lougee 1777 1778 1785 

Joseph Lougee, Jr. . .^ 1785 

Simon Lougee 1777 1778 1785 

WiHiam Lougee 1785 

Chandler Lovejoy 1785 

John Lovejoy 1779 1780 

Joseph Lovejoy 1779 1780 

Joseph Lovejoy, Jr 1779 1780 

Simeon Lovejoy 1779 1780 

James Lvford 1785 1790 

John Lvford 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Lieut. Thomas Lvford 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Jeremiah McDaniel 1774 1775 1776 1777 1780 

John McDaniel 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Thomas Magoon 1785 

James Malonev 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Capt. John Maloney 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Margaret Maloney 1774 1775 

Widow Elizabeth Mann . . . 1775 

James Mann 1790 

Joseph Mann 1774 

Josiah Marden 1790 

Da\'id Mason 1785 

EHjah Matthews 1785 1790 

Nicholas Merriner 1790 

Abigail Miles 1785 

Abner Miles 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Ens. Archelaus Miles 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Capt. Josiah Miles 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Josiah Miles, Jr 1774 

Samuel Miles 1774 1775 1776 1778 1779 1780 

William Miles 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Archelaus Moore 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Archelaus Moore, Jr 1780 1785 1790 

Elkins ]\Ioore 1780 

Ezekiel Moore 1785 1790 

Hannah Moore 1780 

» This name may be Lang or Long. In the town records of 1801 a Moses 
Long was excused from pacing taxes. 


Ens. John Moore 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

John Moore, Jr 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

John Moore, 4th 1780 1785 

John Moore, son of Na- 
thaniel 1785 

Joseph Moore 1790 

Mara Moore 1780 

Nathaniel Moore 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Samuel Moore 1774 

Samuel Moore, Jr 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Stephen Moore 1780 1785 

Widow Susannah Moore .. . 1775 1776 

David McCrillis 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Thomas Moore 1780 1785 

William Moore 1774 1775 1776 1778 1779 1780 1785 

William Moore, Jr 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Obadiah Mooney 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Jonathan Morgan 1778 

Abraham Morrill 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Lieut. Da\-id Morrill 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Dea. Ezekiel Morrill 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Jacob Morrill 1779 1780 

Joannah Morrill 1785 

John Morrill 1779 1780 

Lieut. Laban Morrill 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Mast en IMorrill 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Sargent Morrill 1776 1778 1779 1780 

David Morrison 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Nicholas Morrison 1785 

Samuel Morrison 1785 

David Norris 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Samuel Nudd 1775 1776 1777 

Joseph Pallet 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Nathaniel Pallett 1790 

James Pell 1785 

John Pell 1776 1777 1778 

Widow Pell 1779 1780 

Widow Elizabeth Perkins . . 1777 1779 1780 

James L. Perkins 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

John Perkins 1777 1778 1780 

Nathaniel Perkins 1774 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Nathaniel Perkins, Jr 1774 1775 

Robert Perkins 1779 1780 

Wilham Perkins 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Widow Bettv Perkins 1776 

Nathaniel Peverlv 1785 1790 

Ehjah O. Philpof 1785 

William Ralph 1790 

Daniel Randall 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1790 

Moses Randall 1774 

Richard Randall 1790 

Daniel Richardson 1785 

Zachariah Richardson 1785 

William Rines 1775 1776 1777 1778 1780 

John Robinson 1774 1775 1776 1777 

Simeon Robinson 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Joshua RoUins 1790 

William Ross 1785 

John Rowan 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Enoch Runals 1785 1790 


Benjamin Sanborn 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Benjamin Sanborn, Jr 1785 

Widow Jane Sanborn 1775 

Joseph Sanborn 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

John Sanborn 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Simon Sanborn 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

WiUiam Sanborn 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Aaron Sargent 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Aaron Sargent, Jr 1774 1775 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Elijah Sargent 1790 

Samuel Sargent 1774 1775 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Zedediah Sargent 1785 

Gideon Sawyer 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

James Sawyer 1780 

Edward Scales 1780 1785 1790 

William Scales 1780 

James Sherburn 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 

James Sherburn, Jr 1775 1779 1780 

Thomas Sherburn 1776 1777 1778 

George Shannon 1774 

Widow Mercy Shannon 1775 

John Shannon 1790 

Capt. James Shepard 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Morrill Shepard 1785 1790 

EU Simons 1774 1775 

John Simons 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

William Simons 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Widow Elizabeth Simons . . 1779 1780 

William Simons ' 1780 1785 

Benjamin Simpson 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Noah Sinclair 1785 1790 

Nathaniel Sleeper 1785 

Isaac Small 1785 1790 

John Small 1785 1790 

Ephraim Small 1790 

Lieut. Joseph Soper 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Aaron Stevens 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Aaron Stevens, Jr 1780 

Jesse Stevens 1779 1780 1785 1790 

John Stevens 1785 

Simon Stevens 1775 1777 1778 1779 1780 1790 

Barnard Stiles 1774 1775 1776 1777 

Widow Margaret Sutton... 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

John Sutton 1785 1790 

Michael Sutton 1779 1785 1790 

Stephen Sutton 1778 1785 

Solomon Sutton 1785 

Dudley Swazey 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

James Tallant 1785 

Margaret Tallant ^ 1790 

Jonathan Taylor 1780 

Ruth Taylor 1785 

Henry Tibbetts 1790 

James Towle 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 

Benjamin Thurston 1779 1780 

Micajah Tucker 1785 

Henry Tufts 1776 1778 1779 

1 May have been son of first WiUiam Simons if Elizabeth was widow of 


Ebenezer Virgin ' 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 

Jonathan Wadleigh 1779 1780 

William Walker 1785 1790 

Thomas Ward 1785 1790 

Josiah Watson 1785 1790 

Capt. Stephen Webster. . . . 1777 

Joshua Weeks 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1790 

Samuel Weeks 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Samuel Weeks, Jr 1785 

John Welch 1785 

Jonathan West 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 

Ichabod Whidden 1779 1780 1785 

Nathaniel Whidden 1790 

Parson Whidden 1785 1790 

Benjamin Whitcher 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1785 1790 

Ebenezer Whitcher 1785 

Jedediah Whitcher 1790 

Jonathan Whitcher 1778 1779 1780 

Nathaniel Whitcher 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Reuben Whitcher 1776 1777 1779 1780 

Chase Wiggin 1785 1790 

Jonathan Williams 1790 

Wilham WilHams 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Benjamin Woodman 1776 1777 1778 1780 

Hezekiah Young 1777 1778 1779 

Jonathan Young 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 

Joseph Young 1790 

Jotham Young : 1775 1779 1780 

Winthrop Young 1790 

The foregoing tax lists and the United States census enumera- 
tion of 1790 bear some evidence of defects. There are mistakes in 
both and there is no proof that the tax lists found in the archives 
of Canterbury were always the inventories as finally corrected 
by the selectmen. In several years there are duplicate lists, 
and they vary slightly in the names given, but the inventories 
from 1762 to 1771 and from 1774 to 1785 furnish good, if not 
conclusive, evidence of the time of the coming to town of the 
various families, and whether they were located within the 
present limits of Canterbury or settled permanently in the off- 
shoots of the parent town. They further indicate who were 
transient residents, tarrying long enough only to be taxed for 
a year or two and then migrating elsewhere. 

Where the given name descended from father to son and in 
some instances to the grandson, it is difficult to decide which 
generation was taxed in the later j'ears. The decisions here 
made are partly arbitrary, but they are based upon the best 
evidence attainable. Except in one instance not included 
in the foregoing list, there is no designation of any person as 

* Non-resident, probably of Concord. 



a non-resident, and it is very probable that nearly all of the 
names given are those of actual residents. Henry Y. Bro^\ai, 
who was taxed in 1762, 1764, 1769, 1770 and 1785 was probably 
a non-resident. With these exceptions, the names which appear 
in the successive years are those of families known to have been 
located in Canterbury, Loudon and Northfield.^ 

In 1779 the people of the "North Fields," as the northern part 
of the town was called, asked to be set off by themselves in a 
separate township to be christened Northfield and for much 
the same reason that had influenced the people of Loudon.^ 
The petitioners were for the most part residents of the northern 
part of the town, and their names, which are here given, disappear 
from the tax lists of Canterbury after 1780. 

William Kenistone, James Blanchard, William Williams, 
Jeremiah McDaniel, Benjamin Blanchard, Thomas Clough, Jr., 
Joseph Carr, Richard Blanchard, Simon Sanborn, Thomas Gil- 
man, Charles Glidden, John Dearborn, Joseph Leavitt, Shubael 
Dearborn, Jr., William Forrest, Shubael Dearborn, Jacob Morrill, 
Aaron Stevens, Jr., Samuel Miles, John Forrest, Nathaniel 
Whitcher, Thomas Clough, John Cross, Jonathan Wadleigh, 
Abner Miles, Jacob Heath, George Hancock, John Simons, 
Joseph Hancock, Benjamin Collins, Abraham Dearborn, Wil- 
liam Hancock, Nathaniel Perkins, James Lind Perkins, Archelaus 
Miles, Edward Blanchard, William Perkins, David Blanchard, 
Aaron Stevens, Reuben Whitcher, William Sanborn, John 
McDaniel, Ebenezer Kimball, Gideon Leavitt, Mathias Hains. 

An invoice for the year 1769 which has been preserved shows 
the number of polls or ''heads" taxed and the live stock that 
the settlers owned. It is apparently incomplete, as a few well- 

1 The custom of giving children middle names did not become common until 
long after the beginning of the nineteenth century (Brown's History of Hamp- 
ton Falls, page 505). In the tax lists of Canterbury there is no instance of an 
initial letter for a second name until 1770 when John S. Gibson is recorded. 
The next case is six years later. James L. Perkins is then scheduled as a tax 
payer and he continues on the list until 1780 when Northfield was made a 
separate township. As a resident of the latter town Mr. Perkins' name dis- 
appears from the Canterbury records. When the enumeration was made for 
the United States Census of 1790, no head of a family was found with more 
than one given name. Nor do the lists of town officers show middle names 
until some years after 1800. 

2 The town of Canterbury voted for the separation March 18, 1779, and Capt. 
Josiah Miles, David Foster, Capt. Edward Blanchard, and Ensign Archelaus 
Miles were appointed to run the line of division. The legislature approved 
June 19, 1780, and the inhabitants of Northfield met July 17, 1780, to elect their 
first town officers. 


known names are missing, but it shows the extent of the personal 
property of the inhabitants. Capt. Stephen Gerrish and Samuel 
Moore appear to have been the largest owners of live stock, while 
Dr. Josiah Chase, the physician of the town, is the only one 
who possessed two horses. 

An Invoice for the Year 1769. 

Capt. Stephen Gerrish, 2 heads, 4 oxen, 8 cows, 1 two year old, 

1 yearling, 1 horse. 
Abraham Bachelder, 1 head, 4 oxen, 1 cow, 2 yearlings, 1 horse. 
Thomas Clough, 1 head, 2 oxen, 5 cows, 3 three year olds, 2 two 

year olds, 2 yearlings, 1 horse, 1 two-year-old colt. 
Joseph Mann, 1 head, 1 cow, 2 three year olds, 2 yearlings, 

1 horse. 

Abraham Bachelder (Jr.) 1 head, 1 cow. 

Isaac Bachelder, 1 head, 1 cow. 

Jacob Bachelder, 1 head. 

Archelaus Moore, 4 heads, 2 oxen, 5 cows, 4 two year olds, 

7 yearlings, 1 horse, 1 two year old colt. 
Ensign James Shepard, 1 head, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 1 yearhng. 
William Forrest, 1 head, 2 oxen, 3 cows, 2 two year olds, 

2 yearlings. 

William Glines, 2 heads, 1 cow, 2 two year olds. 

Joseph Glines, 1 head. 

Nathaniel Glines, 1 head, 1 cow, 2 two year olds. 

James Gibson, 3 heads, 2 cows, 5 yearlings, 1 horse, 2 two year 

John Holden, 1 head. 

James Gibson, 1 head, 2 yearlings. 

Joseph Cox, 2 heads, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 1 horse. 

Benjamin Sias, 1 head. 

Benjamin Simpson, 1 head. 

Jonathan Clough, 1 head, 1 cow. 

Nehemiah Clough, Ihead. 

John Ash, 1 head, 1 cow. 

William Moore, 1 head, 2 oxen, 3 cows, 2 two year olds, 3 year- 

Ensign John Moore, 1 head, 2 oxen, 3 cows, 1 two year old, 
2 yearlings. 


Nathaniel !Moore, 1 head, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 2 two year olds, 1 

William Gault, 1 head, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 2 two year olds, 2 year- 
lings, 1 horse. 

Ann Curry, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 4 two j'ear olds, 1 yearling, 1 horse. 

Jeremiah Hackett, 1 head, 2 cows, 2 yearlings. 

Joseph Soper, 1 head, 1 cow. 

Dr. Josiah Chase, 1 head, 2 cows, 2 horses. 

Samuel Moore, 2 heads, 6 oxen, 6 cows, 1 two year old, 1 horse." 

Daniel Ames, 1 head, 1 cow. 5 two year olds, 1 yearling. 

Benjamin Heath, 2 heads, 1 cow. 

Simon Ames, 1 head, 2 cows, 2 two year olds. 

Ephraim Hackett, 1 head, 2 cows, 1 yearling, 1 horse. 

Joshua Boynton, 2 heads, 1 cow. 

Enoch "Webster, 1 head, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 1 three year old, 1 horse. 

Thomas Foss, 3 heads, 1 cow, 1 yearling, 1 horse. 

Lieutenant (Samuel) Ames, 3 heads, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 5 two year 
olds, 1 yearling. 

Samuel Ames, Jr., 1 head, 2 oxen, 1 cow, 1 horse. 

Ezra Hackett, 1 head, 1 horse. 

Jonathan Foster, 1 head. 

The "Mark Book." 

The ''Mark Book" of Canterbury, used to record the marks 
for cattle and sheep, selected by their o-^ners to designate their 
live stock, is among the records that have sur\'ived the destruction 
of time. It was originally used when these creatures ranged 
at will on the common and undivided lands and before the 
settlers had indiN^dual pastures that were fenced, and it was 
employed later to assist in identifying cattle and sheep breaking 
out of enclosures and straying to other localities. The first 
entries were made June 12, 1760, and the last just 103 years later. 
Those of the first date were the follo-uing: 

"Lieut. Wilham Miles' mark, a crop off each ear and a 
half penny under each ear." The latter mark was probably 
made by branding. 

"Capt. Josiah ^Miles' mark, a crop off the near ear and a half 
penny under the right. 


"Thomas Clough's mark, a crop off the near ear and a sHt in 
the end of the same. 

"John Ghnes' (son of John Senior) mark, a crop off the right 
ear and a half penny under the same. 

"Ensign John Moore's mark, a swallow's tail in the end of the 
near ear and a half penny under the right ear. 

"Ezekiel Morrill's mark, a crop off the right ear. 

"Nathaniel Moore's mark, a swallow tail in the end of the 
right ear. 

"William Moore's mark, a crop off the near ear, and a half penny 
under the same. 

"Nathaniel Perkins mark, a hole in the near ear. 

"Archelaus Moore's mark, a swallow tail in the end of the 
near ear, 

"James Shepard's mark, a half penny under each ear." 

November 28, 1760, Benjamin Blanchard records his mark, 
David Morrill, and Ephraim Hackett in 1761 and William 
Simons, Thomas Beedle, Henry Elkins, Jeremiah Clough, John 
Dolloff, Samuel Shepard, William Forrest and John Forrest 
probably the same year from the sequence of the records. Sol- 
omon Copp's mark is entered October 27, 1765. 

In 1766 entries of the marks selected by Samuel Gerrish, 
Dr. Josiah Chase, Moses Ordway and Samuel Moore are recorded. 

The necessity of these marks is seen by the following entry 
of September 13, 1766. 

"This may certifie the owner or any other person whom it 
may concern that Nathaniel jMoore took up and impounded a 
stray ox and carried him through the law. He is a black one 
with a white face and a white spot under his belly and the tops 
of both his horns are cut off and (he) is judged to be about 8 or 
9 years old." 

The entries from 1767 to 1780 are as follows: 1767, John Hoj^t; 
1769, Abraham Batchelder; 1770, John Simons, William Davis, 
George Kezer, John Moore Jr., Simon Ames, Edward Blanchard; 
1771, Nehemiah Clough; 1772, David Norris, WilHam Gault, 
Jeremiah Clough Jr.; 1773, Josiah Miles Jr., Abiel Foster, 
Samuel Moore, Jr.; 1774, Ephraim Carter, Thomas Hoyt; 1775, 
Simon Stevens; 1776, Nathaniel Whitcher, Ensign Joseph 
Soper, Robert Hastings, Peter Huniford, Samuel Colby, Jona- 
than West, John West; 1777, William Hancock, George Hancock, 


Leavitt Clough, Henry Clough; 1778, Thomas Cross, Jesse 
Cross, Obadiah Mooney, Joseph Moore; 1780, Joseph Durgin. 

In 1798 and 1799 Moses Cogswell, Enoch Gerrish and Abiel 
Foster, Jr., had drawn in the book fac-similes of their marks. 

When stray cattle were taken up and impounded and were 
not claimed within a reasonable time, it was necessary to appraise 
them so that they might be sold to pay the expense of their 
keeping. One such instance is recorded in this book. 

Canterbury, December 15th, 1777. 

I, Jeremiah Clough Esqr., being required Do appint Mr. 
Robart Hastons & Capt. Jeremiah Clough to be apprize masters 
to apprize two young Creaturs one a black heffer coming in 
three or four years old with a half cropp off of the Rite Ear 
& sum white on her bag also a black stear Coming in three j^ears 
old no Artifisial Mark. Taken up by Mr. Abner Hains of the 
above said Town the 28th day of June 1777. 

Jeremiah Clough, Jus* of Peace. 

We the Subscribers being appinted as aboves*^, have apprized 
the above mentioned Creaturs, to be worth ten pounds ten 
shillings, the heffer at six pounds, and the stear at four pounds 
ten shillings Lawful Money. Witness our hands — 

Apprized ( Jeremiah Clough Jun' 

and sworn ( Robert Hastons, (Hastings) 



In spite of Indian alarms and the apprehension of the people 
of attack by the savages, there were certain interests of the com- 
munity that could not be neglected. While the first concern of 
the settler was the clearing of his land, the planting of his crops 
and the erection of his dwelling, his relations with his neigh- 
bors and his duties as a citizen soon demanded his attention. 
His farm needed accurate boundaries. The town lines had to 
be perambulated and marked. Preaching of the gospel had to 
be provided and some thought given to the education of the 
children.^ Because there were public charges to be met, the 
amiual meeting of the inhabitants must be held and selectmen 
and other officials chosen. Collective action, therefore, became 
necessary. Whatever the danger of attapk from savage foes, 
the March election of town officers appears to have regularly 
occurred, but the votes passed and the instructions there given 
were not always obeyed with promptness. 

When the grant of Canterbury was made to the proprietors, 
little was known of the territory so generously bestowed. 'There- 
fore, the inhabitants soon had trouble with contiguous towns 
over boundaries. Again, when the proprietors employed sur- 
veyors to lay out Canterbury into lots, range ways or roads 
running north and south and east and west were provided at 
regular intervals between the lots. Owing to the contour of the 
country, some of these proposed highways were impossible to 
build or were ill suited to the wants of the people. Their course 

» See the chapter on schools. 


had to be changed, and this necessitated a corresponding change 
in the boundaries of the lots that had been purchased and occu- 
pied by inhabitants. Across the Merrimack River from Canter- 
bury was the town of Boscawen, now attracting settlers. To 
facilitate the transaction of business between the two communi- 
ties provision had to be made for a public ferry. Matters of 
minor import also called for attention, so that the warrants for 
town meetings and the action of these assemblies for twenty-five 
years following 1750 indicate the thoughts and activities of the 
people of Canterbury. 

The accurate bounding of the home lots was long delayed. In 
1750 there was a vote that "the side lines of the home lots in 
Canterbury be run east and west to settle the bounds of the said 
lots at the unbounded ends" and the lot-layers, James Scales, 
Ezekiel Morrill and Archelaus Moore, were chosen a committee 
to run these lines. Six years later, this committee was called to 
account for neglecting its duty. Finally, in 1761, a return of these 
boundaries was duly accepted by the town. 

As the neighboring towns were being settled, it became impor- 
tant to define the limits of each town. The selectmen of Canter- 
bury and Bow perambulated the boundary line between the two 
towns in 1750 and made return of their work. By the grant of the 
provincial government of New Hampshire, the town of Bow was 
bounded in part on its easterly and northerly sides by Canter- 
bury. A considerable portion of the territory covered by the 
Bow grant had been given by Massachusetts to the proprietors 
of Penacook (Concord). This provoked a contest between the 
proprietors of these two towns which lasted many years. The final 
settlement left Concord instead of Bow as the town contiguous 
to Canterbury.^ While this controversy was going on, Canterbury 
laid claim to a gore of land having its western boundary on the 
Merrimack River and its southern on the original grant of Bow. 

In his history of Concord, Bouton says that the original west 
side line of Canterbury was 606 rods from the river and that it 
ran along the upland without taking in the intervale. This 
intervale belonged to what was called "Mason's Patent," and 
the farms of Stephen Gerrish and Richard Kent on the east side 
of the river were included in the gore.^ 

»Bow Controversy, Chapter VI, History of Concord (1903). 
2 Bouton's History of Concord, pages 226-230. 


Settlements had been made in this territory on the supposition 
that it belonged to Canterbury. An early reference to the gore 
is found in the petition of Joseph INIann to the proprietors of the 
lands purchased of John Tufton Mason, dated May 8, 1753. 
His case is thus stated, ''That your petitioner hath settled upon 
a parcel of land containing 40 acres for three years past, which 
40 acres is situated in the gore of land between Canterbury and 
Bow and which 40 acres I purchased of Col. Peter Gilman as a 
lot in Canterbury No. 53 and gave him £150 old tenor for said 
40 acres and have been improving upon said 40 acres ever since, 
and have built a house thereon where my family now dwells." 
Being informed that his farm was outside the boundary of Canter- 
bury, Mr. Mann asks the proprietors to sell to him rather than 
to any one else.^ 

Before the date of Mr. Mann's petition the Masonian pro- 
prietors had caused a survey and a plan of this gore to be made. 
Abraham Bachelder of Canterburj-, in a petition dated Canter- 
bury, January 22, 1759, "reminds them that about seven years 
ago they desired him to run out and plan that gore of land laying 
between Canterbury and the ^Merrimack River and that they 
would see him satisfied." He reports that the work has been 
done and the plan delivered into their hands, yet he has not 
received any satisfaction. Therefore, he asks for a lot of land 
in said gore "beside Kent's Farm, so called, according to the plan 
I now send you in lieu of money." - 

At a meeting of the Masonian proprietors at Portsmouth, May 
8, 1759, the clerk was instructed to pay Abraham Bachelder 
£10 old tenor for making a plan of the intervale and other lands 
between Canterbury and Merrimack River.^ 

Samuel Hale in a petition dated Portsmouth, February 8, 
1759, asks for "a grant of between two and three hundred acres 
laying between Rumford (Concord), Canterbury and Kent's 
Farm and Gerrish's not claimed by any person."^ 

The previous year the people of Canterbury had taken action 
to secure possession of this gore of land. July 17, 1758, the town 
"Voted that Thomas Clough be the man to agree with and make 

iN. H. State _ Papers, Vol. XXVII, page 142; Masonian Papers, Vol. V, 
page 93. ' 

= X. H. State Papers, Vol. XXVII, page 144. 
' Idem, Vol. XXIX, page 489. 
*Idem, Vol. XXVII, page 145. 


up and satisfy the Lord Proprietors of Mason's Right in the 
name and behalf of the present inhabitants of Canterbury from 
sixteen years old and upwards for the goar of land lying between 
Canterbury and Rumford and to receive a quit claim, first to 
each possessor according to what he is in possession of and also 
to pay according to (excepting them that possess home lots in 
said goar) that was supposed to be in his possession and the 
remainder to be acquitted to the present inhabitants of Canter- 
bury, they paying according thereunto— Capt. Stephen Gerrish 
and (Richard) Kent's grant excepted." 

The next day Mr. Clough wrote a letter to George Jeffreys of 
Portsmouth, clerk of the Lords Proprietors, in which he recited 
the action of the town and informed him that he should have 
proceeded at once to Portsmouth but for the Indian alarms 
which made it unsafe for them to "stir from one garrison to 
another without a large company together." Therefore, he sent 
his communication by James Head to notify the Lords Proprie- 
tors that it was the intention of the people of Canterbury to 
purchase this gore of them and that they had "voted a plan of 
said land to be taken, ... to see what is wild land, what is 
in possession and what hath been improved in said gore, except 
what was formerly purchased by Capt. (Stephen) Gerrish and 
Col. (Richard) Kent of Newbury." This plan he promised to 
bring with him when he was able to leave. ^ 

Captain Gerrish appears to -have been disturbed about the 
title to his farm, in spite of the fact that it was specially excepted 
from the proposed purchase by the town of Canterbury. He 
applied to the proprietors to confirm it, and at their meeting, 
November 26, 1761, the following vote was passed: 

" Whereas Stephen Gerrish of Contoocook (Boscawen) . . . 
hath represented that he hath made improvement on a certain 
parcel of land lying near said place called Contoocook and between 
that and the township of Canterbury, bounded as follows: 
Beginning at Merrimack River, joining on Kent's Farm, so called, 
thence running east 15 degrees north 160 poles, thence north 
15 degrees west 280 rods or poles, then west 15 degrees south 160 
poles to the river aforesaid, and then by said river to the place 
it begins, and was solicitous to obtain a title from said pro- 

"Voted that all the right, title, ... to said tract of 

1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 143. 


land aforesaid, by estimation 300 acres ... is hereby 
granted to said Stephen Gerrish."^ 

The negotiations between the people of Canterbury and the 
proprietors of Mason's claim moved slowly, for it was not until 
six years after Thomas Clough's appointment as agent for the 
town that any further action was taken. Then, at a meeting 
held May 24, 1764, Thomas Clough; Walter Bryant and Joseph 
Sias were authorized to buy ''of the purchasers of IMason's Claim 
the whole of their right or as much as they can agree for in the 
gore of land between Canterbury and Rumford hne, and petition 
the General Court to have the same annexed to the town of 
Canterbury. "- 

The proprietors of the gore began to get impatient at the delay 
as is seen by their vote July 25, 1764. They took the initiative 
and appointed a committee to sell.^ 

Sometime in the fall of 1764 a purchase was undoubtedly made 
for there is a memorandum of an agreement made in November 
that year by which Walter Bryant, Thomas Clough and Joseph 
Sias conveyed to Jeremiah Clough and Ezekiel Morrill of Canter- 
bury ''all the intervale and upland in the gore, so called, that 
lays between Canterbury and Merrimack River and on the 
northwesterly side of the 40 acre lots laid out by the proprietors 
of Canterbury and on the north of Capt. Gerrish."^ 

To secure the committee (Bryant, Thomas Clough and Sias), 
a bond was given to them by certain citizens of Canterbury as 
follows : 

"Canterbury, December 25, 1764. Whereas a committee of 
proprietors of the town of Canterbury have agreed -udth the pur- 
chasers of Mason's right to give £2600 old tenor for their interest 
in a gore of land between Canterbury and Rumford Hne, now, 
know ye that we, the subscribers, upon said committee bringing 
in a quit claim deed of Mason's right agreeable to an agreement 
we have heretofore made, we promise to pay the said committee 
the above sum of £2600 old tenor and all the charges that hath 
or may arise in the purchasing of said gore which purchases and 

iX. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIX, page 502. 
^Idem, Vol. XXIV, page 146. 
^Idem, Vol. XXIX, page 512. 
*Idem, Vol. XXIV, page 146. 


charges is to be paid in the proportion to what land we possess 
in the intervale of said gore.^ 

"Ezekiel Morrill, Jeremiah Clough, Thomas Clough, W'm. 
Moors, Sam'l Moore, James Gibson, Nat Moore, John Forrest, 
Samuel Ames, Richard Ellis, Ephraim Hackett, Henry Elkins, 
James Shepard, John Dolloff, Jr., David Morrill, John Moore, 
John GHnes, Daniel Morrill, Josiah Miles, Abner Clough, Daniel 
Ames, William Forrest, Jr., Josiah Kentfield, Archelaus Moore, 
Joseph Simonds, Samuel Shepherd, Asa Foster." 

To provide for the payment of the purchase price, the town 
had voted at a meeting held in September, 1764, that "so much of 
the common lands be sold and is hereby granted to those who will 
give the most for the same as will be sufficient to pay the charges 
of getting the gore between Canterbury and Rumford hues 
annexed to Canterbury." 

The people not only desired to make good their title to the land 
in the gore by purchasing Mason's claim, but they wanted it 
formally annexed to Canterbury. To accomplish this it was 
necessary to apply to the provincial legislature at Portsmouth. 
Here they met with opposition not only from Rumford, whose 
people laid claim to part of the same territory, but they had to 
overcome the protests of some of the inhabitants of the gore who 
objected to being incorporated with Canterbury. 

At a meeting of the inhabitants held August 16, 1759, it was, 
"Voted that Capt. Josiah Miles carry and offer to the General 
Court a petition to have that gore of land which lies between 
Bow and Canterbury annexed to Canterbury." 

Captain Miles presented his petition to the general assembly 
of the Province February 7, 1760, setting forth "that there is a 
gore of land lying on the south west side of said boundary be- 
tween that and Bow on which several of the home lots of said 
Canterbury are laid out by mistake of the boundary on that side 
on which there are sundry families settled, and when an invoice 
was returned to regulate the proportion of the towns to the 
Province tax, those families were returned, supposing they were 
within said boundary; but upon running the line afterwards 
they were found without: . . . since which they have 
refused to pay any tax to said town; that the people are willing 
to be annexed to Canterbury, as it would be more convenient 
to them than to be joined to any other township, and there is no 
prospect or rather possibihty that it should ever make a town- 

' N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 147. 


ship, considering the situation, the shape, the quantity — ^by 
estimation about fifteen hundred acres — and the quahty of the 

A hearing was ordered at the February session, 1761. In the 
meantime, remonstrances came in from various quarters. The 
inhabitants of Rumford protested and authorized Dea. Joseph 
Hall to repair to Portsmouth and "do what he can to hinder the 
praj'er of the petition being granted." John Webster and Samuel 
Osgood set forth in a petition that "they had lately purchased 
a farm commonly called Kent's farm, contiguous to Rumford, of 
the claimers of the right of John Tufton Mason and that it would 
be more convenient to them to be annexed to Boscawen than to 
Canterbury on account of the distance to the meeting house and 
the badness of the road and not agreeable to their interest, con- 
nections or inclination, to be annexed to Canterbury." This 
farm contained three hundred acres and lay north of the Rum- 
ford line on the east side of the Merrimack River. Stephen 
Gerrish, whose farm was still farther north on the Merrimack, 
gave among other reasons for opposing the request of Canterbury 
that "the meeting house in Boscawen is within a mile of my 
house; that my interest is in several respects closely connected 
"uith that of Boscawen; that I largely contributed to the settle- 
ment and support of their late minister, Mr. (Phineas) Stevens, 
as long as he lived; as also towards procuring what occasional 
preaching they have had since his death." The most \dgorous 
protests, however, came from "Joseph Man" and "Will. Gault," of 
which the following are exact copies: 

"To his Excellency the Governor and House of Assembly: 

"These are to inform you that I live on the Common Lands 
near Canterbury, and that Capt'n Miles is trying to have me 
Corperated to them, which I have no Desire to, be Cause they 
Intirely Refused me of all town Privileges altogether: Whereupon 
I would humbly pray your honors to set me of to Some other 
Christian People, for if I am Set over to them I expect Nothing 
but oppression. 

"Will. Gault." 

"These are to Inform His Excellency the Governor and the 
honorable Assembly of Portsmouth, 

"That I Live in The Common land and Near to the town of 
Canterbury, and the Select men of the town has rated me every 
year, & I have paid rates this five years past to them, Which I 


think Very hard of; Whereas they have a great Entervail that 
they have the Cheef of their liveing Every year, & Never pays 
no Rates for it, Which makes me think they use no Conscience, 
or they would Rate their own Common land as Smart as they 
doe others. Seeing that Mr. Parsons laid out and Incroached 
on Severall Eacers of my land, and has taken it into his farm, I 
Requested of them to lay out my land in Canterbury, as they 
Reserved a tract of land to make good the home lots that fell 
out of the town in the Commons. But it was Said y* I should 
have no other land than I had Gotten : for my Part I am aff raid 
to be Corporated to Canterbury for fear of oppression, and for 
these reasons I would pray his Excellency and the Honorable 
Assembly of Portsmouth, that they would be pleased to Corpo- 
rate me to Some other Christian people.^ 

"Joseph Man." 

The objections of Joseph Mann, Wilham Gault and Stephen 
Gerrish to being annexed to Canterbury appear to have been 
overcome in a few years, for in 1764 there is a petition to the 
provincial government signed by them, Archelaus Moore, Henry 
Elkins, Enoch Webster, Wilham Curry, WiUiam Moore and Ann 
Curry, widow, asking to be included within the hmits of Canter- 
bury. The petition sets forth that they "settled on a tract of 
land in the form of a gore, which until lately was deemed a part 
of the town of Canterbury in said province and lays between that 
and Bow . . . that your petitioners are very anxious to 
be annexed to the town of Canterbury rather than Bow as they 
are within two miles of Canterbury meeting house and are 
distant six miles from that of Bow, and also they have several 
family connections in Canterbury .^ The prayer of the peti- 
tioners was granted January 23, 1765, and they were given 
leave to bring in a bill. 

The early settlers evidently understood the value of political 
recognition in securing harmony among the inhabitants, for 
Stephen Gerrish was elected one of the selectmen of Canterbury 
in 1765 and 1766 and Joseph Mann in 1766 and 1767, while 
William Gault was chosen a fence viewer two years after his 
signature of the foregoing petition. Joseph Mann was further 
recognized by being made a tithing man the first year that he 
was elected a selectman. 

According to Nathaniel Bouton in his " History of Concord,'* 

» Bouton's History of Concord, pages 226-230. 
J N. H. State Papers, Vol. IX, page 94. 


the Canterbury petition was in part granted. That is, a strip of 
land lying north of the original Rumford line and extending to 
the Merrimack River was annexed to Canterbury. The bounds 
were as follows: "Beginning on the easterly side of the Merri- 
mack River, on a course north, seventy-three degrees east, from 
the mouth of the Contoocook River; from thence, continuing 
the same course about six hundred and six rods, to Canterbury 
south-west side line; from thence, north-west, by said Canter- 
bury line, to Merrimack River; from thence, down the said river, 
to the place begun at; and all the lands, polls and estates taken 
by said boundaries are hereby added to said Canterbury and made 
a part thereof." 

Bouton adds that it appears that the original west side line 
of Canterbury was 606 rods from the river, and that it ran along 
on the upland without taking in the intervale. The intervale 
between the river and Canterbury line belonged to what was 
called "Mason's Patent," and the farms of Stephen Gerrish and 
Richard Kent, on the east side of the river, were included in 
the strip of land annexed to Canterbury, while none of that 
asked for between Canterbury and the Bow line, which belonged 
to Rumford, was granted.^ 

When the "Parish of Concord" was created in 1765 by the 
provincial government of New Hampshire in settlement of the 
controversy with Bow, the boundaries of the original grant of 
the former town by Massachusetts were changed. Referring to 
these changes, Amos Hadley in the "History of Concord" says: 
"By this bounding, the north east corner of Penacook, being a 
triangle of 1,025 acres more or less, was left to Canterbury. This 
piece of land had been asked for by Canterbury in a petition pre- 
sented to the General Assembly in 1760, to which remonstrance 
had been made by the leading citizens of Rumford. After Con- 
cord was incorporated, the gore was a bone of contention between 
its proprietors and those of Canterbury for sixteen years, or until 
1781, when a settlement was effected, the former quit claiming 
one hundred and fifty acres and the latter eight hundred and 
seventy-five acres. Finally on the 2d of January, 1784, by act 

> Bouton's History of Concord, pages 226-230. Near the railroad station of 
Canterbury is an ancient stone bound, still standing, that probably marked 
the original western boundary of the town. 


of the State legislature the gore was severed from Canterbury and 
annexed to Concord."^ 

The settlement here referred to is confirmed by the "Proprie- 
tors' Records" of Canterbury, for the agreement between the two 
towns is in these records, under date of February 9, 1781. The 
land quit-claimed by Concord is described as a "tract containing 
all the land which was laid out by the proprietors of Canterbury 
in their forty acre (division) to the following original proprietors, 
namely, Henry Tibbets, John Moore, Eli Demmerett, Henry 
Tibbets, son of Nathaniel, Ezekiel Hogsden, Jr., and Samuel 
Shute." The 875 acres of land quitclaimed by Canterbury 
is described as "the remainder of a gore of land of one thou- 
sand and twenty-five acres of land more or less claimed by 
each of said proprietors." The agreement is signed by John 
Chandler, Timothy Walker and Benjamin Emery in behalf of 
Concord and by Archelaus Moore, Thomas Clough and Josiah 
Miles in behalf of Canterbury. At a meeting of the proprietors 
this report was accepted. 

The action of the Legislature in 1784 referred to by Amos 
Hadley arose from a petition of citizens of Canterbury and 
Loudon. In their petition dated June 10, 1783, they say that 
" Your petitioners live upon a gore of land formerly claimed by 
the proprietors of Rumford and Canterbury, that when Rumford 
was incorporated in the year 1765 by the name of Concord, your 
petitioners were left to said Canterbury, since which time said 
proprietors of Rumford and Canterbury have amicably settled 
their dispute. Your petitioners would further show that by the 
late division of Canterbury- they were all except one set off to 
the parish of Loudon, that they are situated at a great distance 
from the meeting house in said Loudon, &c. 

"Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the above 
mentioned gore of land containing 1050 acres lying at the north- 
easterly corner of Rumford be dissevered from said Canterbury 
and Loudon and annexed to the parish of Concord. 

" John Hoit, Timothy Bradley, Jr., Abner Hoit, Phineas Virgin, 
Samuel Goodwin, Simon Trumbel, Timothy Bradley, James 
Glines, John Chandler, Amos Heath, William Virgin, Eben Foss, 
Stephen Crossman, Benjamin Bradley, Henry Lovejoy, William 
Stickney, Philip Eastman." 

The plan which follows, shows the changes in the boundaries 
of Canterbury and Concord and how the New Hampshire grant 

I History of Concord (1903), page 240. 

a The setting off of Loudon as a separate township in 1773. 


to the Bow proprietors overlapped the Massachusetts grant to 
the proprietors of Concord. The light black lines mark the 
present boundaries of Canterbury and Loudon, the last town 
being included in the original grant of the first. The heavy black 
lines indicate the present boundaries of Concord. The double 
lines mark the boundaries of Bow as it was originally granted by 
New Hampshire, The dotted line running northwest and south- 
east shows the original west side line of Canterbury to the Merri- 
mack River and also a part of the western boundary of Loudon 
at the time that town was set off from Canterbury. The dotted 
line running southwest and northeast indicates the southern 
boundary of Canterbury as claimed by the inhabitants of that 
town after Loudon was made a separate township, Bow being 
recognized as a contiguous town to Canterbury rather than Con- 
cord. The present bounds of the latter town are now substan- 
tially those of the grant made from Massachusetts. 

The entire western boundary of Canterbury at the present 
time is the Merrimack River, Between the dotted line which 
marks the original west side line of Canterbury and the river 
as far south as the present northern boundary of Concord is that 
part of the gore upon which Joseph Mann, William Gault and 
others settled, and it included the farms of Richard Kent and 
Stephen Gerrish. This was a triangle, by estimation 1,500 acres, 
but it was never claimed by Concord. 

Between the northern boundary of Concord and the dotted 
line, which is an extension to the west of the present northern 
boundary of Loudon, lies the territory in dispute, with the 
Merrimack River as its western boundary. Canterbury claimed 
this territory because its original boundaries were laid on Bow, 
while Concord claimed it because it was included in the original 
grant to the proprietors of that to\\Ti. When the boundaries of 
the parish of Rumford were defined by the provincial legislature 
of New Hampshire in 1765, all this territory was given to Canter- 
bury. It formed a triangle of 1,025 acres. 

In 1781, when the proprietors of Canterbury and Concord 
adjusted their dispute, 875 acres in this territory contiguous to 
the Merrimack River were quitclaimed to Concord and 150 acres, 
which was a triangle in the eastern corner of the larger triangle, 
were conceded to Canterbury. 

The northern boundary line of Concord now extended east to 


the original west side line of Canterbury. To complete its present 
boundaries and to include what was originally granted by Massa- 
chusetts to the Concord proprietors it was necessary to annex a 
gore of 1,050 acres, of which probably 150 acres had been conceded 
to Canterbury three years before, while the remaining 900 acres 
were taken from the town of Loudon. This annexation was upon 
the petition of John Hoit and others, and it was made without 

The plan here given is not exact in its dimensions but in a gen- 
eral way shows how the controversy arose and how it was adjusted 
from time to time until the final settlement in 1784. Accurate 
surveys and correct maps of the towns of New Hampshire 
were the product of a later generation than that of this dispute, 
while legislative changes of boundaries in the early days were 
not always accompanied by clearly defined measurements and 
descriptions of the territory. 

In the New Hampshire State Papers are several plans that 
throw some light upon this controversy and they have been of 
assistance in determining locations and reaching conclusions.^ 
They were undoubtedly made at the time of the dispute, although 
one is without date. The course of the Merrimack River in two 
centuries has greatly changed, and this must be taken into consid- 
eration in determining the territory in the gore which is now a 
part of Canterbury. 

Mr. Hadley's statement that, "Finally on the 2d of January, 
1784, by act of the state legislature the gore was severed from 
Canterbury and annexed to Concord," ^ is misleading. It is too 
broad an assertion. It conveys the impression that Canterbury 
finally surrendered everything for which it contended. This was 
not the case. The origin of the controversy so far as Canterbury 
was concerned was due to the location on the intervale of the 
Merrimack River of some of the Canterbury settlers on the sup- 
position that they were within the limits of the grant of that town. 
Finding that they were not and that they were within the terri- 
tory owned by the purchasers of the claim of John Tufton Mason, 
the inhabitants of Canterbury first proceeded to purchase of 
these proprietors their rights and then to have this territory 
annexed by the legislature to Canterbury. The controversy 

1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXVII, pages 14&-148, 154. 
« History of Concord (1903), page 240. 





between Canterbury and Concord arose over the conflicting 
claims of the proprietors of Concord and Bow as to the boundaries 
of the latter towns. When this was finally settled in 1784, Con- 
cord had secured substantially all that it originally claimed, but 
it never laid claim to that part of the gore which is now included 
in Canterbury. In reality, there were three distinct gores as 
indicated on the plan. No. 1 being annexed to Canterbury with- 
out dispute and Nos. 2 and 3 finally ceded to Concord. 

The boundary between Canterbury and Chichester was also 
in controversy as early as 1767 and was soon taken to the courts 
of the province for settlement. Committees were appointed at 
various times by the citizens of the former town to "prosecute 
and defend" its rights. It was not until about 1780 that an 
adjudication was secured. Perambulation of the line between 
Canterbury and Gilmanton appears to have been accomplished 
without dispute as early as 1750. 

In the early running of the boundaries of towns, the points 
where the line took a new course were not always marked by an 
enduring monument, the bound oftentimes being a tree or a 
stump which in time disappeared. Then, where the line followed 
a straight course for some distance, it was indicated by the spotting 
of trees. Even where stones were set up and marked on opposite 
sides with the initial letters of the two towns, the subsequent 
clearing of the forest was liable to obscure them in the under- 
brush. When it became the dutyof the selectmen to perambulate 
or rerun the boundary, it was frequently attended with difficulty 
owing to the lack of permanence of the marks and bounds orig- 
inally made to indicate the line. As an illustration of this, take 
the return in 1800 of the selectmen of Canterbury and Concord 
showing their perambulation of the division line of these two 
communities. They report as follows: 

"We the subscribers, have this day met and perambulated 
and new spotted the line between Canterbury and Concord, viz. 
We began at a red oak tree, being the northwesterly corner 
bound of Loudon and the southerly corner of Canterbury, thence 
running north twenty degrees west to a small chestnut tree and a 
large quantity of stones, being the northeasterly corner bound 
of Concord, thence south seventy degrees west to a stake and 
stones, on Gaults hill, so called, thence the same course to a pine 
stump near Jon'n Blanchard's house, thence the same course 
to Merrimack river." 


Not many years ago the selectmen of Canterbury and North- 
field undertook to perambulate the boundary line of these two 
towns by beginning at the opposite east and west corners and 
running towards each other. They were unable to meet as they 
should have done if they had accurately located the bounds, but 
passed each other a little to the north and south of the true line. 
It was such experiences that led to the erection of stone monu- 
ments set securely in the ground and appropriately marked. 

The selectmen, when they perambulate a boundary line, now 
look at these monuments to see that they are firmly in place. 
They are required by law to make these perambulations as fre- 
quently as once in seven years. 

In the warrant of a town meeting held in February, 1762, there 
was an article to see if the town 'S\-ill lay out a road from the 
meeting house in said Canterbury, through the town the nearest 
way to some seaport to\\Ti and such other roads as are necessary 
to accommodate said town." The vote on this article was as 
follows: "That the committee chosen to lay out the third divi- 
sion of land shall layout a ■ — — rod road in the common land 
where they think best beginning at a place called Head's Hill to 
Chichester in the convenientest place of a (the) parish and to a 
market." This highway was completed in a year, for, in 1763, 
a committee was chosen "to lay out a four rod road through 
the land of Jonathan Elkins to the Chichester road that is now 
open." In the history of Loudon, this highway is referred to as 
"the old Canterbury road." ^ 

The first official action taken by the inhabitants in la\ang 
out highways that is recorded was in 1750, when a committee, 
consisting of Ephraim Hackett, Thomas Clough and Archelaus 
Moore, was chosen to join with the selectmen in "looking out 
convenient highways or roads among the home lots and to see 
where highways must be changed and to see that every man 
who is wronged by changing or making new roads have due 
recompense made to them." It appears that highways were 
reserved between the home lots when they were laid out. These 
reservations did not fully meet the requirements of the settlers 
and changes became necessary. 

The Merrimack River divided the settlers of Canterbury from 

J History of Merrimack County, page 498. 


their neighbors of Boscawen. There may have been places on 
this river that were fordable in dry seasons, but the crossing had 
to be made usually in boats. The necessity of a public ferry was 
early apparent, and September 19, 1767, the exclusive right of 
maintaining such a ferry was granted by the provincial govern- 
ment to John Webster of Canterbury.* He was to transfer men, 
horses, cattle, goods, carriages, etc., from the shore of Canterbury 
to Boscawen and Concord and from Boscawen to Concord, and 
no others were to set up a ferry on the Merrimack River within 
three miles above or below where Webster lived. The location 
of this ferry is pretty accurately set forth in old deeds, and their 
descriptions contribute to the information regarding the gore of 
land which was so long a bone of contention between Canterbury 
and Concord. 

July 10, 1760, Thomas Pearson of North Yarmouth, Me., sold 
to John Webster and Samuel Osgood three hundred acres more 
or less in Canterbury which Pearson bounds as follows: 

"Southerly by Rumford or Penacook line and by 2 acres I gave 
to Phineas Stevens, westerly by Merrimack River, northerly by 
land of Capt. Stephen Gerrish, and easterly by land claimed by 
the proprietors of Canterbury, or, however otherwise bounded 
as by Richard Hazzen's plan thereof may appear, this being 
the same land granted to Richard Kent by the province of Massa- 
chusetts Bay and confirmed to me by the assigns of Tufton 
Mason." ^ 

May 31, 1765, Samuel Osgood of Maine deeds to Enoch Web- 
ster of Rumford "all my right in a farm, commonly called Kent's 
farm, on the easterly side of the Merrimack River opposite the 
Contoocook River, which farm my honored father, John Webster, 
and I lately bought in equal shares of Thomas Pearson and do 
now hold as joint tenants and estimated to contain 375 acres." ^ 

October 25, 1767, John Webster of Canterbury sold to Enoch 
Webster of Canterbury "the whole of a certain ferry which was 
granted to me by His Excellency, John Wentworth, upon the 
Merrimack River." * The farm and ferry were bought of Andrew 
McMillan of Concord and Enoch Webster of Canterbury, Novem- 

' N. H. State Papers, Vol. XXIV, page 528. 

> Prov. Registry of Deeds, Vol. LXVIII, page 198. 

» Idem, Vol. LXXIX, page 99. 

* Idem, page 426. 

blanchard's ferry. 91 

ber 24, 1769, by Benjamin Blanchard, 2d, of Hollis, N. H.,i and 
later they were conveyed by him to his son, Benjamin Blanchard, 
3d. The ferry continued in the possession of the Blanchard 
family until the building of the Boscawen toll bridge. It was 
known as "Blanchard's Ferry" and so described in the act incor- 
porating the bridge company.^ 

A parsonage lot was provided in 1752, when Ezekiel Morrill 
w^as voted one hundred acres of the proprietors' undivided land 
"in exchange for forty acres of land joining to the meeting house 
which is proposed for a parsonage lot." In the drawing of the 
forty-acre lots, although provision was made for the school right 
and the minister's right, none w^as reserved for the parsonage. 
Nothing appears to have been done to improve the lot until 1756, 
when it was voted to " clear and fence the parsonage." The next 
year a town rate of £300 old tenor in work was voted at 30s. per 
day "to be worked out upon the parsonage by the first of May 
in clearing said parsonage, and any person who does not w^ork 
out his rate by said time shall pay his money." Although a 
committee was appointed to see that the work was done, the 
same subject was before the town meeting again in 1760 when 
the minister who was called that year was voted the use of the 
parsonage in addition to his salary. It was further provided that 
the parsonage "shall be fenced with one good fence." Somehow 
the inhabitants seemed to shun this parsonage lot, for five years 
later the town offered still higher inducements for making it 
serviceable. In 1765 it was "Voted that men shall have £2 10s. 
old tenor per day for every day they work in fencing and clearing 
the parsonage, and Deacon (Ezekiel) Morrill and Ephraim 
Hackett have £10 each for their trouble as committeemen to see 
the same done." As there is no further record, it is presumed 
that the minister's lot was cleared so that he could plant his 
crops, and that a fence was at last erected to protect them from 
the stray cattle, sheep and hogs that roamed along the highway. 
Thirteen years had thus elapsed since the parsonage was set 
aside and nine years since the town first voted to put it in con- 
dition for use. The final disposition of this lot is part of the 
narrative of a subsequent chapter.' 

1 Prov. Registry of Deeds, Vol. XCVI, page 162. 
» For account of Clement's Ferry see Chapter IX. 
• Chapter X. 


In the meantime, efforts were made to settle a minister. There 
was an article in the warrant of the annual meeting of 1755 to 
this effect, but no action was taken that year. If there was 
preaching, it was probably supplied without charge by the Rev. 
James Scales, to whom remuneration does not appear to have 
been voted after the March meeting of 1754. In June, 1756, 
however, a unanimous call was given to the Rev. Robert Cutler 
to settle in Canterbury. He was voted for his yearly support 
" £300 old tenor at £4 per dollar to be paid in dollars or bills of 
credit of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Conti* equivalent 
thereunto, like^vdse £300 old tenor more to be paid in provisions 
and have his cows pastured and wood hauled." 

This method of paying the minister in part by donation of 
provisions did not prove acceptable, for late the next year the 
town "voted to pay. Mr. Cutler's rates in dollars at £4 per dollar 
instead of provisions, as voted in his call." 

Mr. Cutler appears at first to have given satisfaction, for 
efforts were made to install him, which failed, however, through 
his inability to secure the attendance of a council of ministers. 
The follo-uang is a copy of a letter addressed to the church at 
North Hampton inviting the pastor and others to participate.^ 

"For the Rev^ Mr. Nathl Gookin Pastor of the 4th Church 
of Christ in Hampton. To be communicated to ye Chh. 

"The freeholders & Inhabitants of this Towti of Canterbury — 
To the Chh of Christ in North Hampton, Send Greeting: 

"ReV^ Hon"^ & Beloved in our Lord jesus Christ — 

"Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God in his Holy Providence 
to make way for the settlement of a Chh in this town of Canter- 
bury and that as a Chh of Christ we might come to the enjoyment 
of all his holy Ordinances, we have unanimously Called Mr. 
Robert Cutler to the work of the Ministry among us, and it 
hath pleased Him who sends forth Laborers into his Harvest 
to incline his heart to accept this Call and to take the Pastoral 
Charge over us, who dwell in the Wilderness, and are exposed 
daily to the Insults & Barbarities of a Savage Enemy, we do 
therefore hereby signify to you that with his Consent we 
have Appointed Wednesday, the 15th day of Sept. next to be 
the day for his Instaulment to the Pastoral Office amongst us, & 
we do therefore humbly And Earnestly desire your Assistance 
here by your ReV^ Elder and Messengers on the said day for 
the more orderly and effectual Consummating of that Affair. 

"Thus asking your Prayers to God for us and Commending 

I N. E. Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. XXVII, page 64; 


you to his abundant Mercies and goodness, we Subscribe your 
Brethren in the Faith and Fellowship of the Gospel. 
Canterbury Aug't ye 4th, 1756. 

" P. S. The Rev*^ Elder and Messengers are desired to meet 
at ye House of Capt. Jeremiah Clough in s'd town at 8 of ye Clock 
in ye morning so that a Chh may be Seasonably embodyed. 

"In ye name and behalf of ye Freeholders and Inhabitants 
of ye Town of Canterbury. 

"EzEKiEL Morrill, 
Jeremiah Clough, 
JosiAH Miles. 
"Aug. 29th This letter read. Sept. 12, Vote called for but 
none voted to comply. 

"Nath'l Gookin." 

Mr. Cutler made a journey in 1757 to various churches to 
secure their cooperation in his installation but without success. 
In December that year, the town voted to continue his preaching 
until the following July with a view to his settlement, "Joseph 
Man" entering his protest to this vote. When July came, a 
committee was appointed to send out letters in the name of the 
town to such regular churches as Mr. Cutler might designate to 
come and install him. To this vote William Forrest, Ezekiel 
Morrill, Ephraim Hackett, James Head, James Head, Jr., 
WilUam Glines, Wilham Moore, Reuben Morrill, William Glines, 
Jr., Ensign John Moore and William Forrest, Jr., entered their 

Neither Mr. Cutler nor the town committee met with any 
encouragement and the inhabitants finally appealed to the Eccle- 
siastical Convention for advice and assistance. The convention 
on account of Mr. Cutler's conduct while at Epping — for which, 
however, he had made his peace with the church and had been 
regularly dismissed— advised them, to proceed no further towards 
his installation. 1 This advice was accepted and the selectmen 
were authorized December 14, 1758, to make up his accounts and 
give him a note for the same. The town meeting then adjourned 
two weeks and "Voted that no preaching be hired until March 
next." The following tribute to Mr. Cutler was voted to be 
entered upon the town records: 

"These lines are to signify to whom it may concern that, 
whereas Mr. Cutler, who has been with us for a considerable 
time and has preached to good acceptance amongst us and who 

1 Farmer and Moore's Historical Coll., Vol. II, page 363. 


has had an invitation for more than two years past to settle with 
us in the gospel ministry, yet, by reason of the many disappoint- 
ments we have met with in respect of his installment, with 
respect to the failure of churches in not coming, and the people 
thereby getting more and more discouraged and so crumbling 
into parties and sectaries, all these things being considered, we 
judge that it would not be for the glory of God and the interest 
of religion for ^Mr. Cutler to settle in the gospel ministry in this 
place, and, therefore, having agreed to a separation, we can't 
withal but think from an acquaintance with Mr. Cutler's minis- 
terial gifts and qualifications that we are bound in justice so far 
to acknowledge them for edification as that we do heartily recom- 
mend him to the work of the gospel ministry wherever Divine 
Providence shall open the door for him." 

Mr. Cutler was born in 1722 and graduated at Harvard Col- 
lege in 1744. He was ordained at Epping, N. H., December 9, 
1747, and dismissed December 23, 1755, probably just before 
he came to Canterbury to preach as a candidate with a view 
to settlement. After leaving Canterbury, he was installed at 
Greenwich, Mass., and died there in 1786 at the age of sixty- 

The town was without preaching from December, 1758, until 
after August, 1759, when it was "Voted that some young gentle- 
man be sought to preach to the inhabitants of Canterbury on 
probation in order for settlement." As the result of this vote, 
the services of Timothy Walker, Jr., only son of Concord's first 
settled minister, were secured. He proved so acceptable that a 
call to settle was given to him January 22, 1760. This call was 
not accepted and Mr. Walker's ministrations ceased before the 
following June. He was never settled as a pastor over any church 
but continued to preach occasionally for about six years, when he 
left the ministry to engage in trade. The Revolutionary War 
called him to very important positions of public trust, which he 
filled with credit to himself and the state. 

In December, 1760, a unanimous call was given to the Rev. 

Abiel Foster, a call that was speedily accepted. He was voted a 

salary of £700 old tenor for two years with an increase of £50 per 

year after that date until his compensation should reach £1,000. 

In addition, he was to have the use of the parsonage and thirty 

cords of wood cut and delivered for his use annually. 

» Historical Sermon, Rev. William Patrick, October 27, 1833. Fanner and 
Moore's Historical Coll., Vol. II, page 363. 


For thirteen years jNIr. Foster performed his duties as minister 
of Canterbury without any apparent dissent on the part of his 
parishioners. If there was dissatisfaction with his methods or 
with his teachings, it did not take form until 1773. That year 
a special town meeting was called upon the petition of twenty of 
the inhabitants "to see if the town will agree with Rev. Abiel 
Foster to lay down preaching amongst us in order that we may 
get another minister that may give better satisfaction to the 
town, lest we be entirely broken in pieces; and if not, then to see 
if they will clear as many as are dissatisfied with his preaching, 
from paying him any more salary." 

The town voted, however, to keep Mr. Foster and not to excuse 
those who were dissatisfied from contributing to his salary. The 
cause of this dissatisfaction is not apparent from the records, but 
whatever it was, the discontent grew instead of subsiding. Two 
years later a special meeting was called in May "to see if Rev. 
Mr. Foster will ask a dismission, provided the town will unite 
in supporting the gospel together." Although two adjournments 
of this meeting were taken, no decision was reached. In this 
situation, the parish continued until 1779. Two attempts in town 
meeting, in 1776 and 1777, to provide for Mr. Foster's salary, 
which had fallen in arrears, failed. Finally, in town meeting held 
December 31, 1778, Mr. Foster made certain proposals which 
were accepted by the town, and at an ecclesiastical council which 
convened at Canterbury, January 27, 1779, he was formally- 

The same day the town voted to Mr. Foster, his heirs and 
assigns "the use and improvement of the parsonage lot No. 65 
for the term of 999 years ... in consideration of the sum 
of SIOOO, the receipt whereof the town hereby acknowledges 
themselves satisfied and contented." The selectmen were "Em- 
pow^ered to give security to Mr. Foster to fulfil the conditions of 
the proposals made by Mr. Foster on his asking and taking a dis- 
mission from his ministerial office in Canterbury agreeable to the 
proposals by him made and accepted by the town on the 31 of 
December^ last past, exclusive of the parsonage lot." 

Diaries kept by the Rev. Timothy Walker and his son, Timothy 
Walker, Jr., of Concord, show that they both exchanged pulpits 

» The record of this meeting is lost. 


with Mr. Foster and that the families visited during these 
•exchanges. Parson Walker, the father, appears to have had 
business relations with people of Canterbury prior to the settle- 
ment of Mr. Foster, and, as has already been seen, his son was 
invited to settle there early in the year 1760. The latter was a 
classmate of Mr. Foster at Harvard, both graduating in the 
year 1756, and he may have recommended Mr. Foster for the pul- 
pit he himself declined. The following are extracts from the 
diaries of Parson Walker and his son. 

Diary of Rev. Timothy Walker. 

(June) 11 Day. . . . Benj'n Blanchard, of Canterbury, was 

scalped by ye indians.^ 
(Dec.) 31 Day. Went to Canterbury. Bought a negro wench 

of Capt. Clough, for w'c I am to give him £140. 


{Jan.) 1 Day. Gave Capt. Clough note for my Negro to be 
paid ye first day of June next. 


{Jan.) Sat. 21. Went to Canterbury in order to change with 
Mr. Foster. P. M. News came of Reuben Morrill's 
being killed by the fall of a tree. 
Sun. 22. Preached at Canterbury. Mr. Foster preached 
for me. 
'(Aug.) Sat. 18. Set out with daughter Molly for Canterbury. 
Dined there. 
Sun. 19. Preached at Canterbury. Mr. Foster preached 

Diary of Judge Walker. 


'(Jan.) 1 Rode to Canterbury. Lodged at Mr. Foster's. 

2 Preached all day at Cant'y by exchange. 
(May) 7 Rode to Canterbury. Dined with Mr. Foster & re- 
turned with him to Rumford. 

22 Preached all day at Canterbury. Mr. Foster at 
. Rumford. Rainy. 

23 A. M. Returned. 

(Oct.) 14 Mr. Foster of Canterbury visited me. 

'See note, Chapter II. 


15 Salla & Polly sat out with Mr. Foster for Canterbury. 
17 Sat out for Canterbury. Drank tea with C't Brown 
& I'd at Mr. Foster's. 


(Jan.) 21 Mr. Foster arrived from Canterbury. 

22 Air. Foster preached all day & returned. 
(April) 7 Messrs. Foster & Scales visited me. 

8 Rode to Canterbury. Preached all day. Mr. Foster 
preached at Rumford. Returned at night. 

9 Dined with Mr. Foster at Col. Rolfe's. Mr. Foster 
went home. 

25 Rode to Canterbury. Dined with Mr. Foster. 
Visited Capt. Gerrish, Mr. Varney, Mr. Morril & 

(Sept.) 23 Rode to Canterbury. Lodg'd at Mr. Foster's. Mr. 
Foster preached at Rumford. Returned at night. 

(Oct.) 14 Preached all day at Do. (Bakerstown). After meet- 
ing returned to Mr. Foster's. 

(Nov.) 9 Mr. Foster came here & lodg'd. 

10 P. M. Rode to Canterbury & Lodg'd. 

11 Preached all day at Canterbury. 

12 A.]M. Returned. 


(Feb.) 17 Preached all day at Canterbury. Mr. Foster preached 

at Rumford. 
(April) 7 Preached at Canterbury. 

(July) 13 Preached all day for Mr. Foster.^ 

The Rev. Abiel Foster, son of Capt. Asa Foster, was born in 
Andover, Mass., August 24, 1735 and graduated from Harvard 
College in 1756. Studying for the ministry, he was called to 
Canterbury soon after his ordination. After his dismissal, he 
took no other pastorate. He was an ardent patriot through the 
Revolution, being chosen a deputy to the Provincial Congress 
called to meet at Exeter in 1775. For the years 1779, 1781 and 
1782, he represented the town in the General Court, and in 1783, 
1784 and 1785 he was chosen to the Continental Congress. After 
the adoption of the federal constitution, he was elected to the 
national House of Representatives in the first, fourth, fifth, sixth 

1 These extracts were furnished by Joseph B. Walker of Concord, Uneal 
descendant of Parson Walker. 


and seventh congresses, retiring from the last in 1803 on account 
of ill health. Mr Foster served several terms in the state Senate 
from 1791 to 1794, and he was president of that body in 1793. 
He was also a member of one of the conventions called to form a 
constitution for New Hampshire. For four years he was judge of 
the Court of Common Pleas. 

He was present at Annapolis when Washington resigned his 
commission to Congress in December, 1783, the only member 
from New Hampshire, and he is shown in Trumbull's picture of 
this event, which is seen in the rotunda of the capitol, sitting 
directly in front of Washington with his arm on the back of a 
chair. As a token of friendship, Washington presented him with 
a miniature portrait of himself which was probably painted by a 
foreign artist entertained at Mt. Vernon. This miniature is now 
in possession of his great-grandson, Alfred H. Foster of Union, 
S. C. Abiel Foster died at Canterbury, February 6, 1806, in the 
seventy-first year of his age. 

The public career of Abiel Foster was the longest and most 
distinguished that any citizen of Canterbury ever attained. 
The Rev. William Patrick, who came to Canterbury three years 
before Mr. Foster's death, says of him: "Notwithstanding his 
dismission, so strong was his hold upon the esteem and affections 
of his people that they soon chose him as their representative to 
the General Court. This event gave a cast to his future life and, 
happening at the time when able and honest men were prized 
and sought after, he immediately entered upon public busi- 
ness and sustained afterwards till near the close of his life various 
offices of trust and honor with reputation to himself and useful- 
ness to the community. . . . Possessing enlightened views 
and sound judgment, correct principles and liberal sentiments, 
inflexible integrity and gentlemanly deportment, Judge Foster 
was deservedly popular and his death was considered a public 

In the state at large Mr. Foster had the confidence of his fellow 
citizens from the time of his first appearance in the Provincial 
Congress at Exeter as a deputy from Canterbury until he volun- 
tarily retired from public life in 1803. For over a quarter of a 
century he was continually in the service of the state. Of this 
time he was three years a member of the Continental Congress 
and ten years a member of the national House of Representatives 


after the adoption of the federal constitution. The number of 
terms he served as a congressman exceeded those of any of his 
contemporaries from New Hampshire, this, too, in spite of the fact 
that the seat of political power in the state at that time was 
centered at Portsmouth and Exeter. For the first twenty years 
after 1789 there were but three representatives in Congress whose 
residence was north of Canterbury. 

It was during his service in the Continental Congress that Mr. 
Foster was appointed a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. 
At that time there were few trained lawyers and appointments 
to the trial courts were not confined to the legal profession. 
The selections were usually of men of education, recognized 
integrity and good judgment who would deal justly by litigants, 
regardless of technicalities. This appointment indicates that 
Mr. Foster was a man of judicial temperament. 

He was undoubtedly one of the best educated men of the state. 
This tribute was paid him by his contemporaries. His knowledge 
of public affairs enabled him to step from the pulpit to the forum 
and take his place as a leader of the people. The ministers of his 
generation were secular as well as spiritual guides, but Mr. Foster, 
unlike most clergymen of his day, having entered public life, did 
not return to his profession. Service for the state and the nation 
appears to have been congenial to him and the uninterrupted 
period of his public labors testifies to the confidence reposed in 
him by his constituents.^ 

After Mr. Foster was dismissed, three attempts were made to 
secure a settled minister without success. It was not until 1790 
that a call was accepted. Three ministers, whom the town was 
satisfied to invite to take charge of the parish, after visiting 
Canterbury and supplying the pulpit for a time, declined to 
settle. That the field was uninviting there is little doubt. There 
was an indifference on the part of the people, promoted in part 
by the demands upon them from 1775 to 1783, the period of the 
Revolutionary War, for the support of the contest the country 
was making with Great Britain to secure the acknowledgment of 
its independence. In addition, there were dissensions, of which 
there is evidence as early as 1773 and again in 1776. In the latter 

I The home of the Rev. Abiel Foster was at the Center where James F. 
French now resides. The onginal buildings occupied by Mr. Foster and his 
son for many years were replaced by those now used by Mr. French. 


year a committee of the most prominent citizens was appointed 
"to take under consideration the state of the town with respect 
to the support of the gospel, to agree upon a plan for the purpose 
of uniting the inhabitants of the town and to consult with Rev. 
Mr. Foster upon any matter or thing they may suppose will 
have a tendency to forward the plan." The committee was 
unable to devise a solution of the difficulties. 

The committee was also instructed to inquire what should 
be done with reference to the arrearages due Mr. Foster. That the 
trouble was not wholly on account of the straightened circum- 
stances of the people is shown by a vote of the town at a still 
earlier date. At the time of his settlement, Mr. Foster was voted 
thirty cords of wood annually, to be cut and delivered by the 
inhabitants. Yet five years afterwards, the town was obliged 
to vote "that all delinquents who have not hauled their wood 
for two years past shall haul it by first of June next, or the select- 
men are to haul it and such delinquents are to pay the money." 

Wood at that time was the cheapest and most abundant crop 
in Canterbury and there was no valid reason why this part of the 
contract with the minister should not have been faithfully kept. 
It was certainly small encouragement to a minister, with his 
salary constantly in arrears, to find his parishioners neglecting 
to furnish him with an adequate supply of fire wood. Therefore, 
it is easy to imagine a man of Mr. Foster's positive convictions 
and plainness of speech reprimanding the people from the pulpit 
for their indifference and thereby producing dissatisfaction with 
his preaching. Unfortunately, the first book of records of the 
church is lost. This might have thrown further light upon the 
peculiar condition of religious affairs which prevailed in Canter- 
bury from the early settlements until late in the century. 

The Rev. William Patrick in his historical sermon, referring 
to the setting off of Loudon and Northfield from Canterbury as 
separate townships in 1773 and 1780 respectively, says: "It 
does not appear that any member of the church then resided in 
the limits of those places. During this long period (until the 
settlement of Rev. Frederick Parker in 1791) we must conclude 
the state of religion was low. A few doubtless mourned over the 
desolation of Zion and prayed for a time of refreshing from the 
presence of the Lord." 


At the annual meeting in 1757 the necessity for a pound in 
which to confine stray cattle was apparent. It was, therefore, 
voted to build one and locate it on the land of John Dolloff "at 
the most convenient place between his house and Mr. James 
Scales' house." The pound was to be thirty feet square "with 
good riles and posts or slight work" and to be completed by the 
first of June. For the next four years it is probable that Mr. 
Dolloff did the impounding as a public-spirited citizen. Whether 
he had difficulty in collecting of the owners of stray cattle for his 
trouble in notifying them of their loss and for the expense of 
caring for the animals until they were claimed does not appear, 
but, in 1761, he was fortified with the authority of the town by 
an election as pound keeper, a position he held until 1764. The 
office then lapsed for three years, when Jeremiah Clough was 
chosen. After this the position was regularly filled at the annual 

The first pound did duty for twenty-three years. In 1780 the 
town voted to build another on the parsonage lot and to give 
Ephraim Carter £90 for building it. In twenty years more the 
second inclosure reached a state of decay requiring action. So at 
the annual meeting in 1800 it was "Voted to build a pound in 
some convenient place near the South Meeting House and that 
said pound be built with timber in the manner the pound at 
Concord is built, to be 30 feet square, that the selectmen be 
a committee to build said pound or cause it to be built the cheap- 
est way it can be done." In June following the building of the 
pound was bid off for twenty dollars. 

The average life of these wooden enclosures for stray cattle 
appears to have been about twenty years. Accordingly the town 
decided in 1821 to build something more permanent. It was 
therefore "Voted that a new pound be built of stone of the 
following dimensions, thirty feet square within the walls, 63^ 
feet high, 43/^ feet thick at the bottom, 13^ feet thick at the 
top, and to have timbers on the top, hewn ten to twelve inches 
square free from sap, the timber to be yellow or white pine or 
chestnut. There is to be a good gate hung with iron hinges." 

The selectmen were authorized to build it and to locate it 
"where the old one stands or near." This was the pound which 
the older inhabitants can recall and which did duty so long as it 
was necessary to impound cattle. It was situated west of the 


northwest corner of the present cemetery at the Center while the 
location of the earlier ones was probably nearer the old fort. 

The pound served the purpose of confining stray cattle, horses, 
sheep and swine found upon the highways until they were identi- 
fied and called for by their owners. This stock when at large 
frequently wandered a long distance from home. It was not 
alone the stray cattle that proved an annoyance to the thrifty 
farmer. Some of his improvident neighbors allowed their animals 
to feed beside the road or upon the commons, while the creatures 
of others, breaking through the fences which inclosed pastures, 
did damage in fields of grain, or getting into the highways, were 
destructive of lawns and flower gardens about the houses. 

Before the pioneers had opportunity to build stone walls for 
the protection of their possessions, they divided their tillage and 
grazing lands and protected their fields from the highway by 
fences made of the brush of small trees and of rails. The drifting 
snow and the frosts of winter broke down these fences, and it 
was necessary to repair them every spring before turning stock 
out to pasture. It was no small undertaking to keep these inclo- 
sures intact. Unless the work was well done every year, the farmer 
had frequent occasion to search for his cattle. Then in the early 
days swine were allowed to roam the highways adjacent to the 
homes of their owners. To impound the stray stock of a neighbor 
was likely to give offence and so both town and state attempted 
to abate the nuisance by law. 

In Canterbury it was well towards the middle of the nineteenth 
century before the annoyance of animals wandering upon the 
highway was ended. In 1825 a special town meeting was called, 
and among the articles in the warrant was one "to see if the town 
will adopt bylaws agreeably to an act ... to authorize 
towns to make bylaws to prevent horses, mules, jacks, neat cattle, 
sheep and swine from going at large. "^ The regulations adopted, 
following the statute, imposed penalties on the owners of such 
animals if the latter were found in "any highway or common or 
any public place between the first day of April and the last day 
of October" through the knowledge or negligence of such owners. 
The penalties were not fines to be enforced by officers of the law 
but were to accrue through suit by the aggrieved party in an 
action of debt. These by-laws do not appear to have been very 

•Session laws of 1811 and 1822. 


effective, as the subject continued to be one for consideration at 
town meetings for a number of years afterwards. 

The evil, however, was corrected in another way. People 
refused to fence against animals in the highway, there being no 
law to compel them to do this. Owners being responsible for 
any damage done by their stock found it expensive to allow them 
to run at large and gradually the practice ceased.^ 

It was largely through the efforts of the Rev. Abiel Foster that 
some of the early records of the proprietors of Canterbury were 
preserved. In a petition to the Provincial Government dated 
January 14, 1774, for the authentication of the town records he 
states, 'Hhat a vast number of papers containing the votes and 
proceedings of said proprietors touching their most important 
concerns as proprietors and by which many estates in Canterbury 
have been conveyed and are now held, by some neglect or omis- 
sion of the clerk of said proprietors have not been recorded."^ 

The proprietors had appointed a committee in the spring of 
1773 to collect and inspect these papers. They reported that 
they found them among the files of the proprietors and decided 
that they were in the handwriting of the proprietor's clerk and 
that they had " all the marks of original, fair and genuine minutes 
and entries, some made thirty years ago, which papers the com- 
mittee have within six months past caused to be recorded in the 
books of said proprietors, the record of which papers contains 
eighty pages in foHo or more." October 6, 1773, the town " Voted 
to accept the books of record as they now stand and confirm and 
establish all entries therein made by the committee." The prayer 
of Mr. Foster's petition was granted and the town records were 
duly authenticated by the Provincial Government. 

That the constable should have a proper insignia of office was 
recognized in 1756, when a staff made and presented to the town 
by John Dolloff was accepted, for which he was voted one pound. 
The position of constable for many years in Canterbury united 
the duties usually pertaining to that office with those of collector 
of taxes. "From the establishment of the Province," says 
Maurice H. Robinson, "until 1758, the constable was recognized 
in the laws as collector of the provincial as well as the local taxes. 

> See BrowTi's History of Hampton Falls, which contains valuable informa- 
tion on old-time customs in New Hampshire. 
5 Bouton's Town Papers, Vol. IX, page 95. 


Although the custom of employing collectors seems to have been 
gradually increased, it was not until this latter year that this 
method was legally sanctioned." ^ The act of 1758 authorized 
towns to choose any number of persons to collect the public 
taxes and the selectmen to choose and agree with such persons to 
be collectors of taxes. 

Until 1794 there is no reference to a collector of taxes in 
Canterbury. A constable was chosen every year, and, while the 
Provincial Government lasted, to this official was committed the 
tax levy without specific vote. Soon after the state government 
was formed in New Hampshire, the town records not only show 
the election of a constable but the percentage allowed him for 
his collection of taxes. In 1794 Wilfiam Hazelton was elected 
"constable and collector," and this designation continued until 

The duties of the constable in the early provincial days were 
disagreeable and there was a disinclination on the part of citizens 
to accept the office. Hence, there was a penalty of five pounds 
for refusing to serve. This officer was held directly responsible 
for the amount committed to him for collection. If he failed to 
clear up his rates within his year, his estate was liable to dis- 
traint upon a warrant of the treasurer. If a person failed to pay 
his rates, the constable could seize his person and commit him to 
prison. The practice of moving to avoid taxation was not 
unknown as early as 1693. "Lack of a stable and convenient 
currency," says Maurice H. Robinson, "led to payments in kind, 
or, as the legislature phrased it, 'specie agreeable to the prices 
fixed and set.' A more inconvenient and wasteful method could 
hardly have been devised, and yet it is difficult to see how it 
could have been improved with the system of currency then in 
use. In the first place the collections of beans of one farmer, 
beef or pork of another and tanned shoe leather, cod fish, turpen- 
tine or white pine boards of those whose business rendered it 
convenient for them to pay in such articles was not only expensive 
but demanded business qualities not likely to be found in one 
whose chief duties were those of a police officer. Again, the cost 
of transportation of such articles as bar iron and lumber and the 
loss likely to ensue upon the gathering of such perishable articles 
as corn, wheat or pork constituted a direct tax upon the Province. 
> History of Taxation in N. H,, American Economic Association, August, 1 902, 


Finally the practice of forcing such a quantity of goods and pro- 
duce upon the market at times when there was likely to be little 
demand depressed prices and caused an economic loss to the 

The cost of collecting taxes in New England under Andros was 
approximately seventeen per cent.^ 

The common and undivided meadows were let out to the 
inhabitants in 1752 and for the years ensuing, the lessees to pay 
in work, making and repairing highways. 

At the annual meeting in 1754 the town voted to purchase a 
book for the record of births, marriages and deaths. Five years 
later this same vote was renewed. It is not probable that the 
delay in acting upon the first vote was due wholly to the indiffer- 
ence of the town officers but in part to the distance of Canterbury 
from a market where such purchases could be made. It is not 
likely that there were any towns nearer than Portsmouth where 
blank books could be had, and travel to this seaport was not 

In 1757 the necessity for a town treasurer was set forth in an 
article in the warrant for the annual town meeting. There was 
occasion for an officer "who shall have power to call in and pay 
out the town's money according to the town order." Archelaus 
Moore was the first town treasurer. He was reelected the next 
year. A treasurer was not again chosen until 1765 and 1766. It 
was many years afterwards before this office was regularly filled. 

The first notice of a bounty on wolves was in 1766, when 
Archelaus Moore was voted £10 for killing one when John Forrest 
was constable. This must have been an old claim, for the only 
time that John Forrest was constable prior to 1766 was in 1750. 
This bounty continued to be offered as late as 1791. 

The width of the ox-sled was established in 1768 by formal vote 
of the town at four and a half feet. Any man found in the public 
roads with one of less width was to be fined 10s. The reason for 
this vote will be readily understood by those who have had occa- 
sion to travel country roads in the winter time. 

At the sale of lots in 1764 of the second hundred acre division 
Jethro Bachelder received lot No. 193 in consideration of £100 

1 History of Taxation in N. H., American Economic Association, August 

2 N. H. Prov. Laws (Batchellor), page 176. 


and the further "consideration that said Bachelder build a saw 
mill on said lot immediately and a grist mill in fourteen months 
and that he sell boards, plank and joists and saw to and for the 
inhabitants of this town forever at a reasonable rate and keep the 
mills in good repair forever." These mills must have been within 
the present limits of Loudon, as Jethro Bachelder was a settler 
in that part of Canterbury in 1760.^ 

« Province and State Papers, Vol. IX, page 827. 



The inhabitants of the town were hardly acting independently 
of the proprietors when they were called upon to consider the 
troubles between the colonies and the Mother Country. The 
records of the town in a meager way tell the story of their patriot- 
ism in the efforts made to fill their quota of troops, to furnish 
supplies to the army, to watch over the loyalty of the people 
and to establish both a state and national government. No 
documents or letters of that period are now extant to enrich 
the narrative with the personal perspective of the writers. 
No definite action by the town was taken on certain articles 
in the warrants of the town meetings, and the records, of course, 
contain no account of discussions of these articles. Sometimes 
there is not even mention of their consideration in the accounts 
of what took place, but the traditions of these hardy pioneers 
and their immediate descendants warrant the assumption that 
no articles were ever ignored. If no action was taken, it was 
because it was deemed unnecessary after a free exchange of views. 
Being practical men, the voters engaged in the pressing business 
at hand, which was made more difficult by their poverty and the 
scarcity of a circulating currency. They paid their town debts 
in corn and other products of the farm, and running through 
the records of the town meetings is evidence of their frugality 
and watchfulness of public servants while voting their part 
towards carrying on the war. In narrating what the town did 
in this trying period, a partial transcript of these records is 
given because they contain practically the only evidence and 
because they sometimes forcibly suggest to the imagination the 
details not given. 


In response to a letter from John Wentworth, speaker of 
the House of Representatives of New Hampshire, a special town 
meeting was called July 15, 1774. At this meeting, the call 
which had been issued for the meeting of the first Continental 
Congress in Philadelphia in September was approved, and it was 
voted to send a delegate to Exeter for the purpose of choosing 
a delegate or delegates from New Hampshire to join this Con- 
gress. Deacon Ezekiel Morrill was elected as that delegate to 
meet at Exeter with the delegates from other towns "to consult 
and conclude on the most proper measures to reconcile differ- 
ences and difficulties which subsist between Great Britain and 
our Colonies." 

The Continental Congress adopted a non-intercourse resolu- 
tion, pledging the colonies not to import anything from Great 
Britain and urging them to do all in their power to make them- 
selves economically independent of the Mother Country. That 
body also recommended the election of a committee by the county, 
town or other local administrative unity in each colony which 
should oversee the carrying out of this resolution.^ These 
committees were "to observe the conduct of persons touching 
the agreement," and all persons violating it were to be "contemned 
as the enemies of American liberty." The Continental Congress 
adjourned in October, 1774, after issuing a call for the assembling 
of a new Congress in May, 1775. 

The voters of Canterbury were called together to act upon 
the recommendations of this Congress as soon as the news of 
its transactions had been formally laid before the people. At 
a special town meeting called January 16, 1775, Lieut. Samuel 
Ames was elected a deputy to meet with deputies from other 
towns to choose delegates from New Hampshire to the second 
Continental Congress. He was instructed to vote for a com- 
mittee to apportion the expense among the towns towards 
sending delegates to Philadelphia. 

At this same meeting, Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Lieut. Samuel 
Ames, Lieut. David Morrill, Benjamin Blanchard and David 
Foster were chosen a committee of correspondence "to in- 
spect the inhabitants of the town of Canterbury and see that 
they observe and keep the resolutions of our Grand Congress 
when sitting at Philadelphia last fall." This was Canterbury's. 

> Garner and Lodge's History of U. S., Vol. I, page 381. 


•Committee of Safety, and they were reelected the following 

At the annual town meeting two months later, called for the 
purpose of electing town officers and transacting routine business, 
the town voted £3 15s, as its proportion of the continental 
charges, and the selectmen were authorized to hire money if 
there was not enough of last year's collection on hand. 

A convention having been called to meet at Exeter May 17, 
1775, a special town meeting was called for ]May 15 to elect 
deputies. The Rev. Abiel Foster and Capt. Jeremiah Clough 
were chosen as these deputies "free and clear of any cost or 
charge, it being their proffer and request to have it so entered." 
This generous ofTer, however, was the occasion for subsequent 
action by the town the next year at a special meeting February 
12, 1776, when it was "voted that Mr. Abiel Foster be allowed 
his expenses at Exeter for attending the Congress the summer 
past in consequence of his agreeing to be rated his portion of 
the Province tax during the present dispute with Great Britain 
and accounting for what money he hath drawn out of the treasury 
for attendance at said Congress and allowing said sum out of 
his salary." Mr. Foster was at that time the settled minister 
of the town and the salary referred to was probably the compen- 
sation he received from the town for his services as such minister. 

Events moved swiftly for the colonies in the year 1775. 
The second Continental Congress was in session at Philadelphia. 
The battles at Lexington and Bunker Hill had been fought, and 
the people had been making rapid strides towards a declaration 
of independence of Great Britain. Four town meetings, including 
the annual one, were held in Canterbury that year at which 
the affairs of the colonies were considered. The last, December 
18, was called to elect a representative from the town of Canter- 
bury and the parish of Loudon to the General Congress to be 
held at Exeter, pursuant to the order of that body. 

The warrant for that meeting contained this proviso. "In 
case there shall be a recommendation from the Continental 
Congress that this colony assume government in any particular 
form which will require a House of Representatives, that they 
(the Provincial Congress at Exeter) shall resolve themselves 
into such a house as the said Continental Congress shall recom- 
mend." No reference in the record of this meeting is made 


to this provision of the call, but Thomas Clough was elected 
representative for one year "agreeable to a precept from the 
Provincial Congress." Chosen undfer such a call, his election 
was undoubtedly regarded as equivalent to specific instructions. 
The warrant also prescribed a property qualification for the 
representative of "real estate of the value of £200 lawful money 
of the Colony" and marked the difference between Mr. Clough's 
credentials and those of his predecessors who were merely dele- 
gates or deputies to provisional assemblies. The Committee of 
Safety of the previous year were reelected. 

Another proviso of this warrant is the following: "It is- 
resolved that no person be allowed a seat in Congress (Provincial 
Congress at Exeter) who shall by himself or any other person 
for him before said choice treat with liquor etc. any electors 
with an apparent view of gaining their vot^s, or afterwards on 
that account." 

As this proviso appears in several subsequent warrants for 
town meetings, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Canter- 
bury town meetings of the eighteenth century resembled some of 
those of the nineteenth century in rivalry for political preferment 
and the inducements held out to electors to secure their favor. 

That Canterbury had its Minute Men who were to respond to 
a call to arms is shown by the records of the annual meeting- 
March 21, 1776. It was there "voted that the account brought 
in by Capt. (James) Shepherd to this meeting be allowed and 
also that all the men that went on Lexington Alarm have 3s. 
per day for every day they spent on that Alarm, one half to 
be paid out of last year's rates and the other half out of this 
year's rates." 

At an adjourned meeting, it was also "voted to Widow Susan- 
nah Moore 10s. for a blanket that was lost by Capt. (Jeremiah) 
Clough's company when (it) went on Lexington alarm." Susannah 
Moore was the widow of Capt. Samuel Moore and the mother 
of Susannah Moore who married Abiel Foster, son of Rev. 
Abiel Foster. 

The Continental Congress having recommended the disarming 
of all persons "disaffected to the cause of America or who have 
not associated and refuse to associate to defend with arms the 
United Colonies against the hostile attempts of the British 


fleets and armies/' ^ the Provincial Congress of New Hampshire 
requested the towns to secure the signatures of all of their male 
inhabitants above twenty-one years of age, "lunaticks, idiots and 
negroes excepted," to an Association Test. This document bore 
128 signatures from Canterbury and 69 from Loudon. From 
neither town was there a return of the names of any individual 
who refused to sign. As Loudon had been a separate township 
only three years, the signatures from both towns are given. 
Of the 197 signers in these two towns only three were obliged 
to make their mark in subscribing thereto. The Association 
Test read as follows: 

"We the subscribers do hereby solemnly engage and promise 
that we will to the utmost of our power, at the risque of our lives 
and fortunes, with arms oppose the hostile proceedings of the 
British fleets and armies against the United American Colonies. "^ 

Canterhurij Signatures. — Thomas Clough, Ezekiel Morrill, 
Archelaus Moore, John Moor, Abiel Foster, Sargent Morrill,. 
Jonathan Young, James towl, Obadiah Clough, Joseph Durgin, 
William Glines Juner,^ Samiel Ames, Benjamin Heath, David 
Morrill, Joshua Boienton (Boynton),^ Samuel Colby, Tho^ Gil- 
man, Jeremiah Hacket, Ephraim Carter, Abner hoyt, Richerd 
Ellison,^ Jeremiah Clough, Benj* Blanchard 3d,^ Jonathan 
Blanchard, Samuel Nudd, Joshua Weeks, Jonathan West, 
William moor,^ Nathaniel Glines,^ Benj* Simson, Thomas Hoyt, 
David ames, John Moores Jun'', Barnard Stiles, Samuel Haines, 
John Sanborn his Mark X, Nathanael Moore, Richard Hanes, 
James Shepard, Arch^ Miles, James Gipson (Gibson), James 
Glines, WilHam Gault, David McCrilles, Benj* Johnson, Daniel 
Foster, John Lyford, Edward thran, Benjamin Woodman, 
Jonathan Forster, Aaron Sargent his X mark, Benj Sanburn, 
John Bean, Caleb Heath, Gideon Bartlet, Joseph pallet, Nathan- 
aiel pallet, Samuel Weeks, Simon Swan (?), James Molony, John 
McDaniel,^ Jeremiah McDaniel,^ Laban Morrill, Asa Forster, 
Simon Ames, John Molony,^ Robert Hastings, John Robinson, 
Simeon Robinson, Joseph Carr, Jonathan guile,^ jesse Cross,^ 
John Cross,^ Stephen Cross,^ William Hancock,' Reuben 
Kezar,3 Jacob hath (Heath[?])/ John Roen,' Abner Miles, Nathan- 
iel Perkines,' David Blancher (Blanchard),' Samuel miles^ 
James Blanchard, Richard Glines, WilUam Dyer, Shubel Dear- 
bon,' Nathaniel Dearbon,' David Morrison, Nehemiah Clough, 

»In Congress, March 14, 1776. 
»N. H. Prov. Papers, Vol. VIII, page 205. 

3 Residents at this time or later of that part of the town which in 1780 was 
set off as the town of Northfield. History of Northfield, page 71. 


Benjamin Blanchard/ Richard Blanchard/ David Norris, 
Edward Blanchard/ John Gibson/ James Lind Perkins/ 
thomas Gibson/ Peter Hanaford/ Benjamin Collins/ John 
forest/ John forrest junir/ William forrest, Nathaniel Witcher/ 
Ruben witcher/ william Samborn, Gideon sawyer/ Eben'' 
Kimball/ Jiosh (John[?]) Simons/ Simon Stevens, WiUiam 
simons/ Benjamin Witcher, Jeremiah Ladd, Joseph Samborn, 
Daniel Fletcher, Henry Clough, Walter Haines, WiUiam miles, 
Eli Simons, Tho® Foss,^ Leavitt Clough, Josiah Miles, ^ Benja- 
min Blanchard Jun"", David Forster, Timothy Foss,^ ^ John 
foss,^ 2 Samuel Gerrish, Abner Haines, Edmon colby, Thomas 
Clough Juner. 

Presumably this document contains the names of all of the 
male inhabitants of the town who were not in the army. The 
town census of the year before, 1775, showed the number of 
males above sixteen years of age at home to be 154, with 35 in 
the army. The difference between 128 who signed the test 
and 154 males above sixteen years of age is undoubtedly the 
number of males between sixteen and twenty-one years of age. 

Loudon Signatures. — John Glines, Charles Sias, Timothy 
Tilton, Samuel french, Samuel Gates (Gate), William Tilton, 
Josiah Rins (Rines), Stephen wells, Thomas Sweat, Benjman 
will,* Thomas Ward, Eliphalet Rawlige (Rawlings), Gashom 
Mathes, Abel french, moses morriell (Morrill), Ebenezer French, 
Nathaniel Bachellor, Caleb Pilsbery, John Bradbury, Timothy 
french, Jonathan Smith, John Sargent, Benjamin Sias, Jonathan 
Clough, Joseph magoon, Isaac Morrill, Dudley Swasey, Thomas 
Magoon, His mark, Samuel Chamberlain, Jethro Bachelder 
(Batchelder), Paul morriel (Morrill), Ephreaim Blunt jr, Samuel 
morrill, Masten Morrill, Jathro Bachelder Jun'', Daniel Ladd, 
Thomas drake, James Gilman Lyford, Moses Rollings, Wm. 
Gilman Jn"", Joseph Smith, Roger Stevens, Abraham Bachelder, 
John Drew, Nathan Bachelder, John Sanborn, Joseph Tilton, 
Nathaniel Tebbets, Ephraim Blunt, Moses Pilsbury, James 
Sherbon, William boynton, Jacob Sherburne, Ellxandor Gorden, 
William Davis, Simeon Taylor, Ezekiel Morrill, George Sher- 
burne, lebe (Libbey) bachelder, Abihail (Abiel) Chamberlain, 
Isaiah havery (Harvey), Samuel Chamberlain, John Hoit, damiel 
Bachelder, Moses ordway, Joseph Moulton, olliver Blasdel, 
Jacob towle, peter Jordn. 

"Residents at this time or later of that part of the town which in 1780 was 
set off as the town of Northfield. History of Northfield, page 1 1 . 

2 History of Northfield gives names of Timothy and John Hills, names not 
found among original signatures from Canterbury. They may have been 
intended for Timothy and John Foss. 


Loudon, June 3, 1776. 
Agreeabel to wathin Instrument wharas we haf Carried this 
Instrement to the Inhabatints of Loudon thay haf all Signed 
Savin one or two that Lived very much out of the way. 

Nathan Bachelder ) 
John Drew >■ Selectmen 

Samuel Chamberlain ) 

The colony of New Hampshire having now through its Congress 
at Exeter adopted a plan of government, the electors of Canter- 
bury were called upon at a town meeting November 18, 1776, 
to elect a representative to the House of Representatives and 
to cast their votes for five members of the Council from Rock- 
ingham County, in which Canterbury was then situated. Thomas 
Clough was again chosen representative for one year from the 
meeting of the legislature in December, 1776. The warrant of 
this meeting contains a most positive declaration in regard 
to supplying electors with liquor to secure their votes, going 
so far as to declare that "no person will be allowed a seat in the 
Council or Assembly who shall by himself or any other person 
attempt to secure votes by treating electors with liquor." This 
positive declaration may have been in response to the procla- 
mation of the Council and Assembly at Exeter declaring a form 
of government for the State of New Hampshire, for in that 
proclamation the people are recommended "to prevent and, 
if possible, to quell all appearance of party spirit, to cultivate 
and promote peace, union and good order and by all means in 
their power to discourage profaneness, immorality and injustice." 
It is about the time of the annual meeting, March 20, 1777, 
that the first record is found of any enlistments from Canterbury. 
It is a mere statement following the record of one town meeting 
and preceding the call for another. It reads: "The following 
persons enhsted as Continental soldiers from Canterbury: 
John Rowing, Andrew Rowing, John Miles, Loyd Jones, Walter 
Hains, Ebenezer Varnum, Pratt Chase, Thomas Hoyt, Prince 

The next town meeting, eleven days after the annual meeting, 
is in pursuance of orders from the major general of the state 
for raising and equipping men for Col. Thomas Stickney's 
regiment. The town's proportion is "twenty able bodied, 
effective men to serve as soldiers in the Continental Army 



during our contest with Great Britain or for 3 years, as they 
choose, unless regularly discharged." The town voted "to 
each and every soldier we have now to raise to make up our 
present proportion $50." 

Capt. Jeremiah Clough,^ Obadiah Mooney, and Lieut. Joseph 
Soper were chosen a committee to procure these soldiers and 
were allowed $50, for services and expenses. The sum of 
$750 was to be raised by assessment upon the ratable estates of 
the town. 

The next vote of the town indicates that individual efforts 
had already been made to enhst men, for Archelaus Moore, 
Deacon Asa Foster, Lieut. Laban Morrill, Capt. John Maloney 
and Lieut. Ebenezer Kimball were elected a committee "to 
endeavor to search out what men in this town have paid out 
towards hiring soldiers to go into the Colonies' service, and how 
much, and what men have been in the service, and how long, 
and lay the account thereof before the selectmen." 

That this was a period of great activity in town is seen in 
the fact that there were six town meetings between March 20, 
1777, the annual meeting, and July 7, 1777. To stimulate 
enlistments, the town voted April 23, 1777, "$50 to each and 
every soldier that this town has now to raise to make up their 
proportion of soldiers to go into the Continental army for three 
years or during the war with Great Britain in addition to $50 
heretofore voted to said soldiers, exclusive of those already 

The third article of the warrant, which was "to see if the town 
would vote to give to those already enlisted belonging to the 
town the same as to those yet to be raised" was voted down, 
as was also the fourth article, which was to see if the town will 
accept the resolution of the committee chosen "to examine 
and regulate what each man has done in support of the war." 

There was strong opposition to the vote giving an additional 
$50 to the new recruits necessary to make up the town's quota, 
but whether because of the expense to the town or because of 
the refusal of the town to vote the same additional bounty to 
those already enlisted does not appear. Seven voters secured 
the entry of their names on the records as dissenting to the 
action of the town Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., Benjamin Blanchard, 

» Jeremiah Clough, Senior. 


3d, Capt. Josiah Miles, John Forrest, Samuel Weeks, David 
Ames and Abner Haines. 

The dissenters from the action of the town continued to agitate 
the subject and secured another town meeting May 12, 1777, 
to see if the town would reconsider its vote. The voters, how- 
ever, confirmed the action taken at the meeting held April 23, 
and authorized the committee enlisting soldiers for the town 
chosen March 31 to hire money to pay them. 

It was also "voted that, whenever men shall (pay) any money 
to the above committee and take their notes and receipts, it 
shall be looked upon and valued equally as good as if notes and 
receipts were given by the selectmen of the town." 

Deacon Asa Foster, Lieut. Joseph Soper and Lieut. David 
Morrill were chosen a committee to fix the prices of sundry 
articles, such as "good provisions, labor, etc., agreeably to the 
acts of the General Court." 

The Committee of Safety this year were Capt. Jeremiah Clough, 
David Foster, Lieut. David Morrill, Charles Glidden and Benja- 
min Blanchard, Jr. 

That all the inhabitants of the town were thought to be not 
as earnest in the support of the war as the majority were shown 
to be by the town records is indicated in the warrant and votes 
of the town meeting June 4, 1777. In the call for the meeting 
it is stated that it is to be held "to take into consideration the 
prevailing apprehension and complaint in other places that 
this town is not so generally united and earnestly engaged in 
support and defence of the independence of the United States 
as others" and to "take such steps as may serve to give adjacent 
towns and the public a proper satisfaction as to the state of this 
town in respect to its attachment or disaffection to the American 
cause." No vote was taken on this subject and no memorial 
or answer was made to the insinuations contained in the warrant, 
but the town did vote that "no man in this town shall call his 
neighbor a Tory, unless he has sufficient reason therefor, in 
penalty of being called in question by the committee of safety 
in this town and suffering their censure." 

There was abundant need of this caution, for the popular 
feeling was intense against those who were suspected of sym- 
pathizing with Great Britain. The individual charged with 
being a tory was likely to be immediately ostracised from all 


business and social relations with the community, even if he 
escaped summary arrest and confinement in jail. Then there 
were those who took advantage of the public excitement to seek 
revenge upon neighbors with whom they were at enmity by 
accusing them of disloyalty. The opportunity was large for 
gratifying petty spite and malice. Long established authority 
had been overthrown and a new government had been improvised 
in its place. Large power had to be assumed bj" assemblies 
and Committees of Safety. There was little precedent for a 
guide. Sudden exigencies required prompt action. Naturallj^ 
mistakes were made and cases of injustice to individuals occurred. 
The cautious and conservative citizen, while loj'al to the cause, 
was likely to doubt the wisdom and discretion of some of his 
rulers. A government, the immediate outgrowth of a revolution, 
least of all can tolerate criticism. Therefore, for the citizen 
to hesitate or waver was to invite distrust. Once under the 
ban of suspicion, he was likely to be soon after accused of dis- 
loj-alty if some envious individual sought his downfall. All too 
frequently a chance remark or indiscreet conversation in a public 
place was the sole basis of accusations which subjected the 
accused to arrest and confinement. Hence the vote of the 
citizens of Canterbury that, "No man in this town shall call 
his neighbor a Tory unless he has sufiicient reason therefor, etc." 
Quite hkely there was some jealousy and friction among the 
people of contiguous towns. That Boscawen was one of the 
"adjacent towns" making complaint of the disloyalty of Canter- 
bury is shown by some of the unpublished records and papers 
of the Committee of Safety recently compiled by Otis G. 
Hammond, assistant librarian of the state library at Concord. 
Antedating but a few days the town meeting at Canterbury 
when the accusations of its disloyalty were considered was the 
action of the Committee of Safety at Exeter on the complaint of 
the committee of Boscawen. This complaint was probably oral 
but sufficiently alarming to secure prompt and drastic action. 
Incomplete as are the records, they throw light upon the con- 
ditions existing at that time and help to explain one or more 
votes at a tO'^vTi meeting of Canterbury held later in the month 
of June, 1777. The only papers extant which bear upon this 
subject are as follows: 

the period of the revolution. 117 

State of New Hamp. In Committee of Safety May 20, 1777. 

We are informed of a set of most abandoned wretches who 
meet at Canterbury and are conspiring against the states and 
meditating how to assist our enemies. We desire you to inform 
yourselves of the bearer when they are to meet and to go with 
a sufficient force and seize them all and bring them to Exeter. 
You must keep this matter private until the time of executing it. 
The Committee of Boscawen will assist you as they understand 
the affair. If no meeting should be next week it must not be 
deferred longer but apprehend such persons as the aforesaid 
committee shall name. 

By order of the Committee, 

Mesheck Weare, Chairman. 
(To Col. Thomas Stickney.) 

Col. Stickney's Return. 

State of New Hamp. | Exeter 9th June 1777. 

Rockingham ss j 

By virtue of this precept to me directed I have taken the 
bodies of Peter Green Esq. and John Stevens, Jeremiah Clough 
Esq. and Richard Ellison as the same were shown to me by 
the Chairman of the Committee of Boscawen and have brought 
them before the Council and Assembly at Exeter aforesaid 

Thomas Stickney. 

State of > To the Sheriffs of the Counties of Rock- 

New Hamp. ) ingham and Hillsborough and to their 

respective under sheriffs and to the con- 
stables of the several towns in said counties, 

You are hereby required to summon Thomas Wilson, Benjamin 
Eastman, Jacob Green, Samuel Bradley, Archelaus Miles, 
William Miles, Obadiah Clough, Samuel Atkinson, Moses 
Burbank Jr., Joseph Soper,^ to make their appearance before 
the General Assembly of said state now setting at Exeter in 
said state to give evidence of what they respectively know 
concerning any person or persons apprehended as enemical, 
or upon suspicion of their being enemical to the liberties of 
this state, and to be examined forthwith before the said General 
Assembly. Wherefore they may not fail, as they will answer 

1 Wilson, Eastman, Green and Bradley were of Concord; Archelaus and 
William Miles, Soper and Obadiah Clough of Canterbury, and Atkinson and 
Burbank of Boscawen. 


their contempt at their peril, and make return hereof to the 
clerk of said Assembly as soon as may be. 
Dated at Exeter June 9, 1777. 

Noah Emery, Clerk Assembly. 

June 10, 1777, Winthrop Carter, constable of Bosoawen, 
returns that he had summoned Samuel Atkmson, Moses Burbank, 
Jr., Archelaus Miles, WilUam Miles and Joseph Soper. 

June 11, 1777, Reuben Abbott, constable of Concord, returns 
that he had summoned Thomas Wilson, Benjamin Eastman, 
Jacob Green and Samuel Bradley. 

Of the men arrested under the foregoing order, Peter Green 
and John Stevens were citizens of Concord, while Jeremiah 
Clough and Richard ElHson, or Allison, were residents of Canter- 
bury. Dr. Philip Carrigan of Concord and John Meloney of 
Canterbury were in jail at Exeter at this time, but there is no 
record of their arrest. The Concord town records show that 
Peter Green, John Stevens and Dr. Philip Carrigan were under 
suspicion as early as March 4, 1777, for at the annual meeting 
that year it was: 

"Voted that this parish will break off all dealings with Peter 
Green Esq., Mr. John Stevens, Mr. Nathaniel Green, and Dr. 
Philip Caragain until they give satisfaction to the parish for 
their past conduct and that they be advertised in the public 
prints as enemies to the United States of America unless said 
persons give satisfaction within thirty days from this date and 
that the above persons be disarmed by the Committee of Safety 
until they give satisfaction to the public." ^ 

It was also voted that if any persons have dealings with them, 
they shall be looked upon as public enemies. 

At a town meeting held in Canterbury June 24, 1777, twenty 
days after the town was considering the accusations of disloy- 
alty made against it, the following vote was passed: 

"Voted thanks and approbation to Colonel Thomas Stickney 
for his conduct and good service in coming up to this town and 
carrying off Capt. Clough and Richard Ellison to court." 

The Provincial Congress at Exeter was in session the day 
Colonel Stickney made his return of the arrest of Green, Stevens, 
Clough and Ellison. Committees of the council and house 
were immediately appointed to "consider and report what 

1 Concord Town Records, page 154. 


measures are best to be at present taken with the said prisoners 
for the safety of the state." ^ The committee made report the 
same day that they be committed to jail for safe keeping. Appar- 
ently up to this time no formal charges had been made and no 
hearing had taken place. 

Three days later, June 12, the house and council joined in 
committee to hear witnesses. The only evidence preserved is 
the following affidavit dated June 12, 1777: 

"Archelaus Miles deposes that he heard Richard Allison say 
that he hoped the King would get the day and that he did not 
intend to deny his King. The above conversation was the first 
of last week." 

On the reverse side of the returns of the constables who 
summoned witnesses to testify against the accused is the fol- 
lowing : 

"Archelaus Miles, good; Joseph Soper, not much; Benjamin 
Eastman, good; David Chase, nothing; Oba Clough, Samuel 
Atkinson, very good; Moses Burbank, Jr., ditto; Jacob Green, 
Thomas Wilson, John Chase, William Miles, nothing to the 

Evidently this memorandum refers to the testimony of wit- 
nesses at the hearing before the legislature. By whom the 
memorandum was made does not appear. Archelaus Miles, 
whose affidavit is given, is pronounced "good." Samuel Atkin- 
son and Moses Burbank, Jr., who were from Boscawen, and pre- 
sumably the complainants, are certified as "very good." The 
hearing was undoubtedly ex parte, the accused not being present. 

The legislature voted that "Green and Stevens be liberated 
from close prison, giving bonds with sureties to the Speaker 
in £500, that they remain true prisoners within the prison yard 
at Exeter until further order of the house or Committee of Safety 
and that Jeremiah Clough, Jr. and Richard Allison be kept 
close prisoners." 

Peter Green, upon taking the oath of allegiance, was early 
released and soon after again enjoyed the confidence of his 
fellow citizens whom he served in important official positions.^ 
Stevens refused to take the required oath, but swore that he 

> Prov. Papers, Vol. VIII, page 580. 

' Concord Town Records, pages 197, 219. 


was "as good a friend of his country as any one who had caused 
his arrest." He was later released by order of the legislature 
and received a commission as justice of the peace in token of 
restored confidence.'^ Captain Clough was kept in close confine- 
ment until September 13, 1777, when, upon giving bonds, he had 
accorded to him the privileges of the jail yard. October 3 
following, he and John Meloney were discharged. The only 
evidence of a hearing where the prisoners were confronted by 
their accusers is the following memorandum. "Capt. (Samuel) 
Atkinson 2 being in town, Capt. Clough and Capt. Meloney 
was bro't before the Committee and examined and sent back 
to prison." This memorandum bears date of September 3, 1777. 
As noted above, they were given the liberties of the jail yard ten 
days later, and a month after this examination were released. 

Sundry petitions of these suspected prisoners from Canterbury 
and Concord have been preserved as well as two letters of Captain 
Clough. Except that of Dr. Phihp Carrigan there is nothing 
in any of them to throw any light upon the character of the 
accusations made against the accused. He states that "the 
matters alleged against him, so far as they have come to his 
knowledge, were such as long before were fully settled by the 
town to which he belongs, and he was so happy as to give them 
full satisfaction and obtained their recommendation, which 
recommendation he doubts not would have been as fully satis- 
factory to your honors had it come to your knowledge at the 
time the accusations did, which were founded on these same 
matters thus settled and as your petitioner thought buried in 

Col. Chandler E. Potter in his Military History of N. H. 
contained in the Adjutant General's Report for 1866, says in a 
footnote : ^ 

"Captain Jeremiah Clough was a man of substance residing 
in Canterbury. His garrison was made a depot and rendezvous 
by the government through the Indian wars. He raised and 
commanded a company in Colonel Poor's regiment in 1775, 
was subsequently suspected of Toryism, — as he harbored in 
his hay mow and furnished with food Dr. Philip McCarrigan, 
his son-in-law, who had escaped from the sons of liberty at 

1 Bouton's History of Concord, pages 273, 564, 
s One of the witnesses summoned from Boscawen. 
3 Adjutant General's Report, 1866, Vol. II, page 77. 


Concord, — and lodged in jail at Exeter from which he was soon 
released, and remained as he had been a steadfast patriot." 

Colonel Potter cites no authority for the foregoing. Further- 
more, he confounds Capt. Jeremiah Clough, the colonial leader 
and Indian fighter, with his son of the same name who was the 
Revolutionary soldier. The father, a member of the Committee 
of Safety of Canterbury in 1777, was a man of upwards of seventy 
years of age at this time. Besides the records show that his 
son wrote to him while the former was in jail at Exeter. Nor 
was Doctor Carrigan even a son-in-law of Capt. Jeremiah 
Clough, Sr. The Doctor married a cousin of Jeremiah Clough, Jr. 

In a letter dated September 2, 1777, appealing to Ebenezer 
Thompson for assistance, Captain Clough says: "What have I 
done, sir, that I should thus be made unhappy by confinement? 
Sure I am that I have never injured this or the United States, but 
have faithfully served them according to the best of mj- knowledge 
and capacity. If I have injured them in any shape, it has been 
without designe. Only vine (view) the tenor of my conduct 
in general since the commencement of this very unnatural war. 
Then vine (view) how malicious persons are capable of construing 
common conversation to the disadvantage of any person. Then 
examine what the general sentiments of the people are concerning 
me, and then if the safety of the state require that I should 
still be confined I can say no more. Otherwise I hope the Hon^'® 
Committee will grant me my liberty." 

Four days later Captain Clough writes his father the following 
manly and affectionate letter: 

"Exeter, September 6, 1777. 
"Honored Sir: 

This comes with my duty to you and my mother, hoping to 
find you well as I am, considering the long confinement I have 
had, which I see no relief unless god in his providence should 
release me — for people in general seem to have no humanity 
for their fellow creature, and in hoping for better times I am 
afraid to see worse. I am conscious of myself that I never did 
anything against my country deserving of such treatment. 
I can't find as there is any evidence against me unless some 
unguarded words that I should have spoke some time last spring, 
and upon them words I am held here calose confined without 
trial or bail, which I can't live so no longer. The Committee 
says as I am told that some of the prisoners belonging to this gaol 
may be transported if they will appoint a place and I would 
be glad to have the same opportunity if I can't get no other 


releaf but should wait for your advise which I should be glad 
(to) have soon. I shall incline to cam' some personal estate 
with me if I can git leave if not I will go without, with your 
leave: I should think it best to let my farm out to the half. 
Capt. ^Nlolony gives his compliments to you and my mother — 
I have no more to write at present but I remain your dutiful 
son till death should part us. 

Jere Clough Jrx. 

In the foregoing the only cause of his confinement which 
Captain Clough can suggest to the father, to whom he appeals 
for advice whether he shall expatriate himself if he can get no 
other relief, is that he has given expression to some "unguarded 
words" the spring before. What he writes to Ebenezer Thomp- 
son, "how malicious persons are capable of construing common 
conversation to the disadvantage of any person," is in the same 
tenor with the petition of Phihp Carrigan, John Malonej' and 
others to the Committee of Safety wherein they set forth "that 
they have been in jail upwards 4 months and their characters 
have greatly suffered from the inhuman tongues of malicious 
persons who . . . think they ingratiate themselves into 
the favor of the government by falsely and wickedly exclaiming 
against others, maliciously augmenting every failure of human 
nature into crimes." 

If there were any basis for the story which Colonel Potter 
gives as the cause of Captain Clough's arrest and confinement 
his act was one which many another patriot would have done 
for a friend and relative. There is little doubt that Doctor 
Carrigan was falsely accused of disloyalty, as were the other 
prisoners from Concord who were in Exeter jail with him. If 
he escaped from persecution at Concord to Canterbury, what 
was more natural than that Captain Clough, who was a cousin 
of the Doctor's wife, should have given him food and pro%dded 
him Ts-ith a temporary place of safety? 

The carelessness with which Colonel Potter mixes up father 
and son in his recital and his error in the relationship of Doctor 
Carrigan to the Clough family show that he made no investi- 
gation of the story before -^Titing it. The records of the town 
and what has been preser\'ed of the records of the Committee 
of Safety of the state throw doubt upon his ex-planation. Bouton, 
in his "History of Concord," makes no mention of any such inci- 


dent, and if there had been any tradition of this kind he would 
most likely have given it. 

The complaint of the Committee of Safety at Exeter came 
from Boscawen. The affidavit of Archelaus Miles is that Richard 
Allison gave expression in conversation to disloyalty, and the 
accused in their petitions and letters seem to think that the 
charges relate to some chance remarks made by them which 
were distorted by the accusers for purposes of revenge or to 
ingratiate themselves with the government. The inference 
drawn from reading Bouton's account of the disciplining of 
Peter Green, John Stevens, Nathaniel Green and Dr. Philip 
Carrigan of Concord is that the accusations made against them 
had nothing more than mere suspicion of disloyalty as a basis. 

In his petition to the Committee of Safety at Exeter dated 
August 28, 1777, Captain Clough names his accusers. After 
setting forth that he has been absent from his family and business 
for almost two years, ''the greater part of which time he has 
spent in the public service," he says, "that in sending for Mr. 
(Samuel) Atkinson and Mr. (Moses) Burbank, the persons to 
give evidence against him, he finds that they have gone to the 
western army and will not return for several months." In 
regard to the return of one of these witnesses Captain Clough 
is mistaken, for Captain Atkinson six days later appears at 
Exeter, possibly having been summoned by the Committee of 
Safety, and "Capt. Clough and Capt. (John) Maloney were 
bro't before the committee and examined." Whatever Captain 
Atkinson's affidavit or statement may have been at the time 
of the arrest, which apparently was marked "very good" on 
the return of the constable who summoned him as a witness, 
he seemingly failed to substantiate it on examination when 
brought face to face with the accused, for ten days later Captain 
Clough was given the liberty of the jail yard, and a month after 
the examination he and Captain Maloney were discharged. 

Captain Clough returned home to be completely vindicated 
by his fellow-townsmen, and by the state government. In 
1780, less than three years after his discharge, he was chosen 
a committeeman in place of his father to settle the boundary 
dispute with Chichester. It was probably the son who was a 
member of the constitutional convention of 1781 from Canterbury. 
In 1782 and 1783 "Capt." Jeremiah Clough was a member 


of the board of selectmen, and the latter year he was elected 
to represent the town in the legislature.^ Again in 1788 he was 
chosen to the convention called to ratify the federal constitution, 
for he is designated as "Col." Jeremiah Clough, a title never 
given to his father.^ In 1785 he was appointed a justice of 
the peace and lieutenant-colonel of the Eleventh Regiment 
of Militia, appointments that would not have been bestowed by 
the state government so soon after the war upon one suspected 
of Toryism.^ Of his loyalty there can be no doubt, as his almost 
two years' voluntary service in the army demonstrates. He 
suffered temporary ignominy because of unfounded accusations, 
only to receive the full confidence of those who hastily condemned 
him. His whole record shows him to have been an ardent 
patriot in both military and civil life. 

At the same town meeting where Col. Thomas Stickney was 
thanked for "carrying off Captain Clough and Richard Allison 
to court" the town reprimanded James Shepherd for "not 
publishing and fulfilling the orders he has heretofore received 
of Col. (Thomas) Stickney in mustering his company and seeing 
how they were equipt with arms and ammunition." Both 
votes were undoubtedly prompted by the accusations of Bos- 
cawen and other "adjacent towns" that Canterbury was not 
loyal to the patriot cause. 

The next subjects to be considered by the town were the plans 
of government for the United Colonies and for the Province of 
New Hampshire. At the meeting January 27, 1778, Canter- 
bury voted unanimously to adopt "the confederation made by 
the Continental Congress for each and every state on this conti- 
nent." This vote was on the Articles of Confederation which 
the Continental Congress had accepted November 15, 1777, 
and sent to the states for their ratification. 

At this same meeting, the representative to the next session 

> Immediately after the close of the Revolutionary War, the people of 
Canterbury appear from their records to have differentiated between father 
and son of the same name and military title by calling the elder Jeremiah 
Clough, "Esq." and the son, "Capt." About 1785 or earlier the father had 
moved to Loudon, for that year he signs a petition as an inhabitant of that 
town (N. H. State Papers, Vol. XII, page 488) and as ".Jeremiah Clough Esq." 
he heads a recommendation for the appointment of a justice of the peace for 
Loudon under date of April 30, 1789 (N. H. State Papers, Vol. XII, pages 489, 

> N. H. State Papers, Vol. X, page 3. 
» Idem, Vol. XX, pages 282, 283. 


of the legislature was unanimously instructed to call for a full 
and free representation of the people of the state in convention 
for the purpose of framing a permanent plan of government 
for New Hampshire. 

Four weeks later, the voters were again called together to 
see what could be done to complete the town's quota of Conti- 
nental soldiers. At this meeting, February 24, 1778, it was 
voted that Robert Hastings, James Hastings and George Shep- 
herd "be made good with the rest of the Continental soldiers 
that went from Canterbury." 

The votes at the annual meeting, INIarch 19, 1778, largely 
relate to the conduct of the war. The selectmen were directed 
to provide for the families of those men from Canterbury who 
were in the Continental service. Capt. James Shepherd was 
authorized to hire for Canterbury one Continental soldier for 
three years. With the apparent purpose of equalizing bounties, 
it was voted to give "SlOO to each and every soldier enlisted for 
three years and answering for Canterbury in said service, includ- 
ing what they had already received." 

That the efforts of the town were not confined to filling its 
quota in the Continental service but that it furnished recruits 
for General Stark at Bennington and militiamen for short term 
service is shown by the following vote at this meeting, "Voted 
that all the soldiers that went out as militiamen into the service 
last fall be allowed equal to those of the militia that were with 
General Stark the time he had the Bennington fight." 

This same year, at a meeting June 22, the town voted to 
raise three soldiers to send to Providence, R. I., and that 
Capt. Edward Blanchard be a committee "to hire the 
above mentioned three soldiers for said town as cheap as he can 
hire them." The straightened circumstances of the inhabitants 
undoubtedly justified this prudent proviso. 

Archelaus Moore was elected in April this year a delegate 
from Canterbury to the convention at Concord June 10, 1778, 
for the purpose of framing a plan of government for the state. 

Not always did the town have funds to arm and equip its 
soldiers and pay their bounties. Patriotic individuals came 
forward and advanced the money or the town hired it of people 
of means, as appears from the votes at the town meetings during 
the year 1779 and later. Sometimes the gratuity offered men 


to enlist was Indian corn or its equivalent in money. Thus, 
at a meeting July 1, 1779, the offer was made by the town of 
thirty-eight bushels of corn or eighty shillings in money each 
to three able-bodied men who would enlist for three months 
to serve in Rhode Island and seventy-six bushels of corn or 160 
shillings in money to any six able-bodied men to enhst in the 
Continental army for one year. 

Later in July of that year, the selectmen were directed to 
make an assessment on all the ratable polls and estates of the 
town to settle with the individuals who had advanced money 
to pay the three months' and six months' men that had lately 
been sent into the service, and at a town meeting February 13, 
1781, it was "voted that Capt. Jeremiah Clough and Ensign 
Ephraim Carter be a committee to advance money of theirs 
or hire or borrow said money to pay Ebenezer Varnum what 
said town oweth him for his serving said town as a three years' 
man, also to treat with Capt. Joseph Eastman of Concord 
and Nehemiah Clough of Canterbury concerning the money 
which this town owes them, which was hired by a former 
committee of ours to pay off three years' men." 

Besides furnishing its three years' quota of men to the army, 
the town was called upon to supply beef to feed the troops. 
The committee chosen for this and other purposes requiring the 
expenditure of money were frequently cautioned in the votes 
of authority to act prudently for the interest of the town. Capt. 
Jeremiah Clough, who was authorized in 1780 to buy the town's 
quota of beef for the Continental army, was directed to purchase 
it "discretionably as he can do it best for the advantage of the 
town and provide it seasonably as we shall be sent to for it by 
our Court or its trustees." 

As late as the annual meeting March 15, 1781, enhstments 
were kept up in Canterbury. It was there "voted to accept 
William Rines as a Continental soldier and pay him as we pay 
our other soldiers that are to go with him." 

At the same meeting, Thomas Clough was authorized to buy 
two cows, one for Edmund Colby and the other for William 
Rines, "they being two of our Continental men, and the pur- 
chase of them to come out of their wages." 

In September, 1781, the town was fixing the price of corn 
to be purchased for the families of soldiers in the service, and 


at the annual meeting of 1782, it was "voted that Nathaniel 
Glines, being a Continental soldier, shall be put on the same 
footing by this town with our other Continental soldiers which 
we sent last year." 

There are but five later entries in the town records pertaining 
to the soldiers of the Revolution. At the annual town meeting 
in March, 1786, Abner Fowler and William Walker were "voted 
£9 in full for the bounty deducted from the state by the town," 
and at the March meeting in 1787, it was "voted that Capt. 
Ebenezer Frye have £15 lawful money for three years' service 
of his black fellow in the war" and that "Walter Haines have 
£15 lawful money for his service in the war under Captain Frye 
if said Haines make it to appear that he served three years for this 
town." March 3, 1788, the selectmen were appointed to settle 
with John Rowing for his bounty which the town had drawn. 
At the annual meeting in 1797 it was "voted to give Miriam 
Blanchard the sum of ten dollars in full for the bounty of Thomas 
Hoyt (her first husband) as a soldier from this town." The 
next year twenty dollars more was given to her "in full for 
bounty money which the town received of the Secretary." 

As a part of the record of the Revolutionary period is the 
action of the town upon the various plans of state government 
submitted to it by the conventions called for that purpose. 
The first plan was considered at a special meeting August 16, 
1779. The vote stood fifteen for to fourteen against the plan 
This was the constitution prepared by the convention which 
sat at Concord in 1778. Another convention met at Concord 
in June, 1781. It continued a live body for two years and 
almost five months. During this time, it framed three consti- 
tutions which were successively submitted to the people. Two 
were rejected.^ 

At a meeting January 15, 1782, a committee was chosen 
"to peruse the plan of government made at Concord in the year 
1781 and make remarks upon those articles they object to and 
hand it in at the adjournment of this meeting." An adjournment 
was taken to January 22, 1782, when the report of this commit- 
tee was accepted. Then the meeting adjourned to April 16, 
1782, and a new committee was appointed "to peruse the plan 
of government and make remarks thereon and report at an 

» Carter, N. H. Official Succession 1680 to 1891, page 429. 


adjourned meeting." Two adjournments followed, but without 

A town meeting was held December 19, 1782, at which a com- 
mittee was appointed "to inspect the plan of government last 
drawn by our convention and see what alterations ought to be 
made to it." The meeting adjourned to December 28, when the 
plan of government was rejected "the whole meeting voting 
against it, which was 35," to use the words of the town clerk. 

"Then it was put to a vote whether they would accept the 
present plan of government with the amendments which the 
committee had brought in, and there were thirty-four votes in 
the affirmative." 

At the annual meeting March 20, 1783, it was "voted that the 
present government be continued in its full force until June 10, 

At a meeting September 4, 1786, the town had under consid- 
eration the subject of the state issuing a paper currency. The 
record quaintly says: "Then it was put to a vote to see whether 
or not they would have a paper currency made, and better 
than two-thirds of the people voted in the affirmative to have 
a paper currency on such footing as the General Court shall 
think best." 

In November following, the inhabitants were called together 
"to give their opinion on a plan proposed by the General Court 
for issuing a bank of paper money for a currency, or to propose 
any plan that may be more expedient." 

Then the record continues, "It was put to a vote to see if they 
would accept the plan sent out by the General Court and it 
was voted in the negative, 21 men. 

"It was next put to a vote to see if they would have a paper 
currency made upon any footing, and it was negatived by 17 



The records of enlistments and service of the Revolutionary 
soldiers are fragmentary and imperfect. The enlistments for 
the most part were for short periods and in some instances 
were hasty responses to calls to repel invasion, like Stark's rally 
of troops for Bennington. The towns voted to fill their quotas, 
accepting volunteers from among the inhabitants or furnishing 
men from other localities who could be induced to enhst. The 
records of Canterbury give but few of the names of the soldiers 
credited to that community. When bounties were paid by the 
state or the town, memoranda in some instances appear to have 
been preserved. Later when pensions were granted by the 
United States government to invalids of the war and in after 
years were given for service, the survivors' names were per- 
petuated on the pension rolls at Washington. The New 
Hampshire State Papers, however, are the source of most of 
the information here given. 

Owing to the fact that Loudon was set off from Canterbury 
in 1773, two j^ears before the war began, and Northfield was 
made a separate township in 1780, five years after the first 
hostilities, it is difficult oftentimes to say with certainty to 
which of these three towns the soldiers should be credited. As 
an illustration, Lieut. Thomas L^^ord, who was an ensign in 
Capt. Jeremiah Clough's company and first enhsted in 1775, 
is given as of Northfield. His service extended through the war 
and undoubtedly his residence was in that part of Canterbury 
which is now known by the name of Northfield, but during 
almost his entire service of more than five years he was, accu- 
rately speaking, a resident of Canterbury. 

After Loudon was set off from the parent to^vm and before 
Northfield was made a separate township, the migration of the 



descendants of the early settlers from the parental homes of 
what is now Canterbury to Loudon and Northfield was taking 
place. Capt. Benjamin Sias, who was a resident of Loudon 
two years at least before the Revolutionary War, recruited 
several companies which he raised largely from Canterbury and 
Loudon. Some members of his company were residents of 
Canterbury before they enUsted but settled in Loudon after 
their discharge. Others who have several enlistments to their 
credit may have changed their residence from one town to the 
other between their terms of service. Where the record is 
dependent upon information furnished by the soldiers them- 
selves it is not always clear whether they were residents of 
Canterbury or Northfield owing to the fact that the incorpora- 
tion of the latter town occurred in the closing year of the war. 
Furthermore, there may be instances where men enUsted from 
other towns to fill the Canterbury quota and on returning from 
service settled in Canterbury. 

The Rev. William Patrick ^ in speaking of the part that Canter- 
bury took in the Revolutionary War, says: 

"It is believed the people of this town bore their full proportion 
of the toils and dangers. In the first years of the war we find 
the names of thirty one who entered into actual service, some 
for a longer and others for a shorter term of time. The officers 
were Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Capt. James Shepherd, Lieut. 
Joseph Soper, Lieut. Laban Morrill, Dr. Josiah Chase. 

"The greater part of the soldiers were under the command of 
Captain Clough, who first dared to face the English troops in 
the vicinity of Boston. George Shannon was instantly killed in 
the Battle of Bunker Hill. Captain Shepherd and those under 
his command were destined to the Northern army. Some 
of them fought in the battles of Bennington and Saratoga. 
After the year 1776 we learn that the names of eighteen others 
are recollected, who joined the army and served the time of 
their enlistment. These were exclusive of those who enlisted 
for three years or during the war. When the call was made 
for soldiers to enUst for that period of time, the proportion 
required of this town was twenty. This number was probably 
sent, though the names of but seventeen are now recollected. 

iHistorical Sermon of Rev. William Patrick, October 27, 1833. 


The whole number that entered into actual service during the 
war was a little short of seventy. Of these one was killed, 
six died in the army, forty five have since finished their course 
and sixteen are supposed to be still living. Those who remain 
with us (in Canterbury) are Capt. Joseph Aloore, Lieut. Samuel 
Haines, Col. jMorrill Shepherd, Col. Asa Foster, John Sutton, 
Nathaniel Pallet and Sampson Battis. Of those who enlisted 
for three years or during the war only these remain. Col. Morrill 
Shepherd, Robert Forrest and Ebenezer Chandler." 

If the boundaries of Canterbury as they existed from the 
beginning of the Revolutionary War until 1780 are taken into 
consideration, Mr. Patrick's estimate of the number of residents 
of the town who entered the service is too small. The total is 
over one hundred who can be positively identified as Citizens 
of Canterbury. This is a most creditable shoAAang for a town 
whose population did not exceed eight hundred in 1780, when 
Northfield was made a separate township. Under the heading 
"Men to be raised to fill up three Continental regiments," the 
number of men in Canterbury between sixteen and fifty years 
of age is given as 159.^ This enumeration did not include those 
absent at the time in the army. If this census is accurate, over 
one half of the able-bodied men of the town under fifty years 
of age served for some period in the army, exclusive of those 
who belonged to the Train Band and Alarm List and who were 
prepared to respond in case they were needed but who were 
not called into service. - 

Captain Jeremiah Clough's Company. 

"On the 24th day of May 1775 the 4th Provincial Congress 
of New Hampshire appointed Enoch Poor of Exeter colonel, 
John ]\IcDufTee of Rochester lieutenant colonel and Joseph 
Cilley of Nottingham major of a regiment of troops to be raised 
and known as the 2nd New Hampshire Regiment and author- 

iN. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, page 557. 

2The source of information in all cases is noted. Where the age of the 
soldier is given, it is understood to be the age at the time of his enlistment. A 
large number of the enhstments came from that part of the town now knowTi 
as Northfield, but there is no way of definitely determining the proportion. 


ized the Committee of Safety to issue orders for enlisting the 
men." ^ The orders of the committee provided for ten companies 
of sixty-two men each. Jeremiah Clough received one of the 
ten commissions as captain to raise a company. 

There are three records of this company, the first to volunteer 
from Canterbury. One is the record of the town made by the 
committee appointed in 1777 to equalize charges. This was 
found among the town's papers. The other two are those 
published in the state papers, ^ one of which is copied from the 
pension roll at Washington.^ There is a slight variance in these 
records. The town record might be taken as conclusive except 
for the doubt cast by the committee upon the accuracy of their 
own report when they provided that "If any person . . 
is not herein named . . . upon his making request of the 
selectmen of said town shall be allowed equal to those who were 
in the service."^ The list in the Pension Bureau gives the age 
and occupations of the soldiers, and this information is added 
to the roster which follows. Except in one instance, that of 
John Peterson, there is corroborative evidence that all the 
members of the company here given were citizens of Canterbury 
about the time of their enlistment. Captain Clough 's company 
was in service for a period of seven months from May 27, 1775, 
at Winter Hill near Boston. From sixty-two to sixty-eight men 
were accounted present for duty during this time. As Captain 
Clough was required to raise only sixty-two men, the additional 
number who were present part of the time may have joined his 
command after it left Canterbury. This may account for the 
doubt expressed by the committee of the town in their report 
that they had listed the entire company. The other members 
of Captain Clough's command were recruited from Loudon, 
Sanbornton, Meredith, Moultonborough, Tamworth and New 
Britain, the last town being located on an old map of New 
Hampshire just north of Sahsbury and probably embraced the 
larger part of the present town of Andover. In the roster here 
given only residents of Canterbury are included. 

IN. H. State Papers Vol. XIV, page 107. 

2/(fm, Vol. XIV, page 14.3. 

3/dem, Vol. XVII, page 8. 

4See also N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 193, 194. 



Capt. Jeremiah Clough 36 Husbandman 

Ensign Thomas Lyford 35 Husbandman 

Sergt. Josiah Chase 33 Physician 

" Jonathan Heath 35 Husbandman 

" Charles Glidden 

Drummer Simeon Robinson .... 23 Husbandman 

Simon Sanborn 19 Husbandman 

Sergt. Joseph Clough 19 Husbandman 

Richard Haines 26 Cooper 

John Curry 21 Husbandman 

Hasten Morrill 24 Husbandman 

James Sherburne 24 Husbandman 

William Forrest, 3d 22 Husbandman 

Ebenezer Chandler 21 Husbandman 

John Peterson 21 Joiner 

Obadiah Clough 21 Husbandman 

Enoch Gibson 23 Husbandman 

George Shepard 34 Husbandman 

Samuel Haines 28 Blacksmith 

David Blanchard 20 Husbandman 

Humphrey Colby 34 Husbandman 

James Gibson, Jr 19 Husbandman 

Shubael Dearborn 21 Husbandman 

Nathaniel Dearborn 24 Husbandman 

Jonathan Foster 26 Husbandman 

' Jeremiah Gibson 25 Husbandman 

John Dearborn 19 Husbandman 

Joshua Weeks 27 Husbandman 

Eli Simons 40 Husbandman 

William Glines, 3d 24 Husbandman 

William Forrest, Jr. 
Robert Forrest 
Daniel Randall 
John Glines 
John Dearborn 
Abner Hoyt 

Thomas Lyford is given in the pension list as of Sanbornton 
and Northfield. He had a residence during the war in that 
part of Canterbury now known as Northfield. IMasten Morrill 
is given in the same list as an inhabitant of Loudon, but he held 
office in Canterbury from 1777 to 1782. Richard Haines, John 

Peterson, George Shepard and Eli Simons are found in the 
pension list but not in the town list. Charles Glidden, Robert 

Forrest and Daniel Randall do not appear in the pension list 


but they are given in the State Papers as members of Captain 
Clough's company. "Junior" is attached to James Gibson's 
name in the pension roll, and, as his age is nineteen, this desig- 
nation is undoubtedly correct. William Forrest, Jr., appears 
in the town list and William Forrest is given in the State Papers. 
They are probably one and the same person. On the pension 
roll Joshua Weeks is designated as of Loudon, but he is found 
on the Canterbury tax list of 1775. John Glines and John 
Dearborn were with Captain Clough's company in Medford, 
Mass., in October, 1775, but their names do not appear on any 
other roster of this command. Abner Hoyt is recorded as "in 
place of Nathaniel Dearborn" at the same time and place. ^ 

Town Papers. 

A committee was appointed at the meeting June 4, 1777, to 
equalize the contributions that the inhabitants had made towards 
the support of the war and their report was accepted at a sub- 
sequent meeting. This report which was found among the old 
papers of the town is as follows: 

"We the subscribers being chosen a committee for the town 
of Canterbury to make an average of the cost and charges of 
said town during the late war, 

"The following is a list of the men's names who went into 
the service to Winter Hill for eight months under the command 
of Capt. (Gordon) Hutchins in the year 1775. That those men 
shall be allowed by the town of Canterbury aforesaid the sum 
of three shillings lawful money per month each and every of 
them viz: 2 

"Lieut. Joseph Soper, George Shannon,' Sergt. John Bean, 
William Perkins, John Holden, Nathaniel Perkins, John Bean Jr., 
Jotham Young, Joshua Boynton, Nathaniel Glines, Edmund 

"The following is a list of the men's names who went into 
the service to Winter Hill and was in said service seven months 
under the command of Capt. (Jeremiah) Clough in the year 

1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 193, 194. 

2 The pension roll gives three additional names, Benjamin Baker, John 
Elliot and Isaac Cummings. There is no evidence that the first two were 
residents of Canterbury (N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVII, page 3). 

' George Shannon was killed at Bunker Hill after serving only two months. 
The total amount allowed was £12 6s. 


1775, that each and every of those men hereafter mentioned 
shall be allowed by the said town of Canterbury the sum of 
three shillings lawful money per month : ^ 

"Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Nathaniel Dearborn, Daniel Randall, 
Sergt. Jonathan Heath, John Dearborn, Simon Sanborn, Sergt. 
Charles Ghdden, William Forrest Jr., James Sherburne, Sergt. 
Joseph Clough, William Forrest 3d, Doct. Josiah Chase, Samuel 
Haines, Jonathan Foster, David Blanchard, Robert Forrest, 
Obadiah Clough, Jeremiah Gibson, John Curry, William Glines 
3d, Ebenezer Chandler, James Gibson, Humphrey Colby, 
Enoch Gibson, Shubael Dearborn, Hasten Morrill, Simeon 

''The following is a list of the men's names who went into the 
service to Cambridge for two months under the command of 
Capt. (James) Shepard in the year 1776, that each and every 
of those men hereafter mentioned shall be allowed by the said 
town of Canterbury the sum of three shillings lawful money 
per month : ^ 

"Capt. James Shepard, WiUiam Forrest 3d, Sergt. Benjamin 
Heath, William Miles, Jacob Hancock, Thomas Hoit, Benjamin 
ColHns, Stephen Sutton, George Hancock, David Kenniston, 
Joseph Carr, Richard Blanchard, William WiUiams. 

"The following being a list of the men's names who went 
from Winter Hill to Canada in the year 1776 for the term of 
twelve months under the command of Capt. (Jeremiah) Clough 
and Capt. (Joshua) Abbot, that each and every of those men 
hereafter mentioned shall be allowed by the said town of Canter- 
bury the sum of seven shillings lawful money for said service.^ 

"Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Edmund Boynton, Joseph Moore, 
Lieut. Joseph Soper, James Gibson, Obadiah Davis, Lieut. 
Charles Glidden, John Holden, Ebenezer Chandler, Lieut, 
Jonathan Heath, Robert Forrest, John Curry, Doctor Josiah 
Chase, Joseph Hancock, Aaron Sargent, James Sherburne, 
Parker Cross, Jotham Young, Thomas Cross, Elkins Moore, 
Joseph Glines. 

"If any person or persons who has been in the service with 
either of the aforementioned captains and is not herein named 

1 These all serv^ed seven months and received a total of £28 7s. 

2 AU serv^ed the full two months and the total allowed was £3 18s. 

3 Fourteen served twelve months, one thirteen months, two fourteen months, 
one nine months and three eight months. Total received £84 14s. 


in the foregoing list, upon his or their making request to the 
selectmen of said town shall be allowed equal to those who were 
in the service the same term of time and place in proportion. 

"Furthermore your committee saith that those persons in 
the town of Canterbury who hath advanced money towards 
hiring of soldiers to go to Ticonderoga under the command of 
Captain James Shepard shall have their money allowed and 
discounted by the selectmen of said town out of the town rate 
list for this current year 1777 and if any of the soldiers in said 
town belonging to the company aforesaid has not received the 
town bounty or hire the same to be allowed and discounted out 
of the rate list aforesaid. 

"Also those persons who hath advanced money in said town 
in towards hiring of soldiers to go to New York and Picks Kilns 
Capt. (Benjamin) Emery's and Capt. (Benjamin) Sias' companys 
to have their money allowed and discounted out of the town 
rate list, and if any person in either of the said companys has 
not received the town's bounty or hire as was agreed upon by 
sundry of the inhabitants of said town shall receive the sum 
out of the town rate list aforesaid. 

"Canterbury, July the 7th, 1777. 
"We the subscribers do hereby make above and foregoing 
return being made out by us to the best of our judgment without 

"Nehemiah Clough ) 

"Joseph Soper >- The Committee. 

"Obadiah Mooney ) 

These documents are confirmed by another found in the 
archives of the town addressed to the constable of Canterbury 
and directing him to pay certain men for services "at Winter 
Hill, Canada and New York." The amount due each man is 
set against his name, while on the back of the paper the signa- 
tures of nearly all the men appear as receipting for the amount 
due them. It will be seen that the first twentj^-one names on 
this pay roll correspond with those on the foregoing hst of men 
who accompanied Capt. Jeremiah Clough to Canada and that 
their compensation is larger than that given to the men whose 
names follow Aaron Sargent's. Beginning with the name of 
Capt. James Shepard on this pay roll, the hst corresponds sub- 
stantially with that previously given of the men who enlisted 



for two months under Captain Shepard for service at Cambridge. 
As has already been seen, Captain Shepard enlisted a company 
for the Continental service in the Northern army. Some of 
the names there given are found on this Canterbury pay roll, 
which bears date of January 28, 1778. The following is a 
transcript of the document. 

''To Mr. Thomas Foss, Constable. Sir: Please for to pay 
these men the several sums as is prefixed to their several names, 
it being for service done at Winter Hill, Canada and New York 
and their signing the back of this order and it being returned 
and indorsed shall be allowed by us in your settlement as Con- 
stable for Canterbury. 

January 28, 1778. 

Nehemiah Clough ) „ - 

T-v T-i ' Selectmen 

David Foster 



Blanch ARD ; 

1 l-fLU. J 


Capt. Jeremiah Clough £5 


Samuel Haines 


Lieut. Joseph Soper 



David Blanchard 

Lieut. Charles Ghdden 



Obadiah Clough 

Lieut. Jonathan Heath 



Shubael Dearborn 

Doctor Josiah Chase 



Humphrey Colby 

James Sherburn 



Nathaniel Dearborn 

Jotham Young 



John Dearborn 

Elkiner (Elkins) Moore 4 


Wilham Forrest 3d 

Edmund Boynton 



Jonathan Foster 

James Gibson 



Jeremiah Gibson 

John Holden 



William Glines 3d 

Robert Forrest 



Enoch Gibson 

Joseph Hancock 



Masten Morrill 

Parker Cross 



Simeon Robinson 

Thomas Cross 



Daniel Randall 

Joseph Ghnes 



Simon Sanborn 

Joseph Moore 



Capt. James Shepard 

Obadiah Davis 



Benjamin Heath 


Ebenezer Chandler 



Jacob Hancock 


John Curry 



Benjamin CoUins 


Aaron Sargent 



George Hancock 


Ensign John. Bean 



David Keniston 


John Bean Jr. 



Joseph Carr 


Joshua Boynton 



Richard Blanchard 


George Shannon 


William Williams 


William Perkins 



William Miles 


Nathaniel Perkins 



Thomas Hoyt 


Joseph Clough 



Stephen Sutton 


Nathaniel Glines 





In the New Hampshire manual of the General Court for 
the year 1899 is a list of New Hampshire soldiers who participated 
in the battle of Bunker Hill, prepared by George C. Gilmore of 
Manchester. The rank of the soldiers, the organization to 
which they were attached and their residence are given. Accord- 
ing to this list, there were sixteen men from Canterbury. Of 
this number thirteen are shown to have been on the roll of 
Capt. Gordon Hutchins' company about the time of the battle. 
The remaining three were in other commands. In Mr. Gilmore's 
list the name of Jonathan Wadleigh appears, but his residence 
is not given. The "History of Northfield" states that Mr. Wad- 
leigh "fought with his two brothers side by side at Bunker Hill." ^ 
The same authority says that "Richard Blanchard went with 
William Forrest to Bunker Hill unenlisted in citizens clothes" 
and that Charles Glidden, Jacob Hancock, John Cross, Parker 
Cross and Jonathan Gilman of Northfield (then a part of Canter- 
bury) were also in that battle.- As there were undoubtedly 
volunteers at Bunker Hill who were not formally enlisted in 
any command, it is not surprising, that there is no record of 
their service. Even the enrollments at this time were far from 
accurate. That at least twenty citizens of Canterbury parti- 
cipated in the battle of Bunker Hill is a conservative estimate. 
It is more than probable that the number was twenty-four. 


Canterbury Men at Bunker Hill.' 

N. H. Manual for General Court, 1899. 

Company Regi- N. H. State 
MENT Papers 

Benjamin Baker* 


Hutchins' Stark's 


. XIV, p. 63 

John Bean 

a a 

li I 

' 210 

John Bean Jr. 

U il 

11 I 

' 65 

Joshua Boynton 

li it 

H I 

' 65 

Edmund Boynton 

Ct li 

11 I 

' 211 

Isaac Cummings 

li li 

11 I 

' 65 

William Forrest 



11 I 

' 215 

Nathaniel Glines 


Hutchins' " 

(XVII, ' 
IXIV, ' 

' 3 

' 65 

John Holden 


11 11 

li I 

' 64 

Nathaniel Perkins 


U 11 

il I 

' 65 

1 History of Northfield, page 73. 

"Idem, page 72. 

'N. H. Manual for General Court, 1899. 

* No evidence that Baker was a resident of Canterbury, 

Company Regi- 

N. H. State 



Capt. Hutchins' Stark's 

Vol. XIV, p. 65 

Capt. Abbott's 

" 61 

Capt. D. Moore's " 

u 214 

Capt. Hutchins' " 

" 65 

U U (I 

" 63 

11 il tt 

" XVII, " 3 

il il (( 

" XIV, " 83 

roster of enlistments from canterbury. 139 


William A. Perkins 
John Rowen 
Aaron Sargent 
George Shannon ^ 
Joseph Soper, Lieut. 
Jotham Young 
Jonathan Wadleigh ^ 

Quebec Expedition under Arnold. 

Capt. Henry Dearborn's Company. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 210, 211.) 

John Bean, Jr., laborer, age 20, taken from Stark's Regiment, 
5th Co. 

Aaron Sargent, farmer, age 20, taken from Stark's Regiment, 
10th Co. 

Edmund Boynton, cordwainer, age 22, taken from Stark's Regi- 
ment, 5th Co. 

William Forrest, farmer, age 42, taken from Stark's Regiment, 
1st Co. 
All were from Canterbury. 

Muster Roll of Capt. James Shepard's Company. 
(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 318, 320.) 

James Shepard of Canterbury was appointed June 18, 1776, a 
captain in a regiment to be raised and sent to Canada.^ The fol- 
lowing are names of Canterbury men appearing on the muster roll 
July 2, 1776, for the Continental service in the Northern army: 

John Bean, ensign, Shubael Dearborn, Samuel Haines, Joshua 
Boynton, Nathaniel Glines, John Dearborn, William Forrest, 
George Shepard, Jonathan Foster, Moses Cross, Stephen Haines, 
Ephraim Davis, Benjamin Heath, John Davis, William Rinds 
(Rines), Moses Randall, William Simons, John Foss. 

Enlistments Canterbury 1776. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XII, pages 756, 757.) 

Canterbury September ye 18th, 1776. 
We the subscribers do hereby Ingage our selves In the Con- 
tinental Ser\as, and forthwith to March to New York and joyn 

1 Killed at Bunker Hill. 

' No town given, but probably from Canterbury. 

» N. H. State Papers, Vol. VIII, page 154. 


the Continental Army there untill the first day of December 

Next Unless Sunner Discharged. 

As Witness our hands — 

Samuel Gerrish, Joshua Weeks, 

William Clement, Nathaniel Pallett, 

Henry Clough, Israel Glines. 
Sargent Morrill, 

Roll of Capt. Benjamin Emery's Company.^ 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 429, 430.) 

This company was in Colonel Baldwin's regiment and was 
raised to reinforce the Continental army at New York in Sep- 
tember, 1776. The following are Canterbury names: 

William Clement, Joshua Weeks, Samuel Gerrish, Nathaniel 
Pallett, Samuel Ames, James Gibson, Sargent Morrill, Ebenezer 
Kimball, Benjamin Simpson. 

Commissioned Officers in Colonel Stickney's 


(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, page 261.) 

In a "return of the commissioned officers in Col. Thomas 
Stickney's regiment March 5, 1776" the following Canterbury 
names appear : 

Captains, James Shepard, Edward Blanchard. 
First Lieutenants, Laban Morrill, Thomas Gilman. 
Second Lieutenants, James Glines, Ebenezer Kimball. 
Ensigns, Samuel Ames, Jeremiah Hackett, Ezekiel Morrill. 

Muster Roll of Capt. Benjamin Sias' Company. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, page 454.) 

This company was in Col. David Gilman's regiment destined 
for New York, in 1776. Captain Sias is sometimes referred to 
as from Canterbury, but he was a taxpayer in Loudon in 1774 
and one of the petitioners to have that town set off from Canter- 
bury the year before. On the roll appear the following from 
Canterbury : 

Stephen Sutton, William Forrest, David Norris, Peter Blan- 
chard, Jonathan Forrest, Simeon Sanborn, John Rowen. 

> Captain Emery was of Concord. 



Continental Soldiers Enlisted for Three Years or War.^ 

Among the townpapers is the following list of the men enlisted 
from Canterbury for the Continental service in 1777 for three 
years or during the war (in Col. Thomas Stickney's regiment) : 




John Rowen ^ 

April 1, 


3 years 


Thomas Hoyt^ 

May 13, 

i i 


Prince (Thompson) 

May 15, 

I i 


Ebenezer Farnam 

" 8, 



Andrew Rowen ^ 

April 4, 



WiUiam Walker 

June 5, 



Pratt Chase 

May 13, 

( ( 


Loyd Jones 

" 13, 



Walter Haines ^ 

May 15, 



George Shepard^ 


uring war 


Elkins Moore ^ 

3 years 


Robert Hastings ^ 

Feb. 2, 


James Hastings ^ 

" 2, 



John Holden ^ 


Abner Fowler ^ 

May 31, 



Nathaniel Glines ^ 

June 19, 



The quota for Canterbury in this enlistment was twenty. The 
town furnished nineteen. The additional names of Pearson East- 
man, Nicholas Hall and John Millsare given in the State Papers. 

Another return gives the additional names of Aaron Hale 
and Samuel Danford of Boscawen but omits that of Nathaniel 
Glines of Canterbury. Appended to it is the following certificate : 

"Pursuant to the precept from the Honourable Thomas 
Stickney Esqr. We do hereby make a true return of the Above 
Mentioned Soldiers they being Inlisted for the Town of Can- 
terbury and State of New Hampshire. 

"James Shepard ) „ , . 

ut^ t> f Captams. ' 

Edward Blanchard J 

For Northern Army, 1777. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, pages 164, 165.) 

Pay roll of Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Company, Col. Thomas 
Stickney's regiment, raised out of the Thirteenth Regiment of 

iSee also N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 565, 566 and Vol. XV, page 
2 Residents of Canterbury. 


New Hampshire Militia in July, 1777, which joined the Northern 
Army at Bennington and Stillwater. These Canterbury names 
appear : 

Reuben Kezar, William Simons, Jonathan Foster, fifer, James 
Gibson, Elias Abbott, fifer. 

For Relief of Ticonderoga. 

"Pay Roll of part of Col. Thomas Stickney's regiment of 
militia, commanded by Lieut. Col. Henry Gerrish raised in 
the town of Concord and towns adjacent which company marched 
July 5, 1777, for the relief of the garrison of Ticonderoga on the 
alarm and marched seventy miles when we heard news of the 
evacuation of the fort." 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, page 127.) 

The following are names of Canterbury men: 

Ensign Jeremiah Hackett, William Moore, Sergt. David Norris, 
Abraham Morrill, Corp. Edmund Kezer, Jesse Stevens, William 
Simons, Moses Danforth, Jonathan Foster, Joseph Durgin, 
WilUam Gault, Ehas Abbott, William Glines, Gideon Bartlett, 
Jonathan Gile, Jotham Young, Peter Blanchard, Jacob Heath, 
Joseph Hancock, Stephen Haines, John Cross, David Kenniston. 

A return among the town papers in manuscript gives the 
following additional names: Thomas Foss, Joseph Durgin, 
Jesse Stevens and John Love joy. 

Capt. John Drew's Company, Col. Nathan Hale's 
Regiment, Continental Service, 1777. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 617, 618.) 

The muster roll gives the following from Canterbury: 

John Davies, age twenty and Ephraim Davies, age twenty- 

In an account of the rations due to the several officers in Col. 
Thomas Stickney's regiment in Gen. John Stark's brigade 
July, 1777, the name of Laban Morrill appears. (State Papers, 
Vol. XV, page 162). 

roster of enlistments from canterbury. 143 

Volunteers for Defence of Fort Edward. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, page 387.) 

A pay roll of the volunteers who went from Canterbury and 
Loudon with Capt. Benjamin Sias to Fort Edward at the time 
of General Burgoyne's invasion, ^ whose service was from October 
4 to October 26, 1777, shows the following Canterbury names: 

David jMorrill, Lieut., William Dyer, Ezekiel iNIorrill, Eben- 
ezer Foss, IMasten ISIorrill, Jonathan Guile, William Glines, 
Sampson Moor,- John Forrest. 

"Sampson Moore (Battis) was a volunteer under Captain 
Sias. He was a slave of Col. Archelaus Moore of Canterbury 
who promised him his freedom for good jEighting in the Revolu- 
tion. Colonel Moore not only redeemed his promise but gave 
Sampson a hundred acre lot in the southwest part of Canterbury, 
upon which his descendants lived for many years. The locality 
was called 'New Guinea.' Sampson was a fine specimen of a 
negro, was in command of a battahon in the early part of the 
century (1800) and is well recollected by the people of Concord 
as attending Election and ]\Iuster, dressed in regimentals, and 
greatly enjoyed his title of Major which he honorably held from 
Governor Oilman. He married Lucy, a slave of William Coffin 
of Concord, giving Mr. Coffin a year's work for her freedom."^ 

Return of Soldiers Enlisted from Loudon, 1777. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 726.) 

The following are Canterbury names which appear in this 

Noah Sinkler of Epsom enlisted March 24, 1777, three years. 

Robert Forrest of Canterbury enlisted jMarch 19, 1778, for war. 

Joseph Ellison of Canterbury enlisted March 7, 1781, three 

Moses Danforth of Canterbury enlisted March 7, 1781, three 

Noah Sinkler,^ or Sinclair, was discharged January 25, 1780. 
He was a drummer in Captain Morrill's company, Colonel 

» See also Potter's Military History of N. H., page 335. 
• A negro otherwise known as Sampson Battis. 

3 Potter's ^Military History of X. H. page 33.5. Bouton's History of Concord, 
page 252. 

*N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, pages 184, 320, 328, 332, 343, 344, 458. 


Stark's regiment, and was wounded in the wrist at St. John's 
July 14, 1776, and received a pension from the state. At the 
time of his examination for a pension September 4, 1786, he 
gives his age as thirty-one and his residence as Canterbury. 
The legislature of New Hampshire voted that he receive fifteen 
shillings a month from the time his pay ceased.^ He was pro- 
moted drum major. May 28, 1779.^ His settlement in Canter- 
bury was probably immediately following his discharge. 

Volunteers at Bennington, 1777. 

The following list of soldiers from Canterbury who enlisted 
for service at Benningon was found among the town papers: 

Joseph Hancock, William Moore, Jr., David Kenniston, 
Lieut. Laban Morrill, Joseph Carr, Josiah Chase, Peter Huni- 
ford, John Lovejoy, David Blanchard, Jonathan Foster, Nathaniel 
Dearborn, Benjamin Johnson, William Perkins, James Sherburne, 
John Cross, Simon Sanborn, Samuel Carter, Richard Glines, 
William Forrest, Stephen Sutton, Abraham Morrill, Thomas 

Volunteers at Saratoga, 1777. 

The following return of volunteers from Canterbury who 
were at Saratoga Avhen Burgoyne surrendered was found among 
the town papers: 

William Glines, Jr., Jonathan Guile, Lieut. David Morrill, 
Hasten Morrill, John Forrest, Ebenezer Foss, Sampson Battis, 
servant of Archelaus Moore, William Dyer. 

Muster Roll of Capt. Ebenezer Frye's Company in Col. 
Joseph Cilley's Regiment for Continental Service, 

1777 AND 1778. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, page 605.) 

The following Canterbury names appear : 

Walter Haines, Nathaniel Glines, John Reed, Robert Forrest. 

' N. H. State Papers, Vol. XI, page 273. 
*Idem, Vol. XVI, page 9. 

roster of enlistments from canterbury. 145 

Roll of Absentees First New Hampshire Regiment (Col. 
Joseph Cilley), Capt. Ebenezer Frye's Company, 
Valley Forge, January 10, 1778. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, page 438.) 

Walter Haynes, Canterbury, age twenty-five, five feet, seven 
inches, fair complexion, color of hair fair, light eyes. Left 
at Stillwater, sick. 

John Reed,^ Canterbury, age thirty, five feet, eight inches, negro, 
black complexion, black eyes. Left at Fishkill, sick. 

State Bounties. 
(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 591.) ^ 

"Canterbury August 3, 1779. 
"State of New Hampshire 

To the Town of Canterbury Dr. 

July 13,1779 To a State Bounty paid to Isaac Brown, a 

soldier for the Rhode Island Service £30 

To Travil Money to do. 12 
August 2, 1779 To Bounty paid to John Taylor, a soldier 

to do 30 

To Travil money to do. 12 
August 3, 1779 To Bounty paid to John Batchelder, a 

soldier to do. 30 

To Travil Money to do. 12 

"A true account errors excepted 

"Ariel Foster, 
"One of the Select men for s'd Town." 

The names of Michael Sutton, William Ghnes, Edmond 
(Edmund) Colby, Daniel Colby, Phineas Fletcher, William 
Rhines, Elkins Moore, Moses Danforth appear in the account 
of state bounties for Continental soldiers who enlisted in the 
year 1781 for three years or during the war.^ 

» N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, page 606, John Reid is given as a resident of 
Canterbury but enlisting for Chichester. 

2 Among the town papers is a return that Brown and Batchelder were to 
have fifty bushels of Indian corn and Taylor sixty bushels, and that the "sol- 
diers have notes for the corn." See also N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, pages 
663, 670. 

» N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 235. 


146 history of canterbury. 

Expedition to Rhode Island, August, 1778. 

Pay roll, Capt. Benjamin Sias' company. Col. Moses Nichols' 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, page 512.) 

The following members appear to have been Canterbury 
residents : 

Lieut. Jonathan Heath, Thomas Curry, Sergt. John Bean, 
Thomas Foss, Corp. Jonathan Foster, William Miles, Abner 
Miles, Ephraim Moore, Ebenezer Kimball, John Moore, John 
Lyford, Ezekiel Morrill, Abraham Morrill, John Lougee. 

A return found among the town papers shows that William 
Forrest 3d, James Gibson and Samuel Colby enlisted for this 
expedition and were paid a bounty of £90 each. 

In a petition dated November 2, 1778, Abner Miles of Canter- 
bury states that he "turned out as a volunteer in the service of 
his country on the expedition to Rhode Island under the com- 
mand of Capt. Benjamin Sias, and served there until the com- 
pany came off the Island," that he was taken sick and confined 
to the house of Joseph Goffe at Rehoboth and remained there 
until September 24, 1778. He asks that the bill of said Goffe 
amounting to £39 4s. and the bill of Dr. Jos. Bridgham of £9 6s. 
may be paid by the state, the said bills having been allowed by the 
committee on sick and wounded soldiers. Miles also states 
that he lost a horse valued at $250 while in the service and 
Captain Sias certifies to his loss. Jeremiah Hacket and Obadiah 
Clough appointed by the selectmen of Canterbury to appraise 
the horse gave it a value of £75.^ 

Ezekiel Moore of Canterbury was in the service twenty- 
seven days in Capt. Benjamin Sias' company at the forts in 
Piscataqua Harbor. (N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, page 

A return of the men of the Third New Hampshire Regiment 
at Camp Danbury, December 8, 1779, gives the name of George 
Shepard of Canterbury in Captain McGregore's company. 
(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, page 734.) 

» N. H. State Papers, Vol. XI, page 269. 

koster of enlistments from canterbury. 147 

Pay Roll of New Levies for Continental Army, 1780. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, pages 87, 90, 94, 99.) 

These troops were enlisted for six months and the following 
were returned from Canterbury. 

Ebenezer Foss Enlisted June 27. Discharged Dec. 15, 1781. 

Benoni Drew Enlisted June 27. War. Col. Dearborn's. 

Benjamin Glines Enlisted June 27. Discharged Dec. 13, 1781. 

Ebenezer Chandler Enlisted June 30. During war, 1781. 

Thomas Cross Enlisted June 27. Discharged Dec. 11, 1781. 

Wilham Forrest Enlisted June 30. Discharged Dec. 18, 1781. 

Merril Clement Enhsted June 30. Discharged Dec. 15, 1781. 

The age of Drew is given as seventeen, of Glines seventeen, 
of Foss twenty-one, of Chandler twenty-five, of Cross eighteen, 
of Forrest twenty-five, and of Clement seventeen. Forrest 
and Clement are shown in one of the rolls as from Loudon. 
Thomas Cross is returned as in Capt. Josiah Munroe's company. 
First New Hampshire Regiment, February 14, 1781. (N. H. 
State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 224.) 

Capt. Nath'l Head's Company, Col. Reynold's 
Regiment, 1781. 

From Original in Pension Bureau, Washington, D. C. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVII, page 430.) 

Thomas Curry Corp. Canterbury Sept. 8 to Nov. 25. 

Sampson Battas ^ Canterbury Aug. 20 to Nov. 25. 

Peter Blanchard Canterbury Aug. 20 to Nov. 25. 

John Sutton Canterbury Aug. 20 to Nov. 25. 

Enlistments in Canterbury, 1780. 
(N. H. State. Papers, Vol. XII, page 757.) 

Canterbury, July 4th, 1780. 
We the subscribers hereby acknowledge to have Voluntarily 
enlisted to serve the United States of America for three months 
from the time we shall Join the Army of, the sd United States 
at the place appointed for Rendesvous by the Commander in 
Chief of said Army. Witness our Hands. 

William Foster. Daniel Foster, 

EzEKiEL Moore. Elkins Moore. 

Asa Foster. Moses Davis. 

'Sampson Battis, marked "Deserted November 22." 

148 history of canterbury. 

Enlistments in Canterbury, 1781. 

Canterbury, 24th July, 1781. 
We whose Names are underwritten hereby acknowledge 
to have volentarily inlisted to serve as Militia in the Continental 
Army for the term of three Months from the time of our joining 
said Army, on the encouragement given by the Town of Canter- 
bury at a Muster for the purpose of raising sd Men, And engage 
to equip, and march whenever we shall receive orders.^ 

Samson X Battis. Peter Blanchard. 

Thomas Curry. John Sutton. 

John Abbott,^ Drummer, residence Canterbury, enlisted for 
Canterbury in Capt. Benjamin Ellis' company. Col. Alexander 
Scammel's regiment, February, 1781. The same record is given 
for James Barns, private. 

George Shepard and Benoni Drew ^ are given in Captain Den- 
net's company. Second New Hampshire Regiment, February 15, 
1781. Shepard is also given as serving for Boscawen from Can- 

Reuben Blanchard,^ age eighteen, abode Canterbury, enlisted 
for Concord, July 20, 1781, to December to recruit Continental 
Army. He served at West Point from July, 23 to December 
13, 1781. He is also given as in Capt. Aaron Kinsman's com- 
pany, Col. Thomas Stickney's regiment in July 1780.^ In the 
latter company was Elias Abbott. 

Isaac Blanchard,^ age twenty-four, Capt. Edward EUiott's 
company. Col. David Hobart's regiment, which marched from 
Plymouth and adjacent towns, July, 1777. He is thought to be 
a son of Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., of Canterbury, who had left 
home and was visiting relatives in the vicinity of Plymouth. 

Joel Blanchard,^ Capt. Simon Marston's company recruited 
for the Rhode Island expedition of 1777. There was a journey 
to Concord, Pembroke and other places to muster the company. 

» See also N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 264. 

2/dem, page 225. 

» Idem, page 232. 

« Idem, pages 247, 253. 

ildem, page 105. 

'Idem, Vol. XV, page 150. 

' Idem, page 267. 


Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., of Canterbury had a son Joel, eighteen 
years of age, in 1777. An Ephriam Moore was in this same 

Abel Blanchard,^ Capt. Henry Butler's company. Col. Thomas 
Bartlett's regiment, raised in 1780 and serving at West Point. 
As the record shows some of the men of this company to have 
been recruited in Hopkinton and vicinity, it is thought that 
this was another son of Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., of Canterbury. 

Peter Blanchard, ^ Capt. Peter Kimball's company. Col. 
Thomas Stickney's regiment which was raised out of the Thir- 
teenth Regiment of New Hampshire militia July, 1777, and 
joined the Northern army at Bennington and Stillwater. In 
this same company was Ehas Abbott. 

There is a family tradition that Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., 
had five sons in the Revolution, who in the order of their births 
were, Isaac, Peter, Joel, Abel and Reuben. A still younger 
son, Simon, born in 1766 may have enlisted in the closing year 
of the war. 

The names of Merrill Clement, Wilham Foster, Jonathan 
Foster, David Blanchard and Joseph Clough, appear among 
the men mustered for the defence of Portsmouth in September, 

The pay roll of Capt. Ebenezer Webster's company of rangers, 
raised for the defence of the Western frontiers in 1782, gives the 
name of William Arvin ^ (Ervine) of Canterbury, July 5 to No- 
vember 7, 1782. Abiel Foster petitions December, 1788, to have 
the wages of William Ervine, "who was three months in the 
service as a ranger in Captain Webster's company in 1783 and 
who was deceased, paid to him for the benefit of the town of 
Canterbury." * 

The "History of Northfield" mentions the names of Ezekiel 
Danforth, Samuel Goodwin, Abraham Brown and Theodore 
Brown as soldiers in the Revolution from that town prior to its 
separation from Canterbury.^ 

An Ezekiel Danforth enhsted in Capt. James Shepard's com- 

'N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, pages 131, 163. 

ildem, Vol. XV, page 185. 

' Idem, page 698. 

* Idem, Vol. XVI, page 296. 

^Idem, Vol. XI, page 273. 

8 History of Northfield, page 72. 


pany for the Continental army, July 2, 1776, at Boscawen.^ 
There was a private by the name of Samuel Goodwin in Capt. 
John Calef s company on Great Island and in Capt. Titus Salter's 
company of artillery at Fort Washington in November, 1775,^ 
and in February, 1776.^ Abraham Brown is a name found 
in Capt. Daniel Moore's company, Col. John Stark's regiment 
in 1775.^ As men of this company were recruited from Pembroke, 
Allenstown, Bow and other nearby towTis, it is very probable 
that this Abraham Brown was from Canterbury. A Theodore 
Brown was in Capt. Henry Elkin's company, recruited for the 
defence of Piscataqua Harbor, November, 1775.^ 

Record of Town Returns (Canterbury). 
(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 502.) 

March 23d, 1781. 
April 26th, 1781. 
March 23d, 1781. 
March 23d, 1781. 
March 23d, 1781. 
March 23d, 1781. 
March 23d, 1781. 
1782 by E. Frye. 

In another hst the name of George Shepard appears in place 
of Abner Hoyt (N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, pages 593, 594.) 

Soldiers Mustered for Canterbury. 

Exeter, December 23d, 1785. 

The following is a list of Soldiers Mustered for the Town of 
Canterbury for each of which a Bounty of twenty pounds is 
due to said town." 

I N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, pages 317, 320. 

^Idem, page 227. 

^Idem, page 257. 

*Idcni, page 72. 

6 Id€7n, page 253. 

«/(fem, Vol. XVI, page 595. 

Nat Glines 

Benoni Drew 

Michael Sutton 


Morril Shepard 


William Glines 


Edmund Colby 


Dan'l Colby 


Wm. Rynes 


Elkins Moore 


Abner Hoyt, 



Michael Sutton Must'd March 23d 1781. 

WiUiam Glines Must'd March 23d 1781. 

Edmund Colby Must'd March 23d 1781. 

Daniel Colby jNIust'd ^larch 23d 1781. 

Wm. Rynes IMust'd IMarch 23d 1781. 

Elkins Moore Must'd March 23d 1781. 

Morril Sheppard Must'd April 26th 1781. 

As appears by the Books 


Joseph Oilman. 

Michael Sutton appears from the records to have been in the 
first company of Colonel Cilley's regiment in 1781. He enlisted 
for three years or during the war and received a bounty.^ 

Dr. Josiah Chase who was a sergeant in Capt. Jeremiah Clough's 
company appears to have served later as a surgeon in Stark's 
regiment,- for he gives a certificate of the wound received by 
Noah Sinclair ^ and a certificate that Abraham Kimball of Hop- 
kinton was wounded in the leg.^ 

Phineas Fletcher was in the first company of Col. Joseph 
Cilley's regiment of Continental troops in 1781. He was mus- 
tered JNIarch 23, 1781, and he died on his way home from 

Pay Roll of Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Company. 

This company joined the Continental army at West Point 
in 1780. The pay roll shows the following from Canterbury.^ 

Reuben Blanchard. William Foster. 

Daniel Foster. Ezekiel ]Moore. 

Elkins Moore. Elias Abbott. 

Asa Foster. 

Service July 4 to October 25, 1780. 

Another return indicates that Reuben Blanchard later enlisted 
for Concord, July 6, 1781, for six months.'^ 

1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, pages 236, 267. 

2 Rev. William Patrick's Historical Sermon. 

'N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 458. 

* Idem, page 400. 

''Idem, pages 236, 267, 513, 772. History of Xorthfield, Part II, page 224. 

6 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, pages 147, 148. 

' Idem, pages 253, 611. 

152 history of canterbury. 

Orders from Soldiers 1781 to 1785. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XI, pages 272, 273.) 

Canterbury, March 7, 1781. 
To Nicholas Oilman, 

Treas. for the State of N. H. 
Please pay to the selectmen of Canterbury the sum total of 
what shall be made up to us in the pay roll as soldiers in the six 
months service in the summer past. 

Thomas Hoyt. Ebenezer Chandler. 

Benjamin Glines. Ebenezer Foss. 

John Sutton in a similar order directs his wages to be paid 
to Capt. Laban Morrill. 

Samson Bates (Battis) under date of January 15, 1785, orders 
amount due him for three months' service in Capt. Nathaniel 
Head's company to be paid to James Norris. 

Thomas Curry by order dated November 7, 1785, directs 
the amount due him for three months' service in 1781 to be paid 
to David Foster. 

Lieut. Thomas Lyford. 

Lieutenant Lyford seems to have had the longest continued 
service of any soldier volunteering from Canterbury. He en- 
listed in the very beginning of the war, going out as an ensign 
in Capt. Jeremiah Clough's company in 1775.^ The next record 
shows him a lieutenant in Maj. Benjamin Whitcomb's independ- 
ent corps of rangers. A pay roll of part of the corps gives 
the time of his engagement as November 4, 1776, and that he 
enlisted for the war.^ He continued in the service until January, 
1781, and he is recorded as attached to the Second or Colonel 
Reid's regiment for the years 1777-78-79 and in the same regi- 
ment on duty at West Point and in New Jersey in 1780.^ Major 
Whitcomb's battalion was on duty part of the time on the Upper 
Connecticut. Lieutenant Lyford was with General Hazen when 
he built the military road from the Connecticut River at Newbury, 
Vt., via Cabot, Vt., towards Canada.^ 

1 K H. State Papers, Vol. XVII, page 8. 

^/dern, Vol. XV, page 702. Vol. XVI, page 174. 

3 Potter's Military History of N. H., page 339. 

« Francis Lyford and his Descendants, by William L. Welch, page 20. 


In a petition dated Concord, June 21, 1782, he sets forth that 
he "entered the service in the year 1775 and by order afterwards 
in the year 1777 ^ was appointed heutenant in Major Whitcomb's 
Core of Rangers and served in the same until 1781 when General 
Washington ordered the officers of said Core should retire on half 
pay for life, that your memorialist was ordered by said Whitcomb 
to march said Whitcomb's men to Head Quarters, whereupon 
the soldiers were mutinous and would not march when ordered 
thereto, and your memorialist proceeded to Head Quarters from 
Haverhill to the North River and made report of the same to 
Gen'l Heath the commanding officer then at West Point." ^ 

Lieutenant Lyford moved to Cabot, Vt., being the third settler 
there. He was born in Epping, and resided in that town, Exeter, 
Canterbury (Northfield), Sanbornton and New Ipswich.' 

The provisional government of New Hampshire in 1775 
formed the militia into twelve regiments, and in September, 
1776, an act was passed reorganizing it. This act provided for 
two classes of soldiers, a training band and an alarm list. The 
training band was made up of all able-bodied males from sixteen 
to fifty years of age, except certain persons in specified positions 
and employment, and negroes, mulattoes and Indians. There 
were about sixty-eight privates in each company. 

Each officer and private soldier was "to equip himself and be 
constantly provided with a good fire arm, good ramrod, a worm, 
pruning wire and brush and a bayonet fitted to his gun, a scabbard 
and belt therefor, and a cutting sword or a tomahawk or hatchet, 
a pouch containing a cartridge box that will hold fifteen rounds 
of cartridges at least, a hundred buckshot, a jack knife and tow 
for wadding, six flints, one pound of powder, forty leaden balls 
fitted to his gun, a knapsack and blanket, a canteen or wooden 
bottle sufficient to hold one quart." 

Each town was to provide and deposit in some safe place for 
use in case of alarm a specified number of spades or shovels, 
axes and picks and to provide arms and equipments for those 
unable to furnish themselves. Each company was to muster 
eight times a year. 

1 November 4, 1776, N. H. State Papers, Vol. XV, page 702. 

^Idem, Vol. XIII, page 71. 

3 Francis Lyford and His Descendants, page 20. 


The alarm list included all male persons from sixteen to sixty- 
five not included in the train band, and it was to be mustered 
twice a year.^ 

Canterbury Train Band. 

A list of the men. Names from fifty to sixteen back. 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XII, pages 754, 755.) 

Gallop Heath, Henry Clough, William Glines, Jr., Hezekiah 
Young, Samuel Hans (Haines) Daniel Fletcher, Richard Hans, 
(Haines), Joseph Sanborn, James Maloney, Phineas Fletcher, 
Gidden (Gideon) Bartlett, Jeremiah Ladd, Richard EUison, 
Benjamin Wicher (Whitcher), Jonathan Gils (Gile), Jonathan 
Wicher (Whitcher), Simen (Simon) Roberson, Edmond Kizer 
(Kezar), Walter Hans (Haines), Benjamin Sanborn, Thomas 
Gipson (Gibson), Nathaniel Pallet, Richard Glins (Ghnes), 
Joshua Weeks, William Miles, William Moore, Jr., Obadiah 
Clough, Stephen Sutton, Joseph Clough, Mickel (Michael) 
Sutton, Sargent Morriell (Morrill), Robert Curry, Abraham 
Morriell (Morrill), Jonathan Weast (West), Thomas Hoyit (Hoyt), 
John Weast "(West), Benjamin Heath, Benjamin Blanchard, 
David Foster, Jonathan Blanchard, Nehemiah Clough, Joel 
Blanchard, Epharam (Ephriam) Carter, Nathaniel Moore, Levit 
(Leavitt) Clough, John Moore, Jr., Edmon (Edmund) Colby, 
Baranat (Barnard) Stils (Stiles), Jeremiah Danford (Danforth), 
John Bean, Stephen Hans (Haines), Humpre (Humphrey) Colby, 
John Forrest, Jr., William Forrest 4th, Ezekiel Worthen, Joseph 
Woodman, Daniel Randel, Samuel Moore, David Ames, Simon 
Stevens, Abner Hoyit (Hoyt), Wilham Simons, Benjamin Simson, 
John Glines, James Towle, John Foss, Jesse Stiviens (Stevens), 
Samuel Gerrish, Samuel Colby, Nathaniel Glins (Glines), Asa 
Foster, Robert Foss, Benjamin Johnson, Aaron Sargent, Jona- 
than Foster, Simon Sanborn. 

Totle 76 in number in the Second Company In Colonal Stickney 

Regiment Taken By us 

James Shepard Capt. 
Laben Morril Livt. 
James Glines Livt. 
Jeremiah Hacket En's. 

The Number of Guns in the Second Company is 36 in Number. 
I Potter's Military History of New Hampshire, Vol. I, pages 273 to 282. 



Canterbury "Train Band" and "Alarm List." 

(N. H. State Papers, Vol. XII, page 755.) 

The following being a return of the train band under my 
Command in Canterbury. 


Thomas Gilmon. Privets 

William Diah (Dyer) 


Ebenezer Kimball. 

Peter Huneford. 


William Sanborn. 

David Morrison. 

Sargeant Richard Blanchard. 

Nathaniel Witcher 


Jacob Heath. 

John McDaniel. 

David Norris. 

Jeremiah Daniel. 

Willi (Wilham) Perkins. 

Abner Miles. 


Jesse Cross. 

Samuel Miles. 

Nathan'l Derbon 

James Soyer (Sawyer?) 


Gideon Levet 

Nathaniel Perkens. 


Joseph Carr. 

James Blanchard. 


Joseph Hancock. 

James Perkens. 


Thomas Cross. 

David Blanchard. 

John Cross. 

Jonathan Wodaly 


George Hancock. 

William Kenestone 

Benjamin Collins. 

James Simon. 

Thomas Clough. 

Abraham Derbon 

WiUiam Kinestone 

Thomas Cross. 


David Kinestone 

Jonathan Sanborn. 


John Derbon 

Ezekiel Gilmon. 


William Glines. 

Obediah Davis. 
William Hancock. 

Larm Lest 


William Glines. 


,. Charles GUden 

Benjamin Blanchard. 


. Jonathan Heath. 

Shel3al Derbon 

John Cross. 

Ensi Archelaus Miles. 

Gideon Levit (Leavitt). 

A true Return Per me 

Edward Blanchard Captain. 



The selectmen of Canterbury were directed by vote of the 
town to provide for the families of their citizens who were absent 
in the service.^ Nathaniel Glines evidently had to leave his fam- 
ily to the care of his neighbors when he joined the army. He 
enlisted for three years or during the war and appears to have 
served until the close of hostihties. That his family was not 
neglected by the town whose quota he had volunteered to help 
fill is shown by the following bill.^ 

"Canterbury, Feb. 4, 1780. 

"The Accompt of Articles supply'd by the Select Men for 
Canterbury to the family of Nath'l GHnes a Soldier in the 
service of sd Town in the Continental Army. 

£2- 8 

7- 4 
3- 3 
0- 9 



29- 8 




Rye one Bushel 




Peas 1-2 " 




Corn 4 


i i 


Beef 63 wt 




Wooll 1-2 lb. 




Beef 48 lbs. 



Corn 2 Bushels 




cc 2 " 




Salt 3-4 

November 26th 


Rye 1 




Mutton 25 wt 




Corn 3 Bushels 




Beef 98 wt 

£115- 5' 

Elizabeth Glines acknowledged receipt of the foregoing 
articles. Assistance was given to her at other periods. 

Census of Revolutionary Pensioners, 1840. 

A census of the Revolutionary pensioners was taken in 1840 
by the United States marshals of the several judicial districts, 
giving names, age and residence. This was published at Wash- 
ington, D. C, in 1841, by Blair and Rives, and republished 
in volume XXX of the New Hampshire State Papers. The fol- 
lowing were returned from Canterbury : 

1 See previous chapter. 

sN. H. State Papers, Vol. XVI, page 592. 


Samson Battis, age 89; John Lovis, 80; Morrill Shepherd, 75; 
Joseph Cleasby, 76; Sarah Clough, 80; Benjamin Bradley, 79; 
Elizabeth Moore, 76. 

Sarah Clough was reported as residing with Joseph Clough 
and John Lovis with John H. Bennett. The others were evi- 
dently found at their own homes. 

The following were returned from Northfield: 

Elias Abbott, age 82; Jesse Carr, 83; John Dinsmore, 85; 
Samuel Dinsmore, 87; Samuel Goodwin, 93; Abner Flanders, 85. 

Alphabetical List of Canterbury Soldiers. 

The following is an alphabetical list of the soldiers furnished 
by Canterbury with such evidence as can be found identifying 
them as citizens of the town. Where the name of the soldier 
appears on the tax lists of Canterbury during the Revolutionary 
period, or among the signers of the Association Test from the 
town in 1776, or is found as a member of the train band and alarm 
lists, and the company in which the soldier enlisted was recruited 
in the vicinity of Canterbury, these facts are accepted as confirm- 
ing his residence. If a man of the same name held office in Can- 
terbury during the war, or immediately subsequent thereto, 
there is a presumption that he was a resident at the time of his 
enlistment. Where the men enlisted prior to becoming of age 
their identification with the town is more difficult to trace. 

Abbott, Elias. Relief of Ticonderoga, Northern Army, Capt. 
Peter Kimball 's Co., Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 1777. Capt. 
Ebenezer Webster's Co., West Point 1780. 

Abbott, John. Drummer. Capt. Benjamin Ellis' Co., Col. 
Alexander Scammel's Regt. Feb., 1781. 

Ames, Samuel. Capt. Benjamin Sias Co., Col. Baldwin's 
Regt., Continental Army 1776. Ensign, Col. Thomas Stickney's 
Regt. 1776. Signed association test. Tax list 1776. 

Arvin (Ervine) William. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Co. of 
rangers 1782. In 1788 Abiel Foster petitions to have wages 
due Arvin paid to Canterbury. 

Baker, Benjamin. Age 23. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. at 
Bunker Hill. 

Barns, James. Capt. Benjamin Ellis' Co., Col. Alexander 
Scammel's Regt. Feb. 1781. 

Bartlett, Gideon. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Canterbury 
Train Band. Signed association test. Tax list 1775. 


Battis Sampson. Age 26. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at Fort 
Edward 1777. Volunteer at Saratoga, Capt. Nathaniel Head's 
Co. 1781. Slave of Archelaus Moore. 

Bean, Sergt. John. Age 26. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. 
at Bunker Hill. Ensign, Capt. Shepard's Co. Northern 
Army. Expedition to Rhode Island 1778. Train Band. 
Signed association test. Constable 1782. Tax list 1776. 

Bean, John, Jr. Age 20. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. at 
Bunker Hill. At Quebec and taken prisoner. Sergeant, Capt. 
Benj. Sias' Co. Expedition to Rhode Island. Tax list 1776. 

Blanchard, Abel. Capt. Henry Butler's Co., Col. Thomas 
Bartlett's Regt. 1780. Son of Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., who was 
a tax payer in 1776. 

Blanchard, David. Age 20. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
1775. AVith Capt. Clough in Canada. Volunteer at Bennington. 
Train Band and Alarm List. Signed association test. Tax list 

Blanchard, Isaac. Age 24. Capt. Benjamin Sias' Co. 1776. 
Capt. Edward EUiott's Co., Col. David Hobart's Regt. 1777. 
Probably son of Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., who was a tax payer 
in 1776. 

Blanchard, Peter. Age 25. Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 
for relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Volunteer at Bennington. Capt. 
Nathaniel Head's Co. 1781. Son of Benj. Blanchard, Jr., who 
was tax payer 1776. 

Blanchard, Joel. Capt. Simon Marston's Co., recruited for 
Rhode Island Expedition 1777. Son of Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., 
who was a tax payer in 1776. 

Blanchard, Reuben. Age 18. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Co. 
at West Point 1780. Enlisted for Concord 1781, but residence 
given as Canterbury. Son of Benjamin Blanchard, Jr., who was 
a tax payer 1776. 

Blanchard, Richard. Capt. James Shepard's Co. in 1776 at 
Cambridge. Train Band and Alarm List. Tax list 1775. 

Boynton, Edmund. Age 22. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. 
at Bunker Hill. At Quebec. With Capt. Clough and Capt. 
Abbot 1 in Canada 1776. Tax Hst 1775. 

Boynton, Joshua. Age 50. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. at 
Bunker Hill. Capt. Shepard's Co. Northern Army. Tax list 
1775. Signed association test. 

Brown, Abraham. Capt. Daniel Moore's Co., Col. John 
Stark's Regt. 1775. 

Brown, Theodore. Capt. Henry Elkins' Co., defence Piscata- 
qua Harbor 1775. 

Carr, Joseph. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 1776. 
Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band and Alarm List. Tax 
list 1776. Signed association -test. 

I Capt. Joshua Abbot. 


Carter, Samuel. Volunteer at Bennington. Tax list 1777. 

Chandler, Ebenezer. Age 21, also given as 25. Capt. Jere- 
miah Clough's Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. New- 
levies for Continental Army 1780. Directs wages as a soldier 
paid to selectmen of Canterbury. Tax list 1779. 

Chase, Dr. Josiah. Age 33. Sergeant in Capt. Jeremiah 
Clough's Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada. Volunteer at 
Bennington. Tax list 1775. 

Clement, William. Canterbury enlistments Sept. 18, 1776. 
Field driver 1782. 

Clement, Merrill. Age 17. New levies for Continental Army 
1780. Defence of Portsmouth 1779. May have been son of 
William Clement. 

Clough, Henry. Canterbury enlistments Sept, 18, 1776. 
Train Band. Signs association test. Tax list 1776. 

Clough, Capt. Jeremiah. Age 36. Commanded first company 
from Canterbury. Served in Canada 1776. Tax list 1776. 

Clough, Sergt. Joseph. Age 19. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's 
Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada. Canterbury Train Band. 
Highway surveyor 1786. 

Clough, Obadiah, Age 21. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Canterbury Train Band. High- 
way surveyor 1786. Signed association test. 

Colby, Daniel. Canterbury enlistments March 23, 1781. 

Colby, Edmund. Canterbury enlistments March 23, 1781. 
Train Band. Signs association test. Tax list 1776. 

Colby, Humphrey. Age 34. Capt. Jeremiah* Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Train Band. Tax list 1776. 

Colby, Samuel. Enlisted for Rhode Island Expedition 1778. 
Signed association test. Tax list 1775. 

Collins, Benjamin. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 
1776. Train Band and Alarm List. Tax list 1775. Signed 
association test. 

Cross, John. Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band and 
Alarm List. ReHef of Ticonderoga 1777. Tax fist 1776. Signed 
association test. 

Cross, Moses. Capt. James Shepard's Co., Northern Army 

Cross, Parker. With Capt. Jeremiah Clough in Canada. 

Cross, Thomas. Age 18. With Capt. Clough and Capt. 
Abbot in Canada 1776. New levies for Continental Army 1780. 
Train Band and Alarm List. 

Cummings, Isaac. Age 23. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. 
at Bunker Hill. Tax fist 1776. 

Curry, John. Age 21. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. With 
Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. Tax list 1775. 

Curry, Thomas. Volunteer at Bennington. Capt. Benj. 


Sias' Co. Rhode Island Expedition 1778. Capt. Nathaniel 
Head's Co. 1781. Hogreeve 1781. 

Danforth, Moses. Age 21. Given as of Sanbornton in Capt. 
Jeremiah dough's Co. Signs association test in Sanbornton. 
Enlists from Canterbury for Loudon March 7, 1781. U. S. 
Census of 1790. 

Danforth, Ezekiel. Capt. James Shepard's Co., Continental 
Army 1776. 

Davies, Ephraim. Age 24. Capt. James Shepard's Co. 
Continental Army 1776. Capt. John Drew's Co., Col. Nathan 
Hale's Regt. 1777. Tax list 1774. 

Davies, John. Age 20. Capt. James Shepard's Co. Con- 
tinental service 1776. Capt. John Drew's Co., Col. Nathan 
Hale's Regt. 1777. John Davis was a field driver 1784. 

Davis, Moses. Enlisted from Canterbury July 4, 1780. Tax 
list 1779. 

Davis, Obadiah. With Capt. Cloiigh and Capt. Abbot in 
Canada 1776. Train Band and Alarm list. Tax list 1777. 

Dearborn,^ John. Age 19. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Capt. James Shepard's Co., 
Northern Army. Train Band and Alarm List. 

Dearborn,^ Nathaniel. Age 24. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's 
Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada. Volunteer at Bennington. 
Train Band and Alarm List. Signed association test. Tax list 

Dearborn,^ Shubael, Jr. Age 21. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's 
Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada. Capt. James Shepard's 
Co., Northern Army. Canterbury Train Band and Alarm 
List. Tax hst 1776. 

Drew,^ Benoni. Age 17. In new levies for Continental Army 
1780. Canterbury returns of enlistments 1781. Capt. Den- 
net's Co. 2 N. H.'Regt. Feb. 15, 1781. 

Durgin, Joseph. Rehef of Ticonderoga, 1777. Tax list 1776. 
Signed association test. 

Dyer, William. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at Fort Edward. Vol- 
unteer at Saratoga. Canterbury Train Band and Alarm List. 
Signed association test. Tax hst 1776. 

Elliot, John. Age 20. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. En- 
listed in Mass. Regt. as from Canterbury. Mass Rolls, Vol. V, 
page 288. At Bunker Hill as of Boscawen. 

Elhson, Joseph. Enlisted from Canterbury for Loudon March 
7, 1781 for 3 years. Train Band. 

Fletcher, Phineas. First Co., Col. Joseph Cilley's Regt. 1781. 
Tax Hst 1776. 

iSons of Shubael Dearborn, senior. History of Northfield, Part II, page 83. 

= There is a reference to a claim of Benoni Drew and Charles Glidden against 
Canterbury in the town records, June 16, 1800. It may have been on 
account of service in the Revolution. 


Forrest, John. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at Fort Edward. Vol- 
unteer at Saratoga. Train Band. Signed association test. 
Tax list 1776. 

Forrest, Robert. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. With Capt. 
Clough in Canada. Enlisted from Canterbury for Loudon 
March 19, 1781. 

Forrest, William, Jr. Age 42. At Bunker Hill. With Capt. 
Clough in Canada. At Quebec. Capt. James Shepard's Co. 
Northern Army. In new levies for Continental Armj'- 1780. 
Signed association test. Tax list 1775. 

Forrest, William, 3d. Age 22, also given as 25. Capt. Jere- 
miah Clough's Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada. Capt. 
James Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 1776. Rhode Island Expedi- 
tion 1778. Volunteer at Bennington. Tax Hst 1775. 

Foss, Ebenezer. Age 21 in 1780. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. 
at Fort Edward. Volunteer at Saratoga. In new levies for 
Continental Army 1780. Directs wages as soldier paid to select- 
men of Canterbury 1781. 

Foss, John. Capt. James Shepard's Co. Northern Army 
1776. Tax list 1777. 

Foss, Thomas. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Capt. Benj. 
Sias' Co. Rhode Island Expedition August, 1778. Signs associa- 
tion test. Tax list 1775. Highway surveyor 1775. 

Foster, Asa. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Co. at West Point 
1780. Enhsted for Canterbury July 4, 1780. Canterbury 
Train Band. Son of Asa Foster who signed association test. 

Foster, Daniel. Enlisted from Canterbury July 4, 1780. 
Son of the Daniel Foster who signed the association test. 

Foster, Jonathan. Age 26. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Capt. James Shepard's Co., 
Northern Army. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co., Rhode Island Expedi- 
tion August 1778. Rehef of Ticonderoga 1777. Capt. Ebenezer 
Webster's Co. 1777. Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band. 
Signed association test. Tax list 1775. 

Foster, WiUiam. Enlisted from Canterbury July 4, 1780. 
Defence of Portsmouth 1779. Probably son of Rev. Abiel Foster. 

Fowler, Abner. Enlisted for 3 years or war in Col. Thomas 
Stickney's Regt. 1777. Tax Hst 1776. 

Gault, William. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Tax list 1776. 
Signed association test. 

Gerrish, Samuel. Enlisted from Canterbury Sept. 18, 1776. 
Capt. Benjamin Emery's Co., Continental Army, N. Y., 1776 
Train Band. Signs association test. Tax list 1776. 

Gibson, Enoch. Age 23. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Tax hst 1785. 

Gibson, James, Jr. Age 19. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. Rhode Island Expedition 



1778. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Co. 1777. Son of James Gib- 
son, Sr., who was on tax list 1776. 

Gibson, Jeremiah. Age 25. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Tax list 1771. 

Gilman, Lieut. Thomas. First lieutenant. Col. Thomas Stick- 
ney's Regt. 1776. Tax hst 1776. Train Band. 

Glidden, Lieut. Charles. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. With 
Capt. Clough and Capt. Abbot in Canada 1776. Alarm 
List. Tax hst 1776. 

Glines, Benjamin. Age 17. In new levies for Continental 
Army 1780. Directs wages as soldier paid to selectmen of Can- 
terbury 1781. 

Glines, Israel. EnHsted from Canterbury Sept. 18, 1776. 
May have been a resident of Concord at this time. 

Glines, Lieut. James. 2d Lieut., Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 

1776. Tax hst 1776. 

Glines, Joseph. With Capt. Clough and Capt. Abbot in 
Canada 1776. Tax hst 1776. 

Ghnes, Nathaniel. Age 28. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. at 
Bunker Hill. Capt. James Shepard's Co., Northern Army, 
Enlisted for 3 years or war in Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 

1777. Capt. Ebenezer Frye's Co., Col. Joseph Cilley's Regt. 
1777 and 1778. Signs association test. Tax hst 1776. Train 

Glines, Richard. Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band. 
Tax list 1776. Signed association test. 

Ghnes, William, Jr. Volunteer at Saratoga. Canterbury 
returns of enhstments 1781. Train Band. Tax list 1776. 
Signed association test. 

Ghnes, William, 3d. Age 24. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at 
Fort Edward. Canterbury returns of enlistments. Relief of 
Ticonderoga 1777. Train Band and Alarm List. Tax hst 1776. 

Goodwin, Samuel. Capt. John Calef's Co. and Capt. Titus 
Saltus' Co. Fort Washington 1775. 

Guile, Jonathan. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at Fort Edward. 
Rehef of Ticonderoga 1777. Volunteer at Saratoga. Train 
Band. Signs association test. Tax hst 1776. 

Hacket, Ensign Jeremiah. Ensign, Col. Thomas Stickney's 
Regt. 1776. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Train Band. Tax 
list 1776. Signed association test. 

Haines, Richard. Age 26. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
Train Band. Signs association test. Tax list 1776. 

Haines, Samuel. Age 28. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Capt. James Shepard's Co., 
Northern Army. Train Band. Signs association test. Tax hst 


Haines, Walter. Age 25. Capt. Frj^e's Co. at Valley Forge 
1778. Enlisted for 3 years or war in Col. Thomas Stickney's 
Regt. 1777. Capt. Ebenezer Frye's Co., Col. Joseph Ciller's 
Regt. 1777 and 1778. Train Band. Signed association test. 
Tax list 1776. 

Haynes, Stephen. Capt. James Shepard's Co., Northern 
Army. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Train Band. Highway 
surveyor 1782. 

Hancock, George. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 
1776. Train Band and Alarm List. Highway survej^or 1777. 

Hancock, Jacob. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 

Hancock, Joseph. With Capt. Clough and Capt. Abbot in 
Canada 1776. Rehef of Ticonderoga 1777. Volunteer at 
Bennington. Train Band and Alarm List. Deer keeper 1774. 

Hastings, Robert. Enlisted in Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 
for 3 years or war 1777. Signed association test. Tithingman 

Hastings, James. Enlisted in Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 
for 3 5'ears or war 1777. 

Heath, Sergeant Benjamin. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at 
Cambridge 1776 and Northern Army. Train Band. Signed 
association test. Tax list 1776. 

Heath, Jacob. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Train Band 
and Alarm List. Tax list 1776. Signed association test. 

Heath, Lieut. Jonathan. Age 35. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's 
Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. 
Rhode Island Expedition August 1778. Train Band and Alarm 
List. Tax list 1776. 

Holden, John. Age 28. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. at 
Bunker Hill. With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. Enhsted 
Col. Thomas Sticlcney's Regt. for 3 rears or war 1777. Tax list 

Hoyt, Abner. Canterbury returns of enlistments 1781. 
Train Band. Signed association test. 

Hoyt, Thomas. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 

1776. Enhsted Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. for 3 years or war 

1777. Train Band. Signs association test. Tax list 1776. 
Huniford (Hanaford), Peter. Volunteer at Bennington. 

Train Band and Alarm List. Signed association test. 

Johnson, Benjamin. Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band. 
Tax list 1776. Signed association test. 

Keniston, David. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 
1776. Relief of Ticonderoga. Volunteer at Bennington. Train 
Band and Alarm List. 

Kezer, Corp. Edmund. Capt. Ebenezer Frye's Co. 1777. 
Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Train Band. Tax list 1776. 


Kezer, Reuben. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Co., Northern 
Army 1777. Tax list 1780. 

Kimball, Ebenezer. 2d Lieut. Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 
1776. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. Rhode Island Expedition 1778. 
Train Band. Signed association test. Tax list 1776. 

Lougee, John. Rhode Island Expedition 1778. Capt. Ben- 
jamin Sias' Co. Tax list 1780. 

Lovejoy, John. Volunteer at Bennington. Rehef of Ticon- 
deroga 1777. Tax Hst 1779. 

Lyford, John. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. Rhode Island Expedition 
1778. If of Canterbury may have been son of John Lyford who 
signed association test and who was a tax payer 1776. 

Lyford, Lieut. Thomas. Age 35. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's 
Co. Lieut., in Major Benjamin Whitcomb's rangers 1776 to 

Miles, Abner. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. Rhode Island Expedition 
1778. Train Band. Signed association test. Tax list 1776. 

Miles, Wilham. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. Capt. James Shepard's 
Co. at Cambridge 1776. Rhode Island Expedition 1778. Train 
Band. Tax list 1776. Signed association test. 

Moore, Elkins. With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. En- 
listed Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. for 3 years or war 1777. 
Returns of enlistments 1781. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Co. at 
West Point 1780. 

Moore, Ephraim. Capt. Simon Marston's Co. Rhode Island 
Expedition 1777. Capt. Benjamin Sias' Co. Rhode Island 
Expedition 1778. 

Moore, Ezekiel. Age 16. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at forts in 
Piscataqua Harbor. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's Co. at West 
Point 1780. Born in Canterbury; son of Nathaniel Moore, a tax 
payer 1776. 

Moore, John. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. Rhode Island Expedition 
1778. Train Band. Signed association test. Tax hst 1776. 

Moore, Joseph. With Capt. Clough and Capt. Abbot in 
Canada 1776. Highway surveyor 1786. 

Moore, Sampson. See Sampson Battis. 

Moore, William, Jr. Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band. 

Morrill, Abraham. Volunteer at Bennington. Relief of 
Ticonderoga 1777. Train Band. Son of Dea. Ezekiel Morrill. 

Morrill, Lieut. David. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at Fort Edward. 
Volunteer at Saratoga. Signed association test. Tax list 1775. 
Son of Dea. Ezekiel Morrill. 

Morrill, Ezekiel. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at Fort Edward. 
Rhode Island Expedition 1778. Son of Dea. Ezekiel Morrill. 

Morrill, Lieut. Laban. Volunteer at Bennington. Men- 
tioned as officer in Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. Train 


Band. Signed association test. Tax list 1776. Son of Deacon 
Ezekiel Morrill. 

Morrill, Masten. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. With Capt. 
Clough in Canada. Capt. Benj. Sias' Co. at Fort Edward 
1777. Volunteer at Saratoga. Signed association test in Lou- 
don. Tithingman 1777. Held office in Canterbury 1779 to 
1782. Son of Deacon Ezekiel Morrill. 

Morrill, Sargent. Enlisted from Canterbury Sept. 18, 1776. 
Train Band. Signed association test. Son of Deacon Ezekiel 

Norris, Sergt. David. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Train 
Band and Alarm List. Tax list 1776. Signed association test. 

Pallet, Nathaniel. Enlisted from Canterbury Sept. 18, 1776. 
Train Band. Signed association test. 

Perkins, Nathaniel. Age 20. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. 
at Bunker Hill. Train Band and Alarm List. Signed associa- 
tion test. Tax list 1776. 

Perkins, William Adams. Age 18. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' 
Co. at Bunker Hill. Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band 
and Alarm List. 

Peterson, John. Age 21. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 

Randall, Daniel. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. With Capt. 
Clough in Canada. Train Band. Tax list 1776. 

Reid, John. Age 30. Negro. Capt. Ebenezer Frye's Co. at 
Valley Forge January 10, 1778. Also given as of Canterbury 
but enlisting for Chichester. (N. H. State Papers, Vol. XIV, 
page 606.) 

Rines (Rhines), William. Capt. James Shepard's Co., North- 
ern Army. Canterbury returns of enlistments 1781. Tax list 

Robinson, Simeon. Age 23. Drummer Capt. Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada. Train Band. Signed asso- 
ciation test. Tax list 1776. 

Rowen,^ Andrew. Capt. James Gray's Co. Col. Alexander 
Scammel's Regt. Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. Enlisted for 
3 years or war, 1777. 

Rowen,^ John. At Bunker Hill. Capt. Benjamin Sias' Co., 
destined for New York 1776. Capt. James Gray's Co., Col. 
Alexander Scammel's Regt. Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt. 
EnUsted for 3 years or war 1777. Signs association test. 

Sanborn, Simon. Age 19. Capt. Clough's Co. With Capt. 
Clough in Canada. Capt. Benjamin Sias' Co. 1776. Train Band. 
Volunteer at Bennington. 

Sargent, Aaron. Age 20. At Bunker Hill. Capt. Henr}^ 
Dearborn's Co. Quebec Expedition. Taken prisoner. Train 
Band. Tax list 1776. Signed association test. 

1 Claimed as Sanborton soldiers. Historj^ of Sanbornton. 


Shannon, George. Age 32. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. 
Killed at Bunker Hill. Tax list of 1774. 

Shepard, Capt. James. At Cambridge with company, 1776. 
Commanded a company in the Continental Army 1776. Capt. 
Canterbury Train Band. Tax list 1776. Signed association 

Shepard, George. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. Capt. James 
Shepard's Co. Northern Army. Col. Thomas Stickney's Regt., 
enlisted for 3 years or war 1777. At Camp Danbury Dec. 8, 
1779, Capt. McGregore's Co. Capt. Dennet's Co. 2d N. H. 
Regt. Feb. 15, 1781. 

Shepard, Morrill. Canterbury returns of enlistments 1781. 
U. S. Census of 1790. 

Sherburne, James. Age 24. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. 
With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. Volunteer at Bennington. 
Tax list 1776. 

Simons, Eli. Age 40. Capt. Jeremiah Clough's Co. Signed 
association test. Hogreeve 1775. 

Simons, William. Capt. James Shepard's Co., Northern 
Army. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Capt. Ebenezer Webster's 
Co. 1777. Field driver 1776. Tax hst 1776. 

Sinclair (Sinkler), Noah. Age 21. At one time of Epsom. 
Enlisted for Loudon. Capt. Henry Dearborn's Co. 1775. Field 
driver 1787. Tithingman 1788. 

Soper, Lieut. Joseph. Age 38. Lieut, in Capt. Gordon 
Hutchins' Co. With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. Sealer of 
leather 1775. 

Stevens, Jesse. Relief of Ticonderoga 1777. Train Band. 

Sutton, John. Capt. Nathaniel Head's Co., Col. Reynolds' 
Regt. 1781. Directs wages as soldier paid to Capt. Laban Mor- 
rill 1781. Son of widow Margaret Sutton who was on tax list 

Sutton, Michael. Canterbury returns for enlistments 1781. 
Col. Cilley's Regt. 1st Co. enlisted for 3 years or war. 
Train Band. Son of widow Margaret Sutton who was on tax 
list 1776. 

Sutton, Stephen. Capt. James Shepard's Co. at Cam- 
bridge 1776. Capt. Benjamin Sias' Co., destined for New 
York 1776. Volunteer at Bennington. Train Band. Hogreeve 
1786. Son of widow Margaret Sutton who was on tax list 

Weeks, Joshua. Age 27. Given as of Loudon in Capt. Clough's 
Co. EnUsted at Canterbury Sept. 18, 1776. Train Band. 
Signed association test. Tax list 1776. 

Williams, William. Capt. Shepard's Co. at Cambridge 1776. 
Tax hst 1776. 

Young, Jotham. Capt. Gordon Hutchins' Co. At Bunker 


Hill. With Capt. Clough in Canada 1776. Relief of Ticon- 
deroga 1777. Tax list of 1776. 

Wadleigh, Jonathan. Bunker Hill. Train Band and Alarm 

Note — In the History of Northfield, Part I, pages 71 and 72, the following 
who are enumerated above and whose identity with Canterbury is not other- 
wise shown are claimed as citizens of Northfield which was set off from Can- 
terbury in 1780: Elias Abbott, Abraham and Theodore Brown, Moses Cross, 
Parker Cross, Ezekiel Danforth, Samuel Goodwin, Jacob Hancock and Thomas 



It was towards the close of the Revolutionary War when the 
Rev. Abiel Foster "laid down preaching" in Canterbury. "The 
state of religion was low," according to the Rev. WiUiam Patrick.^ 
Twelve years were to intervene before the town had another 
settled minister. Of the contributing causes to this condition 
perhaps none was more discouraging than the condition of the 
meeting house which the proprietors had been so long in 
building. For more than two decades after its acceptance by 
the inhabitants in 1756 nothing had been done to improve its 
appearance or enhance its comfort. When it was turned over 
to the town, the building was at best a crude affair. It had been 
boarded and the roof shingled, but the sides had not been clap- 
boarded. Within there was neither plaster nor sheathing upon 
its walls. There must have been many a crevice in the rough 
boarding through which the cold winds penetrated. So long as 
it was used for church purposes, which was as late as 1824, there 
was no way of heating it. If after a quarter of a century of serv- 
ice the roof did not leak during the summer shower, it cannot 
be said to have afforded more protection to its inmates during 
the inclement winter season than the settlers' barns did to their 

Large, square pews, "pen-Uke affairs," as described by one who 
saw them, had been built, but not all of the floor space was 
taken by these, for as late as 1789 it was voted "to sell the pew 
ground not heretofore disposed of at public vendue" in improv- 
ing the external and internal appearance of the structure. The 
high pulpit with its sounding board alone distinguished its reli- 

> Historical Sermon, Rev. William Patrick, October 27, 1833. 


gious use from the secular affairs that were conducted within the 
portals of the building. A more cheerless sanctuary seldom 
greeted a congregation and preacher. Small wonder that those 
who were called to minister to these people came, saw and sought 
other fields of labor, or that, of the inhabitants residing in those 
distant parts of the town which in 1773 and 1780 became Loudon 
and Northfield, none was counted in the membership of the 

Yet the faithful few struggled on to complete the meeting 
house and add to its convenience and appearance. At the 
annual meeting in 1780, the town was asked to erect galleries. 
A committee was appointed to look up the money received from 
the sale of the pew ground in the body of the house and apply it 
for this purpose. The pews in the galleries were to be sold at 
public auction to the highest bidder. The work evidently pro- 
ceeded slowly, as five years later, when the question of the repair 
of the meeting house came up for consideration, it was voted 
"To lay the gallery floor, put rails on the breast of the galleries 
and put pillars under the gallery girths." The town also voted 
at this time "To shingle and clapboard the foreside of the meet- 
ing house and clapboard the west end and repair the east end." 

How the building was viewed by the inhabitants is shown by 
articles in the warrant for the town meeting, February 1, 1785. 
They read as follows: 

"Secondly, to see if the inhabitants will take measures for 
repairing the meeting house in said town and, if so, how much 
they will do towards repairing and fitting it up, and, if not, 

"Thirdly, to see if they will take it down and build a new one." 

The town voted to repair and to move the building across the 
road if it could be done by subscription. Lieut. David Morrill, 
Nehemiah Clough and David Foster were the committee ap- 
pointed to make repairs. 

The work does not appear to have been done at this time, for 
a town meeting was called February 26, 1789, "To see if the 
town will vote to raise a sum of money to repair the meeting 
house and to build another house for the purpose of public wor- 
ship in the northeast part of the town,^ and, if not, to see if 
they will vote to take down the old meeting house and build a 
new house for that purpose." 

1 Historical Sermon, Rev. William Patrick, October 27, 1833. 

2 This clause refers to the old "Shell Church" at Hackleborough. 


At this meeting it was voted to repair the meeting house and 
to choose a committee to see how much the pew holders should 
pay towards the repairs. At an adjourned meeting, this com- 
mittee having made its report, it was "Voted Benjamin Blanch- 
ard to clapboard and shingle the foreside of our meeting house 
for thirty-four dollars worth of neat stock at cash price and have 
the work done by the last of June next." A further committee 
was appointed to see that the work was done "workmanlike." 

It was also voted that the meeting house "be removed on the 
north side of the road back of the meeting house." The build- 
ing then stood within the present limits of the cemetery at 
Canterbury Center. The inference drawn from this vote is that 
the back of the building faced the present highway. It was 
removed to where the present watering trough stands. 

Two more town meetings that year were necessary before the 
work was fully outhned. At that held June 9, 1789, it was 
voted to sell the pew ground "for four pews in the front, one in 
each front corner, and the wall pews in the gallery" and to lay 
out the money in making two porches at each end of the meet- 
ing house and in fitting up the building. At the second meeting 
this month £18 additional was voted towards repairs. In 1790 
two more pews in the gallery were sold and the proceeds applied 
to repairs, and again in 1792 a further appropriation was made 
for improvements. This ended the struggle, and for the next 
generation the building was not disturbed by sound of ax or 
hammer or changed in any respect. An account of the trials 
and tribulations incident to the transformation of this meeting 
house into a town house is reserved for a subsequent chapter 
pertaining to a later period. 

Coincident with the efforts made to finish the meeting house 
were the attempts to maintain preaching. At the annual meet- 
ing in 1779 it was "voted to raise five hundred dollars to hire 
preaching at present," and Lieut. Laban Morrill, Capt. Jeremiah 
Clough and Archelaus Moore were appointed a committee to 
expend the money. The value of the dollar at this time may 
be judged by another vote of the town to raise four thousand 
dollars for highways to be worked out at the rate of eight dollars 
per day. The Rev. Mr. Cummings was employed to preach 
until the following May. 

At a special meeting the following October the town voted to 


raise an additional j&fteen hundred dollars for preaching, and 
Masten ]\Iorrill, Dr. Josiah Chase and Samuel Haines were 
appointed a committee "to lay out the money." 

In May 1780, a committee was appointed "to treat with the 
Rev. Mr. Prince to see if they can hire him for one year." He 
was to have six bushels of Indian corn or its equivalent in money 
"for each and every day he shall supply the desk in our meeting 
house within one year from this time, he finding himself." The 
use of the parsonage "on the fore side of the meeting house" was 
also given to him. Whether Mr. Prince showed any inclination 
to accept the offer does not appear, but a year later the town 
voted not to settle him for any length of time. In the follow- 
ing March it was voted "to raise so much money for preaching 
this year as vn.l\ pay for 26 days preaching." September 11, 
1781, the Rev. John Strickland was invited to preach with a view 
to settlement, and December 3 he was given a call. His com- 
pensation was to be £70 annually for salary and £90 additional 
for his settlement. Negotiations with Mr. Strickland continued 
for about three months. While these were pending, ministers 
from the neighboring towns were invited to assist in framing a 
plan for uniting the people in support of the gospel and a day of 
fasting was appointed. Although the plan of union submitted 
by these ministers was accepted and additional offers made to Mr. 
Strickland, including a vote that his salary should be paid once 
in six months, notice that he had declined the call was received 
February 25, 1782. 

At a meeting held a month later, an article in the warrant "to 
see if the town will raise money to hire preaching or to take any 
measures to provide for supplying the desk" was voted in the 
negative. Until the annual meeting in 1783 the people were 
without the services of a minister, unless voluntary itinerants 
appeared or the Rev. Abiel Foster supplied the pulpit. Small 
sums were voted in 1783 and 1784 for preaching, and in July the 
latter year the town "voted that Mr. (Tilly) Howe be improved 
here in this town, to supply our pulpit as a probationer for settling 
with us in the ministry, for three months yet to come." Mr. 
Howe supphed the pulpit for about a year, but a call to settle 
in town was declined July 20, 1786. 

The next minister to be engaged was the Rev. Ebenezer Allen. 
He appears to have preached in Canterbury about nine months, 


from the summer of 1787 to the last of February 1788. The 
town voted to call him, paying him £60 per annum, with an 
offer of "£90 lawful money, to be paid in neat stock, for settle- 
ment." He was also to have "cut and hauled for him at his 
place of residence 20 cords of wood 12 feet long," as the record 
reads. A committee was appointed to propose a subscription 
in behalf of Mr. Allen's salary. 

From early in 1788 until the March meeting in 1790 there is 
no reference in the town books to preaching. At the latter date 
£30 was appropriated for the support of the gospel, and again 
in October it was voted "that meetings be held at the east part 
of the town^ every fourth Sunday that there is preaching until 
the next annual meeting." As the Rev. Frederick Parker was 
called at this latter date for settlement, it is fair to presume that 
he had been preaching on probation prior to that time. He was 
given £75 salary and "the use of the parsonage adjoining the 
meeting house except those parts on which grain is now sown." 
For a settlement he was voted "the school lot or £80 lawful money 
at the rate 6 feet oxen at £12 per yoke." Mr. Parker accepted 
in a letter dated November 23, 1790, which is spread upon the 
records of the town. It is apparent from his reply that the 
people of Canterbury had at last become somewhat united in their 
support of the gospel and were most earnest and cordial in invit- 
ing Mr. Parker to settle among them. He was installed Jan- 
uary 5, 1791. The pastorate of Mr. Parker continued for nearly 
twelve years and was satisfactory to the people, although dissent 
to the doctrines of the Congregational Church began to be man- 
ifest before its close. 

Mr. Parker was born in Shrewsbury, Mass., May 4, 1762, and 
graduated at Harvard College in 1784. After graduation, he 
taught school about two years in Portland, Me., where, after 
the reestablishment of Episcopal worship in 1785, he was em- 
ployed to read prayers, and continued nearly two years in that 
service. Later he joined the Congregational Church and was 
ordained in its ministry, preaching in several places as a candi- 
date before he came to Canterbury. He died very suddenly at 
Canterbury, April 21, 1802. His death was a shock to the com- 
munity, by whom he was highly respected. The town voted to 
pay his funeral expenses and to give to his widow the use of the 

1 At Hackleborough. 


parsonage for the remainder of the year. The Rev. William 
Patrick says: "From all that I have been able to learn of Mr. 
Parker, I conclude that he was a man of strong intellectual 
powers, a quick discerning apprehension, having a good acquaint- 
ance with human nature. His religious sentiments were mod- 
erate Calvinism. His death occurred in the fortieth year of his 
age, and his funeral sermon was preached by the Rev. Joseph 
Woodman of Sanbornton."^ 

At a meeting held in May, 1802, a committee was appointed to 
hire preaching. The pulpit was supplied until July, 1803, when 
a call was given to the Rev. William Patrick to become the 
settled minister of the town. The yeas and nays were taken on 
this call and the vote was unanimous. As there was soon to be 
open dissent to both the support of the gospel by public taxa- 
tion and to the doctrine of the Congregational Church, it may 
be interesting to read the record of the names of those who were 
present at the town meeting and who voted to call Mr. Patrick. 
The following is the hst: 

Nehemiah Clough, Aaron Sargent, Jr., Dea, Asa Foster, Stephen 
Moore, William Moore, John Greenough, William Glines, Ben- 
jamin Bradley, Capt. Jonathan Foster, Zebadiah Sargent, David 
Foster, Reuben Morrill, Moses Cogswell, Abiel Foster, Jr., Jona- 
than Kittredge, Shubael Sanborn, Enoch Gerrish, Capt. John 
Palmer, John Carter, Elijah Sargent, Ebenezer Greenough, Daniel 
Randall, David Ames, Joseph Kimball, Jr., Reuben Moore, Jere- 
miah Clough, Jr., John Clough, Jeremiah Pickard, Jr., Nathan- 
iel Foster, Joseph Gerrish, Jesse Stevens, Jonathan Knowles, 
Abiel Foster, Esq., John Kimball, Benjamin Heath, Morrill 
Shephard, Robert Forrest, Nathaniel Batchelder, David Foster, 
Jr., Asa Foster, Jr., Nehemiah Clough, Jr., John Foster, Moses 
Long, Samuel Morrill, Ezekiel Moore, Thomas Ames, Samuel 
Moore, Jr., Leonard Whitney, Wilham Foster, Abel Wheeler, 
David McCrillis, Samuel Gerrish, Obadiah Mooney, Jr., William 
Moore, Jr., Samuel Mooney, Masten Morrill, Stephen Hall, 
Obadiah Clough, Nathan Emery. 

With the arrival of new settlers, land in distant parts of Can- 
terbury was -taken up and homes were built. The late comers 
had now penetrated to the northeast part of the town as far as 
Hill's Corner, in which locality there were several pioneers in 
1782, while in the Hackleborough district quite a number had 
located at an earlier date. The lack of highways made it a task 

' Historical Sermon, October 27, 1833, Rev. William Patrick. 


for the people of this section to attend church at the Center. 
They were taxed to support preaching, yet received but Httle of 
its benefits owing to the distance they were from the meeting 
house and the difficulty they had in getting there, especially in 
winter. Hence, it was probably upon their petition that the 
town was asked "to build another house for the purpose of pub- 
lic worship in the north east part of the town" at a meeting held 
February 26, 1789. If a vote was taken on this article in the 
warrant, it must have been to dismiss it, but in October, 1790, 
at the same time that a call was given to the Rev. Frederick 
Parker, it was voted to hold a meeting in the east part of the 
town every fourth Sunday that there was preaching. This con- 
cession did not satisfy the people of this section, for the next 
year they were again petitioning for a church of their own. 
Responding to this petition, the town voted "to build a meeting 
house in the east part of the town and set it at the cross roads 
to the south of Samuel Jackson's house." ^ An appropriation of 
£60 was made for the building, and Dea. Asa Foster, Nehe- 
miah Clough, Samuel Jackson, David Morrill, Moses Cogswell, 
Samuel Haines and Thomas Clough were appointed a committee 
to make a plan of the building. Some member of the committee 
must have had such a plan already prepared, for the town at the 
same meeting voted not to accept it and then and there decided 
that the structure should be "the same bigness on the ground 
of the old meeting house and a little higher." Winthrop Young, 
Joseph Ham, Thomas Lyford, David McCrilhs, Obadiah Clough 
and Capt. David Morrill were appointed a committee to laj' out 
the money on the building. Of the members of this committee, 
the first three were residents of the vicinity where the new meet- 
ing house was to be located. 

The new meeting house w^as raised, boarded and the roof 
shingled within a year, as a town meeting was called and held 
there in July, 1792. At this meeting it was voted to sell pews in 
the lower part of the house, to build a porch and "not to stop 
the two end doors with pews." The porch was to be so con- 
structed that the stairs to the gallery could be built therein. A 
committee was appointed at this meeting to make a plan of the 
pew ground, and, at an adjourned meeting held at the same place 
in August, this plan was accepted. One more town meeting 

lOld Shell Meeting House. 


that year was held at this meeting house for the purpose of vot- 
ing for members of Congress and presidential electors. Various 
efforts were made to finish the church. In 1796 an article in 
reference to it was formally dismissed without action by vote of 
the town. In 1802 a committee was chosen to inquire into the 
sale of the pews, ascertain who had paid, and learn how the 
money had been expended. This committee was to consult 
with those who bid off the pews and see on what condition they 
would relinquish their right to said pews, to value the new meet- 
ing house as it then stood and report to the next annual meeting. 
The records do not show the information contained in this report 
but, at the March meeting in 1802, the town voted to give the 
North Meeting House to those persons who had bought pews. 
In July, 1803, two thirds of Nathaniel Lougee's account for 
work done on the North Meeting House was allowed, "including 
what may hereafter be made to appear has been paid." At the 
March meeting in 1808, there was an article in the warrant "to 
see if the town will grant the privilege hereafter for town meet- 
ings to be held one half of the time at the North Meeting House 
or at the Baptist Meeting House." This article was defeated 
when put to a vote. 

This North Meeting House, which is known as the "Shell 
Church" because it was never finished, was located, according 
to the records, "at the cross roads south of Samuel Jackson's 
house." Myron C. Foster, recently deceased, always a resi- 
dent of this neighborhood, had no recollection of the building but 
said that, as a boy, he was informed that it stood in the corner 
where the road from Canterbury Center (via Hackleborough) 
to the Shakers is crossed by the road running north from the 
present Baptist Church (via Hackleborough) to Hill's Corner, on 
the east side of the latter road very near where the cemetery 
gate now is. When this cemetery was enlarged, the land on 
which the Shell Church stood was taken into the burying yard, 
but no trace of the building was then seen. It is the tradition 
of the neighborhood that it was blown down by a strong wind and 
that the framework and boards were afterwards used in the con- 
struction of the horse sheds back of the Congregational Church 
at the Center. How long it did service as a church there is no 
record. It is probable that religious services were held in it for 
several years. The late Betsey Mathes attended there as a 


child and had a vivid recollection of the noise made by one of the 
old men with his cane as he walked over the loose boards of 
the floor. 

In spite of its unfinished condition, the Free Will Baptists, 
whose following was then attracting attention, asked permission 
to use it soon after the building was erected, but, at the March 
meeting in 1793, the town "voted not to grant the Baptists leave 
to bring their minister into the North Meeting House." The 
next year the Free Will Baptist Church at Canterbury was organ- 
ized and received as a member of the New Durham quarterly 
meeting. Services were undoubtedly held at private houses 
in this neighborhood for the next few years, as Winthrop Young 
was ruling elder in October, 1795, and ordained as pastor of the 
Free Will Baptist Church, June 28, 1796. Six years later, the 
Baptists again made application for the use of this meeting 
house, but the town took no formal action upon their request, 
yet, when a month later they asked upon what conditions they 
could have the building, the town voted to give it to those per- 
sons who had bought the pews. This was in March, 1802, and 
in December that year the Baptist Society voted to build a 
meeting house of their own on the site of their present church, 
which they completed in 1803. A little broader religious tol- 
erance at that time might have secured the completion of this 
almost forgotten North Meeting House and would undoubtedly 
have deferred the building of the Baptist Church in another 
part of the town and delayed the erection of the Union Church 
at Hill's Corner. 

At a special meeting September 14, 1814, the North Meeting 
House was referred to in a vote of the town describing a change 
in the location of a highway, and apparently at that time the 
building was intact. 

Six months later, at the annual meeting March 14, 1815, there 
was an article in the warrant, "To see if the town will choose a 
committee to see what it is best to be done with the North Meet- 
ing House and report at said meeting or at a future meeting." 

The town appointed John Kimball, Col. David McCrillis, 
Jeremiah Pickard, Asa Foster, Esq., and Thomas Ames a com- 
mittee "to examine and report the situation of the North Meet- 
ing House (so called) tomorrow or at some future meeting and 
likewise what is best to be done with said house." 


The town meeting adjourned until the next day, when this 
committee made a report, which was not accepted. The sub- 
ject was again referred to this committee, and the reference and 
report is shown by the following record: 

"Voted that the examination of the North IVIeeting House be 
recommitted to the same men, who report that the North Meet- 
ing House be sold at public auction, time, place and articles of 
sale made known by the selectmen of said town. Accepted." 

This is the final record of this building. Whether it had 
blown down before this date or the collapse took place prior to 
the proposed sale, there is no one to give information. The 
town having voted to sell, the building not only disappears, 
but there remains no knowledge of the time and manner of its 

Between 1790, when it was voted to hold meetings every 
fourth Sundaj^ that there was preaching in the east part of the 
town, and 1792, when the "Shell Church" was so far completed 
as to be used for town meeting purposes, religious services must 
have been held at private houses in the Hackleborough neighbor- 
hood. After the "Shell Church" was abandoned, or collapsed, 
these services were held as often as once in two months at the 
house of Jeremiah Pickard, which was built in 1811. The 
arrangement of the hall and rooms of this house is said to have 
been planned with special reference to holding religious meetings 
therein. It was thus used for public worship until the Union 
Church at Hill's Corner was completed. The Pickard house is 
located on a farm once owned by Thomas and Joseph Lyford, 
who sold to Jeremiah Pickard when they separated, Thomas 
moving to Northfield and Joseph to the Borough of Canterbury, 
where IMrs. Winthrop D. Lyford and Joseph's descendants now 
reside. The old house is still standing which Jeremiah Pickard 
occupied until he built in 1811 and it is now used by Jeremiah's 
descendants for a shed and for storage. 

The increase of converts to the Baptist faith intensified the 
opposition already existing to the payment of taxes for the 
support of the gospel. It was a part of the movement 
throughout the state which resulted in the toleration act of New 
Hampshire a few years later. At a town meeting held Decem- 
ber 21, 1803, the following articles appeared in the warrant: 



"To see if the town will release from paying the minister tax 
the present year all those who have gotten certificates from Mr. 
Young's society prior to making the tax. 

"To see if the town will release from paying the minister tax 
the present year all those who have entered their dissent on the 
town book against said tax." 

The latter article the town voted to dismiss. At an adjourned 
meeting the former article was considered and the yeas and nays 
taken on a motion to relieve those from the tax who held certi- 
ficates from Elder Winthrop Young's society. The vote was 
as follows: 

Yeas — Laban Morrill, Joseph Ham, Moses Brown, John Kim- 
ball, Leavitt, Clough, Elijah Sargent, Obadiah Mooney, Jr. 

Nays — Abiel Foster, Esq., Ebenezer Greenough, Jonathan 
Blanchard, David Foster, Samuel Moore, Jr., Jonathan Moore, 
Henry Parkinson, Jesse Stevens, Joseph Gerrish, Philip Clough, 
Joseph Soper, Nehemiah Clough, William Glines, Zebadiah Sar- 
gent, Reuben Moore, Moses Cogswell, Jonathan Foster, Shubael 
Sanborn, Daniel Randall, Wilham Foster, Jacob Blanchard, 
David McCrillis, Enoch Gerrish, Asa Foster, Jr., Ezekiel Moore,. 
Leavitt Clough, Jr., Nehemiah Clough, Jr., Abiel Foster, Jr., 
William Moore, Jr., Nathan Emery, Josiah Moore, Samuel 
Gerrish, David Foster, Jr., Morrill Shepherd, Stephen Hall, 
William Randall, Dea. Asa Foster, Jonathan Kittredge, John 
Carter, John Glover, John Palmer. 

There are several protests recorded in the town records. One 
reads as follows: "We the subscribers, inhabitants of Canter- 
bury, hereby notify the Congregational Society of Canterbury 
that we consider it both illegal and unconstitutional that any 
person or persons by the authority of a town or society whatever 
lay a ministerial tax on any person or persons by the authority 
of a majority of a town or society vote, and we the undersigned 
hereby give notice that we are determined to pay no more minis- 
terial tax for the purpose of supporting any preaching or minister 
whatever in that way and manner after this date. Canterbury, 
February 16, A. D., 1803." 

Another protest specifies that the subscriber is not in accord 
with the Rev. William's Patrick's principles. The signatures 
to these several remonstrances are as follows: 


Jesse Ingalls, John Rawlings, Reuben French, James Lyford, 
Nathaniel Ingalls, Samuel Robinson, Ebenezer Parker, Nathaniel 
Pallet, William Bro^^'n, Benjamin Simpson, John Johnson, 
Charles Beck, John Peverly, Henry Beck, Jr., Ebenezer Parker, 
Samuel Haines, Jr., Joseph Clough, Samuel Haines, 3d, Miles 
Hodgdon, Jacob Blanchard, Edmund Stevens, Joseph Pallet, 
Enoch Emery, Joseph Pallet, Jr., Samuel Haines, Henry Beck, 
Joseph Lyford, William Simpson. 

The attention of the people at this time was not wholly en- 
grossed with religious matters, though, so long as they were taxed 
for the support of the gospel, this subject continued to occupy a 
prominent place at their annual and special town meetings. 
The education of the children which is considered fully in another 
chapter ^ was not wholly neglected when the voters met for delib- 
eration on public affairs. Early efforts Avere made to provide 
schools, but it was more than a decade after the Revolution that 
schoolhouses were built. The poverty of the people, the scarcity 
of teachers, the Indian wars and the sacrifice necessary to main- 
tain the contest with Great Britain, all contributed to the 
interruptions which the records show to have occurred in the 
provisions for education. There were several years in succession 
at different periods when no appropriation was made for the 
instruction of the youth of the town. This, however, was in 
accord with the condition which prevailed in other parts of New 
England for a portion of the eighteenth century. 

The early settlers were able with neighborly helpfulness to 
meet all the misfortunes incident to sickness, accidents, failure 
of crops and loss of their live stock through disease or the depre- 
dations of wild animals and the Indians. Few in number and 
dependent upon one another, all cases of poverty and affliction 
were met by contributions of the more fortunate. As the town 
grew in population and the people accumulated property, not 
all of the newcomers were enterprising settlers. The Revo- 
lutionary War unsettled conditions, and toward its close there 
drifted to Canterbury, as well as to other communities, discharged 
soldiers and others without occupation and without means of 
support. The thriftless appeared even in the frontier towns 
and became in time a public charge. The first reference in the 
records to the support of the poor is at the annual meeting in 

' Chapter on schools. 


1779, when it was "Voted that the selectmen take charge of 

's family and bind them out as the laws of the state in their 

ease (are) made and provided." 

At the annual meeting in 1793, Dr. Jonathan Kittridge's 
bill "for doctoring ■ — ■ — 's family" was paid by vote of the town. 
Three years later the town's poor were sold at auction. Capt. 
Jonathan Foster, Masten Morrill and Enoch Emery being the 
successful bidders. In October, 1797, another unfortunate was 
"bid off to Capt. David Morrill and he to have $5 for keeping 
her until the March meeting." At the annual meeting in 1803, 
Stephen Hall was voted $23.50 to keep the same party for one 
year, and Dea. David Kent was "voted $1 per week to keep 
a year, if he lived so long." 

At these auctions of the poor, the lowest and successful bidder 
was to house, feed and clothe the unfortunates for a specified 
time, and he gave bonds to the selectmen to fulfil his contract. 
He was entitled to their labor, however, if they were able to 
work. The women usually did the drudgery of the household 
and the men and boys the chores and such labor in the fields as 
they were fitted to perform or as could be wrung out of them. 
The physical condition of the pauper and his ability to work 
were taken into consideration by the bidder in naming the price 
he would accept from the town for keeping him. Sometimes 
the poor had the good fortune to be bid off by kind and consider- 
ate families, but too often it was the case that their treatment was 
harsh and they were inadequately fed and clothed. No stories 
are extant of those in Canterbury who ill treated the poor that 
were confided to their care. The few bidders named in the 
records of the town were reputable men and were undoubtedly 
as humane in their treatment of the unfortunate as the times 
demanded. But he who, discontented with the present, sighs 
for the "good old times of the fathers" has but to read the 
pubhc records of those times to be convinced that civihzation 
has made rapid strides since the eighteenth and the early part of 
the nineteenth centuries. At the annual meeting in 1791, two 
overseers of the poor were elected in Canterbury. As the poor 
were still let out to the lowest bidder, the duties of these overseers 
must have been to look after the welfare of the unfortunates and 
see that they were not misused. 

Among the papers of the town was found the following notice 


of the sale of paupers as late as 1825, four years prior to the 
purchase of a poor farm by the town.^ 

"We the subscribers, selectmen of Canterbury, will dispose of 
all the to\\'n paupers on Tuesday the 15th day of the present 
month at the store of Richard Greenough at one o'clock P. M. by 
receiving proposals from such persons wishing to contract for 
them, Canterbury March 9, 1825. 

Joseph Ham, Jr. ^ 

Joseph Lyford, Jr. ^ Selectmen. 

Samuel Tallant. J 

A list of the paupers is given in the notice. It includes two 
families, a man and his wife, a woman and child, three single 
women and four single men. 

Two bills of Richard Greenough for supplies furnished the 
selectmen, dated 1820 and 1826, contain these items: 

"To 2 quarts of Rum when the poor was let out, $1.00. 
"To 7 quarts of W. I. Rum when the paupers were disposed 
of 82.63." 

The records indicate that there were few cases of poverty in 
Canterbury that were not relieved by relatives and neighbors. 
The exceptions for the most part were of people who were without 
kindred in town but who had been inhabitants long enough to 
secure a settlement and to become a charge upon the community. 
For well-to-do people to have those near of kin to them sold as 
paupers or, at a later period, sent to the town farm, was considered 
as much of a disgrace as to have these same relatives convicted 
of crime. Therefore, when misfortunes came, not only were 
the immediate neighbors moved to action but the town occasion- 
ally voted relief. An instance of this kind occurred at the annual 
meeting in 1788, when the town "Voted to give Joseph Sanborn 
his town tax for the year 1787 on account of the loss he met with 
by fire." Insurance companies did not then exist and destruction 
of buildings by the flames meant total loss to the owners. In 
1782 it was voted that "Granny Simons be exempted from her 
rates for one cow, always." 

Complaints of poor highways did not begin with the incoming 
of the twentieth century and the general use of automobiles. 
As early as 1784, there was evidence of neglect in Canterbury 

1 For account of poor farm see Chapter IX. 


to work out highway taxes. Too many tax payers then, as later, 
took hoes instead of shovels and picks to the scene of their public 
labors because the former implements were more handy to lean 
upon while they swapped stories and watched the sun make his 
diurnal course in the heavens. To reprove them and the highway 
surveyors who had charge of the annual repairs, the town voted 
at its March meeting in 1784, "that those surveyors of highways 
that are delinquent in making the men under them in the last 
year's list work out their rate, for the surveyors to make return 
to the present selectmen of what remains due and from whom." 
In 1786 the town "Voted to fine those who have not worked out 
their highway tax by the first of October 3 shillings in money 
for every day lacking that is not worked out." 

Canterbury originally belonged to Rockingham County. To 
attend court, to secure the recording of deeds of their property 
and to probate wills, the inhabitants were obliged to travel to 
Portsmouth and Exeter. As neighboring towns were settled, 
there was demand for the creation of a new county by the people 
of Canterbury, Concord and other communities distant from 
the county seats of Rockingham. In January, 1788, there was 
an article in the warrant "To see if the town will vote to petition 
the general court to form a new county, partly of Rockingham 
and partly Hillsborough Counties." Abiel Foster was chosen to 
confer with others at Concord on the subject and a petition 
to include most of the present towns of Merrimack County in 
a new county was received by the legislature February 5, 1788.^ 
In December, 1789, Jeremiah Clough, Esq., and Capt. David 
McCrillis were elected delegates from Canterbury to meet dele- 
gates from other towns at the house of Benjamin Haniford, inn- 
holder, at Concord to petition the legislature to create a new 
county. Again in 1791 there is a petition to the legislature 
on this subject which bears the signature of the Canterbury 

The petitioners state their grievances as follows : "The impor- 
tant privilege of trial by jury of the vicinage which in their 
present situation they must altogether forego or the otherwise 
so great privilege be rendered very burthensome, and the records 
being kept at so great a distance makes the necessary resort 

'N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVIII, page 795. 
^Idem, page 825. 


to them very expensive and grievous, likewise all probate matters, 
as proving wills, taking letters of administration etc., the expense 
of carrying witnesses so far to try causes, not to mention the exor- 
bitant fees for travel, taxed by sheriffs and parties in their bills 
of cost, are accumulative sources of complaint." 

Again in 1793 the inhabitants of Canterbury, Loudon, North- 
field, Bow, Pembroke and Concord set forth the difficulties under 
which they labored by reason of the courts being held in the 
extreme end of the county, and they alleged that they did not 
obtain equal justice by reason of their npt having jurymen from 
these towns. ^ 

For various reasons the request of the petitioners did not 
materialize until 1823, the principal of which was that political 
power in the state centered at Portsmouth and Exeter, and prob- 
ably those in control objected to the division of Rockingham 

There was a special town meeting called October 20, 1794, 
"to see what encouragement the town will give in addition to 
the offer of Congress to enlist Minute Men to make up the quota 
from the town." 

The town "voted for each soldier and noncommissioned office 
one shilling for each day he shall attend by order of his officer 
to learn the military exercises not exceeding one day a month 
until the next annual meeting. In case they are called into actual 
service, each soldier and noncommissioned officer shall receive 
in addition to his Continental monthly pay S2.50 per month." 

This was evidently in response to the act of Congress of May 
9, 1794, authorizing the president to call upon the executives 
of the several states "to organize and equip according to law 
and hold in readiness to march at a moment's warning . . . 
eighty thousand effective militia," of which number New Hamp- 
shire's proportion was 3,544. The pay and allowance of the militia 
if called into the United States service were to be the same as that 
of the regular army. The president was further required to call 
upon the governors of the states to have their entire force of 
militia "armed and equipped according to law." 

Apprehension of war with Great Britain led to this action 
of Congress. 2 

1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XVIII, page 862. 

2 McMaster, Hist. People of U. S., Vol. II, page 186. 


Under the Provincial Government New Hampshire had a mili- 
tary organization.^ As has been seen in a previous chapter, 
steps were taken early in the Revolution to reorganize and perfect 
the militia.2 In 1780 a new militia act was passed which was 
amended in 1786. When the new constitution of 1792 was adopted, 
it contained important provisions as to the military organization 
of the state, and, at the session of the legislature in December 
that year, an act was passed dividing the militia into regiments, 
brigades and divisions. There were twenty-seven regiments 
and each regiment was divided into two battalions. The com- 
panies in the towns of Concord, Pembroke and Bow formed the 
First Battalion of the Eleventh Regiment and those in the towns 
of Canterbury, Loudon and Northfield the Second Battalion. ^ 

Every able-bodied, white male citizen of the state between the 
ages of eighteen and forty was required to be enrolled by the 
captain or commanding officer of the company within whose 
bounds he resided. The privates were to furnish themselves 
with "a good firelock, bayonet and belt, a cartouch box which 
will contain 24 cartridges, 2 good flints, a knapsack and canteen," 
and the selectmen were to equip those not able to supply them- 
selves. Twice a year, in June and September, the captain or 
commanding officer was to call out his company for inspection 
of arms and instruction in discipline and at such other times as 
he thought necessary. These training days were exclusive of 
battalion drills.'* 

In 1785 Jeremiah Clough, Jr., was commissioned lieutenant 
colonel of the Eleventh Regiment and served for four years.^ 
As early as 1794, David McCrillis was major of the Second Bat- 
talion of the same regiment.® He was probably appointed in 
1792 when the militia was reorganized, and he served until 
1807, when he was promoted to lieutenant colonel.'' Morrill 
Shepard was also an officer in this regiment,^ being one of its 
majors in 1807 and its lieutenant colonel in 1808 and 1809. 
In 1810, Asa Foster, Jr., was commissioned major of the Second 

iPotter's Military History of N. H., Vol. I, page 258. 

2 Chapter VI. 

5 Potter's Military History of N. H., Vol. I, pages 371 to 391. 

«Actof Dec.28, 1792. 

'N. H. State Papers, Vol. XX, page 282. 

•N. H. Register, 1794. 

'/dem, 1807. 

^Idern, 1808, 1809. 


Battalion and promoted to lieutenant colonel in 1816 and col- 
onel in 1817.^ In the reorganization of the militia, the Eleventh 
Regiment became the Thirty-eighth and Colonel Foster contin- 
ued at its head until 1819. Stephen Moore was major of the 
Thirty-eighth Regiment in 1820 and 1821,^ and Richard Green- 
ough its adjutant from 1822 to 1824 inclusive.^ No officers of a 
higher rank than captain appear from Canterbury for the year 

James Scales was the first justice of the peace in Canterbury. 
There is a record of his taking the acknowledgment of a deed 
as early as 1744, and he continued to act in this capacity until 
he moved to Hopkinton in 1757. Jeremiah Clough, Sr., was 
the next justice to be appointed from Canterbury. The earliest 
acknowledgment taken by him noticed in the Province Registry 
of Deeds was in 1765, but he may have been commissioned 
earlier. Archelaus and Samuel Moore were appointed soon after 
the Province was divided into five counties by the act of July 
19, 1771.'* Samuel Moore was also a deputy sheriff of Rocking- 
ham County in 1772 and 1773.^ All of these appointments 
were under the Provincial Government. Samuel Moore probably 
held the office of justice of the peace until his death in 1776. His 
brother Archelaus continued as a magistrate as late as 1795.® 
Other justices of the peace under the state government to the 
close of the eighteenth century were Rev. Abiel Foster, Jeremiah 
Clough, Jr., Asa Foster, and John Bean.'' Joseph Clough was 
a deputy sheriff from 1787 to 1789. New names appearing in 
the list of justices of the peace from Canterbury during the first 
quarter of the nineteenth century were Leavitt Clough, Abiel 
Foster, Jr., Joseph Clough, Moses Cogswell, Obadiah Mooney 
(probably junior), Jonathan Ayers, Leavitt Clough, Jr., Ezekiel 
Morrill, Amos Cogswell and ]Morrill Shepard. 

Obadiah Mooney was appointed a coroner in 1787 and he con- 
tinued to hold the office for eleven years.^ Why a coroner should 
be necessary in a peaceful community like Canterbury does not 

1 N. H. Register, 1810 to 1819. 

ildem, 1820, 1821. 

»Idem, 1822 to 1824. 

*Idem, 1774, 1775. 

^Idem, 1772, 1773. 

'Idem, 1795. 

' N. H. Register, 1787 to 1800 and X. H. State Papers, Vol. XXI, page 750. 

« N. H. State Papers, Vol. XX, page 812, and N. H. Register, 1788 to 1797. 


appear, but a citizen of the town continued to fill the position 
most of the time until 1823. Benjamin Bradley was commis- 
sioned in 1806 and served until 1821. Jeremiah F. Clough was 
appointed in 1823.^ 

The records of the New Hampshire and of the Center District 
Medical Societies show that Canterbury had three physicians 
practicing in town from 1815 to 1820, Dr. Samuel Foster, Dr. 
Jonathan Kittredge and Dr. Joseph M. Harper.- 

Just when the public burying yard at the Center was laid 
out is uncertain. The custom of having private grave yards on 
the land of the owner began early in the history of Canterbury 
and continued late into the nineteenth century. The most of 
these private cemeteries have been obliterated. The property on 
which they were located has passed from the ownership of the 
families for whose use they were set aside. Nearly all of them 
have been neglected and suffered to grow up to bushes. The 
walls of loose stone inclosing them have fallen down, the rude 
headstones marking the graves have been broken and scattered, 
and in some instances the plow or the cattle feeding in the pasture 
nearby have removed all traces of graves. In a few cases these 
burying places were more than family lots, the owner giving 
permission to neighbors to use the same. A broader interest 
was thus created in their preservation and public spirited descend- 
ants have contributed to their care and maintenance. For the 
most part, however, the private burial yards of Canterbury 
furnish little information of the history of the town. 

At the annual meeting in 1795 an effort was made to enclose 
the cemetery at the Center, but nothing came of it. At a special 
meeting held May 12, 1796, it was voted "to fence the burying 
yard south of the Meeting House." The meeting house had been 
moved across the road to the north several years before, so that 
its first site within the enclosure of the present cemetery was now 
south of the building. It was declared by vote that "the bury- 
ing yard shall consist of 2 acres and 16 rods." The character 
of the fence is thus described in the records: "The two fronts 
of the burying yard to be fenced with posts and boards spiked 
on and a rail spiked on top of the posts and also two gates made 
in each front and the remainder fenced with chestnut rails and the 

« N. H. Register, 1806 to 1823. 
^Idem, 1815 to 1820. 















posts for the boards to be white oak 16 inches square and the said 
gates hung with iron hooks and eyes." The work was to be com- 
pleted by the middle of June.^ 

Whether there were interments in this cemetery before 1795 
is a question. None of the early headstones which bear names 
and dates indicate this. There is no record of the purchase 
of land for cemetery purposes. The parsonage lot, given to the 
town by Ezekiel Morrill in exchange for other land, embraced 
land on both sides of the present highway between the church 
and the cemetery. The old custom of burying near the meeting 
house probably led to the use of this lot. It may be that inter- 
ments made here prior to 1789 led to the vote that year to move 
the meeting house across the highway. This is the story of the 
establishment of the first public cemetery in Canterbury so far 
as the records show.^ Evidence still exists of an earher burying 
yard near the site of the log meeting house, south of the Center. 

At the next annual meeting in 1797 there was evidently a 
movement to buy land in Hackleborough for a burying yard. 
The reason no action was taken is indicated by the record which 
reads, "Voted to postpone article in warrant for purchase of one 
acre of land near the North Meeting House, as owner of land 
is not in a capacity to convey." The next year, however, the 
town bought one half of an acre of land for a burying yard of 
Samuel Jackson for $12.50 per acre. The condition of the sale 
was "that the town will build all the fence between said Jackson 
and the burying yard." This cemetery was enlarged, as already 
stated in this chapter, by taking in land upon which the North 
Meeting House stood after that building blew down. With the 
exception of the cemetery at the Center, there is not a burying 
yard in town so well filled as this at Hackleborough. 

A cemetery was laid out and used near the Baptist meeting 
house prior to 1831, for an article in the warrant for town meeting 
that year to have it fenced at the expense of the public was 
referred to the selectmen. In 1852, the town was asked to buy 
land in that locality for burial purposes. The subject was re- 
ferred to the selectmen with instructions to report at the next 
annual meeting. 

» Half a century later the present enclosing wall was built. 
2 The cemetery was enlarged in 1852 by "enclosing the common between it 
and the highway." 


William Hazeltine was appointed in October, 1779, to serve as 
grand juror at the next Court of General Sessions to be held at 
Portsmouth. In July, 1780, Gideon Bartlett was appointed a 
petit juror for "the inferior court to be held at Exeter." This is 
the earliest record of the selection of jurors from Canterbury. 

At the annual meeting in 1777, the town voted "that all rams be 
confined from the middle of August until the first of November 
under penalty of forfeiture of the rams if found at large." Ten 
years later it was voted "that no boars shall run at large, upwards 
5 months old, penalty, forfeiture of the boars." 

The depreciation of the currency is shown in 1780 in the vote 
at the annual meeting appropriating $6,000 for highways to be 
worked out at the rate of $36 a day per man. 

In 1785, Leavitt Clough was voted $6 for killing a wolf in 
Canterbury two years before and John Moore was voted the same 
sum for killing one in 1783. 

Bouton in his "History of Concord," writing of the period fol- 
lowing the Revolutionary War says that "When a large building 
was to be raised, it was customary to send an invitation to the 
strong and stout men of neighboring towns, such as the Heads and 
Knoxes of Pembroke, the Chamberlains of Loudon, Lyfords 
and Cloughs of Canterbury, and Jackmans and Flanders of 

The town voted in 1793 "not to finish a house for the inocula- 
tion of small pox in town." Probably this refers to the erection 
of a pest house for the care of victims of this dread disease which 
was of frequent recurrence in the eighteenth century. 

1 Bouton's History of Concord, page 569. 



During the closing years of the eighteenth century and the 
beginning of the nineteenth, the settlement of the town was 
completed. Until the Revolutionary War, the entire north- 
eastern part of Canterbury, embracing Shaker Village and Hill's 
Corner school district, remained substantially an unbroken 
wilderness. There were trails which led from other parts of the 
town to this section and beyond to Gilmanton, probably made by 
scouting parties during the Indian wars. These were followed 
by pioneers in looking out new locations. Some of the early 
settlements in this part of the town were made along these trails, 
which, when highways were laid out, left the habitations of a 
few of the settlers a distance from the traveled thoroughfares, 
but in the main the roads were built by the houses of those who 
had taken up the land for farms, passing over the steep hills 
which are as common in this part of the town as in other sections. 
The growth of the Hill's Corner school district was rapid; for it 
was not subject to the interruptions that retarded settlements 
elsewhere in town.^ 

It was during this period of new settlements in Canterbury 
that the state government turned its attention to the wants of 
the people, providing postal facilities and enacting laws for the 
improvement of their condition. Taverns multiplied for the 
accommodation of the traveling public. Greater attention was 
given to education,- and before the close of the century a library 
had been incorporated for the benefit of the people of the town. 
Toll bridges followed soon after to take the place of the ferries 
across the Merrimack River. 

The necessity of better means of communication between 

» See chapter on Hill's Corner. 
' See chapter on schools. 


towns led to the establishment of post offices, first by the state 
and later by the general government. In 1786 the president and 
council were given full authority to appoint a postmaster gen- 
eral of New Hampshire and to direct him where to establish 
post offices. They could employ or give the postmaster gen- 
eral authority "to employ a proper number of riders so that 
newspapers, letters and mail may be transported in the most 
easy, safe and expeditious manner to the various parts of the 
state." ^ One of the routes laid out at this time provided for a 
rider to leave Portsmouth on Monday and proceed through 
Exeter, Nottingham, Concord and Plymouth to Haverhill and 
then return through Orford, Hanover, Boscawen, Northfield, 
Canterbury, Epsom and Newmarket to Portsmouth. The 
round trip probably took a week, the post rider having relays 
of horses, as did the stages later. As early, therefore, as 1786, 
Canterbury had regular mail facilities. 

In a very comprehensive chapter on "Canals, Stage Lines and 
Taverns" in the "History of Concord" (1903), Henry McFarland 
gives some interesting data in regard to the post riders and stage 
lines of New Hampshire.'^ It there appears that the post rider 
is mentioned as early as 1780 in the diary of the Rev. Timothy 
Walker of Concord. In 1781, John Balch of Keene, under au- 
thority of the Committee of Safety, rode fortnightly from Ports- 
mouth by way of Concord and Plymouth to Haverhill, thence 
down the Connecticut Valley to Charlestown and Keene and 
across country to Portsmouth. Timothy Balch performed like 
service as late at least as 1785. It is not impossible that the 
route of the Balches took them by the old Moore and McCrillis 
tavern in Canterbury. It is more than probable that the route 
established in 1786, which on the return trip from Haverhill 
passed through Canterbury, went by this hostelry. It was at 
the taverns that the post riders changed horses and there the 
people assembled to greet the mail carrier and learn the news of 
the outside world. 

Among the early post riders mentioned by Mr. McFarland is 
Ezekiel Moore of Canterbury. In 1807 Samuel Tallant of the 
same town was on the route to Haverhill, while in 1809 James 
Tallant, also of Canterbury, rode a circuit through Bow, Dun- 

1 N. H. State Papers, Vol. XX, page 543. 
'History of Concord (1903), page 842. 


barton, Pembroke, Chester, Candia, Deerfield and Allenstown, 
and at another period to Amherst. Samuel Tallant took up 
post riding on account of his health, having a tendency to con- 
sumption, of which malady a large number of his family died. 
He, however, lived to a ripe old age and ascribed his longevity 
to his active outdoor employment, first as post rider and after- 
wards as a stage driver. 

Jeremiah Emery was a rider on a route from Concord to Hop- 
kinton, Boscawen, Salisbury, Andover and Canterbury. Peter 
Smart was a post rider in 1814. 

It is not clear when stages superseded the post rider in this 
section of the state. Mr. McFarland quotes from the "New 
Hampshire Statesman" of April 30, 1859, a communication from 
Governor David L. Morrill in which the writer says that he rode 
from Reed's Ferry to Concord in August, 1805, "in a crazy old 
thing called a coach driven by Joseph Wheat, and, staying at Con- 
cord over night, went on to Hanover by the same conveyance." ^ 

From about 1807 notices appear in the newspapers of stage 
lines to the north of Concord. In 1820 Samuel Tallant of Can- 
terbury started a semi-weekly line to Plymouth via Canterbury 
and New Hampton. Two years later "the expeditious mail 
stage from Boston to Stanstead" was driven three round 
trips a week with Peter Smart as driver between Boston and 
Plymouth, leaving Boston at 3 a. m. and arriving at Plymouth 
(102 miles) at 9 p. m. The labor performed by Smart at this 
time would have broken down three common men, namely, 
driving a stage from Plymouth to Boston and back again day 
after day and night after night.^ After his stage driving days 
were over, Mr. Smart settled in Canterbury on a farm situated 
upon the highway from the Center to the Depot. 

The first provisions of the federal government for the Post 
Office Department were of a temporary character renewed from 
year to year by Congress. In 1792, however, an act was passed 
"to establish the Post Offices and Post Roads within the United 
States." The only post road mentioned in New Hampshire 
was one from Portsmouth, by Exeter and Concord, to Hanover.^ 
The rates of postage fixed by this act may be of interest to people 
of the present time. 

1 History of Concord (1903), page 845. 

2 N. H. Statesman, January 3, 1857. 
« Act of February 20, 1792. 

250 " " 

<t OKH << II It 


For each single letter conveyed by land 

not exceeding 30 miles six cents 
over 30 and not exceeding 60 eight " 

60 " " " 100 ten " 

100 '' " " 150 twelve and a half cts. 

150 " " " 200 fifteen cents 

" 200 " " " 250 seventeen cents. 

250 " " " 350 twenty cents. 

350 " " " 450 twenty two cents, 

and more than 450 miles twenty five cents. 

Double letters paid double rates, while every packet weigh- 
ing over one ounce paid at the rate of four single letters. The 
postage for newspapers was one cent for any distance not over one 
hundred miles and one and a half cent for a greater distance. 
Every printer of newspapers could send one paper to each and 
every other printer of newspapers in the United States free of 
postage. A single letter meant one written on a single sheet of 
paper, however large or small. Two sheets made a double letter 
and three sheets a triple.^ 

The first industries of Canterbury were the saw mills and 
grist mills, and these were located wherever the streams afforded 
a mill privilege. Some of the sites are still visible. Of 
others there is record only in deeds. The equipment of the saw 
mills was not expensive and their necessity in furnishing build- 
ing material for the settlers caused the erection of some which 
lapsed into disuse after serving an immediate purpose. There 
was an old mill on the Thomas Clough place, where Albert and 
Mary E. Clough now reside, which was among the earliest if 
not the first saw mill in town. At one time there was a grist 
mill there. The town records speak of a saw mill belonging to 
Capt. Jeremiah Clough, but its location is not known. 

In a deed dated March 19, 1788, John Lyford gave to his sons 
Thomas and Joseph his farm and "interest in his saw mill stand- 
ing on the same." ^ This was at Hackleborough. The farm was 
owned and occupied later by Jeremiah Pickard and his descend- 
ants, and that part of the land on which the mill stood is now in 
the possession of Jonathan B. Foster. Amos Pickard, son of 
Jeremiah, and Moses Brown carried on the mill after the Lyford 
family had moved away. 

1 McMaster Hist. People of U. S., Vol. II, page 61. 

2 Exeter Register of Deeds, Vol. CXLIII, page 369. 


"Master" Henry Parkinson had a grist mill and a clothing 
mill where he picked and carded wool on Great Brook, so called. 
Later, John J. Bryant bought the Parkinson farm and mill privi- 
lege and built a saw mill lower down on the brook near the line 
of the railroad. Jonathan Ayers afterwards purchased the 
rights of Bryant, dug a new canal and built a new dam. He 
used the Parkinson building for a shingle and saw mill and therein 
was also a carpenter's and blacksmith's shop. 

Thomas Clough, the father of Philip C, operated a saw mill 
on Hicks' Brook near where he resided. 

There was a mill privilege on the road leading from Hill's 
Comer to Hackleborough at the foot of the hill not a great dis- 
tance from the Corner. Joseph Kimball had a turning mill 
here and made spinning wheels, linen wheels, chairs, tables, 
hand rakes and other domestic and farm implements. 

In 1816 the town voted to give John Beverly the improvement 
of the rangeway between his land and Miles Hodgdon's "five 
rods north and five rods south of the Great Falls, so called, as 
long as he will have a mill thereon provided he will build a road 
by (it) when called for by the town." This mill was in the Bap- 
tist School District near the Beverly place. 

Very early the Shakers utiHzed the mill privilege upon their 
land for sawing lumber and for various manufacturing purposes.^ 

There was a tannery near the road leading from the Center 
to Tilton, about half way between the house occupied by the 
late Miss ]\Iary Patrick and the little brook that crosses the road 
to the west of the house. At the annual meeting in 1834, the 
town "voted to lease to William M. Patrick," son of the minister, 
"the privilege of flowing a piece of the parsonage land, now occu- 
pied and flowed by Edmund Stevens." The latter then resided 
in the dwelling at the fork of the roads, which was later the home 
of Miss Patrick. The dam was about ten rods east of the high- 
way leading to Hackleborough. Under date of March 6, 1835, 
there was filed with the town clerk an indenture or lease from 
Canterbury to Upham and Patrick of "that part of the parson- 
age land occupied as a pond to reserve water for the use of their 
tannery." The water used at the taimery was conveyed to it 
in a wooden sluice and it was a favorite pastime for the school 
children at the Center to slide down this sluice. There was a 

1 See chapter "The Shakers." 



large vat in which the skins were placed. After tanning they 
were hung on the fences near by to dry. The tannery was used 
for a number of years. By the methods then in use it required a 
year to properly tan hides. The tanning was in part for farmers 
who carried away the leather to have it made up into boots and 
shoes for family use by the cobbler who went from house to 
house to do his work. Hides not required for domestic pur- 
poses were sold to the tanners who in time converted them into 
leather and shipped this product to market. 

There was another tannery at Hill's Corner which did service 
for several years in the early days of that locality. 

The blacksmith was an important factor in Canterbury from its 
earliest days and probably the community was never for any long 
period without one or more representatives of this trade. In 1752 
Nathaniel Perkins is described in a deed as of this occupation, 
but whether he carried it on after he came to town is not known. 
Samuel Shepard and Samuel Sheparcl, Jr., are referred to as 
blacksmiths in a deed dated March 18, 1757. The fact that 
father and son were of the same trade leads to the conclusion 
that one or both may have had a shop in town after their set- 
tlement. The Revolutionary rolls show that Samuel Haines 
who enlisted in .Capt. Jeremiah Clough's company was of this 
calling. David McCrillis who came to Canterbury about 
this time was also a blacksmith. Undoubtedly there were others. 
So far as the records of the town disclose any information on 
this subject, it is of a much later date. 

John Moore, "blacksmith," was elected pound keeper at the 
March meeting, 1810. Abner Haines had a shop at the foot of 
the hill near the present residence of Charles H. Ayers. It was 
built by Joseph Lyford. His nephew of the same name built 
another shop near by. Thomas Clough, father of Philip C. 
Clough, is mentioned as a blacksmith in 1836 and Gordon Dwyer 
was given leave in 1840 to erect buildings for carrying on his 
trade ''on land belonging to the town." Mr. Clough's location 
was north of his son's house at the fork of the roads leading to 
the Borough and to Tilton. Mr. Dwyer's full name may have 
been Franklin Gordon Dwyer, as a Franklin Dwyer had a shop 
just south of the Henry Parkinson house. If so, he probably 
removed to the Center in 1840. 

In 1843 the town records refer to Jonathan K. Taylor as a 


blacksmith. He was in business first at Hill's Corner and then 
removed to the Center, where he had a shop near the school 
house, and he probably succeeded Gordon Dwyer. 

Stephen Moore is mentioned in 1845 as the owner of a black- 
smith shop, but he may not have been a workman. Frederick 
Chase and his son, Elbridge G., carried on the business for many 
years at the Center, while Dea. Samuel Hill had a shop near 
where John P. Kimball now resides. About an eighth of a mile 
beyond James Frames' place, on the road from the Center to 
the Baptist Church, Henry Hayward did blacksmithing for several 
years. Charles H. Fellows had a shop for a time near the 
Harper homestead, while George H. Gale is the blacksmith at 
the Center at the present time. 

Trueworthy Hill was also one of the early workers in iron who 
shod horses and cattle. His place of business was about half 
way between the Baptist Meeting House and the Leone I. 
Chase place. In his day the shoes and nails were made by the 
blacksmith from bars and rods of iron. The bars of shoe iron 
were four feet long, an inch wide and half of an inch thick, while 
the nail rods were from five to six feet in length. The wrought 
iron shoes for oxen lasted for two or three years. They were 
put on smooth for summer use and were sharpened for the win- 
ter. In the spring and fall they were taken off if the cattle were 
not in use. 

There was at one time a blacksmith shop on Whitney Hill 
below the Leone I. Chase farm. Eliphalet Gale carried on the 
business of a wheelwright at the Center, but it is doubtful if his 
work embraced any part of the trade of a blacksmith. 

At Hill's Corner there were several blacksmiths at different 
times. Samuel Huckins and his son of the same name had a 
shop near their residence. They were succeeded by Jonathan 
L. Dearborn. Ebenezer Currier made over the old turning 
mill at the foot of the hill on the highway leading to Hackle- 
borough and put in a trip hammer. Here he did various kinds of 
iron work for several years prior to the Civil War. On the Bel- 
mont road, a mile from Hill's Corner, at the cross roads, Timothy 
Frisbee had a shop early in the nineteenth century. About half 
way between Frisbee's shop and the Corner, George Hol- 
comb did blacksmithing for a brief time about 1870. At the 
Ebenezer Batchelder place on the highway leading from Gilman- 


ton road to Loudon, Albert Ames carried on this trade for a num- 
ber of years. The last blacksmith in this school district was 
Jeremiah Smith. In early life he had worked in the railroad 
shops at Concord. Purchasing the Otis Young farm forty years 
ago, he did more or less work at the forge in addition to tilling 
his land, until he sold his farm a few years ago. 

The Shakers have always maintained one or more blacksmith 
shops, and for a number of years each of the three famihes had 
one of its own. Some of the buildings are still standing. If 
there was no one of that trade among the members some one was 
employed from outside. One shop now does the work for the 
entire community. 

After the saw mill and grist mill came the tavern and the store, 
the former preceding the latter. The first tavern in town was 
that built by Samuel Moore, of which there is record as early as 
1756, a meeting having been held "at the house of Samuel Moore 
innholder" August 9, that year, for the sale of the pew ground of 
the m.eeting house. ^ This hostelry was for many years on the line 
of travel north through Canterbury and it continued as a hotel 
for nearly a century. After Samuel Moore's death in 1776, it 
was kept by his widow, Susannah Moore, until her marriage with 
David McCrillis, when it was known as the McCrillis Tavern 
until his death in 1825. Then it came into the possession of 
Jacob Blanchard, and he and his son, Naham, were the proprie- 
tors until about 1850. The original building is still standing. 
It was contemporaneous with the present town house, which as 
a meeting house was accepted by the inhabitants as a gift from the 
proprietors in 1756, and probably the Moore Tavern preceded it 
by a few years. 

The next record of a hotel is nearly thirty years later, an auction 
for the sale of lands of non-resident proprietors for delinquent 
taxes being held June 19, 1782, at the house of Jeremiah Clough, 
Esq., "innholder." 2 When Mr. Clough's house was opened to 
the traveling public, or how long it remained a tavern, it is impos- 
sible to determine. 

All subsequent notices of hotels appear in the list of licenses 
granted by the selectmen to citizens of Canterbury to keep 

1 See also N. H. State Papers, Vol. VI, page 686, for record of tavern at Canter- 
bury in 1758. 

2 In a tax deed dated February 5, 1784, "Jeremiah Clough, Esq.," is described 
as "innholder." 






3 P 

C3 -- 

— -3 

> r; 



tavern at their dwelling houses and to have the privilege of selling 
liquor. The record of these licenses is not complete, for they are 
not in chronological order and frequently there is a lapse of sev- 
eral years in granting them to the same person. Evidently the 
selectmen were not methodical in making their return of these 
licenses, and sometimes it appears to have been an afterthought 
of the town clerk in recording them. Whether the authority 
granted to keep a tavern indicates the demand for hotels in Can- 
terbury for a period of half a century, or is partly an index of the 
bibulous habits of the settlers during that period, it is impossible 
at this time to say. 

Contemporaneous with these licenses to innkeepers were the 
licenses granted to others to sell liquors at their stores. In some 
of the latter it was stipulated that the liquor was to be sold in 
quantity and not to be drunk on the premises. Hospitality in 
those days was not complete unless the cup that cheers was set 
before the guest, and even the minister did not feel compelled to 
decline an invitation of his parishioners to join them in the social 
glass. In fact, a round of parish calls taxed his sobriety quite as 
much as his digestion. Neighbors resorted to the tavern for socia- 
bility, while purchases of liquor at the stores were made to meet 
the hospitality dispensed at the fireside. The following is a list 
of the taverns of Canterbury as shown by the record of licenses: 

Under date of May 25, 1798, the selectmen certified that Joseph 
Ayers is a suitable person to keep a tavern and they grant him a 

June 22, 1804, the selectmen set forth that "Joseph Ayers and 
son, having made application to keep a tavern in their dwelling 
house and also to retail spirituous liquors therein, they have issued 
to them a license." There is nothing further to show how long the 
Ayers place was an open house to the public. 

November 5, 1804, Reuben Moore received the approbation 
of the selectmen as an innholder to carry on the business at his 
dwelling house. He was again licensed in 1806 and 1808. 

December 20, 1806, Nathan Currier receives a license "to 
retail wines and spiritous liquors at his dwelling house at the cor- 
ner of the Sanbornton road south of William GHnes." When a 
license was issued to him in 1808, it was stated that it is for the 
purpose of keeping a tavern. 

March 9, 1807, Lieut. Moses Cogswell is given authority to 


keep a tavern in his dwelling house. This license is renewed in 
1808 and 1809. Hannah Cogswell, his widow, has a license issued 
to her to become an innholder and to sell spirituous liquors in 
1811, 1813 and 1814, and the same privilege is given to Amos 
Cogswell, their son, in 1815, with repeated renewals until and 
including 1838.^ This was the first tavern at Hill's Corner. The 
Cogswell house was on the direct line of travel from Concord 
and the south to Meredith, Plymouth and other towns farther 

December 14, 1821, Thomas Butters is given a license to have 
a tavern at his dwelling house. This was at Hill's Corner and is 
the second hotel in that locality of which there is record. 

March 17, 1823, David McCrillis is authorized to keep a tavern 
at his dwelling house and "to sell rum, brandy, gin, wines and all 
spirituous liquors by the small, that is less quantities than one 
pint." The only other record of a license to Mr. McCrillis is the 
year previous. Yet in notices of sale of non-resident land for 
delinquent taxes he is described as an "innholder" in 1778, 1788, 
1790 and 1799. Undoubtedly from the time that licenses v/ere 
required to be issued to innholders to enable them to sell liquor 
until his death, Mr. McCrillis regularly took out a license for his 
tavern. This is the most striking instance of the incompleteness 
of these records of licenses. 

November 19, 1825, the selectmen gave to Joseph Gerrish 
"full power and license to exercise the business of a retailer at his 
house where he resides and also at his other house at Canterbury 
Bridge . . . and to sell wine, rum, gin, brandy and other 
spirits by retail, that is in less quantity than one quart and to sell 
mixed liquors part of which are spiritous." Mr. Gerrish may 
have kept a tavern at his dwelling house, but the other house 
referred to was probably the toll house near the bridge, for De- 
cember 31, 1827, Ebenezer French receives a license "to sell all 
kinds of liquors by the quantity not less than one pint at his toll 
house in said Canterbury near Boscawen Bridge." As every- 
body had to stop to pay toll when crossing the river, the toll house 
was a most convenient place at which to renew supplies for a 
journey. Later, Mr. French may have found it for his advan- 
tage to be prepared to supply travelers with both food and drink, 

1 The warrants for town meetings show Amos Cogswell as innkeeper as late 
as 1842, one being posted at his tavern that year. 


for February 2, 1829, he is granted a license to keep a tavern at 
his dwelling house. 

January 17, 1825, is the date of the first license granted to Dud- 
ley Hill to keep a tavern. This was probably the date of his 
coming to Hill's Corner. Whether Thomas Butters was still 
running his hotel is not known, but the Cogswell place continued 
a tavern for several years after Mr. Hill's arrival. The last record 
of a license issued to Mr. Hill was in 1838, but he kept a hotel for 
many years after, except during the years 1845 and 1846 when he 
leased his premises to Orville Messer. From 1890 for sixteen 
years Joseph K. Hancock was the proprietor of this hostelry, 
being succeeded by Henry W. Johnson the present proprietor. 

August 29, 1825, is the first record of a license to Jacob Blanch- 
ard as an innholder. The renewals occur several times for twelve 
years after this date. 

March 7, 1826, Samuel A. Morrill was granted a license to keep 
"an open house" and he was authorized to sell all kinds of hquors 
in less quantity than one quart "to travelers and townsmen." 

March 7, 1826, Frederick Chase was licensed to keep a tavern 
at his dwelling house. The license was renewed several times 
until 1839. This house was near the church at the Center. 

January 21, 1827, John J. Bryant receives authority to keep 
" an open tavern at his dwelling house." His license was renewed 
the two subsequent years. Mr. Bryant's hotel was the " Master " 
Henry Parkinson place. 

September 26, 1828, John Kimball was granted a license "to 
exercise the business of a retailer at his house." A license issued 
to Mr. Kimball the next year describes him as a "taverner." 
The location was at Hill's Corner opposite the Cogswell tavern. 

September 6, 1831, John Peverly is authorized to keep a tavern 
at his dwelling house. December 18, 1841, Hannibal Haines 
receives a license to make of his dwelling house a tavern. 

From the foregoing it appears that there have been at least 
sixteen different places in Canterbury which at some time have 
served as hotels, not including the summer boarding houses of a 
more recent period. The coming of the railroads changed the 
method and fines of travel, and soon after there was but little 
occasion for taverns in Canterbury. 

The dwelling of Albert and Mary E. Clough was undoubtedly 
at one time used as a tavern, although the owners are not men- 


tioned in the records as holding Ucenses to keep a hotel. The 
southwest room was sheathed from floor to ceiling, wainscotted 
and painted in Spanish brown, an appropriate finish for a bar 
room, and tradition has given this name to this particular 
apartment of the house. 

In addition to the licenses for stores and taverns there is a 
record of several permits granted to individuals to sell liquor on 
specified days. Four instances are recorded. The first was the 
giving of a license to John Emerson "to retail spirits on Tuesday 
the ninth day of March 1813." This was the date of the annual 
town meeting. In 1826 authority was given to Moses Smith 
"to retail rum, brandy, gin, and all kinds of spirits, that is to say 
by the less quantity than one quart on the Common near the 
Town House ... for three days from the thirteenth of 
March 1826." Town meeting occurred that year March 14. 
The record does not show how many days it took to do the town 
business. The next year Winthrop Young, Jr., was given a simi- 
lar license for one day, but, as town meeting required two days 
that year, Mr. Young's license was renewed for one day more. 
In 1813, the selectmen "approved of John Mooney as a retailer 
of spirituous liquors on Friday the first day of October next near 
John Kimball's for the day." This must have been a muster 
day of the militia, as there is an old training field at Hill's Corner 
on what was the Kimball farm, now owned by Cyrus Brown. 

These special licenses were undoubtedly issued with more 
frequency than the records show. No public affair at this period 
was fittingly observed without the use of liquor. Ardent spirits 
were a part of the entertainment, not only at musters and on town 
meeting day, but at all raisings of buildings, auctions and other 
occasions where neighbors were called together. It was the 
custom of the times in all New England, and Canterbury was no 
better or worse than other towns. 

Licenses issued to store keepers to sell liquor furnish the only 
record there is of the places of trade in town for almost a century 
after the first settlement. This record, however, is incomplete 
both as to the names of the early merchants and the length of 
time they were in business. The earliest license bears date 
June 28, 1796, and it was issued to Moses Brown, the selectmen 
having approved of him as "a suitable person to retail spirits." 
The next year his license authorized him "to sell wines and dis- 


tilled spirits at his store in Canterbury near the North Meeting 
House." If there were no other evidence, it is very improbable 
that this store located near Hackleborough was the first mart of 
trade in town. The history of Boscawen says that Ebenezer 
Greenough of Haverhill moved to Canterbury in 1793 and en- 
gaged in trade, employing his son, John Greenough, as his clerk.^ 
The first record of a license issued to Ebenezer Greenough is dated 
December 19, 1798, and it was for "his store near the South 
Meeting House." His license was* renewed the three following 
years. In 1807 a license was issued to John Greenough. The 
same year a license was given to Abiel Foster, son of the Rev. 
Abiel Foster "to sell liquor at his store." There is record of 
another license issued to Mr. Foster in 1808. According to the 
history of Boscawen, John Greenough married a daughter of Abiel 
Foster, Jr., in 1803 and continued in trade in Canterbury until 
1814, when he removed to Boscawen, purchasing there the store 
of Col. Timothy Dix.^ It is hkely that Greenough and Foster 
were in trade together for a time. 

October 14, 1796, a license was given to "Timothy Dix of 
Boscawen" who had applied for authority to retail spirituous 
liquors in Canterbury. Two weeks earher permission had been 
given to Timothy Dix, Jr., "to sell wines and distilled Hquors 
at his store near the meeting house in Canterbury." Apparently 
the Dixes and Greenoughs were rivals in trade at Canterbury 
for a time, as the "Historj- of Boscawen" states that John Green- 
ough bought an interest in his father's business in 1796.^ 

The only evidence of a store in Canterbury earlier than this 
date is contained in conveyances of land to and from David 
Foster, a brother of the Rev. Abiel Foster. In a deed dated 
April 23, 1769, Dr. Josiah Chase conveys to David Foster, 
"trader," two acres of home lot number 113 and also a half acre 
adjoining it.^ This location was immediately south of the Center 
and on the road leading by John P. Kimball's. Three years later 
Ephraim Hackett deeded to David Foster ten acres in home lot 
number 112 and eight acres and sixty-eight rods in home lot num- 
ber 113. Subsequent purchases by Foster from 1792 to 1800 were 
all in this same neighborhood, indicating a continued residence in 

1 Historj' of Boscawen, page 395. 

2 Prov. Registry of Deeds, Vol. XCVIII, page 198. 


this locality.^ His sons, David, Jr., and Timothy, inherited and 
bought much of this land from their father and they also resided 
in this section, Timothy possessing a part of the farm now owned 
by Mrs. Susan Houser, lot 86. The buildings occupied by him 
were not those in which Mrs. Houser resides, but were located 
a short distance south. 

The designation of "trader" is found in nearly all the deeds 
to and from David Foster to as late as 1792. He is found on the 
tax lists as early as 1767, wfien he was but twenty-five years of 
age. As he probably came to Canterbury earlier than this, his 
description as a "trader" must have accrued to him on account 
of his commercial activities in this community and by reason of 
his keeping a store. While the exact location of his place of busi- 
ness is unknown, he was very likely the storekeeper who preceded 
the Dixes, father and son, at the Center. His residence is said to 
have been on the site of the present parsonage. 

In 1800, 1801 and 1802, Samuel Mooney was authorized "to 
keep store for selling rum and other spirits by the gallon," and 
from 1803 to 1813 Obadiah Mooney, Jr., was licensed to sell 
liquor at "his store near the South Meeting House." 

The next name to appear among the licensees is that of Richard 
Greenough. Authority to sell liquor at his store was granted at 
various times between 1809 and 1832. Part of this time he 
was in trade at Hill's Corner, but in 1826 and 1827 his store 
is described as "near the West Meeting House," the church at 
the Center being known as both the West and South Meeting 
House. Here he continued in trade until his death November 11, 
1843. His sons, Jonathan C. and Charles Greenough, followed 
him and carried on the business for a brief time. They were 
probably succeeded by Moses R. Elkins, at whose store the war- 
rant for a town meeting in September, 1845, was posted. March 
3, 1821, Josiah H. Pollard received a license for his store "near 
the meeting house." This location must have been at the Center. 
In the town records showing the place of posting the warrants 
for the annual meetings, it appears that Jonathan T. Underbill 
kept a store at the Center from 1832 to 1836 under the firm name 
of Jonathan T. Underbill & Co., for the selectmen certify that a 
copy of the warrant was posted at his store during these years. 

» See Rockingham County Registry of Deeds. 


The Greenough store was in the old Elkins building in that 
part now used as a chapel. The records of the Canterbury 
Mutual Fire Insurance Company show that William C. Webster 
was in trade at the Center in 1849 and 1850. A warrant for 
a town meeting was posted at his store as early as 1847. The 
same records give the information that Josiah E. White was 
chosen a director of the insurance company in 1851 and 1852 and 
that a meeting of the company was held at his store in 1853. 
He took out an insurance policy in 1851 which was renewed in 
1857 and discharged August 30, 1859. About this time Mr. 
White closed out his business, as in September, 1859, Rev. How- 
ard Moody was appointed to succeed him as town clerk. It is said 
that Stephen Moore, whose daughter married Mr. White, was 
in trade in this building for a short time. He may have been 
merely engaged in selling out Mr. White's stock of goods. 

The Elkins building had a hall over the store which the 
Repubhcans had used for party purposes. The Democrats stole 
a march on their political opponents and bought the building 
about the time Mr. White vacated it, thus securing possession 
of the hall, which was the only one in town. The Republican 
leaders then formed a joint stock company, bought the old Bap- 
tist ^Meeting House at Boscawen, moved it across the river to 
Canterbury and erected the building in which Alfred H. Brown's 
store now is, finishing off Union Hall above the store. The 
lower story was altered for business purposes. 

After the building was completed in 1861, the brothers, Alfred 
H. and Joseph A. Brown, began business and the partnership 
continued until 1868, when Joseph A. sold out his interest to his 
partner, who has been in trade at the Center ever since. 

In 1887, at the time of the appointment of John W. French as 
postmaster, Henry P. and Charles F. Jones put in a stock of 
goods in what is now the store of George W. and Sam W. Lake, 
and Mr. French as postmaster and storekeeper carried on business 
until 1889, when the Lakes bought the store, and they have 
continued in trade ever since. 

"WTien a store first appeared at Hill's Corner is probably not 
indicated by the first license issued for one in this part of the 
towTi. April 29, 1820, authority was given to Abiel Cogswell 
"to retail wines and spirituous liquors at his store in the north 
easterly part of the town." As Lieut. Moses Cogswell was keep- 


ing a hotel in this section as early as 1807, it is very hkely that 
someone was engaged in trade at Hill's Corner prior to 1820. 

The next year a license was issued to Thomas Butters for his 
store "near Samuel Huckins." Mr. Butters' stay at Hill's 
Corner was probably brief, as there is no record of a subsequent 
license being issued to him as a storekeeper. 

Dudley Hill opened a store at the same time that he began 
keeping a tavern in 1825. His license as a storekeeper was 
renewed in 1826 and 1827. 

September 8, 1827, Amos Cogswell was licensed as a storekeeper 
and the record shows that this license was renewed in 1828 and 

In defining the highway districts of the town in 1831, a starting 
point in district No. 20, of which Daniel P. Ham was surveyor 
that year, is given as Jeremiah Kimball's store. The next year 
a license was issued to Kimball and Young "to exercise the busi- 
ness of retailers at their store now occupied by them near Dudley 
Hill's tavern." One or both were in business as late as 1834. 
In 1840 S. Dudley Greeley had a store at Hill's Corner. ^ 

In 1884 John Twombly was in trade in the Solomon M. Clifford 
Shoe Shop which stands at the fork of the roads leading from 
Hill's tavern to the meeting house. He sold to Charles S. 
Osgood in 1885, who was in business about six months. This 
was the last store in this section of the town. 

The licenses, of which there is record in Canterbury, appear to 
have been based upon the act of June 14, 1791. As early as 1753 
there was a province law making it the duty of the Court of 
General Sessions of the Peace "to grant as many tavern keepers 
in each town, parish or precinct as they shall judge convenient." ^ 
In 1772 this act was extended five years. Under the provincial 
government there had been various acts passed for the "inspect- 
ing and suppressing of disorders in licensed houses," for "pre- 
venting gaming in pubUc houses" and for "granting unto His 
Majesty an excise on several liquors" which an act of December, 
1778, recites in the preamble as being ineffectual. 

The latter statute, therefore, was to take the place of these 
prior enactments. It required that licenses to sell liquor should 
be obtained of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace and that 

» As evidenced by the posting of warrants for town meetings. 
2 Province Laws, 1753, Vol. II, page 243. 


licensees should have the approbation of the selectmen of the 
town where they dwelt. A taverner or innholder was at all times 
to be "furnished with suitable provisions and lodgings for the 
refreshment and entertainment of strangers and travellers and 
with stable room, pasturing, hay and provender for horses in the 
proper season on pain of being deprived of his license." No 
inhabitant of the town was permitted to be in the tavern "drink- 
ing or tippling" after nine o'clock in the evening or on the 
Lord's Day. The taverner was forbidden to keep "any cards, 
dice, nine pins, tables, shuffle boards, billiards or any other imple- 
ments used in gaming or suffer any person to gamble in his 

The scope of the tithingman's authority, enlarged by the 
province law of January 6, 1715, was continued by the act of 
1778. At least two and not more than six tithingmen were to be 
elected in each town, who were " to carefully inspect all licensed 
houses and to inform of all breaches of this act to a justice of the 
peace." If the tithingman refused to qualify after an election, 
he was liable to a fine of £5. 

The law of 1791 embraced substantially all these provisions, 
except that the selectmen of towns were to issue licenses and have 
them recorded in the town books. No license was to be effective 
unless recorded. This provision of the statute seems to have 
been frequently violated in Canterbury. No licensed person, 
except taverners, could sell liquors in less quantities than one pint 
or sell any "mixed liquors" or suffer any drinking in his shop. 
The selectmen, tithingmen and grand jurors were to inform of 
all breaches of the law. 

Another provision of the law was evidently intended to dis- 
courage innholders from giving extensive credit at their bars. 
It reads, "No taverner shall be entitled to recover more than 
20 shilhngs on any account for spirituous liquors sold to any 
inhabitant of the town or place and drank in such tavern house, 
notwithstanding such taverner may on trial prove the sale and 
delivery of spirituous liquors to more than that value or amount." 

An act of 1820, in amendment of the law of 1791, created the 
"black list," as it is known in modern times, and provided for 
the posting of the names of inebriates.^ This amendment was as 

1 N. H. Laws, Vol. XXII, page 636. 


follows: "If the selectmen shall have evidence by their own 
view or othermse that any person is in the habit of drinking or 
tippling spirituous liquors to excess in any tavern or store in 
town ... it shall be the duty of such selectmen to post 
the name of the person so drinking and tippling in every tavern 
and store in such town as a common tippler . . , forbidding 
all taverners or retailers to sell such person or suffer him to drink 
in or about their houses, stores, &c." 

Canterbury early acquired the reputation of being an intellec- 
tual town, a reputation it sustained for a century and a half. All 
of the ministers settling in town from 1743 until 1802 were grad- 
uates of Harvard College. The Rev. William Patrick, whose 
pastorate lasted from 1803 to 1843, was a graduate of Williams 
College. From 1799 to 1831 Canterbury furnished fifteen 
college graduates, or an average of one in about every two years. 
A Baptist minister, the Rev. Edmund B. Fairfield who was both 
preacher and teacher during his residence in town, afterwards 
became president of Hinsdale College, Mich., and still later 
chancellor of Nebraska State University. "Master" Henry 
Parkinson, whose name and reputation for distinguished scholar- 
ship are familiar to many now living, was a teacher in Canterbury 
for many years during the latter part of the eighteenth and the 
first part of the nineteenth centuries. He was a graduate of 
Princeton College. Probably few towns of its size in the state 
furnished so many well-qualified teachers in the first quarter of 
the nineteenth century as Canterbury. During the period under 
consideration, New Hampshire was represented in the Congress 
of the old confederation from 1783 to 1786 by the Rev. Abiel 
Foster of this town and, after the constitution was adopted, he 
was one of the first three representatives to be elected to the 
national house of representatives, being subsequently reelected 
four times. Before the recollection of his distinguished services 
had faded from memory, a second citizen of Canterbury, Dr. 
Joseph M. Harper, was chosen to represent the state in the 
national councils. With such men of liberal education, scholars 
of broad culture, to take an active part not only in educational 
matters, but in everything that pertained to the welfare of the 
town, it is not surprising that every effort was made to enlarge 
its educational facilities. 

The earliest library of Canterbury was started at the close 


of the eighteenth century. A bill to incorporate the Canterbury 
Social Library was passed by the legislature and approved 
December 12, 1797. The incorporators were Nehemiah Clough, 
John Sutton, David Morrill, David Foster, Jonathan Ayers, 
and Abiel Foster, Jr. Two years previous to this, December 7, 
1795, the library movement in Canterbury was ''instituted." 
Shares were purchased at two dollars each and the holder was 
entitled to one vote on each share and to the use of the books. 
The population of the town at this time was between ten and 
eleven hundred — in 1790 it was 1,038; in 1800 it was 1,114. Forty- 
one names appear on the first list of subscribers, or one in every 
twenty-five of the population. That they were men of character 
may be inferred from chapter one, article one of the constitution, 
which reads, "Every member shall be approbated by a majority 
of the committee." That the books were selected with much 
caution and discrimination may be seen from chapter one, 
article five. ''No book shall be purchased for or received into this 
library but such as shall have been agreed upon by at least a 
majority of two thirds of the members present at a legal meeting 
or by a committee appointed for that purpose." All books were 
to be returned within three months. The person taking out a 
book was forbidden loaning it out of his house. There were fines 
and penalties for keeping books beyond the constitutional limi- 
tation and for damaging them by writing in them or turning 
down the leaves or any otherwise mutilating them. 

The constitution adopted when the act of incorporation was 
passed does not differ greatly from the earlier one. Three dollars 
was made the price of a share and many new names, about forty, 
appear in the subscribers' list. A yearly assessment of twenty- 
five cents a share was made for the support of the library. A 
faithful record of books loaned, with date of withdrawal and 
return, was kept. The penalty for retaining a book longer than, 
three months was fifteen cents and one cent for each day after 
that. For not returning the book before the annual meeting the 
fine was twenty-five cents. The fines imposed for damages 
varied greatly. All the rules relating to the library appear to 
have been enforced with impartiality. From the records it 
appears that Dr. Joseph M. Harper was fined for keeping two vol- 
umes twelve days over three months. The Rev. William Patrick 
incurred a fine of ten cents for blotting and marking a library 


book, presumably when he was writing his sermons. In a few 
instances there appear to have been extenuating circumstances, 
the librarian being merciful, and a part or all of the fine being 
"given in." A goodly sum must have been realized from this 
source. From time to time, probably once a year, though the 
clerk's books do not give regular records, the books of the library 
were examined by a committee and their condition reported. 

The stern character of the reading may be judged by the titles 
of some of the volumes purchased for the library, — Milton's 
"Paradise Lost and Regained," Edwards' "On Redemption," 
Josephus, Doddridge's "Rise and Progress of Religion in the 
Soul," "History of the Work of Redemption" by Jonathan Ed- 
wards, Richard Baxter's "Call to the Unconverted," "Improve- 
ment of the Mind" by Watts, "Views of Religion" by Hannah 
Adams and "The Converted Jew" by Hannah More. There 
were in addition several histories, books of travel, works on 
philosophy, an occasional volume of the poets and some of 
miscellaneous reading to complete the collection. Although 
housed at present in the same room with later libraries, the books 
of the Social Library rarely have readers. They are not attrac- 
tive to the present generation either in matter or binding. There 
are about three hundred volumes, the original number being 339. 

In 1862 a library association under the name of "The Canter- 
bury Library Society" was formed. The interest in this organi- 
zation was very general and a most excellent collection was the 
result. Any person could become a member by the payment 
of fifty cents into the treasury and signing the constitution. 
A yearly assessment of twenty-five cents was made and the money 
for the purchase of books was also raised by "levees" and social 
gatherings. Books were chosen with care and good judgment 
and comprised several hundred of the best works that were at 
that time popular with the reading public. 

In 1893, Canterbury availed herself of the state's gift of one 
hundred dollars in books and estabhshed a library called "The 
Canterbury Public Library." Little interest was manifest at 
this time in the two libraries that had been established at an 
earlier day for the reason that the public, and especially the young 
readers of the community, desired up-to-date literature. The 
public library with its modern reading almost immediately se- 
cured the attention of both old and young. While the population 


of Canterbury is little in excess of 600 at the present time, the 
librarian has given out nearly 400 cards. The annual expendi- 
ture for books is not far from sixty-five dollars. The present 
number of volumes is approximately 600 in addition to the 
books of the earlier libraries, making 1,700 in all. The public 
library was opened October 21, 1893. Miss Elizabeth F. Houser 
was elected librarian, a position she still holds. 

The earliest library to be incorporated in New Hampshire was 
one at Dover for which a charter was obtained in 1792. The next 
was at Tamworth in 1796. A year later twenty-one libraries 
were chartered by the legislature, of which that at Canterbury 
was one.^ After 1797 there was a constant addition to the num- 
ber, but that year appears to have been the beginning of the 
library movement in the state. As has alreadj^ been seen, the 
first organization of a library at Canterbury, antedates this move- 
ment by about two years. Individuals in other towns may have 
taken a like initiative before applying to the legislature for a 
charter, but the number of libraries thus started without legisla- 
tive authority is very few. 

At a meeting in August, 1806, the town voted to divide Canter- 
bury into highway districts, "that said districts may be more 
equally divided and more permanently established." Highway 
surveyors appear to have been officers of the town from the earhest 
days of the settlement, being appointed even when the proprietors' 
meetings were held in Durham. By what method the boundaries 
of their several districts were fixed does not appear from the 
records of the town. In 1750 there were only two highway 
surveyors, and, with one exception, this was the number until 
1765, when four were appointed. The number varied for the 
next thirty-five years from five to thirteen, being reduced to 
eight in 1799. This indicates that there were no districts defined 
by metes and bounds until after 1806, the surveyors probably 
exercising supervision over territory marked out for them by 
the selectmen. 

At the annual meeting in 1807, the committee appointed the 
year previous to divide the town in highway districts made its 
report which was accepted. The boundaries of these districts 
are indefinite; but the names of the surveyors in each district 

1 Index Laws of N. H., 1679-1883, page 286. 



indicate their location. The surveyors were: District No. 1, 
Lieut. William Moore; No. 2, Samuel Gerrish; No. 3, Jonathan 
Ayers; No. 4, Abiel Hazeltine; No. 5, Capt. David Morrill; 
No. 6, Ezekiel Morrill; No. 7, Leavitt Clough, Jr.; No. 8, 
Francis Winkley; No. 9, John Kimball; No. 10, Leonard Whit- 
ney; No. 11, Enoch Emery; No. 12, Dea. David Kent; No. 13, 
Nathaniel Bachelder, Jr.; No. 14, David Clough; No. 15, Oba- 
diah Mooney, Jr.; No. 16, Nathaniel Ingalls; No. 17, Amos 

The first reference in the records to the War of 1812 was at a 
special town meeting held July 28 that year. There was an 
article in the warrant 'Ho see if the town will give any more than 
$5 per month to those men who were detached Minute Men 
from the town of Canterbury, which (is) our proportion of a 
hundred thousand which the government voted to raise." Noth- 
ing was done at this meeting except to instruct the selectmen to 
insert an article in the warrant for a meeting in November "to 
see if the town will vote 'to give the men detached from the militia 
anything in addition to what they are to receive from the govern- 
ment." At the November meeting it was voted to pass this 

Congress voted to declare war June 18, 1812, and the Presi- 
dent made requisition upon the government of New Hampshire 
for its quota of militia. Under date of May 29, orders were issued 
by Gov. John Langdon detaching 3,500 men from the militia 
of the state and organizing them into companies, battalions 
and regiments to be armed and equipped and in readiness to 
march at the shortest notice.^ 

More than a month before the declaration of war, Lieut. -Col. 
Moody Bedel, who had orders to raise seven companies for the 
regular army, established a recruiting station at Concord. Be- 
tween May 8 and September 16, 1812, he had enlisted 397 men. 
These recruits were for the Eleventh United States Infantry, of 
which Colonel Bedel was an officer .^ The rolls as pubhshed do 
not indicate the place of residence of the recruits, but it is 
probable that there were enlistments from Canterbury. 

On the roll of field and staff officers of this regiment of United 
States Infantry is the name of Royal Jackman as chief musician. 

1 Potter's Military History of N. H., Vol. II, page 6. 
tldeni, page 35. 

WAR OF 1812. 211 

He was a well-known resident of Canterbury. Mr. Chandler E. 
Potter says of him, "His skill with the drum and astonishing 
dexterity with the sticks, keeping one in the air while its fellow 
was continuing its duty in producing correct and excellent music, 
must be recollected by many men within the limits of the 11th 
and 38th Regiments." i 

At the annual meeting in Canterbury March, 1813, there was 
an article in the warrant 'Ho see if the town will vote to purchase 
arms and accoutrements for such a part of the militia as are not 
able to equip themselves," but no action appears to have been 

In 1813 and 1814» detachments of the state militia were sta- 
tioned at Stewartstown on the northern frontier, and at Ports- 
mouth in expectation of an invasion of New Hampshire territory. 
At a special meeting September 14, 1814, the town chose a com- 
mittee consisting of Maj. Asa Foster, Capt. John Foster, Capt. 
Daniel Sawyer and Ensign Jeremiah Forrest "to procure our 
quota of militia to defend the sea board if called for rather than 
draft them." The committee was given authority to pay every 
person who volunteered or was drafted $5 per month in addition 
to what they were allowed by the government. 

This meeting followed immediately after the order of Gov. 
John T. Oilman, dated September 9, directing detachments of 
the state militia to rendezvous at Portsmouth in anticipation of 
an attack upon the British.- The rolls of the troops assembled 
at the seacoast very generally give the residence of the volunteers. 
Capt. Edward Fuller's company. Second Regiment, was recruited 
from Concord, Canterbury, Loudon, Northfield and Pembroke. 
From Canterbury the following names appear : 

Samuel G. Sutton, Sergeant. Sampson How, Private. 

Timothy Sargent, Private. Samuel Davis, " 

David Kent, Jr., " Joseph Clifford, 

William Arvin, " Joshua Whitcher, " 

Milton Giles, Private. 

They were in the service about sixty days. In the First Regi- 
ment was Capt. Nathaniel G. Bradley's company which was ap- 
parently taken from the militia about Concord, but the residence 

I Potter's Military History of N. H., Vol. II, page 36. 
^Idem, page 130. 


of the men is not given on the roll. As only eleven of the com- 
pany, including the captain, are identified as from Concord, 
it is very likely that some came from Canterbury,^ 

The last reference to this war in the records of the town is at 
the annual meeting of 1815, when it was voted to dismiss an 
article "to see how much money the town will give each person 
per month who was drafted to defend our sea board in the year 

The town records give no information of the enlistments for 
this war, and the rolls of New Hampshire soldiers have never 
been obtained from the general government. 

Dr. Joseph M. Harper enlisted in January, 1813, and was 
commissioned as second surgeon in the Fourth United States 
Infantry. His service continued to the close of the war. Jere- 
miah, son of Obadiah and Sarah Clough, born January 15, 1784, 
was a soldier in this war and died at Baton Rouge, La. 

At the annual meeting in 1815, Abiel Foster, John Sutton and 
Ezekiel Morrill were chosen a committee to examine the records 
and see if any land can be found that has not been disposed of. 
This committee reported that they found "one lot in fourth 
division laid out for the Parson's right Number 75 lying between 
lands owned by Obadiah Clough and Oilman Clough, and have 
surveyed and measured the same and find it contains forty five 
acres." They also found that "the forty acre lot No. 11 belongs 
to the school right. It lies in the second range adjoining lot No. 
10." Some common land in the "state of nature," except as 
timber has been cut off recently by individuals, was discovered 
between lots number 11 and 13. 

At the annual meeting in 1816 a committee was appointed to 
determine what it was best to do with these lots, and in Novem- 
ber they report that it was thought for the benefit of the town 
to sell the school lot but that the lot belonging to the minister's 
right be kept for the present. This report was accepted and the 
selectmen were directed to sell the school lot. 

At the annual meeting in 1824 it was voted that the parsonage 
lot be sold and the money appropriated for the support of the 
gospel. The time of the sale was left to the judgment of the 

1 History of Concord (1903), page 344. 



The Rev. William Patrick was the last settled minister of the 
town. Before his pastorate was half complete, the toleration 
act was passed and the former system of taxation for the main- 
tenance of the gospel came to an end in New Hampshire. At 
the time of Mr. Patrick's coming there was protest to both the 
doctrine that he preached and to the tax levy for his support. 
Other religious societies had already been organized in Canter- 
bury, the Shakers and the Freewill Baptists. The Shaker 
faith had its converts in town as early as 1782, and ten years 
later they were organized into a community and were settled 
in the east part of the town at their present location.^ In 1794 
the Freewill Baptists had formed a society and towards the 
close of 1802 their first church was built.^ This was six months 
prior to Mr. Patrick's settlement. Whether there was difficulty 
in collecting the minister's tax from the time of his coming in 
1803 to 1819, when the toleration act was passed, there is nothing 
in the town records to show. Mr. Patrick, however, faced a 
situation requiring tactful management on his part to prevent 
the disintegration of his followers of the Congregational faith. 
Both the Shakers and the Baptists were aggressive in their 
proselyting. In other towns of the state the established churches 
suffered because of the popularity of the new doctrines and the 
earnestness of their followers. 

The early part of Mr. Patrick's ministry was a period of tran- 
sition. That his pastorate was so long is evidence that he met 
changing conditions in a philosophical spirit. Whatever differ- 

1 See chapter on Shakers. 

» See chapter on Freewill Baptists. 


ences of opinion the people entertained of his theology, there 
was but one sentiment regarding the man. He endeared him- 
self to all by his kindly nature, and "Priest" Patrick, as he was 
affectionately called, was a welcome visitor to the homes of ortho- 
dox and dissenter alike. The records of the town furnish little 
information of what was taking place, but an occasional vote 
shows that the people were becoming more tolerant in their 
religious attitude. For nine years, from 1793 to 1802, the Bap- 
tists had made vain efforts to secure the use of the North Meet- 
ing House for their public services. Yet at the annual meeting 
in 1805, scarcely two years after their own church was completed, 
the town "voted to give the Baptist Society fifteen shilhngs for 
taking care of their meeting house the last year." When the 
time came fourteen years later that churches had to depend upon 
the voluntary offerings of their congregations, the people of 
Canterbury were evidently prepared for the change. Even the 
division of the income of the fund, which had been created by 
act of the proprietors in 1756 for the support of the gospel, be- 
tween the Congregationalists and the Baptists was made without 

"The toleration act," as it was called, was simply an amend- 
ment to one section of an act passed February 8, 1791, "for reg- 
ulating towns and the choice of town officers." This section 
authorized towns to vote money for certain specific purposes, 
among which was "the settlement, maintenance and support of 
the ministry." This clause was dropped from the amended 
act, which was approved July 1, 1819, so that towns no longer 
possessed the right to levy taxes for the support of preaching 
or the building of churches. There were, however, existing 
contracts between towns and their ministers entered into at the 
time of the settlement of the latter which could not be invali- 
dated. Then many of the meeting houses had been built from 
public funds and were used jointly for town purposes and reli- 
gious services. To protect these vested rights the amended act 
"provided that towns between which and any settled minister 
there is prior to, or at the passing of this act, a subsisting con- 
tract shall have the right from time to time to vote, assess, col- 
lect and appropriate such sum or sums of money as may be 
necessary for the fulfilment of such contract, and for repairing 
the meeting houses now owned by such town so far as may be 


necessary to render them useful for town purposes, provided that 
no person shall be liable for taxation for the purpose of fulfilling 
any contract between any town and settled minister who shall, 
prior to such assessment, file with the town clerk of the town 
where he may reside a certificate declaring that he is not of the 
religious persuasion or opinion of the minister settled in such 

Authority was also given to any religious sect or denomina- 
tion of Christians to form itself into a corporate body with power 
to raise money upon polls and estates of its members for the 
purpose of building houses of public worship and for the support 
of their ministers. The assessors and collectors of such associ- 
ations were clothed with the same powers and were liable to the 
same penalties as similar town officers. No person was com- 
pelled to join or support any congregation, church or religious 
society, and he could separate himself therefrom after becoming 
a member by leaving a written notice with the clerk of the society. 
Then his liabilities ceased. 

Ezekiel Morrill was the representative from Canterbury to 
the legislature which passed the toleration act, and on two roll 
calls he voted against the measure. 

To appreciate the full significance of the toleration act, a 
brief review of the colonial and state legislation on the subject 
of the support of the ministry which preceded it in New Hamp- 
shire is essential. It must be borne in mind, however, that, with 
the exception of the establishment of the Church of England at 
Portsmouth, the Congregational and Presbyterian Churches were 
the only organized religious denominations in New Hampshire 
until late in the eighteenth century. The people, so far as they 
were able to express themselves through their legislative assem- 
blies, sought to maintain religious teaching by local taxation, 
and even the Crown, when it arbitrarily interfered in the affairs 
of the colony, acted upon the principle that no one was to be 
excused from contributing to the support of the gospel.^ 

The predominant and almost universal religious sentiment 
of New Hampshire was in accord with the Puritan Church until 
after the Revolution, for, with the exception of a few Quakers 
who came to the colony and the single parish of the Church of 

» Laws of N. H. Pro\dncial Period, 1679-1702 (Batchellor), pages 641, 861. 


England at Portsmouth/ no other creed was presented to the 
people until the coming of the Baptist and Universalist preachers 
after 1770 and the advent of the Shakers in 1782. The sluggish 
condition of many of the Congregational and Presbyterian 
Churches at this time gave encouragement to the "new lights," 
as the evangelists of the new doctrines were called, and con- 
tributed to their following. Embracing the faith of these itin- 
erant preachers, the people began at once to object to the 
payment of taxes for the support of a ministry with whom they 
were not in accord. 

The attainment of political independence by the United 
States emphasized in New Hampshire the restraints of the 
statutes bearing upon the subject of religion, which, until the 
people divided in their religious beliefs, had not been irksome. 
Conditions, therefore, had materially changed when the nine- 
teenth century opened from what they had been for a century 
and a half after the first settlement in the state. 

When the union of the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and 
New Hampshire took place in 1641, the terms of the agreement 
provided "that all of the present inhabitants of Piscatag (Piscat- 
aqua) who were formerly free there shall have liberty of free- 
men in their several towns to manage all their town affairs and 
shall each town send a deputy to the General Court though they 
are not at present church members." ^ 

This concession to the people of New Hampshire, besides 
giving them representation in the .assembly, marked the differ- 
ence between the qualifications of freemen in the two colonies. 
In Massachusetts the voter had to be a church member, while 
in New Hampshire this was at no time a condition of suffrage. 
The union of the two colonies continued until 1679, when New 
Hampshire was made a separate province under the administra- 
tion of John Cutt. 

It was then enacted that "Those laws by which we have 
formerly been directed and governed shall be a rule to us in all 

1 Itinerant missionaries of the Episcopal Church visited New Hampshire 
towns in the Connecticut Valley from 1767 to 1771. In the latter year the 
church at Claremont was organized. (History of the Eastern Diocese by Calvin 
R. Batchelder, pages 175-185.) A Baptist Church had been formed in Newton 
in 1755, and two others at Madbury and Weare in 1768, but the spread of the 
faith did not occur until later (History of Weare, page 140 and following) . 

2 Laws of N. H., Provincial Period, 1677-1702 (Batchellor) . Introduction, 
page 33. Fiske's Beginnings of New England, pages 154, 155. 


judicial proceedings. . . . The like laws shall be a rule to 
all the selectmen in each town for the management of all their 
prudential affairs according to the laudable custom hitherto 
used." ^ This enactment referred to the privileges accorded to 
the freeman of New Hampshire at the time of the union with 
Massachusetts Bay,- and to the laws enacted during the time of 
that union as well as to the customs having the force of law. 

In 1682, under the administration of Edward Cranfield, pro- 
vision was made for raising money in towns by taxation for the 
support of the ministry.^ Four years later New Hampshire 
was included in the dominion of New England, and under the 
administration of Joseph Dudley, which was preliminary to the 
assumption of authority by Sir Edmund Andros, it was ordered 
by the council that "all contracts, agreements and orders for 
the support of ministers and schoolmasters" be continued in 
full force.^ 

In 1692 New Hampshire again became a separate province, 
and August 5, 1693, the provincial government passed an act 
"for the maintenance and supply of the ministry." ^ This stat- 
ute becomes interesting because it more clearly defines the atti- 
tude of New Hampshire freemen towards the support of the 
gospel by taxation, although foreshadowed by prior acts already 
cited. Its provisions are as follows: 

"That it shall and may be lawful for the freeholders of every 
respective town ... to agree with the minister or minis- 
ters for the supply of the town and what annual salary shall be 
allowed him, and the minister so made choice of and agreed with 
shall be accounted the settled minister of the town. And the 
selectmen for the time being shall make rates and assessments 
upon the inhabitants of the towm for the payment of the minis- 
ter's salary as aforesaid in such manner and form as they do for 
defraying other town charges . . 

"Provided always that this act do not at all interfere with 
their Majesties' grace and favor in allowing their subjects lib- 
erty of conscience, nor shall any person under pretence of being 

iLaws of N. H., P^o^-incial Period, 1679-1702 (Batchellor), page 28. 
2 Whittemore's edition, Laws of Mass. Baj^, published 1887-1889. 
' Laws of N. H., Provincial Period, 1679-1702 (Batchellor), pages 69, 791, 

* Idem, page 115. 
''Idem, page 560. 


of a different persuasion be excused from paying towards the 
support of the said minister or ministers of the town but only 
such as are consciensciously so and constantly attend public 
worship of God on the Lord's Day according to their own per- 
suasion, and they only shall be excused from paying towards 
the support of the ministry of the town. 

"And it is hereby further enacted and ordained that for the 
building and repairing of meeting houses, ministers' houses, 
school houses and allowing a salary to a school master in each 
town within this province the selectmen in the respective towns 
shall raise money by an equal rate and assessment upon the 
inhabitants in the same manner as is in this present act directed 
for the maintenance of the minister." 

All the acts of the colonial assembly were subject to approval 
by the Crown, and this New Hampshire law of 1693 was accord- 
ingly sent to England and by the Queen submitted to the attor- 
ney-general for examination. In his opinion the latter writes : ^ 

"And as to the act for the maintenance and supply of the 
ministry etc., this act leaves the ministry perfectly at the will of 
the people and also leaves it in the people's choice whether they 
will have a minister or not and exempts all persons who shall 
serve God separately according to their own persuasion from con- 
tributing to the minister, so that there is no settled minister at 
all in this colony. Therefore, I think this law is not fit to be 

This act was accordingly vetoed by the Queen in 1706.^ Per- 
sistent, however, in their efforts to control their domestic affairs, 
the representatives in the New Hampshire assembly of 1714 
reenacted the law of 1693. It continued in force until 1791, 
when it was superseded by the statute passed by the legislature 
of that year. The new law became a part of the compilation of 
statutes of 1791, and the old colonial enactment was formally 
repealed with other statutes when the compilation was accepted 
by the general court. 

The law of 1693 provided for liberty of conscience by exempt- 
ing from taxation for the support of the settled minister all such as 
were of a "different persuasion" from the established church of 
the town, if they "constantly attend public worship of God on 

' Laws of N. H., Provincial Period, 1679-1702 (Batchellor), pages 646, 861. 
^Idem, pages 866, 867. 


the Lord's Day according to their own persuasion." This 
exemption was of little avail for the reason that, until the advent 
of the Baptists, Universahsts and Shakers late in the eighteenth 
century, there were no places of public worship, barring the Epis- 
copal Church at Portsmouth, except those supported by pubUc 

The statute of 1791, however, omitted even this exemption, 
so that under the authority there given to towns to vote money 
for "the settlement, maintenance and support of the ministry" 
every tax payer was liable to contribute his share to the support 
of whatever creed a majority of the town desired. Societies of 
the new religious sects were now multiplying. Their adher- 
ents were aggressive. The minority, who on account of con- 
scientious scruples were opposed to being taxed for the support 
of the gospel, was constantly growing, while there was an increas- 
ing number of individuals of the Congregational faith who recog- 
nized the injustice of the existing system. Attempts to secure 
in the courts the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the bill 
of rights of the state constitution were largely futile owing to the 
rulings of prejudiced judges and the findings of juries drawn 
from panels made up largely of those who belonged to the 
established town churches. The contest grew in intensity and 
was finally carried to the legislature. After several years of 
agitation and debate and several trials of strength in the general 
court, the toleration act was passed.^ 

Mr. Patrick's contract made in 1803 was with the town of 
Canterbury, and the meeting house at the Center which had 
been built by the proprietors was, with the exception of the pews, 
the property of Canterbury to be used for both secular and 
rehgious purposes. Consequently, when it became necessary 
to build a new meeting house and provide a building for the 
town's use, meetings of the inhabitants had to be called to take 
valid action. 

If, according to the Rev. William Patrick, "the state of reli- 
gion was low" when the Rev. Abiel Foster "laid down preach- 
ing" in Canterbury near the close of the Revolutionary War, 
the condition of the proprietors' meeting house forty years 
later was still lower. It was wholly out of repair and bordering 

1 Barstow's History of N. H., pages 422-447; Life of William Plumer, pages 
116, 185. 


on collapse. The frame had settled so much that on one side 
an open space of six inches was left between roof and walls 
where the winter winds and storms could sweep in at will. The 
windows were old and loose and many cracks and seams in the 
sides and about the doors admitted more fresh air than was 
necessary for good ventilation. Both the Congregational Society 
and the town were, therefore, moved to action. 

In 1816 there was an article in the warrant to see if the town 
would vote to repair the meeting house or build a new one. 
Nothing was done at this time. Seven years later the subject 
was again brought up at a special town meeting held in May and 
called for this sole purpose. The town was invited to consider 
several propositions, to build a new meeting house and finish it so 
that it could be used for town purposes, to repair the old meet- 
ing house so as to preserve it for town purposes, or to sell it and 
use the proceeds towards erecting a new building. A committee 
consisting of John Kimball, Miles Hodgdon, David McCrillis, 
Morrill Shepherd, Jonathan Ayers, Samuel A. Morrill and Edmund 
Kezer were chosen to examine the meeting house and report 
on the advisability of repairing it. They reported that it was 
inexpedient to attempt to repair the building, and their report 
was accepted. Then all the articles in the warrant were dis- 
missed by vote of the town. 

The next year passed without action, but at the annual meet- 
ing in 1825 the town voted to build a town house, the Congre- 
gational Society in the meantime having taken steps to erect 
for themselves a house of public worship. Ebenezer Bachelder, 
Moses Hodgdon, Joseph Gerrish, Richard Greenough and David 
McCrillis were chosen a committee "to consult and adopt some 
method to build a town house and also to confer with the owners 
of pews (in the old meeting house) and see on what condition 
they will relinquish their right as pew holders and report at the 
adjournment of this meeting." The adjourned meeting was 
held March 25, 1825, on a new warrant issued by the selectmen 
to properly meet the contingency. Then a controversy began 
which lasted for two years embracing both the questions of expe- 
diency in attempting to repair the old building and the location 
of the town house when it was decided to have one. 

At the annual meeting in 1824 there was an article in the war- 
rant "to see if the town will vote to have the next annual meet- 


ing at the Baptist Meeting House." This was evidently the 
expression of a desire on the part of some of the inhabitants to 
have the town meetings held nearer the geographical center of 
Canterbury. The town "voted to have the next annual meet- 
ing at the Baptist Meeting House provided that the selectmen 
be seasonably notified that the pew holders do not object." As 
the annual meeting of 1825 was held at the usual place, it is to 
be presumed that the Baptist Society did not favor turning their 
church into a meeting place for voters. 

At the adjourned meeting March 25, 1825, a committee of 
one from each school district consisting of Benjamin Bradley, 
Stephen Moore, Ebenezer Batchelder, David Morrill, Jonathan 
Ayers, Thomas Ames, Jeremiah Clough, Enoch Emery and 
Nathaniel Ingalls were chosen to locate the town house. This 
committee reported in favor of a location "on the west end 
of the lot that John Sutton now lives on." It was undoubtedly 
the purpose of the committee to seek a geographical center, for 
the site they selected was about a mile east of the old meeting 
house on the highway leading to the Baptist Meeting House, or 
where Millard F. Emery lately resided. The vote on this report 
stood 80 in favor to 103 against. The town then voted 93 to 83 
to locate the town house within thirty rods of the old meeting 

By a further vote "the old meeting house was to be cut down 
one story, moved and finished as a town house on condition that 
(Richard) Greenough, after the timber for silling and drawing 
shall be provided by the town and also after the lower part of 
said house shall be cleared out by the town, shall cut said house 
down one story, new sill if necessary, and move to the place 
where the committee shall direct at his own expense, which 
condition has been made by said Greenough." 

Then Thomas Ames, Samuel A. Morrill, Leavitt Clough, Jr., 
David McCrillis, Miles Hodgdon, Edmund Stevens and Richard 
Greenough were appointed a committee "to locate the town 
house within thirty rods of the old meeting house and also to 
select one or three of the board to superintend the finishing of 
said house, but (they) must let out the work to be done on said 
house at auction and sell all the boards, glass etc. at auction that 
shall not be needed in finishing the town house which belonged 
to the old meeting house." 


There was also appropriated $200 for finishing the town 
house. David McCrilHs, David Morrill and Jonathan Ayers 
were chosen a committee to settle with the owners of the pews 
in the old meeting house and "to serve without compensation." 

If ever action could be considered final, it was that taken at 
this town meeting. The question of whether there should be a 
new building or a town house made out of the late meeting house 
and the question of its location had been discussed and settled. 
The expense had been safeguarded by requiring competitive 
bids for doing the work and the sale of all the old material not 
used. It was to cost nothing to move the building and the 
appropriation for finishing the town house was small. Yet the 
meeting had hardly adjourned before there was a movement to 
have the town reconsider its action. Within three weeks another 
town meeting was held at which the entire subject was opened 
up for consideration. 

The warrant for this meeting asked the voters to sell the old 
meeting house and build a new town house, to locate the build- 
ing on John Sutton's lot and to raise additional money for the 
erection of a new structure. The question of location appears 
to have been the moving cause of the renewal of the agitation, 
for there was another article in the warrant "to see if the town 
will vote a sum not exceeding $300. to build a town house in the 
easterly part of the town and to be located where a majority of 
the voters of said easterly part of the town (decide) on condition 
that individuals at their own expense will finish the same, con- 
structing pews and other accommodations suitable for public 
worship on the Sabbath, and that in the future the easterly part 
of the town have their due proportion of town meetings held in 
said house." 

The east part of the town must refer to Hill's Corner school 
district. At this date it was the most promising part of the 
town, having two taverns, at least two stores and several small 
industries. Stages running from Concord to Fryeburg, Me., 
passed through this locality, changing horses at the tavern and 
stopping for dinner on their return trip. In the winter the 
school numbered upwards a hundred scholars and it was probably 
the most populous school district in town.^ Located as this dis- 

1 See chapter on Hill's Corner. 


trict was, in the northeast corner of the town, the situation for- 
bade its becoming the permanent site of the town house, but the 
people were not without ambition to divide this honor with the 
west section. Nearly all of the inhabitants were five miles from 
the old meeting house and some of them resided at a greater 
distance. The traveling was usually bad at the season of the 
annual meetings in March. If the town house could not be 
located near the geographical center of the town, then the people 
of this section desired to have the town meetings held a part of 
the time in their locality. 

The town meeting April 18, 1825, completely reconsidered the 
action of its predecessor in March. The selectmen were directed 
to request those engaged in changing the old meeting house into 
a town house to suspend their work. Five hundred dollars was 
voted to build a town house and Samuel Moody, David McCrillis 
and Jeremiah Pickard, Jr., were appointed a building committee. 
There was no agreement, however, on the location. Concerning 
the discussion and votes on sites, if any were taken, the records 
are silent. All efforts to settle the controversy having failed, 
the town in apparent desperation then passed the following vote : 

"That the town clerk go himself or send some person to the 
selectmen of Warner requesting them to come to this town as a 
committee to locate a town house and, in case either of them 
can not attend, that they substitute some man in the town of 
Warner so that a committee of three may attend and their deci- 
sion shall be final, all parties having the privilege of being heard 
before the committee." This committee was to report to the 
selectmen of Canterbury. 

Whether Richard Greenough, who had volunteered to move 
the meeting house without expense after it had been cut down a 
story, and his associates of the committee appointed to carry out 
the instructions of the March meeting, went ahead with their 
work regardless of the votes of the April meeting, there is nothing 
in the records to show. Whether the selectmen of Warner were 
invited to appear as arbiters in this quarrel and, invited, came, 
viewed the sites and confirmed the prior action of the town, the 
oldest of the present inhabitants does not know. How the ques- 
tion was finally adjusted, there is neither record nor tradition to 
indicate. At the annual town meeting in 1826, there was an 
article in the warrant "to see if the town will vote to instruct 


the selectmen to sell the present town house and apply the pro- 
ceeds to building another town house." This article was defeated 
by a vote of 70 in favor to 114 against. A year later the town 
voted to discharge the committee appointed to settle with the 
pew holders and authorize the selectmen to settle all claims not 
then adjusted.^ 

Then for more than fifty years, this building, which had been 
the subject of so many town meetings from the time of the first 
settlement, served its present purpose without change, as unique 
a structure in its internal arrangements as could be found in the 
state. In 1884 another transformation took place, the raised 
seats on the sides and the moderator's desk being removed and 
the entire interior changed into a simple hall with platform in the 
rear and rooms at either side of the platform. In its old age of 
one hundred and fifty odd years, it is undoubtedly more con- 
venient for town purposes than when first transformed into a 
town house, but it has lost those features which stamped it with 
antiquity, while equally lost are the traditions which for a long 
period were associated with this landmark of the past. 

The Canterbury Society for the Reformation of Morals was 
organized at the house of Rev. William Patrick, December 22, 
1814. Its creation was in response to a circular letter sent 
out by the Congregational General Association of New Hamp- 
shire, advising the formation of such societies in every town. 
This letter set forth that "The General Association of this 
state, considering the alarming situation of this country and 
apprehending that the open profanation of the Sabbath is 
one of the moral causes why the judgments of Heaven he 
upon us, have resolved to recommend an united effort to 
arrest the progress of this vice." After stating that "the carry- 
ing and opening of the mail on the Lord's Day is a public viola- 
tion of this institution of Heaven and tends to encourage others 
among ourselves" in this profanation of the Sabbath, the asso- 
ciation recommended petitioning Congress to take the subject 
under consideration and the formation of societies in the towns 
of the state for the purpose of discountenancing vice and immoral- 
ity, "particularly Sabbath breaking, intemperance, profanity 
and falsehood." 

1 The Congregational Society of the Center built a church in 1824 and dedi- 
cated it in 1825. See that chapter for further information about this society. 


Prompt* action appears to have been taken in Canterbury, for 
the printed letter of the association, which contained a form of 
constitution for local societies, bears the signature of the following 
prominent citizens: 

Wilham Patrick, Joseph Gerrish, Morrill Shepherd, Ezekiel 
Moore, Ezekiel Morrill, Ebenezer Bachelder, John Clough, John 
How, Thomas Ames, Nathan Moor, Reuben Moore, Joseph Ham, 
Jr., Nathan Emery, Daniel P. Ham, Enoch Emery, David 
McCrillis, Jesse Stevens, Sam'l A. Morrill, Abiel Foster, Samuel 
Moor, Jr., Joseph Moore, Amos Pickard, Asa Foster, Jeremiah 
Pickard, Jr., Sam'l C. Hazelton, Reuben Morrill, Wm. Randal, 
William Foster, David Foster, Nehemiah Clough, John Foster, 
Timothy Foster, Jonathan Foster, Jeremiah Pickard, Joseph 
Moody, Simon Stevens, Stephen Hall, Samuel Moody, Amos 
Hannaford, John Kimball, Samuel Gerrish, Levi Gibson, Samuel 
Foster, Reuben French, Joseph Ham, Eben'r French. 

Two months later the members subscribed a fund of fifty dol- 
lars to further the objects of the society. Two documents which 
have been preserved indicate its activity.^ One appears to have 
been a communication addressed to the tithingmen and is as 
follows : 

" It having been represented to the Executive Committee of the 
Society for the Reformation of Morals that on the Sabbath 
many of the boys and young persons enter the orchards near the 
Meeting House in the intermission between the forenoon and 
afternoon service and often tarry until after service has been 
sometime recommenced, the Executive Committee would suggest 
to the tythingmen the propriety of adopting measures to correct 
this evil both of entering orchards and tarrying out until too late." 

The other paper is a notice and warning to the public. It 
reads : 

"The undersigned. Selectmen and Tythingmen of the Town 
of Canterbury, give notice, that we have taken the oath, which 
makes it our dutj^ to execute the law of this State ' For the better 
regulation of the Lord's day.' This duty we must discharge 
though it will be a painful one if we have to prosecute any of the 
Inhabitants of this Town, or others traveling through the Town, 
for transgressions of this law. We give this Public notice hoping 
it will prevent that disagreeable necessity. 

''The subscribers would in this public manner express their 
thanks to the Society for the reformation of Morals, in Canterbury, 

I Papers in the possession of Luther M. Cody of Canterbury. 



for their determination to countenance and support us in our 

determinations as stated above. 

"Sam'l Hazelton ) o 1 ,_, 
T Tr c selectmen. 

Joseph Kimball ) 

"Stephen Hall 

Thomas Ames ( rp ,i • y,/r ,, 
David Kent [Tythmg Men. 

Nathan Moor j 

It is not known whether the society continued its work or 
whether there were actual prosecutions of Sabbath breakers. 
Probably the moral influence of such an organization was suffi- 
cient to restrain the more offensive violations of the Sunday 
laws until custom rendered these laws obsolete. 

It was not until 1829 that provision was made for a poor farm 
in Canterbury. This followed three years after the first recorded 
effort to establish a house of correction in town. After the poor 
farm was purchased, it was made the place of detention and 
punishment for the idle and disorderly as well as the home of 
those dependent upon public charity. This plan of combining 
a reformatory for criminals with an asylum for the poor dates 
back to the provincial government of New Hampshire. The 
instruction to Sir Edmund Andros, dated December 12, 1686, 
required him "to provide for the raising of stocks and building 
public work houses in convenient places for the employment of 
poor and indigent people." ^ In 1718 a house of correction for 
the province was authorized to be built "for keeping, correct- 
ing and setting to work rogues, vagabonds and common beggars 
and other lewd and disorderly persons, and until such house is 
erected, built or otherwise provided the common prison may be 
made use of for such purpose." If any town had or were to 
build a workhouse, any two justices of the peace could commit to 
such workhouse "all persons belonging to the same town . . . 
that live idly, or disorderly, misspend their time, or that go about 
begging, or receive alms from the town."^ 

In 1766 any town or two or more towns jointly were author- 
ized to build or establish a house of correction. The preamble 
of this act recites the failure of previous legislation. It says, 
"The law of this Province for Suppressing and punishing rogues, 

I Laws of N. H. Provincial Period, 1679-1702 (Batchellor), page 165. 
J Act of May 13, 1718. 


vagabonds etc . . . and also for setting the poor to work 
among other things provides that until a house of correction 
shall be provided at the charge of the Province the common 
prison may be made use of for that purpose, which use of the 
prison is found by experience to be very inconvenient in many 

It was after the Revolution and after New Hampshire had 
become a state that the next legislation on this subject is found. 
By the act of February 15, 1791, any town was authorized to 
"build or use any house such town may provide for a house of 
correction or for a workhouse in which to set their poor to work 
. . . and said house or houses may be used for keeping, 
correcting or setting to work of rogues, vagabonds, common 
beggars, lewd, idle and disorderly persons." At any legal meet- 
ing the town could appoint proper officers to govern such house 
of correction or workhouse and make rules for the control and 
punishment of the inmates. 

Until the state was divided into counties, "the common prison" 
was at Portsmouth. When county jails were established, it was 
inconvenient and expensive for many towns to send minor 
offenders to the county seat for imprisonment. Canterbury was 
a part of Rockingham County until 1823 and the jail at Exeter 
was distant at least fifty miles. Whether any advantage was 
taken of the provincial statute of 1766 by towns to establish 
workhouses and houses of correction, and how early any town 
availed itself of the state law of 1791 to do the same thing, could 
be ascertained only by an examination of their records. Canter- 
bury apparently saw no urgent necessity for using the authority 
granted by these acts until 1826. 

That year there was an article in the warrant "to see if 
the town will appoint a house of correction for idle and dis- 
orderly persons." It was voted to make the dwelling of Thomas 
Ames the house of correction. In 1827 and 1828 the residence 
of Capt. David Morrill, Jr., was designated as the place of con- 
finement for offenders. The latter year Joseph M. Harper, 
Joseph Lyford, Jr., Joseph Gerrish, David Morrill, Jr., and Eze- 
kiel Morrill were appointed a committee to draft the rules and 
regulations to be observed in the government of the house of 

1 Prov. Laws, Vol. Ill, page 22, Act of January 23, 1766. 


correction. At the annual meeting in 1829 the town appointed 
Jeremiah Clough, Ezekiel Morrill and Richard Greenough a com- 
mittee to purchase a poor farm at a cost not exceeding $2,000. 
The farm was to be purchased within a year and suitably sup- 
plied with stock, furniture and utensils. In 1830 the selectmen 
were authorized to borrow the school and parsonage funds and 
pay for the poor farm already purchased "and pay interest 
annually for the uses (for which) said funds were intended." 
The next year provision was made for reimbursing these funds. 
To make a dwelhng house a place of confinement for crimi- 
nals must have had its inconveniences and annoyances for the 
resident family, provided there were many commitments. It 
is not strange, therefore, that the town had soon to provide a per- 
manent house of correction. Before doing so, the committee 
who had been appointed to draft rules and regulations for the 
government of the institution made their report, and their 
draft was accepted by the town. These rules followed closely 
the language of the statute of 1791 and indicated the attitude 
of the people towards the idle and dissolute as late as the end of 
the first quarter of the nineteenth century. After providing 
for the annual selection of a house of correction, the town voted 

"There shall be chosen annually 5 or more persons as 
informers whose duty it shall be to give information to the Select- 
men or some justice of the Peace in the town of Canterbury of any 
rogue, vagabond, lewd, idle or disorderly person, persons going 
about begging, or persons using any subtle craft, juggling, or^ 
unlawful games or plays, or persons pretending to have knowledge 
in physiognomy or palmistry, or persons pretending that they can 
tell destinies or fortunes, or discover by any spells or magic art 
where lost or stolen goods may be found, common pipers or 
fiddlers, runaways, stubborn servants or children, common drunk- 
ards, common night walkers, pilferers,' persons wanton and 
lascivious in speech, conduct or behavior, common railers or 
brawlers, such as neglect their calling or employment, misspend 
what they earn and such as do not provide for themselves or 
support their families, within their knowledge in the town of 
Canterbury. 1 

"There shall be appointed annually one or more overseers 
whose duty it shall be to confine at hard labor each and every 

1 These several classes of offenders are still subject under the laws to im- 
prisonment. Public Statutes, Title 34, Section 21. 


person committed, and in case any person there committed 
proves refractory or disobedient, and in any manner either by 
conduct or language refuses to obey the orders of the overseer or 
overseers, he or they shall have power to inflict any or all of the 
following punishments, as the aggravation of the case may 
require viz: whipping, not exceeding twenty stripes, wearing of 
fetters, handcuffs, ball and chain, and feeding them with bread 
and water, not less than six ounces of bread and one quart of 
water in twenty-four hours, or any other punishment not repug- 
nant to the laws of this state. Provided nevertheless that whip- 
ping shall not be resorted to until other modes of punishment 
shall have been first applied and proved ineffectual in the judg- 
ment of the overseer, and in all cases when the whip is applied it 
shall be done within the bounds of reason and in presence of three 
respectable witnesses." 

Copies of these rules were to be posted in five or more con- 
spicuous public places in town. The following persons, one 
from each school district, were elected as informers whose duty 
it was to call the attention of the selectmen to such idle and dis- 
orderly persons as in their opinion were "candidates" for the 
house of correction: 

District No. 1, James Greenough; 2, John A. Chamberlain; 3, 
Benjamin Sanborn; 4, John Peverly; 5, Asa Foster; 6, John 
Kimball; 7, Richard Greenough; 8, John Jewett; 9, Reuben 
French; 10, Joseph Gerrish; 11, Jacob Gerrish. To this num- 
ber Robert Chase was later added. 

In December, 1828, the act of 1791 was amended so that pun- 
ishment was reduced to hard labor or solitary confinement not 
exceeding forty-eight hours. The correction of the inmates of 
the house of correction was restricted to such as a parent may 
lawfully inflict upon a refractory child, and the term of impris- 
onment was limited to six months.^ 

The same statute of 1791 provided for binding out all idle or 
poor persons of whatever age for a term not exceeding a year and 
for binding out the children of the poor, "males until they were 
twenty-one, females until they were eighteen," and made "the 
relations of poor persons in the line of father, grandfather, mother 
or grandmother or child or grandchild of sufficient ability liable 
for their support." The selectmen continued to be authorized 

1 The town farm was voted "a house of correction" as late as 1865. In 1870 
Samuel jNIorrill was appointed keeper of the house of correction, although the 
town farm had been sold five years before. 


to "warn out of town" any person liable to become a public 
charge at any time within a year of his coming to town. If this 
warning was duly served, the person did not gain a settlement and, 
if poverty overtook him, his support would not be charged to 
that town. 

There is no record of any person being "warned out" of Can- 
terbury, but it is a very well-founded tradition that the law was 
repeatedly invoked by the selectmen in their zeal to protect the 
financial interests of the town. In some localities the notice was 
given indiscriminately to all newcomers as a precautionary and 
protective measure, regardless of their circumstances. Under 
this act, any one except a native of the town was liable to be 
directed to leave. Any person, therefore, looking up his pedi- 
gree need not be disturbed if he finds that some ancestor was 
ordered to move on by the selectmen of the town. This order 
did not mean that he had to obey or that he was necessarily in 
indigent circumstances at the time. There is a tradition that a 
citizen of Canterbury who was afterwards governor of the state 
and congressman was "warned out of the town" within a year 
of his coming for the sole purpose of protecting the town in case 
he was reduced to poverty in later life. 

In 1820 the selectmen of Canterbury were instructed "to 
contract with some person to provide for all the poor of the town 
and that they this day give public notice when they will enter 
into said contract," and they were further directed "to bind 
out all the children of the poor of suitable age even if it is attended 
with some immediate expense." 

In 1827 the town was moved to vote that "the selectmen be 
authorized to oblige those who agree to support the town paupers 
to provide them suitable food and clothes, and any person neglect- 
ing to do the same, upon satisfactory evidence thereof, the 
selectmen shall furnish them with the same and deduct the pay of 
the same out of their respective sums which they were to have for 
supporting them." Evidently some of those who bid off the 
paupers were neglectful in their care of them. These cases of 
neglect may have contributed to inducing the town to establish 
a poor farm two years later. 

Interest in the town farm was not confined to the voters, for 
at the annual meeting in 1831 it was "voted that the moderator 
of this meeting present the thanks of the town to the Society of 


Shakers for the valuable articles which they presented to the 
said town for the use of the poor at the time of their removal to 
the town's farm for support and for their readiness to extend the 
arm of charity to the destitute and unfortunate which so emi- 
nently characterizes them as a humane and benevolent people." 

This was a deserved tribute, as the entire history of the Shaker 
Society at Canterbury shows these people to have been ever 
responsive to the calls of the unfortunate. If the needy after 
being cared for expressed a desire to become Shakers, they had 
the opportunity to pass through the novitiate stage preparatory 
to joining the society, but the Shaker charity was never bestowed 
for the purpose of securing recruits. Their offerings were always 
freely made to those in need who asked for assistance. 

The town farm, although it was an improvement upon the 
earlier method of caring for the poor, was far from being an invit- 
ing haven of refuge. The criminals and the pauper insane were 
there with the destitute, but there was no segregation of inmates 
into classes nor were there separate apartments provided for 
offenders against the law and for those who were mentally 
deranged. The worthy poor had to associate with the aban- 
doned and with those whose minds were unbalanced, sitting at 
the same table and employed at the same tasks. 

The philanthropic spirit of Canterbury was invoked to remedy 
these conditions. Among the articles in the warrant at the 
annual town meeting in 1831 was the following: "To see if the 
town will afford any assistance to any person in town, except 
such as can not be moved, unless they will go to the town farm." 
This article was referred to a committee who reported that the 
subject should be left with the selectmen and "if they think 
proper in extraordinary cases to afford some assistance, they were 
authorized to do so." This vote enabled selectmen to assist the 
poor at a private home if some relative or friend could be induced 
to care for them. 

Equally indicative of the humane feelings of the people of the 
town is another vote at this same meeting. The selectmen were 
directed to pay Martha Burdeen the sum of twenty dollars and 
to Susan Glover the sum of ten dollars "for the unusual attach- 
ment which they have manifested towards their aged and infirm 
parents in taking care of them in sickness and in providing them 
with suitable articles of food etc." 


The town farm was situated about a mile from the Center on 
the Morrill Road, so called, nearly one eighth of a mile beyond 
the Capt. David Morrill place. It is a large, two-story house 
with an ell. The farm is now owned by George P. Morrill and 
his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Ethel Gale Morrill. The house is 
unoccupied at present. 

As the town grew in population there came a desire for a more 
expeditious and convenient way of crossing the Merrimack River 
than by ferries. This desire was met first by private enterprise. 
Application was made to the legislature in 1802 by citizens of 
Concord and Boscawen for a charter to build a toll bridge at 
Blanchard's Ferry. The act of incorporation ^ gave them the 
right to construct one anywhere within the limits of the ferry. 
These limits as described in a previous chapter were within 
three miles above and below John Webster's residence in Canter- 
bury or nearly opposite the mouth of the Contoocook River. 
The charter bears date of June 15, 1802, and by its terms the 
incorporators were to complete the bridge within two years. 
It was finished that year.^ This bridge as well as its successors 
has been known as the Boscawen Bridge. The rates of toll 
were fixed by the charter but they were reduced in 1814.^ The 
original structure was carried away by a freshet in 1839. A 
chain ferry served the public until 1853, when a new bridge was 

There was another ferry between Canterbury and Boscawen 
about three miles north of Blanchard's Ferry. This right of 
ferriage had been granted to Nathaniel Clement in 1780 by act 
of the legislature.^ 

Clement recited in his petition to the general court that "for 
a number of years past a ferry of the name of Fosses Ferry had 
been kept from his farm in Canterbury across the river to Bos- 
cawen," and that it was necessary for the people of the two towns 
that it should continue to be maintained. A n,ew boat, however, 
must be built ''at great cost." This, Clement was willing to 
undertake, if the exclusive right of keeping the ferry within cer- 
tain limits were granted to him. The legislature, therefore, gave 

> N. H. Laws, 1802, Vol. XIII, page 278. 

2 History of Boscawen, page 646. 

' N. H. Laws, 1814, Vol. XX, page 226. 

♦ History of Boscawen, page 647. Brown^ History of Penacook, page 13. 

s N. H. Laws, 1780, Vol. IV, page 83. 


him this privilege at any place within a mile of his dwelling house, 
on condition that "the ferry shall be constantly attended and well 

The building of the Boscawen bridge stimulated a leading 
citizen of Canterbury, Col. David McCrillis, to apply for a charter 
for a toll bridge at Clement's Ferry. The Boscawen bridge, 
while it was a convenience to the citizens of Canterbury going 
to Concord, diverted travel on the west bank of the Merrimack 
by the town and, if used by the people on their way to Boscawen, 
increased the distance by several miles. The charter bears date 
of December 29, 1803, and it incorporated Colonel McCrillis 
and his associates under the name of the "proprietors of Canter- 
burj" Bridge." ^ It was erected the next year. Maj. Enoch 
Gerrish of Boscawen was the builder. The completion of the 
bridge was a great event for both towns and was the occasion 
of a, celebration. The people gathered at the meeting house on 
Boscawen Plain, where addresses were made by the Rev. William 
Patrick and the Rev. Samuel Wood. Then a procession was 
formed which marched across the bridge to the residence of Enoch 
Gerrish ^ in Canterbury, where John K. Chandler afterwards 
resided. Here a dinner was served with liquor in abundant 

The great freshet of 1819 carried away the Canterbury bridge, 
whereupon the proprietors erected a new one under the super- 
vision of Isaac Chandler and Jacob Blanchard. It was completed 
in the summer of 1820, but the winter freshet in the month of 
February, 1824, destroj-ed it. The third bridge was built for the 
stockholders in 1825 by Benjamin Kimball of Boscawen. This 
structure withstood the elements until January, 1839. There 
was then a great body of snow on the ground. A warm rain 
which poured continuously for thirty-six hours melted the snow 
and broke up the ice in the river which had an average thickness 
of two feet. Every bridge on the Merrimack River south of 
Franklin, with the exception of those at Hooksett and Amoskeag 
Falls, were swept from their piers. The proprietors of the Canter- 
bury Bridge again renewed it only to have a part of it carried 
away in the winter of 1848. 

1 N. H. Laws, 180.3, Vol. XIV, page 339. 

2 A relative of the bridge builder. 
> History of Boscawen, page 165. 


There was now no bridge across the Merrimack between the 
two towns, the lower or Boscawen bridge not having been rebuilt 
since it was carried away by the freshet in 1839. An agitation for 
free bridges to take the place of those where toll was collected had 
already been started in the neighboring town of Concord, and 
this movement spread to Canterbury and Boscawen. A petition 
dated February 22, 1848, and signed by about sixty residents 
of these towns was presented to the Merrimack County Court 
asking that a highway be laid out across the river at the place 
which had been occupied by the Canterbury toll bridge. If 
the highway was laid out, it would require the building of a bridge 
at the expense of the two towns. The petition was referred to 
the road commissioners by the court at the March term, 1848, 
and hearings were given to the parties interested, at the tavern 
of William P. Heath in Boscawen, during the months of July 
and August. The report of the commissioners was in favor 
of laying out the highway. This was the beginning of a contest 
which lasted nearly ten years and resulted in the building of 
free crossings to replace both the Canterbury and Boscawen 
toll bridges. 

The people who had been accommodated by the lower or Bos- 
cawen bridge were opposed to the erection of the upper one at the 
expense of the two towns. If a free bridge was to be built, 
their claim was that it should be located near the southern bound- 
ary line of Canterbury and Boscawen. It was asserted that the 
travel on the highway leading from Canterbury to Boscawen 
Plain was very limited and confined to a few individuals who 
owned land in that locality or who desired to trade at the stores 
in the latter town. The old Canterbury toll bridge in its palmiest 
days only paid three per cent, dividends, which, divided among 
three hundred and sixty-five days in the year, would give but 
half a dollar a day revenue. Two railroads now carried to 
Concord those who formerly went to Boscawen to trade, and 
to tax the 4,000 inhabitants of Canterbury and Boscawen to 
accommodate these few individuals would be an outrage.^ 

This view commended itself to the people of both towns, for 
at the annual March meeting in 1849 Canterbury and Boscawen 
voted to discontinue the highway laid out by the road com- 

1 N. H. Statesman, January 19, 1849. 


missioners, and their selectmen presented these votes to the court 
at its next term. The case was again referred by the court 
to the road commissioners, who in December, 1849, heard the 
parties, and in their report, which was filed at the March term, 
1850, their previous finding was confirmed. Exceptions were 
taken to the conclusions of the commissioners and the cause 
was transferred to the higher court on questions of law. 

A second petition from both towns for leave to discontinue 
this highway was presented at the March term, 1851, which was 
dismissed, but at the same term another petition was filed and 
referred to the road commissioners, who at the October term 
following reported against the discontinuance. At the March 
term, 1853, this report was set aside and the case was referred 
to a new board of road commissioners. This tribunal also con- 
firmed the action of its predecessors and the court accepted their 
report. Three years later, a further petition was laid before 
the court asking that the action of the road commissioners be 
set aside on the ground that circumstances had changed in the 
meantime and that the highway and bridge were no longer re- 
quired. The court regarded this new apphcation as "vexatious" 
litigation and refused to entertain it.^ 

The contest was complicated by the grant of a charter from the 
legislature of 1848 for a new toll bridge at the lower crossing and 
by a later petition of those people who had used the Boscawen 
toll bridge asking for a free bridge at this point.^ If private enter- 
prise was willing to construct a bridge at the south, it was argued 
that individuals rather than the towns should be made to build 
one at the north. If a free bridge was to be built at the expense 
of Canterbury and Boscawen, it should be constructed at the 
place where travel would be most accommodated and this, it was 
claimed, was at the lower crossing. The petition for a highway 
across the Merrimack at the latter place came in due time before 
the road commissioners and the prayer of the petitioners was 
granted in 1852 and the action of the commissioners was subse- 
quently confirmed by the court. The earlier application for a 
free bridge over the Merrimack at Boscawen Plain continued in 
the courts until 1857, when, all objections thereto having been 

1 33 N. H. Report, page 421. See also 23 N. H. Report, page 188: 28 N. H. 
Report, page 195 : and 37 N. H. Report, page 466, for further history of this case, 
s N. H. Statesman, January 26, 1849. 


overruled by the judges both at the law and trial terms, further 
opposition was abandoned. 

From first to last the following attorneys were engaged in this 
case : Pierce and Minot, John H. George, Ira Perley, Asa Fowler, 
James Bell, Flint and Bryant, George W. Morrison, Henry A. 
Bellows, William L. Foster and William H. Bartlett. 

The leading champion for the Canterbury free bridge was 
Col. David M. Clough, although he was not one of the original 
petitioners. Enhsting in the cause after it was opposed by the 
people of both towns, he carried it to a successful termination. 
In the courts and in the newspapers of the day he appeared its 
unflinching advocate.^ With an abiding faith in the justness of 
his cause and with a vision which saw beyond the demands of 
the immediate present. Colonel Clough was undisturbed either 
by the intensity or by the numerical strength of the opposition. 
His victory, while a personal triumph, was of lasting benefit to 
his fellow-citizens of both towns. 

The result of the contest, as previously stated, was the build- 
ing of two free bridges between Canterbury and Boscawen. Both 
were covered, wooden bridges. The lower one withstood the 
storms until March 2, 1896, when it was carried away by a freshet. 
Then for about two years, the old chain ferry was revived and 
continued in use until the present steel structure was completed 
in 1898. 

The bridge from Canterbury to Boscawen Plain was erected in 
the autumn of 1857 under the supervision of John Abbott of 
Concord.^ There was a rivalry among the people of both towns 
to see who should first drive across it when it was finished. The 
successful contestant was Henry L. Clough, a son of Colonel 
Clough. This bridge was so securely built that no floods ever 
weakened its piers and it lasted until 1907, when the present hand- 
some steel span was constructed by the vote of both towns. 

The town fathers and other public servants may have been 
worthy of their hire at all times, but those who elected them 
thought it the part of wisdom to fix occasionally their compensa- 
tion. At the annual meeting in 1821, the town "voted that the 

1 N. H. Statesman, January 26, 1849. 

2 It •was of a style unfamiliar in this country. The type was that of the 
quaint old English bridge. The roof stretched forth in two camel's back spans 
that rose from either end in odd sweeping curves and converged at the center 
of the structure, meeting at a level with the starting points. 







selectmen shall receive $1.25 per day for their services when 
taking the inventory, reviewing the roads and for all other serv- 
ices abroad, when making taxes and when sitting on other busi- 
ness $1 per day, and in all cases to board themselves free of expense 
to the town." The next year the selectmen were given a uniform 
rate of one dollar per day. 

It was customary when suit was brought against the town 
or the town was indicted for having defective highways, which 
occasionally occurred, and when it became necessary for the town 
to go to law to protect its rights, to choose an agent who should 
act for the people in their collective capacity, assisting in the 
preparation of the case and employing counsel. Usually these 
agents were elected to attend to some specific lawsuit. In 1822, 
however, Ezekiel Morrill was chosen agent "to make defence 
against all suits at law that may be commenced, or commence 
actions against towns or individuals when he with the advice of 
the selectmen shall think proper, and the said agent shall receive 
for his services seventy-five cents per day exclusive of his 

The town had been indicted for two bad roads the year before, 
but had named Abiel Foster as agent to undertake its defence. 
The records do not show any further indictments for defective 
highways for several years or that the town was engaged in liti- 
gation. As Mr. Morrill's authority as agent was general, his 
appointment may have been in anticipation of suits and for the 
purpose of limiting the charges of the town agent for services. 

At the annual meeting in 1831, there was an article in the 
warrant ''to see if the town will accept so much of Northfield 
as lies south east of a line commencing at the northwest corner 
of the Boswell lot so called in said Northfield, running (in a) 
southwesterly direction to Canterbury line including the farms of 
Josiah Marden, Eliphalet Brown and the Boswell lot above men- 
tioned and a part of Nathaniel Whidden's lot, provided the town 
of Northfield is willing to disannex the same." 

The town voted to accept the territory mentioned. It appar- 
ently comprised those farms in Northfield which were later 
included in the Hill's Corner school district. Either Northfield 
did not consent to this loss of territory or the people interested 
secured the result desired by act of the legislature, annexing their 
farms to this district in Canterbury for school purposes. 


A brilliant and promising son of Canterbury during the first 
quarter of the nineteenth century was Charles Glidden Haines, 
who was born January 24, 1792. At the age of fourteen he was 
a clerk in the office of the secretary of state at Concord and 
captain of a military company of boys. Graduating from 
Middlebury College in 1816 he read law and settled in New 
York City, where he was admitted to the bar in 1821. He 
soon after became private secretary to Gov. DeWitt Clinton 
whose earnest champion he was. Largely through his efforts 
the governor was reinstated to political power in 1825 and he 
appointed Mr. Haines adjutant general of the state, a position 
for which he did not qualify owing to his untimely death at 
the age of thirty-three. In a biographical sketch of him, written 
by Charles Walker, Jr., of New York, it is said: 

"He came to the city of New York a poor and friendless 
stranger, and in the short space of seven years he surrounded 
himself with numerous and valuable friends, acquired a dis- 
tinguished reputation as a scholar, a politician and a writer, 
and rose to one of the highest offices in the gift of the state 

Mr. Haines edited the first law journal pubhshed in this 
country. He was the author of many treatises on legal and 
political subjects, notably "A Complete System of Republican 
Government," written for the republics of South America by 
the request of their representatives and at the instance of Daniel 
Webster. Practicing law in the Supreme Court of the United 
States he contended successfully for the free navigation of the 
Hudson River and he was engaged in other causes involving 
important constitutional questions. His varied and intense 
labors were too much for his physical strength. After an illness 
of a few months he died July 3, 1825. 



It was not until 1833 that the legal relations between the 
town of Canterbury and the Rev. Wilham Patrick were formally 
dissolved. At the ]\Iarch meeting the j^ear before, a committee, 
appoint edin 1830 to ascertain the annual expense of assessing 
and collecting the minister's tax for the Congregational Society, 
to examine the minister's tax from the date of Mr. Patrick's 
settlement in 1803 to the year 1831 and to find the balance after 
payment of his salary, if any, made its report. They found the 
average annual cost to be S4.50 and the balance after payment 
and drawbacks to be $148.19. This report was accepted by the 

An attempt was made at a meeting held November 5, 1832, 
to arrange some settlement with the Congregational Society 
and end the contract between the town and Mr. Patrick, but the 
voters for some reason refused to take action. The next spring, 
however, Mr. Patrick's contract was annulled, but, if a formal 
settlement was made with the society, it was not recorded in 
the town books. Evidently the amount involved was not enough 
to occasion dispute and apparently arose over the cost of collect- 
ing Mr. Patrick's salary and the interest on arrearages, etc. 

It will thus be seen that, while the toleration act of 1819 
absolved the inhabitants of the town from taxation without their 
consent for the support of the gospel, the machinery of the town 
of Canterbury continued to be used for the collection of rates 
from those of the Congregational faith until 1833. As stated 
in a previous chapter, Mr. Patrick's contract when he settled in 
Canterbury in 1803 was with the town, and the town alone could 


annul this contract. After a time it became apparent to the 
people of the Congregational Society that no advantage accrued 
to them from continuing an antiquated system of raising money 
for the support of their minister. From this time forward, there- 
fore, the history of the Congregational Society at the Center 
loses its connection with tovm. affairs.^ 

The parsonage lot at the Center continued a subject for 
consideration until 1852. The meeting house and the town 
house stood on this land. At various times in the history of the 
town, applications were made for the use of the parsonage land. 
Sometimes these applications were for purchase and sometimes 
for lease. The early ministers of the town had the use of it for 
tillage and its income from all sources went to the support of the 

At the annual meeting in 1833 two parcels of the parsonage 
land were sold, one to Frederick Chase "off the corner where 
his house stands at the selectmen's appraisal," and the other to 
Richard Greenough "at a reasonable compensation" on which 
to erect a barn. 

It was also "voted that the income from the parsonage near 
the Congregational meeting house which has been for years past 
for the benefit of Rev. William Patrick, late town minister, 
shall until otherwise ordered be paid to the Congregational Soci- 
ety for the support of the gospel as they may choose to direct." 

In 1838 the question of the disposition of the parsonage fund 
and land was brought before the annual meeting, but no action 
w^as taken. Four years later, the town "voted to lease a piece 
of the parsonage land sufficient for a blacksmith shop, coal house 
and shed so long as it may be wanted for this purpose." 

At the annual meeting in 1843, the town granted the use of a 
suitable lot to the Freewill Baptist Society to be located between 
the store of Richard Greenough and the blacksmith shop occupied 
by Jonathan K. Taylor on which to build a meeting house, the 
society to pay a reasonable annual rent. 

Two years later the town "voted that the annual income of all 
the parsonage, w^hether it consist of land, money or securities, be 
divided between the Congregational and Freewill Baptist soci- 
eties, equally, until otherwise ordered by the town." The select- 

1 See chapter on Center Congregational Church. 


men were authorized to lay out a burying ground and fence it 
"at the north end of the parsonage land north of the town house 
if the piece of land will answer for the same." An appraisal was 
to be made of the lot and the interest on that sum was to be paid 
annually to the two religious societies. The selectmen laid out 
the burying ground and valued the lot at $50. 

At a special meeting November 29, 1845, there were several 
articles in the warrant to see if the town would dispose of lots 
on the parsonage land, including a proposition to sell the whole 
at public auction, but all these articles were indefinitely post- 
poned. The subject was again brought up for consideration 
at the annual meeting in 1847, and the town "voted that the 
whole of the parsonage (land) not before disposed of be sold at 
public auction under the direction of the selectmen and that the 
same be by them divided into lots with a view to suit purchasers." 
The sale occurred within a year, for, at the March meeting of 
1848, the selectmen were directed "to pay over all the parsonage 
money now deposited with the town which arose from the sale 
of the parsonage land, or that may come into their hands as a 
parsonage fund, to the Congregational and Freewill Baptist 
Societies in equal proportions." In case there was not enough 
money in the town treasury to comply with these instructions, 
the selectmen were directed to give a note of the town to the 
societies for the full amount due. 

The Congregational Society before receiving its share was "to 
relinquish all title they imagine they have to the lot on which their 
meeting house stands and agree not to bring any suit in law against 
the town or against any individual who has purchased any of the 
aforesaid parsonage land." The vote on this proposition was 
sixty-one in favor to fifty-two against. The Congregational 
Society adopted a resolution in conformity with the requirement 
of the town. Trouble was anticipated at the meeting where 
this sale was authorized and an attempt was made to avoid it 
by an amendment offered to the vote of the town, but the amend- 
ment was not accepted. A special meeting was called for Septem- 
ber 16, 1848, for the purpose among other things of receiving 
the report of the selectmen on the outcome of the sale. It 
appeared that they had sold land "used as a common" and the 
meeting house, town house, shed and store lots. These particu- 
lar sales the town refused to ratify and requested the Congre- 



gational and Freewill Baptist Societies to refund the money 
received therefrom. The town further declared "that these lots 
remain in common as heretofore, no part of them being occupied 
except where the meeting house, town house, sheds and store 
stand, ■uithout a vote of the town." 

Finally at the annual meeting in 1849 a committee, consisting 
of two representatives each from the Congregational and Baptist 
Societies, one from the Shakers and one on the part of the town, 
was appointed "to adjust existing difficulties arising from or 
connected with the sale of the meeting house, store and shed 
lots." The committee consisted of John A. Chamberlain and 
Joseph Ham from the Congregational Society, Joseph M. Harper 
and David M. Clough from the Freewill Baptist Society, 
David Parker in behalf of the Shakers and Benjamin Sanborn 
for the town. The selectmen were also authorized to negotiate 
with Charles Greenough for his title to the blacksmith shop lot, 
to sell and convey the same, and "divide the proceeds as other 
such funds have been divided." 

The committee probably settled all these questions to the satis- 
faction of the town and the two rehgious societies, as there is no 
further reference to the subject in the records. There still re- 
mained to be disposed of the lot north of the town house which 
was laid out for a burying yard in 1845, and the lot the use of 
which had been voted to the Freewill Baptist Society for a 
meeting house in 1843. The towTi voted in 1852 to sell the bury- 
ing yard lot at auction. An attempt was made in 1845 to have 
the town sell the Baptist Meeting House lot to that society for 
a parsonage house, but it failed. In 1852, however, the select- 
men were instructed to lease a piece of land in the rear of the old 
meeting house, thirty-one by forty feet, to the Baptist Society 
as a building lot for a church, the lease to run for so long a time 
as the lot was occupied for religious purposes. The society did 
not avail itself of this privilege.^ 

The parsonage lot of forty acres, which was given in 1752 by 
Dea. Ezekiel Morrill in exchange for 100 acres of the proprietors' 
undivided land, included the cemetery at the Center, the old 
pound adjacent thereto, the present common, the sites of the 
chapel, the two stores, the town and meeting houses, and all 

1 The Baptist Society referred to was the one organized at the Center in 



the land embraced between the road running by the Joseph P. 
Dearborn place and the highway which passes the John W. Dris- 
coll place to where they meet and form the road to Hackleborough. 
The vote of the town in 1752 described the parsonage lot as 
"adjoining the meeting house," which at that time was located 
south of the present highway on some part of the present 

At the annual meeting in 1837, the town was called upon by 
act of the legislature to determine what disposition it would make 
of its share of the surplus revenue of the United States which 
Congress had voted to deposit with the several states. This 
surplus was to be paid in four instalments to such states as voted 
to accept it, subject to recall by the secretary of the treasury 
whenever needed by the general government. The faith of the 
states was pledged to return the deposits. What to do with the 
money was a problem confronting the legislatures, the solution 
of which makes an interesting story, but it is foreign to this his- 
tory except as it pertains to the action of New Hampshire. 

Isaac Hill, then governor, urged the legislature to loan the 
state's quota and use the interest to pay the expenses of govern- 
ment. In his opinion the money belonged to the state; in the 
opinion of the legislature it belonged to the people. The general 
court met November 23, 1836, and laying aside all other business 
it devoted its time to settling the question of distribution. The 
session lasted fifty-three days, the longest with one exception 
in the history of the state at that time, and on the day before 
the final adjournment, a bill was approved which divided the 
money among the towns, to be loaned, not spent, subject to recall 
should the United States ever demand it.^ If any town neglected 
to call for its share, the state treasurer was authorized to loan 
the money and pay the interest to the town. 

At the July session, 1838, the towns were authorized to use 
the loan for any purpose for which they could lawfully raise 
taxes. ^ Three years later they were given authority to make 
such disposition of it as a majority of the town should determine.* 

1 The parsonage lot in the fourth division of lots was sold at public auction 
May 8, 1824, to Jeremiah Small for $199 and the proceeds appropriated to the 
support of the gospel. 

2 Act of January 13, 1837. 
'Act of July 4, 1838. 
<Actof July 2, 1841. 


New Hampshire's proportion of the surplus revenue was 
S892,llo.71. Only three instalments were ever paid. Before 
the fourth instalment became due, the condition of the United 
States treasury was such that Congress voted to postpone the 
paj^ment.^ New Hampshire received §669,086.79, of which 
amount Canterbury's share was S3, 790. 65. ^ 

At the March meeting, 1837, the town ''voted to let the 
public money remain in the state treasury (that is the first in- 
stalment)." Amos Cogswell, chairman of the board of selectmen, 
was elected agent to receive the interest on this deposit. 

The people of Canterbury were not unanimous in this decision. 
A committee to whom the question had been referred reported 
in favor of taking possession of the first instalment. After the 
annual meeting adjourned, a doubt arose whether the deposit 
would be entirely secure in the hands of the state treasurer. 
If the money was lost through bad investment, would the state 
make it good to the town? A meeting was accordingly called 
for July 7, 1837, to reconsider the subject. At this meeting it 

"Resolved that, if it can be satisfactorily shown to the select- 
men that the town can enjoy the interest of the surplus revenue 
without being responsible for the loss of the principal, it be per- 
mitted to remain in the hands of the state treasurer at present." 

This official regarded himself as mereh' an agent of distribu- 
tion without responsibility except to account to the towns for 
their quota and pay it to them when they complied Math the terms 
of the act of disbursement. There is no entry in his accounts 
of the surplus revenue fund, except of the amount due to the 
unincorporated places. An advertisement appeared in the 
New Hampshire Patriot showing the receipt of the first instal- 
ment from the federal government and the allotment made to 
the towns of the state.^ As three instalments of equal amounts 
were received and distributed by the state treasurer, each town's 
share can be computed from this table. 

The selectmen of Canterbury evidently ascertained that, if 
the tOMTi permitted the state to loan the money, it would do so 
at its own risk of loss, for another meeting was called for October 

I McMaster's History American People, Vol. VI, pages 351 to 357. 
» N. H. Patriot, February 13, 1837. 
t Idem. 


7, 1837, to take the sense of the voters on "the expediency of 
receiving forthwith their proportion of the surplus revenue, to 
see if they will employ a part to pay for their town farm, and to 
determine whether they will choose some other person than the 
chairman of the board of selectmen to take charge of the money." 

The town voted to draw its proportion of the surplus revenue 
from the state treasury and elected Joseph Ham, Jr., its agent to 
collect and handle the funds. The article in the warrant to use 
part of the money to pay for the town farm was dismissed, as 
under the first act of distribution, the towns could not appropriate 
the funds but simply loan them. Agent Ham, therefore, had 
at this time one and perhaps two instalments to loan on 
approved security. 

At the annual meeting in 1838, four months after the town had 
decided to take its quota, it was voted to use the interest on the 
surplus revenue fund to defray town charges. The selectmen 
were instructed at the same meeting "to give our agent a note 
on interest after demanded for the money the town owes him 
which belongs to the United States." Apparently the town had 
already borrowed of its agent some of the fund, thus avoiding 
the spirit of the statute forbidding the town to appropriate the 

Before the next annual meeting the legislature enlarged the 
purposes for which the surplus revenue could be used by the 
towns. The act of July 4, 1838, permitted them not only to loan 
on approved security in sums not less than $25, but also to 
"appropriate to any purpose for which they may lawfully raise 
money." Opinion was rapidly crystallizing in New Hampshire 
that the money never would be called for by the United States 
and that what had been offered as a deposit could with safety 
be treated as a gift. 

Accordingly, Canterbury at its March meeting in 1839 "voted 
to take S700 (of the surplus revenue) to pay town charges and 
a sufficient sum to pay the county tax." The interest received 
from any of the fund which was loaned was thereafter to be added 
to the principal. At the next annual meeting, the town charges 
were again met by drawing upon this fund. 

Agent Ham evidently required the town to observe certain 
business formalities when it appropriated the money in his cus- 
tody, and he surrendered it only upon the selectmen giving notes 


for the same. The people of Canterbury could see no advantage 
accruing to them in the use of this money if these notes remained 
as outstanding obligations of the town. Therefore, at a special 
meeting November 7, 1840, the following article appeared in the 
warrant : 

"To see what the town wWl do with the note given to Joseph 
Ham Jr. as agent to take care of the surplus money, given March 
14, 1838, by the selectmen of Canterbury for the sum of $1600." 

The town promptly voted that the note be given up. Mr, 
Ham appears to have refused to comply with this instruction, 
for, at the annual meeting in 1841, the question of the distribu- 
tion of the surplus revenue was again up for consideration. It 
was then "voted that Joseph Ham Jr. as agent to take care of 
the surplus revenue, surrender all notes he holds against the 
town and pay the remainder of said money and notes to the 

Before the next annual meeting, the state had given the towns 
authority to make such disposition of their quota of the surplus 
revenue as a majority of the voters in each town should deter- 
mine.^ The notes were, therefore, surrendered and what was left 
of Canterbury's share not already appropriated was mingled with 
the town's revenue and applied to paying expenses. 

Many towns of the state used their proportion of the surplus 
revenue for school purposes. Portsmouth distributed its share 
per capita among the inhabitants. The selectmen of Gilford, 
having spent the town's share probably for to^vTi needs, were 
ordered by the voters to borrow enough to make good the defi- 
ciency that the whole might be given to the people. This they 
refused to do.^ 

That pubUc office was considered a public trust by the citi- 
zens of Canterbury, and that officials, especially the selectmen, 
were held to a strict accountability for their acts and charges for 
services, is shown by several votes of the town during the period 
under consideration. Prior to the published reports of recent 
years, the town fathers, or the auditors when chosen, made oral 
statements of the year's transactions, at the annual meetings and 
they were undoubtedly sharply interrogated by the voters if 

lAct of July 2, 1841. 

s McMaster's History American People, Vol. VI, page 353. 


the latter had reason to think there had been either extravagance 
of mangement or neglect of duty. This was at a time when the 
honor of holding office was considered to be a part of its emolu- 
ment and the public servant was only worthy of his hire if his 
services met with approbation and his charges were moderate 
and frugal. The annual and special town meetings were occa- 
sions when individuals aired their grievances. It required only 
a few petitioners to secure the insertion in the warrant of an 
article to take the sense of the voters on almost any subject. It 
is not improbable that envy or spite prompted some of the 
impeachments of officials put forth under the guise of inquiry 
in the calls for the public assembly of the inhabitants of the town. 
While the records merely register the questions raised and the 
action taken, the imagination of one familiar with New England 
town meetings can readily fill in the picture of what took place 
when the policy of the town fathers was condemned or some 
public servant was called upon to explain his services. 

The accounts of the selectmen were evidently challenged at 
the annual meeting in 1832, and, not being able to give all the 
details demanded, they were instructed by the town to purchase 
a book and to enter therein a correct record in detail of all their 
transactions, "stating the particular business which they or any 
of them were attending to, the place where such business was 
done, whether by vote of the town or at the request of an indi- 
vidual." This book was also to be used by their successors and 
to be open to the inspection of any citizen. 

In 1839 the rebuke to the selectmen was more pointed. It 
was then "voted that the selectmen do business according to law 
and not according to custom." Apparently the board had 
justified some practice by saying that they had followed the 
custom of their predecessors. 

At a meeting three years later an article appeared in the war- 
rant "to see if the town approves the course of the selectmen in 
running the town in debt and pledging its faith to pay said debts 
without any appropriation or authority." The town fathers 
had notice this time that they were to be catechised, and they 
prepared their defence so satisfactorily that they were vindi- 
cated, the vote of confidence reading, "to sustain the selectmen 
agreeably to the article in the warrant." 

At the annual meeting in 1847 the auditors report that they 


found all charges of the selectmen correct, except that each col- 
lected one dollar for his services town meeting day. The com- 
ment of the auditors is as follows, "It appears that this has been 
the practice for several years, but your auditors are of the opin- 
ion that no such charge should be made." Their report was 
accepted, which would indicate that the voters believed that the 
work of the selectmen on town meeting day in regulating the 
check list and assisting to sort and count the votes was a patri- 
otic duty and not one of hire. 

For a generation the most prominent citizen in Canterbury 
was Dr. Joseph M. Harper. He was born in Limerick, Me., June 
21, 1787, being one of a family of ten children. Educated at the 
academy in Fryeburg, Me., he studied medicine, settling first at 
Sanbornton in 1810. The next year he located in Canterbury, 
having become acquainted with the town while a medical student 
pursuing his studies with Dr. Jonathan Kittredge. During the 
War of 1812, he enlisted and was commissioned as second surgeon 
in the Fourth United States Infantry. He served from Jan- 
uary, 1813, to the close of the war. In 1826 and 1827 Doctor 
Harper was elected to represent Canterbury in the legislature. 
He was chosen to the state senate in 1829 and reelected the 
next year, serving that body as its president during the session 
of 1830. When Matthew Harvey resigned as governor Febru- 
ary 28, 1831, Doctor Harper succeeded him as chief magistrate 
of New Hampshire. The same year that he served as gover- 
nor, he was elected to Congress and reelected in 1833. He 
early joined the Freewill Baptist Church of Canterbury, and, 
for several years when the church was without a pastor, he 
officiated in the pulpit. As a speaker he was forceful and direct 
without any of the gifts of the orator. As a physician he was 
successful and beloved by his patients. 

While a member of the senate in 1829, the governor and 
council appointed him an agent of the state to visit Connecti- 
cut and gather information regarding the cultivation of the mul- 
berry tree, the methods of raising the silk worm and the manu- 
facture of silk. His report made to the next legislature was 
printed in pamphlet form and circulated gratuitously through 
New Hampshire. While in Congress, he was a strong supporter 
of Jackson's administration. He was an ardent advocate of 
temperance reform, not having used either liquor or tobacco the 


last twenty-five years of his life. The common school system 
had no better friend than he. 

Doctor Harper was a strong and rugged personality and a man 
of much public spirit and enterprise. He was consulted freely 
upon all town matters. Plain of speech, his part in town meet- 
ings frequently provoked opposition, yet there was respect for 
his ability and his integrity. An illustration of his outspoken 
opinion of men occurred in a party caucus. It was proposed to 
nominate a certain individual for one of the selectmen. Imme- 
diatelj' Doctor Harper was on his feet in opposition. "It would 
never do," said he, "]\Ir. Blank is not an honest man." The 
candidate was present at the caucus. Such frankness is not 
likely to promote popularity and it is not strange that, as oppor- 
tunity afforded, effort was made to discredit the Doctor. He, 
however, shrank from no conflict and it was a rare occurrence 
when he was discomfited in debate. The following incident 
from the town records is a tribute to Doctor Harper's influence, 
although the vote was intended as a rebuke to him and probably 
passed when he was absent. 

At a special meeting called to see what disposition the town 
would make of a piece of land at the north end of the parsonage 
lot which was laid out for a burying ground, the selectmen were 
called upon to make explanation of some transaction of which 
the records are silent. Apparently these oflacials had sought the 
counsel of Doctor Harper and acted upon it. This did not meet 
the approval of the assembly, for the clerk makes the foUowdng 
record : 

"Voted that our selectmen be instructed to obtain legal advice 
when necessary in the discharge of their official duties and not 
rely upon the opinion of Dr. Harper." 

IMore explicit in detail are the records of the town in 1844, 
when the services of the superintendent of the town farm were 
called in question by some of the voters. One of the articles in 
the warrant for the annual meeting that year read as follows: 

"To see if the town will vote to pay Samuel Tallant Jr. the full 
amount of his wages as manager of the town farm the year past 
when for the last three months he has been engaged in other 
business, hereby rendering no service to the town by his labor 
on said farm; and further, if said Tallant be paid the full amount 
of his wages by the selectmen (which would be unjust before 


this meeting), then to see what method the town will adopt to 
have that part of the money which actually does not belong to 
him refunded." 

It is easy to comprehend the excitement that must have been 
created after this warrant was posted and read by the citizens 
for two successive Sabbaths as they assembled at the Center and 
Hill's Corner to attend divine service. Mr. Tallant was a man 
of the highest standing in town, with a reputation for the strictest 
probity in all his pubhc and private dealings. The accusation 
not only contained the charge of neglect of duty, but the imputa- 
tion that he had collected or was trying to collect pay for serv- 
ices which he had not rendered. The case was undoubtedly 
discussed at every fireside and the accused may have been found 
guilty by some persons before his side of the story was heard. 
There is not even a traditional account of what took place at the 
town meeting, for no one now living recalls the incident. The 
vindication of Mr. Tallant, however, was complete. At the 
close of a discussion which undoubtedly took place, the town 
adopted the following resolution apparently without a dissenting 

"Resolved that the thanks of the town be presented to Mr. 
Samuel Tallant for the faithful manner in which he has dis- 
charged his duties as superintendent of the town farm, and to the 
selectmen for permitting the said Tallant to teach the school in 
District No. 7, thereby saving the town $20." 

The Canterbury town meeting, especially the regular annual 
gathering, was invariably an interesting occasion until as late as 
1878, when the state and town elections were separated by the 
amended constitution. It required two days at least to transact 
the business of the March meeting. The first day was given over 
to organization, voting for state and county officers, choosing 
a representative to the general court, the election of the select- 
men and, if there was time, to the selection of some minor officers. 
Rarely, however, did the business of the first day proceed further 
than the election of selectmen and sometimes not even this 
article in the warrant was reached until the second day. 

From the earliest division of the people into political parties 
in the state and nation, Canterbury was debatable ground in 
partisan contests. In the strife between Federalists and Anti- 
federafists, between Democrats and Whigs, and later between 


Democrats and Republicans, the margin of the majority party 
in town was seldom large enough at any election to eliminate a 
trial of strength the following year. The political battle in town 
opened with the choice of a moderator, the law prior to 1893 
requiring this official to be elected by the meeting over which he 
presided. This was the test vote. The political complexion of 
the moderator almost invariably determined the party to elect 
the representative to the legislature and the board of selectmen.^ 

The town clerk was usually chosen year after year as long as 
he would serve, though if party spirit ran high, not even his 
popularity, the outgrowth of constant accommodation to his 
fellow-citizens, saved him from defeat if his party lost the town. 

With the exception of the election of a delegate to a constitu- 
tional convention, when one was called, which was rare, the 
position of representative to the legislature was the highest office 
in the gift of the town. Few there were of the citizens who did not 
hope that at some period of their lives the choice would fall upon 
them. The strife for both the nomination and election was 
usually intense and sometimes led to breaks in party alignment, 
necessitating several ballots to secure the majority vote required 
for an election. Occasionally an adjournment had to be taken 
to a second day before a choice was made. In some instances, the 
voters wearied by successive ballots voted not to send a repre- 
sentative to the general court. 

In the days before the separation of the town from the state 
election, the position of selectman was a partisan office, the town 
fathers having charge of the making and correcting of the check 
list, thus sitting as a tribunal to determine who were voters in 
town. In a close town like Canterbury, the control of the check 
list might decide which party would succeed in the ensuing 
election. In times of intense partisan contests, the candidates 
for selectmen were not always selected solely with a view to their 
ability to do town business.^ Usually the candidate for chairman 
of the board was a man familiar with town affairs, but his associ- 
ates were too often selected for their disposition to give their 
party a winning check list. Sometimes the party would over- 
reach itself in making this kind of selection, the incompetence of 

1 This was true of other towns of the state. 

2 This was true in all of the close towns of the state and the fact was a 
potent argument in favor of the change in the constitution separating the 
town from other elections. 


the individuals in discharging their town duties resulting in their 
defeat at the next election. 

It will thus be seen why the business of the annual town 
meeting required more than one day. Exciting as the first day 
was, it was often eclipsed in interest by the day that followed^ 
even when none of the work laid out for the first day had to be 
postponed. On the second day came the selection of minor 
officials, such as highway surveyors, hogreeves, field drivers^ 
sometimes called haywards,^ fence viewers, superintending school 
committee, pound keeper, etc. These positions were not usually 
sought, but the practice was to fill them by nominations from 
the floor. Young men were sometimes complimented by elec- 
tions as highway surveyors, while a newly married man was 
very likely to be chosen a hogreeve at the election following his 

It was on the second day, moreover, that the citizens took up 
and analyzed the reports of the selectmen, the auditors and the 
superintending school committee and that votes of instruction or 
of censure were given to town officials. Sometimes, as has been 
seen, the articles in the warrant foreshadowed what was coming, 
but more frequently a discussion would arise from a wholly 
unexpected quarter, provoked by some criticism of official action. 

At this time the old town house of Canterbury became a place 
of great excitement. The large open area extending lengthwise 
of the building from the door to the moderator's desk was filled 
with voters, while the aged and infirm sought the seats at the 
sides.2 From the front seats the speakers usually addressed the 
presiding officer and made their talks, a large part of the audience 
standing on the floor below. The moderator's desk was elevated 
so that this official was protected from any turbulent individual 
who desired to create a disturbance. The presiding officer was 
almost always one of the prominent citizens of Canterbury 
whose service in the legislature or experience in public gatherings 
had made him reasonably familiar with parliamentary practice. 
The contentions were earnest and the debates lively, often 
tinctured with spicy personalities which the moderator labored 
in vain to check. For the most part the discussion was carried 

1 Act of Febniary 8, 1791. 

2 The town house was the old town church cut down one story, the seats 
being the gallery of the meeting house. 


on by the older men of the town, but the youngsters of ability 
could always secure attention. 

The leading men of Canterbury for the second quarter of the 
nineteenth century were well distributed over the town. In 
proximity to the Center were Dr. Joseph M. Harper, Squire 
Joseph Clough, Ezekiel Morrill, son of Masten Morrill, Laban 
Morrill, son of Samuel A. Morrill, James Elkins and Richard 
Greenough. In the Hill's Corner school district were Amos 
Cogswell, Dudley Hill, Gardner T. Barker, Joseph Ham, Jr., and 
Otis Young. At the Baptist was Elder Jeremiah Clough. In the 
western part of the town were Tristram Dow, Dea. John A. 
Chamberlain and Andrew Taylor. At the Borough or Pallet 
Borough, as it was also called, were John J. Bryant, Joseph 
Lyford, Jr., and Benjamin Sanborn, while at Hackleborough were 
members of the Foster family. 

For almost a generation prior to the Civil War "Squire" 
Joseph Clough was one of the most prominent men in the political, 
religious and business life of Canterbury. A grandson of Thomas 
Clough, one of the first settlers, he seemed to have inherited the 
sterling qualities so pronounced in his ancestor. In a town hav- 
ing no lawyer, he was the adviser of his neighbors in business 
affairs and he was frequently at their service in making convey- 
ances of property, drawing wills and settUng estates. 

"Squire" Clough was a model presiding officer, dignified and 
courteous in his bearing. Of commanding ability and large 
information, he would have been a leader in the state had his lot 
been cast in a more favorable environment. There was not a 
town office of importance that he was not called upon to fill. 
Elected to the legislature, he took a prominent part in its pro- 
ceedings and later he became a member of the council during the 
administrations of Governors Jared W. Williams and Samuel 
Dinsmore, Jr. 

At his home he dispensed a liberal hospitality, and more public 
men were entertained in the "Mansion House" than in all the 
other homes in Canterbury. Elder John Chamberlain at his 
funeral, remarking on Mr. Clough's guests, said, "At this fireside 
have been entertained those who became governors of states, 
congressmen and senators, judges of the Supreme Court and even 
a president of the United States."^ 

1 Franklin Pierce. 


In 1838 Mr. Clough was ordained a minister of the Freewill 
Baptist Church and preached in Canterbury and the neighboring 
towns. A representative man, his entire life was one of helpful- 
ness to his fellowmen. 

A close rival to Squire Joseph Clough in political influence was 
Elder Jeremiah Clough until he entered the service of the min- 
istry. He was a man of ability and integrity. His election to 
the legislature in 1831 and 1832 was when he was a comparatively 
young man, and had his inclinations to politics continued, there is 
every reason to believe that he would have occupied a command- 
ing position in the state. Fervent of speech, enthusiastic in 
purpose, he had all the attributes of a popular leader. 

Amos Cogswell succeeded his father as the local "Squire" at 
Hill's Corner, transacting the legal business of his neighbors 
necessary to their conveying property during life and administer- 
ing on their estates after death. His election as town clerk in 
1841 and 1842 was at a time when the Corner was a thriving com- 
munity and bidding fair to become the business village of the 
town. After holding various town offices, he was elected to the 
state senate in 1838 and 1839. 

Ezekiel Morrill, son of Masten Morrill, was one of the substan- 
tial citizens of Canterbury, and through a long life was held in 
high esteem. The records of the town attest his activity and the 
confidence of his fellow-townsmen. For a series of years he was 
almost continuously in office, receiving in 1836 the nearly 
unanimous vote of Canterbury for the office of member of the 
governor's council. He was a state senator and a councillor for 
two terms each. 

For a period of twenty years following 1839 the town was in 
litigation over the laying out of new highways. Petitions for 
these roads would be addressed to the selectmen who, after 
notice and hearing, would determine Avhether the public good 
required such a highway to be laid out and built. If they denied 
the petition, the applicants could appeal to the county court for 
a hearing. The petition was then referred to a committee of 
three men appointed by the court, or to the road commissioners 
of the county, after these officials were provided for by statute, 
who heard the parties and made their report to the court. What- 
ever the action of the county tribunal, there was still opportunity 
for appeals for a rehearing or to the higher court on questions 


of law. Few matters were ever fought with greater pertinacity 
than those relating to the laying out of new highways. 

Usually the proposed road accommodated but a few individuals 
and the sentiment of the town would be decidedly against the 
expenditure necessary to build it. Oftentimes the new highway 
was to take the place of an old one, shortening the distance or 
saving a hill. As most of the highways of Canterbury traversed 
the lines of the early settlements, or followed the range roads 
north and south, and east and west, they were naturally hilly. 
When it was proposed to avoid these elevations by petitioning 
for a new highway, or the desire was to make a more direct route 
between two points, the request did not directly appeal to the 
people of other sections of the town who seldom had occasion 
to use either the old road or the proposed new highway. There- 
fore, when the selectmen, looking to the financial interest of the 
larger number, refused a petition for a highwaj^, the town was 
generally disposed to instruct them to oppose its laying out by 
the county authorities. 

The story of the contest for a highway from Canterbury across 
Merrimack River to Boscawen Plain, which involved the build- 
ing of a bridge, has already been told.^ There was litigation for 
a full decade. Other highway controversies in Canterbury were 
not so long drawn out, but they were the occasion of frequent 
town meetings, and of sharp and bitter controversy. 

A special town meeting was held September 16, 1839, "to see 
if the town will choose an agent to make defence against the report 
or doings of the committee ^ in laying out a road from Sanbornton 
Bridge to Carter's Tavern in Concord." 

Another article in the warrant was "to see if the town will 
authorize the selectmen to make alterations in the road from 
Northfield line north of Jonathan Ayers to Concord line by 
making a new road and graduating the hills." 

The proposed highway was in the western part of the town on 
the route from Concord to Sanbornton Bridge (Tilton), east of 
the Merrimack River. It was evidently to take the place of an 
old road in part, and it was to contribute to the comfort of 
travelers by avoiding hard grades. The town records indicate 
that the project was promoted by Concord people, as they refer 

1 Chapter IX. 

2 Committee of the Merrimack County Court. 


to the highway "as laid out on the petition of John P. Gass and 
others." Mr. Gass was a hotel keeper at the capital of the state. 
While the controversy over this petition was still in court, another 
petition was presented by Laban Morrill and other citizens of 
Canterbury for a highway running in the same general direction, 
but over a different route. The probability that this petition 
would also be granted by the county authorities led to a town 
meeting in March, 1842, to take the sense of the voters on their 
choice of the two routes, over one of which it was evident the town 
would have to build a highwa3^ It was voted seventy-eight 
to sixty-eight to favor the road petitioned for by Mr. Gass. In 
March, 1844, the town voted to discontinue the road which had 
been laid out by the road commissioners upon the petition of 
Laban Morrill. 

The story of this controversy is not of sufficient general interest 
to justify the narration of all the details. Two attempts were 
made, one in 1844 and the other in 1848, to discontinue parts of 
the old highway which the new road had superseded in public 
use. Both failed, but at a special town meeting September 16, 
1848, there was an article in the warrant "to see if the town will 
discontinue the old road or any part thereof leading from John 
J. Bryant's south to its intersection with the new road near 
Jonathan Randall's, and, in case of discontinuance, to lay out 
a new highway from the south side of the bridge on the new road 
south of Bryant's across to Susan Arlyn's house and also to open 
and establish the road from Reuben R. Hutchin's across to the 
new road near the house of Jonathan Glines." The town voted to 
adopt this article. 

Another contest for a change in the route of travel which 
provoked strenuous opposition related to a highway leading from 
the Shakers to Hill's Corner. The old road ran north from the 
Shaker Village over a high hill, the top of which is said to be 
the most elevated point on the traveled highway between Concord 
and Meredith. The grade in several places was very steep and 
difficult of ascent, especially by loaded teams. The Shakers were 
interested with others, having occasion to frequently use the road, 
and under the lead of David Parker, their principal trustee, 
petitioned for a new highway around this hill. 

At the annual meeting in 1840, there was an article in the 
warrant "to see if the town will raise any money to lay out on 


the old road between Amos Cogswell and the Shakers graduating 
the hills to prevent making the new road." 

The town appointed Andrew Tajdor, Richard Greenough and 
John Peverly a committee to expend 81,200 on the old road, 
provided said expenditure would satisfy the petitioners for the 
new road. 

The town records show that the petition for the new highway 
was taken to the court and that a committee appointed by that 
tribunal laid out the road. For more than a year the to^-n 
continued to treat with the petitioners to avoid the necessity of 
building it, going so far as to offer to spend as much money in 
grading the hills of the old highway as they later voted to appro- 
priate for constructing the new one. Nothing came of these 
negotiations, however. It may seem strange to anyone visiting 
the locality at the present time that serious opposition should 
have been made to this improvement, but to a great part of the 
town, whose business affairs took them in other directions, this 
particular highway was without interest and of no individual 

Canterbury very early indicated its disapproval of the. liquor 
traffic. In 1832 the selectmen were instructed to prosecute 
any person who retailed spirituous liquors without a license. 
At the annual meeting two years later, they were requested 
"not to approbate any individual as a retailer of spirituous 
liquors for the current year." How far the selectmen followed 
this instruction the records do not show, but, in 1836, the toTMi 
took advance ground in favor of state-wide prohibition. At 
the annual meeting the following resolutions were adopted : 

"Whereas it is believed that the use of ardent spirits as a 
drink is injurious to the health, interest and morals of the com- 
munity and, as retailing houses are public nuisances and the prin- 
cipal cause of the perpetration of drunkenness, misery and crime, 

"Resolved that the present board of selectmen be requested to 
withhold licenses from such the present year. 

"Voted that the selectmen be instructed to petition the legis- 
lature at their next session in the name of the town of Canterbury 
to repeal the law granting licenses to sell spirituous liquors." 

At this same meeting the town fathers were instructed "to 
prosecute to final judgment and execution" any person found 



selling liquor unlawfully. Apparently no licenses were issued 
by the selectmen for the greater part of this year, as, at a meeting 
in November, the spring instructions were so far modified that 
the selectmen were given authority "to license any suitable 
person or persons to keep tavern." The selling of liquor in the 
stores probably ceased about this time. 

That the people were in earnest is show^n by another vote 
authorizing the selectmen "to call upon the militia or any part 
thereof to stop the sale of ardent spirits on Muster Day or any 
other day while under duty." 

The subject does not appear in the records again until the 
annual meeting in 1848. The legislature at its June session, 1847, 
adopted a resolution to take the sense of the voters of the state 
on the question, "Is it expedient that a law be enacted by the 
General Court prohibiting the sale of wines and other spirituous 
liquors except for chemical, medicinal and mechanical pur- 
poses?" The vote was taken at the March meeting the next 
year. The yeas and nays were demanded on this question in 
Canterbury and the record shows 110 voting in favor of a pro- 
hibitory law and only eleven against it. The sentiment of the 
town ever since 1834, when its people first declared against 
granting licenses for the sale of liquor, has been in favor of pro- 
hibition. Few towns of the state have a record of seventy-five 
years' consecutive opposition to the liquor traffic. 

The legislature of 1844 passed a resolution requiring the sense 
of the voters of the state to be taken on the question of abolishing 
capital punishment.^ At a town meeting held November 4, that 
year, Canterbury voted on this question. The record gives the 
names voting in favor of abolition and those against it. It is a 
remarkable showing, the vote standing seventy-five to do away 
with capital punishment to only thirty-five to retaining it.^ 
The sentiment of the state was largely the other way, but there 
is no official compilation of the vote. The roll of Canterbury 
voters on this subject is here given: 

Yeas — Jonathan Ayers, Jr., Alfred Abbot, William Brown, 
Alexander G. W. Bradlej^ Nahum Blanchard, Jacol^ Blodgett, 
John J. Bryant, Abiel F. Bradley, John L. Bradley, Enoch 

1 Resolution approved June 18, 1844. 

2 The record shows thirty-six against abohshing capital punishment, but 
the name of Enoch Gibson appears twice in the negative vote. 


Bradlej', Ebenezer Bachelder, Samuel Buswell, Stephen Barnard, 
Joseph Clough, William S. Currier, Moses Carter, Abiel Cogs- 
well, Amos Cogswell, Solomon M. Clifford, Lucien B. Clough, 
John Chamberlain, Tristram Dearborn, Moody Emery, Nathan , 
Emery, Jr., Jeremiah C. Elliot, James S. Elkins, Joseph M. Foster, 
William H. Foster, Benjamin Foster, Ebenezer Glover, James 
M. Glines, Hiram G. Haines, Joseph M. Harper, Mark Davis, 
Asa Foster, Adam Foster, Trueworthy Hill, Joseph Ham, 
Jr., William Hancock, Ira Huntoon, Nathaniel P. Ingalls, 
John Kezer, Joseph Kezer, John B. Knowles, Perley Knowles, 
John Lake, Thomas Lyford, John P. Lock, Daniel G. Leavitt, 
David Morrill, David Morrill, Jr., Laban Morrill, John S. 
Moore, Van Ranselear Moore, Samuel Neal, Edward Osgood, 
William M. Patrick, Billy E. Pillsbury, John Snider, Jr., Samuel 
Sargent, Edward L. Sargent, Benjamin Sanborn, Daniel Sanborn, 
Hazen Sanborn, Joseph W. Scales, Royal Scales, Thomas S. 
Smith, Christopher Snider, Amos C. Shaw, James Tallant, James 
Tallant, Jr., Samuel Tallant, Andrew Taylor, Andrew B. Taylor, 
Solomon Young. 

Nays — Jonathan Ayers, Albert Ames, Fisher Ames, Jacob 
Blanchard, Phineas D. Butman, Jerome B. Blanchard, Thomas 
Clough, Jeremiah F. Clough, Marquis D. Chaplain, John A. 
Chamberlain, Tristram C. Dow, John T. G. Emery, Nathan 
Emery, Reuben French, Charles Gerrish, Enoch Gibson, Warren 
Ham, Jr. , Amos Hannaford, Moses C. Lyford, Oliver H. Lock, 
Orville Messer, Samuel A. Morrill, Frederick P. Moore, Daniel 
Pickard, Joseph Pickard, William Patrick, Darius Small, Charles 
D. Sargent, Tilley H. Shepard, John Wheeler, Joseph Whitney, 
Nathaniel Wiggin, James M. Wiggin, John L. Young, Stephen 

As early as 1832 there was a demand that a hearse be purchased 
for the use of the town. It was voted to buy one and to build 
two houses for storing the same, these houses to be located where 
they would best accommodate the inhabitants. In thinking 
the matter over, the people evidently concluded that this action 
was unwarranted extravagance, for, at a special meeting in 
November that year, they voted to reconsider the decision made 
at the annual meeting previous. The subject did not come up 
again until 1839, when the attempt to use part of the surplus 
revenue for this purpose met with failure. No further action 
was taken until 1867, when James S. Elkins, Edward Osgood 
and Nathan Emery were appointed a committee to buy a hearse 
and provide a building. 

The old town house was never heated so long as it was used as 


a church, nor did the voters seem to think that this comfort was 
necessary after the building was devoted to secular purposes 
until 1832. Then it was ''voted that a stove may be set up in 
the town house by subscription." Volunteer offerings apparently 
did not materialize and nothing more was done towards heating 
the structure until 1858, when it was "voted that the selectmen 
cause a chimney to be erected in the town house and procure a 
suitable stove." As the initiative for this improvement was 
taken by Dr. Lorrain T. Weeks, it is probable that some of the 
older citizens had contracted serious illness by standing around 
an unwarmed assembly hall some inclement days in March. 

Doctor Weeks was a respected and influential citizen of Canter- 
bury, who later moved to Laconia. He was a successful phy- 
sician and one of the early practitioners of the homeopathic 
school. Progressive in his ideas, he appears to have enjoyed the 
confidence of his fellow-townsmen to a marked degree, being 
frequently elected to office and serving for a number of years on 
the school board. 

The soapstone industry at one time gave promise of becoming 
a thriving business in Canterbury. By act of the legislature, 
approved July 4, 1851, the Merrimack County Soapstone Com- 
pany was incorporated with a capital of $30,000. Nathan Emery, 
Joseph Clough, Freeman Webster, Henry Emery and their 
associates were the incorporators. The quarry is located in the 
west part of the town not a great distance from the railroad. For 
a time some work was done, but the lessened demand for soap- 
stone caused the enterprise to be abandoned. 

In accordance with the provisions of the statute prohibiting 
the sale of spirituous liquors in New Hampshire, the selectmen 
of Canterbury appointed a town liquor agent August 9, 1855. 
This appointment was offered to the chairman of the board of 
selectmen, Nathan Emery, by his associates. For some reason 
he declined the honor, and the following November John P. 
Kimball was designated to discharge the duties of the office. His 
appointment reads as follows : 

"Whereas a late law passed by the New Hampshire legislature 
requires us the subscribers to appoint some person for the sale of 
spirituous liquors and whereas we the subscribers have confidence 
in your ability and integrity to perform the duties of said oflfice. 


we do hereby appoint you, the said John P. Kimball, an agent 
to sell brandy, gin, wine, alcohol and rum as permitted by law. 
You are required to sell the same at a profit not exceeding 
15 per cent, at the place of retail, the same to be kept and sold 
only at your dwelling house where you reside. You shall use 
all laudable efforts to obtain pure liquors and sell the same 
without adulteration. Upon having this appointment recorded 
by the town clerk, you shall have the powers, perform the duties 
and be subject to the liabilities of said office until the 15th day of 
next April, unless previously removed. 

"Nathan Emery. 
Edward Osgood. 
"Dated at Canterbury, New Hampshire. 
"November 3, 1855." 

The appointment was apparently accepted with reluctance. 
Mr. Kimball evidently held purchasers to the strict requirements 
of the law, for the profits did not swell the town receipts by any 
large amount. This first appointment was probably made upon 
the supposition that the prohibitory law would be enforced in 
contiguous territory and that such a town agency would be nec- 
essary to meet perfectly legitimate calls for liquor. The agency 
was never popular, and it only survived until 1861, when at the 
annual town meeting it was abolished. No subsequent attempt 
was ever made to revive it. 

By act of the legislature, approved January 7, 1853, the bound- 
ary of Canterbury was again changed by setting off the farms of 
certain residents near Rocky Pond in the east part of the town to 
Loudon. The territory annexed to the latter township is thus 
described, "Beginning at the east corner of Canterbury near the 
house of William G. Leavitt, thence running on the line between 
Canterbury and Gilmanton to the center of Rocky Pond, so called, 
thence on said pond and the river running out of the same to 
Loudon line, thence on said Loudon line 489 rods to the place of 
beginning, together with inhabitants living within said limits, 
namely, Elijah B. French, Joseph French, Nathaniel Pease, 
Dudley Pease, William G. Leavitt and James ElHse." 



From early in the fifties until more than a decade after the 
close of the Civil War there was a period of intense politics and 
continued partisan strife in Canterbury. The contest had its 
inception in the slavery question, the agitation of which in New 
Hampshire had begun even earlier, and party alignment con- 
tinued rigid until the issues growing out of the war had passed. 

Politics dominated everything, entering the church, the schools 
and the fireside. Strong men came to the front in town and 
exerted more than a local influence. Among these was a native 
son of Canterbury, Stephen Symonds Foster, an abolitionist, 
contemporary with Parker Pillsburj^, Wendell Phillips and Wil- 
liam Lloyd Garrison. Graduating from college in 1838, he stud- 
ied for the ministry. When the clergy of New England declined 
to permit their pulpits to become the forum for the discussion 
of the slave question, he abandoned his profession and became 
an anti-slavery agitator. With all the earnestness and much 
of the indiscretion of the crusaders of old, Mr. Foster threw him- 
self into the cause with a zeal that defied precedents, disturbed 
established customs and set at naught the regulations of society 
for its peace and comfort. Upon all occasions he pleaded for the 
emancipation of those in bondage. He entered churches unbid- 
den, interrupted services on the Sabbath and demanded to be 
heard. From several houses of worship he was ejected. Not 
daunted by violence, arrest or imprisonment, he continued an 
unrelenting enemy of slavery, denouncing its defenders and apolo- 
gists and upbraiding those who hesitated at immediate action. 

There was no compromise in Mr. Foster's nature. His war- 
fare against evil was one of extermination. He dealt sledge ham.- 



u^ on^ his speech bristled with invective. Conversion 
mer blows and ^^s speecn .^^ ^.^^^ed by the enor- 

with him must come from deep con conciliation. 

n.ity of the offence and ^^-e ^^^^^^ defence of his 

He would have gone to the ^^^K or ^ ^^^^ 

principles with all t^^^^^Xt a t/rdtenttul life, he 
rehgious reformers Throu nou s ^^^ ^^j^^_ 

wtor an adtncrg civiUzation. he was^always sustarned by 

a subhme faith in the J-*f jj^'^^^^^ng^pportunities at home 

With such a spokesman m town making p ^^^^ 

and abroad to preach the doj^ne of the manum.^ ^^^ 

Canterbury could not be ^'^'^^'^^^^M^.ors .nd friends, 
the discussion of a 'i-fZtXZ^.r^Jei the usefulness 
disturbed the peace of he ^Uy an P ^ ^^^^ _ 

of even t''^ ,*"* '^ ' mit bX^^ in the 'history of Cau- 
tion was undoubtedly tte m"^' fo„front of the rural commu- 
terbury. The town was m the ^°'f°'''-°'^^^^ ideas and 
nities of the state, givmg its -PP^'t^^^XSment and phil- 
taking advanced ^teps^- e<,— ^ ^e ,bh, gathering at the 

:Sorit50 t^TIsi ttt .me ^P^^^J^ ^^ S 

was not present whose -^q"-'"^*™;;^ T'^^'oltd w4th Stephen 
all of these men had grown up f"™ ^^J^Xi^ i„io„, as 

I "C :":ith^"» at trrs zx jr. ^- 

:gs The'slar; question, -ff" f ttrorthTrbolit'on o^f 
most of them were found ardent ^''^''f;; ° *^ ^U „, them 
slavery when rebellion made .a - ~tv^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ 

were strong and Pf '» ■?;~,tt,gh differing frequently as 
trying period from 1861 to 1*&, ait g thorough 

gressive township. Canterbury had 

During this vital period of he town s hist y^ ^^^^^^^ 

no more loyal citizen than Edward Osgood. Wha 

. . K ,t the life of Mr. Foster see the genealogy of the Foster 
iFor facts about the Me 01/^1^: i^-g+orv 

family in the second volume of this history. 


the welfare of the town had his zealous support. He gave his 
time and contributed his means to advance every worthy project. 
The church, the schools, philanthropy and good citizenship were 
causes early enhsting his attention. In his day probably no resi- 
dent of the town did more to give it prominence in the state 
by interesting its people in all advance movements than Mr. 
Osgood. His strength of leadership lay in his patience and 
persistency. Where others wearied of conflict, he seemed to 
gather strength by the force of opposition. Lacking the attri- 
butes of the orator, he had the persuasion which comes of tact- 
fulness and earnest and logical reasoning. There was hardly 
a town meeting in which his voice was not heard, and, whether 
successful or not, the judgment of time usually vindicated his 
position. He was frequently honored by his fellow-townsmen 
vnth. elections to positions of trust, and he discharged all duties 
with fidelity and with credit to himself and the towTi. 

Col. David M. Clough was a man who would have stamped 
his individuality upon any community. Positive in his opin- 
ions, he had at all times the courage of his convictions. Such 
men invite opposition by their aggressiveness. Yet such 
opposition serves to bring out their latent powers. Colonel 
Clough preferred defeat to concession, confident that the prin- 
ciples he advocated would eventually triumph. Seldom was 
there an exciting town meeting when he was not in the storm 
center of debate. As a representative of the town at state 
gatherings, he was always heard with attention, whatever the 
subject under consideration. Prominent as a farmer, he was an 
important factor at legislative and public meetings in awaken- 
ing interest in the cause of agriculture and in securing coop- 
eration among the farmers to promote and protect their interests. 
"The Corn King of New Hampshire," as he was familiarly 
called because of his large and successful cultivation of this 
cereal, exerted a wide influence in the state as an agriculturist. 
Participating in public affairs, he was also prominent in the 
councils of the Democratic party. 

David M. Foster, another leading citizen of Canterbury, pre- 
served all the traditions of his family for intellectual strength 
and independent thought. A pioneer in moral reform, of warm 
and ardent sympathies, eloquent of speech, his voice was ever 
raised in behalf of the WTonged and the oppressed. With a 


larger environment and constituency, he would have attained 
state distinction, though it is doubtful if he would have secured 
marked political preferment, owing to his independence. No 
more effective speech was made in the legislature of 1880, of which 
he was a member, than that of Mr. Foster appealing for jus- 
tice to a political opponent whose seat was contested. But 
such breaking away from party fidelity was not at that time 
conducive to party promotion. 

The strength of Thomas L. Whidden lay in his sterling hon- 
esty and his capacitj- as a public official. His knowledge of 
town business was unsurpassed. He inspired confidence by his 
straightforward methods and his clear judgment. No man of 
his generation was more respected by his fellow-towTismen. 
He was not much given to public speech, but his influence was 
nevertheless felt in town affairs. Except for the partisan asper- 
ity of the times, he would have been the first choice of the voters 
of Canterbury for chairman of the board of selectmen even in 
the years his party was not in power. 

Capt. David Morrill was the one individual in Canterbury 
who could bring order out of confusion in a stormy town meet- 
ing and who, after debate was seemingly exhausted, could pre- 
sent such a clear statement of the issue involved as to carry 
conviction to his hearers. It was on such occasions, when the 
last word seemed to have been spoken on a subject before the town 
meeting, that he would arise to address the chair. No matter 
what the turmoil and confusion, a respectful silence would 
immediately fall upon the assembly. Then in well- chosen speech 
he would state the question before the meeting with such clear- 
ness and force that no one could misunderstand it. 

The Ayers brothers, Jonathan, Joseph and Charles, all gifted 
men, though not frequent participants in debates, were never- 
theless influential citizens; Charles, the youngest, becoming 
prominent at a later period. Jonathan Ayers studied for the min- 
istry, was licensed to preach, but was never ordained. He 
came to the front in the forties and represented the town in the 
legislature in 1850 and in 1851. For several years he was mod- 
erator, and a turbulent town meeting had in him a master. If he 
could not quell a turmoil by a demand for order, he would vault 
over the desk into the midst of the crowd and by his physical 
strength quiet the disturbance. He was a most potential force 


during the Civil War in securing prompt action by Canterbury in 
filling her quota of troops. To encourage enlistments, it was 
necessary after the first two years of the war to offer large boun- 
ties. It was not always an easy matter to secure appropriations 
for this purpose. Mr. Ayers had a remarkable hold upon the 
young voters of the town, and his influence was always thrown 
in support of the national administration, although he was not in 
accord with its political views. An earnest man, impressive 
in manner, prompted by the highest ideals, he was one of Can- 
terbury's most useful citizens. 

Joseph Ayers by precept and example taught the value of 
education to the young. From the income of his farm he sent 
three sons through college and gave to his daughters the most 
scholastic training then attainable by women. Twice during the 
Civil War he gave his services as a member of the board of 
selectmen and was publicly thanked by the town for his patri- 
otism. A very public-spirited citizen, warmly espousing every 
good cause, he became its abiding advocate, and enjoyed a 
popularity in the community second to that of none. 

Others there were not so conspicuous in town affairs as those 
already mentioned who formed a background of substantial 
citizenship, contributing to the advancement of the interests of 
the town. Luther Sargent and Lyman B. Foster, school teachers 
for many years and frequently members of the school board, 
were men of wide information. Galen Foster, educated for the 
bar, returned to Canterbury, not to practice his profession, but 
to live the quiet life of a farmer. A radical and a reformer like 
his kinsman, Stephen S. Foster, he was in the advance guard of all 
forward movements. Nathan Emery, Jr., was another strong 
factor in the business and politics of the town for many years, 
being a recognized leader for more than a generation. Jacob C. 
Whidden, Moses Emery, James S. Elkins, Moses C. Lyford, 
Enoch and Samuel C. Pickard, Moses A. Foster, Joseph G. 
Clough, Sr., and Simon Stevens Davis were the natural 
selections of their fellow-townsmen for positions of trust 
and responsibility because of their clear judgment and sub- 
stantial attainments. Of this number Moses A. Foster alone is 
living, still vigorous mentally and physically. Never seeking 
office, helpful in every cause enlisting public attention, he has been 
a constant contributor to promoting the interests of the town. 


The moderators of the strenuous town meetings of this 
period were Jeremiah L. Clough, a gifted son of Canterbury 
and a model presiding officer, Matthias M. Moore, a student of 
books rather than of men, Nahum Blanchard, a man of native 
abihty and strong self-reUance, and two of whom mention has 
already been made, Jonathan Ayers and David Morrill. 

The popular town clerks elected for successive years were Dr. 
Lorrain T. Weeks and Alfred H. Brown. The former was a 
practicing physician, referred to in the last chapter. The latter 
has a long period of service to his credit. No turmoil ever dis- 
turbed Mr. Brown and his record was never questioned, no mat- 
ter how bitter the partisan strife of the day. In the discharge of 
his duties he has ever been courteous, obliging and helpful, and 
as a public official, he has enjoyed the confidence of all parties. 

Coming to Canterbury in 1861, Mr. Bro\\Ti began trade as a 
merchant, and his store soon became a popular resort. During 
the long winter evenings it was the place where politics and 
current events were discussed. No Ij^ceum ever afforded more 
earnest debates and very few more entertainment. The argu- 
ments of political speakers and the facts presented by public 
lecturers were here analyzed and dissected. These gatherings 
night after night with their exchange of views contributed to 
make a Canterbury audience most critical, and he who came to 
address them was fortunate if his statements were not chal- 
lenged by one or more of his hearers. If these store discussions 
took an acrimonious turn, Mr. Browni had the happy faculty of 
changing the current of thought of his visitors. 

During this period until the year 1860 there is nothing in the 
records of the town meetings to indicate the character of the 
political contests waged in Canterbury. The warrants call for 
action on questions that relate only to the routine business of 
the community. It was at the stores, the lyceums, the political 
meetings and at the fireside that questions like the annexation 
of Texas, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and kindred 
measures affecting slavery were discussed. Quiet canvasses of 
voters were made throughout the year by the leaders of both 
parties. It required but three months' residence in town at 
that time to entitle a man to vote, and the days of November 
witnessed great activity in providing homes for transient voters 
to enable them to have their names on the check list for the sue- 


ceeding March election. Employers of labor gave preference to 
those of their political faith. The voter just coming of age was 
labored with to insure his starting right in his political career. 
The young men who went to other states to seek their fortunes 
kept their parental homes until they were married, and the sec- 
ond Tuesday of March saw more absent sons return to Canter- 
bury than the Old Home Week observations of the present gen- 
eration. The women of Canterbury were quite as enthusiastic 
as the men, and, if the young voter married into a family whose 
politics were antagonistic to his own, it was a serious question of 
the leaders whether he would remain true to the traditions of his 
parents or be persuaded by his wife into making a new polit- 
ical alliance. 

It was in preparation of the campaign of 1860 that the town 
became ambitious to increase its representation in the legisla- 
ture to two members. Both parties began early in the fall of 
1859 to swell the list of the voting population. All well-to-do 
farmers increased the numbers of employes for the winter's 
work. When there was not room for the accommodation of these 
employes in the household, temporary lodging places were pro- 
vided. Never before or since was there such apparent business 
activity in town. These colonists were not of the type of which 
new towns and cities are built. They were mostly men who 
are here today and there tomorrow, and they were far from 
having settled pohtical convictions. After they were located, 
they were susceptible to persuasion to depart. They were 
the objects of special attention from both parties, those who 
imported them, and those who were anxious to break up their 
continuity of residence for the three months necessary to establish 
their right to vote. It was an expensive and troublesome cam- 
paign and it became necessary to guard these "voters of fortune" 
with zealous care. One resident of the town took his auxili- 
ary citizen with him wherever he went, even to the prayer meet- 
ing, of which he was a constant attendant. He did not insist, 
however, that his companion occupy a front seat. While the 
services were in progress one evening, this prospective voter 
was spirited from a back seat in the meeting house to a sleigh 
just outside the door and driven at a furious pace to a distant 
town. There he was well cared for until it was too late for him 
to report at town meeting. The good church member of Canter- 


bury who had harbored him for several weeks was reminded by 
his political opponents that in trying times it was necessary 
^'to watch as well as to pray." 

There was no certainty that the men who were thus colonized 
for voting purposes would sufficiently appreciate their winter's 
board to support the political ticket favored by those who had 
harbored them. At the last moment something more per- 
suasive than intellectual arguments was liable to convert them 
to the other side. This led one of the local wits to remark 
that he always found it "cheaper to buy cattle in the spring 
than to feed them all winter." 

January, February and the early days of March, 1860, were 
busy ones for the active politicians of Canterbury, and perhaps 
no town election was approached with more uncertainty of the 
outcome. There was grave, apprehension of disturbance. There 
had been a spirited contest in the regulation of the check list, 
and bitter feelings were aroused thereb3^ If the vote was close, 
it was sure to be disputed, and the town meeting might end 
in disorder and riot. The transient voters were many of them 
of the lawless class, and they might be incited to acts of 
violence. To preserve order and to guard the ballot box the 
selectmen on the morning of town meeting appointed the fol- 
lowing persons police officers for the ensuing year: 

William M. Fletcher, John P. Kimball, Lyman R. Fellows, 
John N. Hill, David K. Nudd, Charles H. Fletcher and Robert 
Dearborn, all stalwart men who would have been a host in 
themselves. Then, as a reserve, nearly seventy of the citizens 
of the town were sworn in as special policemen in charge of 
various superintendents. Such elaborate preparations for trouble 
prevented its occurrence and, except an occasional disturbance 
which was quickly suppressed, the election passed off without 
serious friction. 

The March election of 1861 was without incident. No attempt 
was made to give expression by resolution or otherwise to the 
deep anxiety with which the people of Canterbury regarded the 
future of the country. Although the slave states had then 
seceded and organized a government, there was still a lingering 
hope that the Union might be preserved by compromise between 
the sections as it had been in the past. The excitement of the 
presidential contest of the fall before had not disappeared and 


the alignment of political parties in the spring election was as 
firm as ever. With a few, however, there was a feeling when 
the town meeting adjourned that the voters would soon be 
called together again to take action upon national affairs. Nor 
were the people kept long in doubt. 

The president's call for troops was issued April 15, and a 
town meeting was summoned for May 18 to see how much money 
Canterbury would appropriate "for the purpose of raising 
troops and for the support of the families of those who may 
enlist in the United States service." Thomas L. Whidden was 
chosen moderator. It was then voted to dismiss this article 
in the warrant. The question of the right of towns to make 
such appropriations in the absence of specific authorization by 
the legislature was raised and the doubt was solved by deferring 
action until the legislature could assemble in June. The meet- 
ing could not have more than adjourned, however, before there 
was a petition started for another. This was held June 8, and 
the same article appeared in the warrant. Immediately after 
the election of a moderator, the following resolution was offered: 
"Resolved that we pledge the town for the support of the fami- 
lies of all volunteers now residents of Canterbury who may 
enlist in the United States service for three years or during the 
war to the amount of $5,000. if that amount should be needed." 

A lively discussion ensued, but the resolution was lost when 
a vote was taken. The same objection to the legality of 
action by the town in advance of legislative authorization, that 
had defeated the purpose of the previous meeting, was again 
successfully interposed. The legislature was then in session at 
Concord, having assembled three days before this town meeting 
in Canterbury. There was no question that this body would 
adopt all measures necessary to enable towns to fill their quotas 
of troops and provide for the need}^ families of those who enlisted. 
There was no legal or technical barrier, however, to the town's 
declaring its patriotism and its cordial support of the war. When, 
therefore, the vote was announced that defeated the proposed 
appropriation, Edward Osgood offered the following resolutions 
which were adopted: 

"Resolved that the present rebellion existing at the South is 
without any just cause and in direct violation of the constitution 


and should be regarded and treated as a traitorous effort to over- 
throw the government of the United States. 

"Resolved that it is the duty of every loyal citizen to demon- 
strate his devotion to his country by sustaining the flag, the con- 
stitution and the Union under all circumstances and under every 
administration against all assailants at home and abroad. 

"Resolved that we beheve in the perpetuity of our Union and 
that we wall use all laudable efforts for the enforcement of the 
laws agreeably to the constitution. 

"Resolved that we as citizens of Canterbury are fully prepared 
to stand by, defend and maintain the constitution, the Union 
and the laws of these United States and will give the present 
administration our undivided support for this purpose." 

There does not appear to have been any discussion of these res- 
olutions or any opposition to their adoption. So far as the 
records show, they were passed without a dissenting vote. The 
town was now committed to do its part towards the vigorous 
prosecution of the war, and from this time forward the people 
of Canterbury responded promptlj^ to every successive call made 
upon them for troops, besides contributing generously for the 
care of those who were dependent upon citizens of the town 
enlisting in the service. 

The legislature by an act approved July 4, 1861,. gave the 
needed authority to towns to offer bounties for enlistments and 
made appropriations for the families of those who were in the 
army. At a special meeting October 8, following, Canterburj' ap- 
propriated SoOO to pay to "indigent families of persons that may 
have enlisted from the town" and authorized Jacob C. Whidden, 
the chairman of the board of selectmen, to expend so much of 
this amount in relief as "may in his judgment be required." 
The next year an additional .S300 was appropriated for the same 

By the summer of 1862 it became apparent that the war was 
to be one of long duration and that bounties must be given to 
insure enlistments. At a special town meeting held August 12 
the selectmen were authorized "to hire a sufficient sum of money 
to aid the families of those who enlisted, and to borrow S9,000 
to offer as bounties to volunteers for three years in the service 
and to pay $300 each to citizens of this town who shall volunteer 
before September 1, 1862, and be mustered into service." 


Another town meeting was held September 3 at which it was 
voted "to pay volunteers for nine months enlistment SIOO. when 
they are mustered into the service and an additional $100. when 
they leave the state to join the army." The selectmen were 
authorized to borrow a sum not exceeding $4,000 to pay the 
bounties of the nine months' men. 

At the annual meeting in 1863, Col. David M. Clough offered 
a resolution requesting the legislature to assume all the debts 
contracted by towns for the prosecution of the war. This reso- 
lution was referred to a committee consisting of Colonel Clough, 
David Morrill, Edward Osgood, Jacob C. Whidden, Ebenezer 
Batchelder, Benjamin Sanborn, Joseph Ham, John Lyford, 
Joshua Parker and James S. Elkins, who reported the following 
substitute, which varied but slightly in text from the original. 

"Resolved That our representative be instructed and our sena- 
tor be requested to procure the enactment of a law at the next 
session of our state legislature requiring the state to assume the 
debts of the several towns occasioned by paying bounties to 
volunteers for the United States service." This resolution was 
adopted. It preceded by eight years the action taken by the 
legislature of 1871 whereby the state did assume the war debts of 
the towns. 

Three special town meetings were called during the last half 
of the year 1863. At that held July 30 it was "voted to pay 
$300. to the men who may be drafted and mustered into service 
from this town under the present call." A loan of $9,000 was 
authorized for this purpose. At the next meeting, September 
24, the foregoing vote was enlarged so that the amount might be 
paid "to the order of each drafted man or to the order of his sub- 
stitute." The last meeting of the year was held November 30. 
To answer the latest call of the president for volunteers, the 
selectmen were authorized to give bounties equal to those offered 
by the general and state governments. 

Still further inducements were held out to volunteers at another 
meeting called February 22, 1864. The annual election followed 
in two weeks and the selectmen were authorized "to pay to each 
drafted man from this town who procured a substitute such addi- 
tional sum as, with the sums already paid and voted to be paid, 
will equal the sum paid out by him in procuring said substitute, 
provided it can be done legally." 


A special meeting was held July 21, at which Col. David M. 
Clough was chosen agent for the town to keep the quota of 
enlistments full "until the presidential election in November." 
Bounties were offered to reenlisted men. August 26, Thomas L. 
Whidden was elected co-agent with Colonel Clough to promote 
enlistments, and the amount of the bounty paid volunteers was 
increased to $500. Eleven days later this bounty was raised to 
$1,000. The beginning of the year 1865 saw no cessation of activ- 
ities in Canterbury to answer the calls of the general government 
for enlistments. At a meeting held January 7, Benjamin F. 
Brown was chosen town agent, and it was voted to hire $8,000 
for miUtary purposes, the bounty of $1,000 for volunteers being 
continued. This loan was supplemented by another at the 
annual meeting in March of $20,000. 

This was the last of the war meetings. The surrender at Appo- 
mattox occurred within thirty days. There is no indication that 
there were party divisions on the votes making appropriations for 
carrying on the war, although partisan politics continued acute 
during this period. The Republicans and Democrats alternated 
in control of the town, the former being in power in the years 1861 
and 1862 and the latter in 1863, 1864 and 1865. That the adher- 
ents of each party viewed the conduct of the war from the stand- 
point of the politics of the time and that as partisans they 
criticised or defended the national administration at Washington 
can not be denied. Each side charged the other with responsi- 
bihty for the war and throughout the contest the discussions that 
ensued between individuals of the town betook of the asperity of 
their political affiliations. .The tax upon Canterbury was heavy 
and its debt was constantly growing. So intense at times was 
the feeling that the result of an approaching town meeting was 
often in doubt. When the time came to act, however, the patri- 
otism of leading Democrats led them to give their support to 
measures for the continued prosecution of the war. 

The debt of Canterbury, March 1, 1861, was $3,401.23, March 
1, 1865, it had reached $46,911.44. Twenty-two years later 
the town had discharged all of its obhgations and had a small 
surplus in the treasury. The amount of its debt assumed by 
the state in 1871 was $9,387.38. 

Altogether, Canterbury furnished 128 enlisted men for the war. 
Some of these were natives of the town. Others were residents 



at the time of their enlistment though born elsewhere, while a 
third class were substitutes for those who were drafted or were 
furnished by brokers to fill out different quotas. The roster of 
these men, together with the sons of Canterbury who enlisted 
and were credited to other localities, is given bej^ond. It has 
been verified by the "Register of Soldiers and Sailors of New 
Hampshire in the War of the RebelUon."^ The volunteers 
credited to the town have an honorable record. 

The deserters were entirely of that class known as "bounty 
jumpers." These men enlisted where the largest bounty was paid 
and then took leave of the service at the earliest opportunity. 
In the record of their service it will be seen that they were mus- 
tered in the very day of their enlistment. They were then kept 
under guard until the regiment in which they were incorpo- 
rated was marched to the front. A few of these substitutes who 
were credited to the town gave all they could to their country — 
their lives — dying on the field of battle. The following is a list 
of the soldiers born in Canterbury or credited to the town, who 
were killed in action or died from wounds received therein or 
from disease during the war: 

Sylvester Bassett, missing after second battle of Bull Run. 
Supposed to have been killed. 

Gilbert F. Dow, died at Annapolis, ISId., Dec. 20, 1864. 

Thomas T. Moore, killed at Bull Run, Va., Aug. 29, 1862. 

James C. Stanbrough,^ died of disease Oct. 2, 1864. 

Daniel M. Huntoon, died of disease Sept. 20, 1864, Fortress 
Monroe, Va. 

John Edmont,^ wounded June 3, 1864, at Cold Harbor, Va. 
Died June 12, 1864. 

Samuel G. Lovering, killed May 27, 1863, Port Hudson, La. 

Bernice Scales, killed May 7, 1864, Wilderness, Va. 

Joseph G. Chfford, died of disease January 27, 1863, at Annapo- 
lis, Md. 

Moses W. Johnson, killed Dec. 13, 1862, Fredericksburg, Va. 

Adams K. Tilton, killed Sept. 30, 1864, Poplar Springs Church, 

True W. Arlin, died of wounds March 25, 1864, Beaufort, S. C. 

Charles A. Bro^Ti, died of disease, January 26, 1862, New York 

Thomas J. Brown, died of disease, June 12, 1864, Fortress 
Monroe, Va. 

I Prepared by Augustus D. Ayling, Adjutant General of New Hampshire. 



Ezekiel Jones, died of disease, Dec. 3, 1862, Falmouth, Va. 

Dennis Kelley, killed July 5, 1864, near Petersburg, Va. 

John S. Whidden, died of disease, Aug. 2, 1863, Memphis, Tenn. 

Isaac K. Wells, died of disease, April 6, 1865, City Point, Va. 

William H. H. Young, killed July 30, 1864, Petersburg, Va. 

Charles W. Morrill, died Dec. 8, 1864, Cairo, 111. 

Charles A. Bennett, killed Mav 3, 1863, Chancellorsville, Va. 

John B. Merrill, killed ISIav 3," 1863, Chancellorsville, Va. 

Daniel G. W. Twomblv, killed Mav 3, 1863, Chancellorsville, 

James A. Pettingill, drowned May 27, 1863, in Mississippi 

The following is a list of the soldiers credited to Canterbury 
and the sons of Canterbury who enlisted in the service elsewhere, 
together with their record of service: 


Horace Kimball — Co. H. Bom Cambridge, Mass. Age 25. Residence. 
Canterbury. Enlisted April 29, 1861. Mustered in May 4, 1861, to date 
April 26, 1861, as private. Mustered out Aug. 9, 1861. 

Roswell Reed — Co. I. Born Boston, Mass. Age 23. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted April 29, 1861. Mustered in May 4, 1861, as private. Mus- 
tered out Aug. 9, 1861. 

David T. Ryan — Co. B. Born Canterbury. Age 25. Residence Gilman- 
ton. Enlisted April 25, 1861, as private. Mustered in May 2, 1861. Mus- 
tered out Aug. 9, 1861. P. O. address, Gilmanton. (See 8th N. H. Vol.) 


Thomas E. Barker — Co. B. Bom Canterbury. Age 22. Residence 
Bamstead. Enlisted May 13, 1861. Mustered in June 1, 1861, as corporal. 
Captured July 21, 1861, Bull Run, Va. Paroled June 2, 1862. Discharged 
July 2, 1862, as a paroled prisoner. Concord. P. O. address, Maiden, Mass. 
(See r2th Reg. N. H. Vol. Inf.) 

Sylvester Bassett — Co. F. Born Lee, N. Y. Age 19. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted April 23, 1861, for three months. Not mustered in. Paid by 
state. Reenlisted May 22, 186L for three years. Mustered in June 4, 1861, 
as private. Missing Aug. 29, 1862, Bull Run (2d) Va. No further record 
adj utant general's office, Washington. Suppose killed. Heirs paid to Aug. 29, 


Joseph P. Storj' — Co. B. Bom Hopkinton. Age 36. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted July 22, 1861. Mustered in Aug. 22, 1861, as private. 
Discharged disability Dec. 13, 1862, Hilton Head, S. C. 

Royal Scales, Jr. — Co. E. Bom Canterbury'. Age 29. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enhsted July 31, 1861. Mustered in August 23, 1861, as corporal. 
Appointed sergeant Oct. 11, 1862. Reenhsted and mustered in Feb. 15, 1864. 
Mustered out July 20, 1865. 

Joseph H. Currier — Co. B. Bom Canterbury. Age 32. Residence 
Concord (Penacook). Enlisted Aug. 7, 1861. Mustered in Aug. 22, 1861, 
as private. Discharged disability May 26, 1862, Edisto Island, S. C. Died 
March 17, 1885, Concord. Supposed to be identical with Joseph H. Currier 


who was enlisted April 23, 1861, by Edward E. Sturtevant and paid to May 31, 
1861, and man of the same name who enlisted and was mustered in March 25, 
1864, Co. B, First Regiment, N. H. Vol. Cavalry, as private. Transferred 
to unassigned detachment Veteran Reserve Corps April 27, 1865. To 42 
Co., 2d Battalion V. R. C. Discharged Aug. 24, 1865, Washington, D. C. 
Credited in this last enlistment to Rollinsford. 

Caleb Davis— Co. F. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence Hollis. 
Enlisted Aug. 9, 1861. Mustered in Aug. 23, 1861, as private. Wounded 
Aug. 16, 1864, Deep Bottom, Va. Mustered out Aug. 23, 1864. 

James G. Furnald— Co. A. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence Man- 
chester. Enlisted July 29, 1861. Mustered in Aug. 22, 1861, as private. 
Wounded July 18, 1863, Fort Wagner, S. C, Aug. 31, 1863, Morris Island 
S. C. Reenlisted and mustered in Feb. 12, 1864. Appointed corporal Feb. 
21, 1864. Wounded May 13, 1864, Drewry's Bluff, Va. Severely wounded 
June 2, 1864, Bermuda Hundred, Va., Aug. 31, 1864, Petersburg, Va. Trans- 
ferred to 168 Co., 2 Battalion, V. R. C. Discharged June 8, 1865, Concord. 
Died Dec. 24, 1868, Manchester. 



Royal Scales i — Co. H. Born Canterbury. Age 44. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Aug. 20, 1861. Mustered in Sept. 18, 1861, as private. 
Discharged disability Nov. 8, 1862, Beaufort, S. C. 

Gilbert F. Dow — Co. H. Born Canterbury. Age 20. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Aug. 27, 1861. Mustered in Sept. 18, 1861, as private. 
Reenlisted Feb. 18, 1864. Mustered in Feb. 28, 1864. Captured Aug. 16, 
1864, Deep Bottom, Va. Exchanged. Died Dec. 20, 1864, Annapolis, Md. 

George W. Clark — Co. H. Born Canada. Age 20. Residence North- 
field. Enlisted Aug. 27, 1861. Mustered in Sept. 18, 1861, as private. 
Reenlisted Feb. 20, 1864. Credited Canterbury. Mustered in Feb. 28, 1864. 
Deserted Oct. 13, 1864. Reported May 10, 1865, under president's procla- 
mation. Discharged May 11, 1865, Concord. 

William H. H. Young — Co. I. Born Canterbury. Age 20. Residence 
Plymouth. Enhsted Sept. 3, 1861. Mustered in Sept. 18, 1861, as private. 
Reenlisted Feb. 24, 1864. Credited Haverhill. Mustered in Feb. 29, 1864. 
Appointed corporal. Killed July 30, 1864, mine explosion, Petersburg, Va. 


Warren B. Nudd — Co. A. Born Canterbury. Age "18." Residence 
Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 9, 1861. Mustered in Oct. 12, 1861, as private. 
Discharged disability Nov. 21, 1862. 

Also Co. A, 1st Reg. Veteran Reserve Corps. Enlisted Dec. 24, 1863. 
Mustered in Dec. 24, 1863, as private. Discharged Nov. 14, 1865, Elmira, 
N. Y. 

Moses W. Johnson — Co. A. Born Concord. Age 20. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Sept. 6, 1861. Mustered in Oct. 12, 1861, as private. Killed 
Dec. 13, 1862, Fredericksburg, Va. 


J. Horace Nudd — Co. I. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence North- 
field. Enlisted Nov. 5, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 30, 1861, as private. 
Wounded Dec. 13, 1862, Fredericksburg, Va. Transferred July 1, 1863, to 
Invalid Corps (name changed to Veteran Reserve Corps March 18, 1864) 
assigned to Co. C, 10th Invalid Corps. Discharged Nov. 30, 1864, Washing- 
ton, D. C. Term expired. P. 0. address, Warner. 

1 If Royal Scales, Jr., who enlisted in the 3d N. H. Regiment was a son of 
the above, there must be a mistake in the age of one or the other. 


Thomas T. Moore — Co. I. Born Canterbury. Age 42. Residence Con- 
cord. Appointed 1st Lieut. Nov. 30, 1861. 'Mustered in Nov. 30, 1861. 
Killed Aug. 29, 1862, Bull Run, Va. 

Isaac Moore — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 31. Residence Nashua. 
Enlisted Nov. 14, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 6, 1861, as private. Discharged 
Dec. 5, 1864. Term expired. 

William L. Buswell — Co. I. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence 
Gilmanton. Enlisted Nov. 13, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 30, 1861, as private. 
Discharged disability June 24, 1862, New Berne, N. C. 

Also Co. A, 11th Maine Inf. Enlisted Sept. 19, 1862, for 3 years. Mustered 
in Oct. 21, 1862, as private. Wounded June 2, 1864, Bermuda Hundred, Va. 
Mustered out June 12, 1865, Richmond, Va. P. O. address, Hopkinton. 

Eben Avery — Co. I. Born Canterbury. Age 21. Residence Canterbury. 
Enlisted Dec. 9. 1861. Mustered in Dec. 10, 1861, as private. Transferred 
to Co. F, 17th InvaHd Corps Jan. 15, 1864. Discharged disabled Oct. 24, 
1864, Indianapolis, Ind. 

Samuel Currier — Co. G. Born Canterburj\ Age 39. Residence Gran- 
tham. Enhsted Sept. 16, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 28, 1861, as private. 
Appointed corporal Nov. 30, 1861. Sergeant. Reenlisted and mustered in 
Dec. 27, 1863. Mustered out July 17, 1865. P. O. address, Grantham. 

Prescott Hall — Co. I. Born Dover. Age 26. Residence Upper Gilman- 
ton. Enlisted Oct. 26, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 30, 1861, as private. 
Appointed sergeant. Reenlisted and mustered in Dec. 19, 1863. Credited 
Canterbury. Appointed 2d Lieut. July 1, 1864. Discharged Dec. 5, 1864. 
P. O. address, Belmont. 

William H. Patch — Co. I. Born Salem, Mass. Age 20. Residence 
Canterburv. Enlisted Dec. 7, 1861. Mustered in March 6, 1862, as private. 
Wounded 'Dec. 13, 1862, Fredericksburg, Va. Discharged Dec. 19, 1864, 
Concord. Term expired. P. O. address, East Andover. 

Adams K. Tilton — Co. I. Born Canterbury. Age 28. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Oct. 25, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 1, 1861, as sergeant. 
Appointed 2d Lieut. Sept. 1, 1862, 1st Lieut. Co. G, Nov. 1, 1863. Capt. 
July 2, 1864. Killed Sept. 30, 1864. Poplar Sprmgs Church, Va. 


Freeman A. Garland — Co. E. Born South Bermck, Me. Age 22. Resi- 
dence Canterbury. Enlisted Nov. 2, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7. 1861, as 
private. Discharged Dec. 16, 1864, Varina, Va. Term expired. P. O. 
address, Nashua. 

Russell Burdeen — Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 31. Residence Canter- 
buT}-. Enlisted Dec. 14, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 14, 1861, as private. 
Reenhsted and mustered in Feb. 28, 1864. Mustered out July 20, 1865. 
Died at Canterbury Oct. 10, 1884. 

James F. Noyes — Co. E. Bom Boscawen. Age 25. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Oct. 1, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7, 1861, as private. Wounded 
Feb. 20, 1864, Olustee, Fla. Mustered out Dec. 27, 1864. P. O. address, 
Brookfield, Mass. 

James ISI. McClintock— Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 45. Residence 
Canterbury. Enlisted Oct. 24, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7,. 1861, as private. 
Transferred to 2d Battahon, Veteran Relief Corps, May 19, 1864. Discharged 
Nov. 7, 1864, Fortress Monroe, Va. Term expired. Died March 10, 1884, 

Fisher Ames — Co. E. Born Canterbur3\ Age 44. Residence Boscawen. 
Enlisted Oct. 1, 1861. ^Mustered in Nov. 7, 1861, as private. Discharged 
disabled Nov. 3, 1862, Beaufort, S. C. Died Aug. 14, 1893, Penacook. 

True W. Arlin — Co. E. Bom Canterbury. Age 19. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Nov. 7, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7, 1861, as corporal. 
Appointed sergeant. 2d Lieut. July 21, 1863. Wounded severely Feb. 20, 
1864, Olustee, Florida. Died of wounds March 25, 1864, Beaufort, S. C. 


Charles A. Brown — Co. E. Born Epsom. Age 18. Residence Canterbury. 
Enlisted Oct. 21, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7, 1861, as private. Died disease 
Jan. 26, 1862, New York City. 

Thomas J. Brown — Co. E. Born Epsom. Age 19. Residence Canterbury. 
Enlisted Oct. 17, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7, 1861, as corporal. Appointed 
sergeant Sept. 13, 1863. 1st sergeant Nov. 28, 1863. Reenlisted and mustered 
in Feb. 28, 1864. Died disease June 12, 1864, Ft. Monroe, Va. 

Jeremiah E. Curry — Born Holderness. Age 33. Residence Canterbury. 
Enlisted Oct. 28, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7, 1861, as private. Mustered 
out Dec. 27, 1864. P. O. address, Gilmanton. 

James R. W. Hutchinson — Co. E. Born Merrimack. Age 20. Residence 
Canterbury. Enlisted Dec. 11, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 11, 1861, as private. 
Mustered out Dec. 27, 1864. P. O. address, Manchester. 

Charles S. Sargent — Co. E. Born Vermont. Age 26. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Oct. 13, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 7, 1861, as private. Dis- 
charged disabled Nov. 17, 1863, Morris Island, S. C. 


David T. Ryan — Co. C. Born Canterbury. Residence Northfield. 
Enlisted Nov. 16, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 20, 1861, as private. Transferred 
to Co. D, Dec. 31, 1861. Deserted CarroUton, La., July 26, 1862. P. O. 
address, Gilmanton. 

Charles W. Morrill — Co. H. Born Canterbury. Age 23. Residence 
Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Dratted Aug. 19, 1863. Mustered in 
Aug. 19, 1863, as private. Discharged disabled Nov. 26, 1864, Natchez, 
Miss. Died Dec. 8, 1864, Cairo, 111. 


Thomas S. Austin — Co. K. Born Northfield. Age 27. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Aug. 13, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 15, 1862, as private. 
Wounded Sept. 14, 1862, South Mountain, Md. Transferred to 156th Co., 
2d Battalion, Vet. Reserve Corps. Discharged July 15, 1865, St. Louis, Mo. 
P. O. address, Frankhn Falls. 

Abram Brown — Co. K. Born Canterbury. Age 23. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Aug. 19, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 19, 1862, as private. 
Appointed corporal. Wounded Dec. 13, 1862, Fredericksburg, Va. Dis- 
charged disabihty IMarch 4, 1S63, Baltimore, Md. 

George Edwards — Co. C. Born England. Age 26. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Dec. 21, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 21, 1863, as private. Deserted 
Feb. 28, 1864, Somerset, Ky. 

Joseph WiUiams. — Co. A. Born Ireland. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted 
Dec. 24, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 24, 1863, as private. Deserted Jan. 19, 
1864, Camp Nelson, Ky. 

Ezekiel Jones — Co. H. Born Fittsfield. Age 27. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Aug. 18, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 21, 1862, as private. Died disease 
Dec. 3, 1862, Falmouth, Va. 

William Sweeney — Unassigned. Born Ireland. Age 25. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted and mustered in Dec. 24, 1863, as private. Deserted Jan. 
6, 1864, Paris, Ky. 


Charles R. Foss — Co. H. Born Derry. Age 27. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Aug. 19, 1862, Mustered in Sept. 4, 1862, as private. Mustered 
out June 21, 1865. P. O. address, Rollinsford. 

Fernando Cortez Randall — Co. E. Born Warren. Age 24. Residence 
Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 16, 1862. Mustered 
in Sept. 1, 1862, as private. Wounded severely May 9, 1864, Swift Creek, 
Ya. Discharged disabihty March 19, 1865. 


William H. Clark— Co. G. Substitute. Born Boston, Mass. Age 23. 
Credited Canterbury. Enlisted and mustered in Aug. 19, 1863, as private. 
Wounded May 9, 1864, Swdft Creek, Va. Discharged disabled June 12, 1865, 
Da%-id's Island, New York Harbor. 

Frank Dorsej' — Co. G. Substitute. Born Alaine. Age 22. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted and mustered in Aug. 19, 1863, as private. Deserted 
Dec. 11, 1863, Julian's Creek, Va. 

Peter Floody — Co. K. Substitute. Born Ireland. Age 20. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted and mustered in Aug. 19, 1863, as private. Reported 
on roll dated June 21, 186.5, as transferred on that date to 2d N. H. 
Vols, with remark, "absent sick." Never joined 2d Regt. No further 
record adjutant general's office, Washington. 



William Sanford— Co. K. Born New York City. Age 27. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Dec. 19, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 19, 1863, as private. 
Wounded June 6, 1864, Cold Harbor, Va. Transferred to Co. C, 6th N. H. 
Vol. Inf., June 1, 1865. Mustered out July 17, 1865. 

James Hanlan — Co. H. Born Canada. Age 21. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Dec. 19, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 19, 1863, as private. Appointed 
corporal. Transferred to Co. H, 6th N. H. Vol. Inf., June 1, 1865. Appointed 
sergeant July 1, 1865. Mustered out July 17. 1865. P. O. address, Tilton. 

James C. Stanbrough— Co. E. Born Long Island, N. Y. Age 40. Cred- 
ited Canterbury. Enlisted Dec. 19, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 19, 1863, as 
private. Died of disease Oct. 2, 1864. 

Harry Reiners — Co. A. Born Germany. Age 20. Credited Canter ury. 
Enlisted Dec. 19, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 19, 1863, as private. Entered 
Webster General Hospital Jan. 16, 1865, Manchester. Deserted Feb. 1, 1865. 

Joseph Birkett — Unassigned. Born England. Age 20. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted and mustered in Dec. 19, 1863, as private. Supposed to have 
deserted en route to regiment. No further record adjutant general's office, 
Washington, D. C. 

James Johnson — Unassigned. Born Oswego County, New York. Age 
18. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted and mustered in Dec. 19, 1863, as 
musician. Supposed to have deserted en route to regiment. No further 
record adjutant general's office, Wasliington. D. C. 

Enoch Morrill — Co. B. Born Canterbury. Age 28. Residence and 
credited Deerfield. Enlisted Aug. 15, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 3, 1862, 
as private. Discharged disability Dec. 17, 1862, Frederick, Md. P. O. 
address, Rochester. 



Thomas E. Barker— Co. B. Born Canterbury. Age 23. Residence Barn- 
stead. Credited Barnstead. Enlisted Aug. 15, 1862, as private. Appointed 
captain Sept. 8, 1862. Mustered in to date Aug. 30, 1862, as captain. 
Wounded May 3, 1863, Chancellorsville, Va. Appointed Lt. Col. Sept. 30, 
1864, Col. May 26, 1865, not mustered. Mustered out June 21, 1865, as 
Lt. Col. (See 2d N. H. Regt. Vol. Inf.) 

Robert F. Dearborn— Co. F. Born Canterbury. Age 26. Residence 
Canterburv. Credited Canterburv. Enlisted Aug. 20, 1862. Mustered in 
Sept. 5, 1862, as private. Wounded July 2, 1863, Gettysburg, Pa. Dis- 
charged disability Sept. 28, 1863, Concord. P. 0. address, Boscawen. 

Joseph McDaniel— Co. F. Born Canterbury. Age 24. Residence Canter- 
burv. Credited Canterburv. EnHsted Aug. 20, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 
5, 1862, as private. Deserted Aug. 31, 1863, Philadelphia, Pa. 


Charles A. Bennett — Co. F. Born Lowell, Mass. Age 18. Residence 
Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 21, 1862. Mustered in 
Sept. 5, 1862, as private. lulled May 3, 1863, Chancellors\'ille, Va, 

George W. Dearborn — Co. G. Born Gilford. Age 29. Residence Gilford. 
Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 16, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 9, 1862, 
as private. Appointed corporal Jan. 9, 1864. Discharged May 19, 1865. 
Died July 22, 1885, Pitchwood Island, Lake Winnipiseogee. 

Daniel M. Huntoon — Co. H. Born Northfield. Age 21. Residence 
Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Enhsted Aug. 13, 1862. Mustered in 
Sept. 9, 1862, as private. Wounded May 3, 1863, Chancellors\'ille, Va. 
Appointed corporal. Died disease Sept. 20, 1864, Fortress Monroe, Va. 

John Edmont — Co. F. Born Ireland. Age 36. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Dec. 15, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 15, 1863, as private. Wounded 
June 3, 1864, Cold Harbor, Va., and died of wounds June 12, 1864. 

Daniel McGann — Co. I. Born Ireland. Age 23. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Dec. 15, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 15, 1863, as private. Deserted 
Feb. 20, 1864, Point Lookout, Md. 

WilUam Brown— Co. F. Born Canada. Age 35. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Dec. 15, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 15, 1863, as private. Wounded 
June 3, 1864, Cold Harbor, Va. Discharged disabihty Nov. 9, 1864. 

Thomas W. Hennessey — Co. 1. Born New York City. Age 21. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Dec. 16, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 16, 1863, as private. 
Transferred to U. S. Navy April 30, 1864, as an ordinary seaman. Served 
on U. S. S. Commodore Morris. Deserted Sept. 30, 1864. 

Charles Williams— Co. I. Born New York City. Age 20. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Dec. 16, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 16, 1863, as private. 
Deserted May 31, 1864, Wliite House, Va. 

Calvin W. Beck — Co. D. Born Canterbury. Age 21. Residence North- 
field. Credited Northfield. Enlisted Aug. 25, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 5, 
1862, as private. Discharged disabled Feb. 11, 1863, Falmouth, Va. 

Cornehus L. Bralev — Co. F. Born Canterbury. Age 19. Residence 
Northfield. Credited Northfield. Enhsted Aug. 22, 1862. Mustered in 
Sept. 5, 1862, as private. Wounded Mav 3, 1863, Chancellorsville, Va. 
Deserted Dec. 15, 1863, Annapolis, Md. P. O. address, Hill. 

Abiel B. Brown — Co. F. Born Canterbury. Age 19. Residence I-oudon. 
Credited Loudon. Enlisted Aug. 21, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 5, 1862, as 
private. Wounded severely May 3, 1863, Chancellors\alle, Va. Discharged 
May 8, 1865. P. O. address, Pittsburg, Pa. 

Dennis Kelley— Co. F. Born Ireland. Age 25. Residence Canterbury. 
Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 16, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 5, 1862, 
as private. Killed July 5, 1864, by Confederate Sharpshooter near Peters- 
burg, Va. 

Charles W. Knights— Co. F. Born Bow. Age 18. Residence Canterbury. 
Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 15, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 5, 1862, 
as private. Wounded June 3, 1864, Cold Harbor, Va. Discharged June 3, 

Charles H. Lock— Co. F. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence Can- 
terbury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 21, 1862. Alustered in 
Sept. 5, 1862, as private. Captured Nov. 17, 1864, on picket line Bermuda 
Himdred, Va. Exchanged May, 1865. Mustered out, June 21, 1865. P. O. 
address, Franconia. 

WiUiam P. Mason— Co. F. Born Alton. Age 20. Residence Canterbury. 
Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 15, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 5, 1862, 
as private. Appointed corporal May 1, 1865. Mustered out June 21, 1865. 
Died June 30, 1867, St. Charies, Minn. 

John B. Merrill— Co. F. Born Canterbury. Age 33. Residence Pitts- 
field. Credited Pittsfield. Enhsted Aug. 16, 1862. Mustered m Sept. 5, 
1862, as private. Killed May 3, 1863, Chancellors\alle, Va. 


William C. Sargent — Co. C. Born Canterbury. Age 22. Residence 
New Hampton. Credited New Hampton. Enlisted Aug. 15, 1862. Mus- 
tered in Sept. 5, 1862, as private. Discharged disabled May 23, 1863, Concord. 
P. O. address. New Hampton. 

Andrew J. Small — Co. D. Born Canterbury. Age 34. Residence San- 
bomton. Credited Hill. Enlisted Aug. 15, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 5, 
1862, as private. Missing Mav 3, 1863, Chancellors\'ille, Va. Gained from 
missing. Wounded July 2, 1863, Gettysburg, Pa. May 14, 1864, Relay 
House (or Ft. Stevens), Va. Mustered out June 21, 1865. P. O. address, 
East Tilton. 

Daniel G. W. Twombl}- — Co. I. Born Canterbury-. Age 39. Credited 
Meredith. Enlisted Aug. 14, 1862; mustered in Sept. 9, 1862, as private. 
KjUed May 3, 1863. Chancellorsville, Va. 



James Burns — Co. G. Substitute. Born Ireland. Age 26. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 19, 1863. Mustered in Aug. 19, 1863, as pri- 
vate. Wounded June 1, 1864, Cold Harbor, Va. Reported on roll dated 
June 21, 1865, as transferred to 2d N. H. V. mth remark "sick at Man- 
chester." Never joined 2d regiment. No further report adjutant gen- 
eral's office, \^'ashington, D. C. 

Dominic Burns — Co. G. Substitute. Born Ireland. Age 26. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 19, 1863. Mustered in Aug. 19, 1863, as private. 
Transferred to U. S. Navy April 28, 1864, as an ordinary seaman; served 
on U. S. S. Minnesota and Nansemond. Discharged Aug. 4, 1865. 

George Hess — Co. H. Substitute. Born Germany. Age 21. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 2, 1863. Mustered in Sept. 7, 1863, as private. 
Deserted Nov. 30, 1864, while on furlough from De Camp General Hospital, 
N. Y. 



Peter Paro — Co. H. Born Nicolet, Canada. Age 35. Residence Canter- 
burv. Credited Canterburv. Enlisted Aug. 27, 1862, Mustered in Sept. 
24, '1862, as private. Mustered out July 8, 1865. Died Nov. 29, 1874, 

Philander C. White — Co. D. Born Rumney. Age 18. Residence Con- 
cord. Credited Canterburv. Enlisted Aug. 19, 1862. Mustered in Sept. 
24, 1862, as private. Wounded Sept. 19, 1S64, Opequan, Va. Mustered 
out July 8, 1865. P. O. address, East Concord. 



Da\-id K. Nudd— Co. G. Born Northfield. Age 33. Residence Canter- 
burv. Credited Canterburv. Enlisted Sept. 20, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 
11, '1862, as private. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. O. address, Exeter. 

Erastus O. Nudd— Co. G. Born Northfield. Age 37. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterburv. Enlisted Sept. 20, 1862. , Mustered m Oct. 
11, 1862, as private. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. O. address, East 

Samuel G, Lovering — Co. G. Born Loudon. Age 35. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterburv. Enlisted Sept. 20, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 10, 
1862, as private. Killed Alay 27, 1863, Port Hudson, La. Supposed to be 
identical with Samuel G. Lovering, Co. C, 2d N. H. Vol. Inf. 


Henry \\. McDaniel— Co. G. Born Northfield. Age 18. Residence 
Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 17, 1862. Mustered in 
Oct. 14, 1862, as private. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. O. address, 

Charles Huntoon — Co. G. Born Northfield. Age 23. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 15, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 
11, 1862, as private. Discharged to date Aug 13, 1863. 

Munroe Brown — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 26. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterbury. Enhsted Sept. 27, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 
11, 1862, as corporal. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. O. address, Orlean, 
N. Y. 

Augustine R. Ayers — Co. G. Born Gilmanton. Age 23. Residence 
Canterburj'. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 11, 1862. Mustered in 
Oct. 11, 1862, as sergeant. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. 0. address, 
North Boscawen. 

Joseph G. Ayers — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 22. Residence North- 
field. Enlisted Oct. 11, 1862, as private. Appointed 2d Lieut. Nov. 3, 1862. 
Mustered in to date Oct. 11, 1862, as 2d Lieut. Appointed 1st Lieut. March 

I, 1863. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. 

Appointed Asst. surgeon Dec. 17, 1864. Discharged Sept. 24, 1866. 
Appointed Asst. surgeon in regular navy Oct. 8, 1866. Passed Asst. surgeon 
Oct. 12, 1869. Surgeon Jan. 7, 1878. Medical inspector, Feb. 25, 1895. 
Medical director Dec. 12, 1898. Placed on the retired list as medical director 
with the rank of rear admiral Nov. 3, 1901. 

Oliver Locke — Co. G. Born Northwood. Age 39. Residence Canterbury. 
Credited Canterbmy. Enlisted Sept. 20, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 11, 1862, 
as private. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. O. address, Lyman. 

Moody J. Boyce — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 19. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 23, 1862. Mustei-ed in Oct. 
14, 1862, as private. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1803. P. O. address, Conway. 
(See 1st N. H. Heavy Artillery.) 

John S. Whidden — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 19. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 11, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 

II, 1862, as corporal. Died of disease Aug. 2, 1863, Memphis, Tenn. 
Charles H. Glines — Co. G. Born Canterbury'. Age 20. Residence Can- 
terbury. Credited Canterburv. Enhsted Sept. 11, 1862. Mustered in 
Oct. 11, 1862, as private. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. Died Nov. 2, 1888, 
Leominster, Mass. 

Harper S. Allen — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 19. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 17, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 
11, 1862, as private. Discharged to date Aug. 13, 1863. Term expired. 
P. O. address, Penacook. 

Frank O. Pickard — Co. G. Born Concord. Age 18. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Sept. 13, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 11, 1862, as private. 
Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. 0. address, Canterbury. 

William R. Lake — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 22, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 
14, 1862, as private. Mustered out Aug. 13, 1863. P. O. address, Canterbury. 

George W. Bro'RTi — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 29. Residence 
Concord. Credited Concord. Enhsted Oct. 17, 1862. Mustered in Oct. 
18, 1862, as private. Discharged to date Aug. 13, 1863. 



Peter R. Shepard— Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 24. Residence Bos- 
cawen (Fisherville now Penacook). Credited Boscawen. Enlisted Nov. 4, 
1862, as private. Appointed corporal. Mustered out Aug. 20, 1863. Died 
Sept. 25, 1863, at Boscawen. (See U. S. Marine Corps.) 




George H. Gleason — Co. A. Born Boscawen. Age 18. Residence Canter- 
bur}\ Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 7, 1864, for one j'^ear. Mus- 
tered in Sept. 13, 1864, as private. Mustered out June 10, 1865. 

Isaac K. Wells — Co. C. Born Manchester. Age 19. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Sept. 12, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 14, 1864, 
as private. Died of disease April 6, 1865, City Point, Va. 

Joseph W. Ham— Co. D. Born Canterburj-. Age 44. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Sept. 13, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 14, 1864, as 
private. Appointed corporal. Mustered out June 10, 1865. Resided at 
Canterbury until he died. 

Henry Dickinson — Co. D. Born Charlestown, Mass. Age 37. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 18, 1864, for three years. Mustered in Sept. 20, 
1864, as private. Deserted Sept. 29, 1864, Concord. 

Charles Booth — Co. E. Born Ottawa, Canada. Age 36. Credited Can- 
terbury. Enlisted Sept. 26, 1864, for three years. Mustered in Sept. 26, 1864, 
as private. Deserted Oct. 4, 1864, Concord. 

Kendrick Ludlo\V — Co. D. Born Northfield. Age 19. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enhsted Sept. 16, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 17, 1864, 
as private. Mustered out June 10, 1865. P. O. address, Northfield. 

Benjamin F. Brown — Co. I. Born Deerfield. Age 18. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted and mustered in March 21, 1865, as private. Mustered out 
Julv 29, 1865. P. O. address, Northwood. 

Warren J. Brown— Co. D. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Sept. 19, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 21, 1864, 
as private. Discharged July 20, 1865. ' 

John T. Burr— Unassigned. Born Toronto, Canada. Age 28. Credited 
Canterburv. Enhsted Sept. 20, 1864, for three years. Mustered in Sept. 20, 
1864, as private. Sent to regiment. No further record adjutant general's 
office, Washington. D. C. 

John Lagen— Co. F. Born Ireland. Age 35. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Oct. 1, 1864, for three years. Mustered in Oct. 3, 1864, as private. 
Transferred to Co. I, June 10, 1865. Mustered out July 29, 1865. P. O. 
address. National Military Home, Ohio. 

John C. Page— Co. I. Born Meredith. Age 19. Residence Meredith. 
Credited Canterburv. Enhsted Feb. 28, 1865, for three years. Mustered m 
Feb. 28, 1865, as private. Mustered out July 29, 1865. P. O. address, Mere- 
dith Village. 

Andrew J. Smith— Co. I. Bom Gilmanton. Age 20. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Feb. 28, 1865, for three years. Mustered in Feb. 28, 1865, as 
private. Mustered out July 29, 1865. 


John H. Irving— Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 26. Credited Canter- 
burv. Enlisted Sept. 2, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 5, 1864, as 
corporal. Mustered out June 15, 1865. (See 2d Reg. U. S. Vol. Sharpshooters.) 

Moody J. Boyce— Co. K. Born Canterbury. Age 21. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterburv. Enhsted Sept. 13, 1864, for one year. Mustered in 
Sept. 17, 1864, as private. Mustered out June 15, 1865. (See 15 Reg. Vol- Inf. j 

Napoleon B. Dearborn— Co. E. Born Northfield. Age 18. Credited 
Canterburv. Enlisted for one vear Sept. 2, 1864. Mustered in Sept. 6, 
1864, as private. Mustered out June 15, 1865. P. O. address, Manchester. 

Charles P. Haines— Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence 
Canterburv. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted and mustered in Sept. 5, 
1864, as private. Mustered out June 15, 1865. Previous service EnlistM 
May 9, 1864, in National Guards, N. H. Vol. Inf. Mustered m May 1, 1864. 
Mustered out July 27, 1864. P. O. address, Penacook. 


Moses E. Haines — Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 18. Residence Canter- 
bury. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 9, 1S64, for one year. Mustered 
in Sept. 5, 1864, as private. Mustered out June 15, 1865. Previous service. 
Enlisted and mustered May 9, 1864, National Guards, N. H. Vol. Inf. Mus- 
tered out July 27, 1864. 

Leroy E. Batchelder — Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 22. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 2, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 5, 
1864, as private. Mustered out June 15, 1865. P. O. address, Canterbury. 

Charles W. Smith — Co. G. Born Sanbornton. Age 38. Credited Canter- 
burv. Enlisted Sept. 3, 1864, for one j'ear. Mustered in as private Sept. 
6, 1864. Mustered out June 15, 1865. P. O. address, Meredith. 

Also enlisted Oct. 14, 1861, Co. I, 6th N. H.Vol. Inf. as resident of Eoudon. 

Thomas C. Smith — Co. G. Born Sanbornton. Age 28. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Sept. 5, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 6, 1864, as 
private. Mustered out June 15, 1865. Resides at Canterbury. 

Alvin B. W hidden — Co. E. Born Loudon. Age 19. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Aug. 26, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 5, 1864, as corporal. 
Reduced to the ranks Sept. 19, 1864, appointed corporal January 31, 1865. 
Mustered out June 15, 1865. 

\\ illiam H. Carter — Co. E. Born Canterbury. Age 21. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted Sept. 1, 1864, for one year. Mustered in Sept. 5, 

1864, as corporal. Mustered out June 15, 1865. P. O. address, Canterbury. 
Charles H.French — Co.G. Born Canterbury. Age 24. Credited Gilman- 

ton. Enhsted Sept. 3, 1864, for three years. Mustered in Sept. 6, 1864, 
as private. Transferred to Co. B, June 10, 1865. Mustered out Sept. 11, 

1865. P. O. address, Gilmanton. 



Bernice Scales — Co. E. Born Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Age 
19. Residence Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 25, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 
26, 1862, as private. Wounded May 3, 1863, Chancellorsville, Va. Killed 
May 7, 1864, Wilderness, Va. 



James S. Palmer — Co. G. Born Troy, Me. Age 28. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Aug. 19, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 21, 1862, as private. Discharged 
Jan. 20, 1863, Newark, N. J. P. O. address, East Boston, Mass. 

William C. Kimball— Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 27. Credited 
Canterbury. Enhsted Aug. 21, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 25, 1862, as private. 
Discharged disability April 10, 1863, Baltimore, Md. 

Andrew J. Ingalls — Co. G. Born Chichester. Credited Canterbury. 
Age 31. Enlisted Aug. 25, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 26, 1862, as private. 
Captured June 22, 1864, Weldon Railroad, Va. Released. Transferred to 
5th N. H. Vol. Jan. 30, 1865. Assigned to Co. H, June 17, 1865. Discharged 
June 19, 1865, Baltimore, Md. P. O. address, Laconia. 

John H. Irving — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 23. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Aug. 16, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 21, 1862, as private. 
Discharged March 16, 1863, Providence, R. I. Supposed to be identical 
with John II. Irving, Co. E., 1st N. H. Heavy Art. 

Joseph B. Bland — Co. G. Born Lincolnshire, Eng. Age 34. Residence 
Canterbury. Enlisted Oct. 21, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 12, 1861, as private. 
Mustered out Dec. 12, 1864. P. 0. address, East Grafton. 

George Scales — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 21. Residence Canter- 
bury (Fisherville now Penacook). Enlisted Dec. 4, 1861. Mustered in 
Dec. 12, 1861, as private. Appointed corporal March, 1862. Wounded 
Sept., 1862, Antietam, Md. Discharged on account of wounds Nov. 22, 1862. 


Joseph G. Cilley — Co. F. BornAndover. Age 18. Residence Canterbury. 
Enlisted Oct. 14, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 26, 1861, as private. Discharged 
disabihty Feb. 27, 1862. 

Joseph G. Clifford — Co. G. Born Loudon. Age 26. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Aug. 18, 1862. Mustered in Aug. 21, 1862, as private. Captured 
Dec. 13, 1862, Fredericksburg, Va. Paroled. Died disease Jan. 27, 1863, 
Annapolis, Md. 

Jeremiah C. Foster — Co. G. Born Canterbury. Age 20. Residence Can- 
terbury. Enhsted Sept. 28, 1861. ^ilustered in Dec. 12, 1861, as private. 
Wounded at Second Bull Run, Va. Transferred to Co. G, 18th \'eteran 
Reserve Corps. Discharged Dec. 12, 1864, Point Lookout, Md. Term 
expired. Died Sept. 24, 1881, Barre, -Mass. 

John A. Lougee — Co. G. Born Loudon. Age 23. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted Aug. 16, 1862. Clustered in Aug. 2.5, 1862, as private. Transferred to 
Co. I, 5th X.'H.Vol. Inf., Jan. 30, 186.5. Discharged June 3, 186.5, Baltimore, Md. 

John H. Mood}^ — Co. F. Born Canterbur}-. Age 17. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enlisted Oct. 1, 1861. Mustered in Nov. 26, 1861, as private. Reen- 
listed Dec. 21, 1863. Mustered in Dec. 25, 1863. Appointed corporal. 
Wounded May 6, 1864, ^^■ilderness, Va. Transferred to 5th X. H. Vol. .Jan. 30, 
1865. Assigned to Company I, June 17, 1865. IMustered out June 28, 1865. 

John A. ]Moore.s — Co. G. Bom Byfield, Mass. Age 49. Residence 
Canterburv. Appointed 1st Lieut. Sept. 19, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 12, 

1861. Resigned Nov. 14, 1862. Died Nov. 28, 1866, MarshaUtown, Iowa. 
William D. Moores — Co. G. Born Concord. Age 19. Residence Canter- 
bury. Enhsted Sept. 18, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 12, 1S61, as private. 
Discharged disability Nov. 10, 1862, Washington, D. C. P. O. address, Derry 

John J. Railey — Co. G. Born Ireland. Age 19. Residence Canter- 
burv. Credited Canterburv. Enlisted Aug. 22, 1862. ^Mustered in Aug. 
25, 1862, as private. Wounded July 4, 1863, Gettysburg, Pa. Discharged 
disability Dec. 6, 1864. P. O. address, Leominster, Mass. 

Center L. Tillotson — Co. G. Born Orange. Age 28. Credited Canter- 
burv. Enlisted Aug. 19, 1862., Mustered in Aug. 25, 1862, as private. 
Discharged disability Feb. 3, 1863, Baltimore, Md. 


Peter R. Shepard — Born Canterbury. Age 22. Residence Boscawen. 
Enlisted May 2, 1861, at Boston for four years as private. Served on U. S. S. 
Susquchannn and with Marine Battalion, Bav Point, S. C. Deserted July 3, 

1862, Washington, D. C. (See also 16th N. H. Vol. Inf.) 


James Johnson — Born Oswego County, N. Y. Age 18. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted and mustered in Dec. 19, 1863, as musician. Supposed to 
have deserted en route to regiment. No further record adjutant general's 
office, Washington, D. C. 

Charles Anderson— Born Botetourt County, Va. Age 22. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted and mustered in Dec. 22, 1863, as private. Deserted 
en route to regiment. 

John Moselv— Born Carnesville, Ga. Age 23. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted and mustered in Dec. 22, 1863, as private. Deserted en route to 
regiment. No further record adjutant general's office, Washington, D. C. 

William Sweenev— Born Ireland. Age 25. Credited Canterbury. Enlisted 
and mustered in Dec. 24, 1863, as private in the 9th Regt., N. H. Vol. Inf. 
Deserted Jan. 6. 1864, Paris, Ky. 

John Henderson— Born Ireland. Age 23. Credited Canterburv-. Enlisted 
and mustered in Dec. 24, 1863, as private in the 9th Regt., N. H. Vol. Inf. 
Deserted Jan. 6, 1864, Paris, Ky. 

1 All were substitutes. 



Charles C. Haskell — Co. G, 11th Heavy Artillery. Enlisted for three years. 
Born Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Age 25. Enlisted Dec. 10, 1863. 
Mustered in Dec. 10, 18G3, as private. Mustered out Oct. 2, 1S65, New 
Orleans, La. P. 0. address, Laconia. 

Charles M. Davis— Co. K, 127th Inf. Born Canterbury. Age 28. Cred- 
ited Loudon, enlisted and mustered Sept. 1, 18G4, as sergeant. Mustered out 
Oct. 20, 1865, as of Co. B, Brazos, Santiago, Texas. P. O. address, Penacook. 

Moses N. Dustin — Co. D 54 (colored) Mass. Inf. Drafted. Born Canter- 
bury. Age 23. Residence Canterbury. Credited Canterbury. Drafted 
for three years and mustered in Aug. 19, 1863, as private. Discharged dis- 
abihty Aug. 29, 1864, Morris Island, S. C. 

Co. H, 3d Inf., substitute. Credited Grafton. Enlisted and mustered in 
Oct. 4, 1864, as private. Mustered out Oct. 31, 1865, Jacksonville, Florida. 
P. O. address, Belmont. 



Francis O'Reilly — Born Canterbury. Age 23. Residence Canterburj\ 
Enlisted April 17, 1862. Mustered in May 15, 1862, as private. Transferred 
to Co. E, 9th N. H. Vol., Aug. 6, 1862. Appointed corporal Aug. 6, 1862. 
Captured Mav 12, 1864, Spottsylvania, Va.; released. Discharged May 
30, 1865, Baltimore, Md. Term expired. 


Elbridge G. Randall— Co. G, 13th Maine Inf. Born Canterbury. Age 28. 
Residence Canterbury. Enlisted Nov. 25, 1861, for three years. Mustered in 
Dec. 12, 1861, as private. Died Jan. 22, 1864, Brownsville, Texas. 

Lyman B. Foster — 26th Regiment Ohio Vol. Inf. Born Canterbury. 
Enlisted April 18, 1861. Appointed first sergeant and successively promoted 
to second and first lieutenant. Wounded at Lookout Mountain, at Kenesaw 
Mountain and again at Franklin, Tenn., the last being Nov. 30, 1864. Nine 
davs later he was promoted to captain but was never mustered. Discharged 
disability May 15, 1865. 

Alonzo Foster — Co. A, 2d Regiment Minn. Vol. Inf. Born Canterbury. 
Enlisted Sept. 28, 1863. Mustered in as corporal, promoted to first sergeant. 
Discharged Louisville, Ky., July 11, 1865. 

Mark G. Dustin— Co. C, 1st Artillery, U. S. A. Born Hopkinton. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted March 2, 1865, as private. Discharged disability 
Feb. 14, 1867, Fort Lafayette, New York Harbor. P. O. address, Hopkinton. 

William E. Hayward— Co. I, 59 Mass. Inf. Born Boston. Age 36. Resi- 
dence Canterbury. Credited Roxbury, Mass. Enlisted March 11, 1864, for 
three years. Mustered in April 2, 1864, as private. Transferred to Co. I, 
57th Mass. Inf., Jan. 1, 1865. Mustered out July 30, 1865. 

George P. Morrill— Co. I, 1st Ohio Light Artillery. Born Canterbury. 
Age 20. Residence Canterbury. Enlisted Aug. 19, 1864, for one year. Mus- 
tered in August 19, 1864, as private. Discharged June 13, 1865. P. O. 
address, Canterbury. 

Michael Price— Co. C, 1st Artillery U. S. Army. Credited Canterbury. 
Enlisted March 3, 1865, for three years as private. Discharged March 3, 1868, 
Ft. Lafayette, New York Harbor. 


Albert H. Alexander— Co. G. Born Brookhne. Age 20. Credited Canter- 
bury. Enlisted March 2, 1865. Mustered in March 2, 1865, as private. 
Mustered out July 15, 1865. 


Charles H. Berry— Co. G. Born Meredith. Age 21. Credited Canter- 
bury. EnHsted and mustered in March 2, 1865, as private. Mustered out 
July 15, 1865. P. O. address, Meredith. 

Edward A. Robbins — Co. C. Born Hillsborough. Age 18. Credited 
Canterbury. Enlisted and mustered in Feb. 27, 1865, as private. Trans- 
ferred to Co. K, May 1, 1865. Mustered out July 15, 1865. 


James A. Pettingill— Born Canterbury. Age 23. Enlisted Oct.^ 25, 1862, 
at New York City for one year as a landsman. Served on the U. S. S. A'orlk 
Carolina. Drowned May 27, 1863, in Mississippi from Cincinnati. 


Henrj' P. Hubbard — Co. M. Born Canterbury. Age 27. Residence 
Manchester. Enlisted Nov. 4, 1861. Mustered in Dec. 24, 1861, as private. 
Captured June 18, 1863, near Middleburgh, Va., Paroled 1863. Reenlisted 
Jan. 1, 1864, Mustered in Jan. 5, 1864. Appointed corporal July 1, 1865. 
Mustered out July 15, 1865. 

Little business of interest except war measures occupied the 
attention of the town from 1861 to 1865. At the annual town 
meeting in 1859, the first printed town report was authorized, 
and it was ready for distribution in March, 1860, covering the 
preceding fiscal year. The following interesting facts are taken 
therefrom : 

The whole amount of tax committed to the collector was 
$4,448.02, of which only S236.73 remained uncollected March 1. 
The collector was James H. Herrick. 

The expenditure for schools was $1,249.22, for roads and 
bridges $275.92. The state tax was $359.80 and the county 
tax $802.74. The town, however, received nothing at that 
time from the savings bank tax and only $76.22 from the rail- 
road tax. 

The hquor agent turned in $29.73 and the overseer of the 
poor $7.40, but he was paid $290 in addition to what he raised 
on the town farm for the support of paupers and what he received 
from other towns and from the county for the support of inmates 
not chargeable to Canterbury. 

Moses P. Sargent was paid $150 for damages occurring 
from his wife being throwTi from a bridge and Samuel N. Mor- 
rill for damage to a sleigh $2. The selectmen were paid for 
their services and expenses $159.75, the town treasurer $8, 
the town clerk $25.39 and the superintending school committee 


The inventory of the town farm is given in detail, even to 
wicking and twine, valued respectively at tAvelve and eight 
cents. The total valuation of the real and personal property 
of the farm was $3,439.61, of which the farm is estimated 
at $2,000. 

In the warrant for the annual town meeting of 1863 there was 
an article "to see if the town will instruct its representative 
to authorize the County Commissioners to purchase and put 
in operation a County Poor Farm." This was the beginning 
in Merrimack County of the effort to care for the paupers by 
the county authorities. If such a farm were bought, it would 
do away with the town poor farm. Sentiment in Canterbury 
was decidedly hostile to its establishment. It was felt that 
the cost would be greater and that it would be a hardship upon 
the worthy poor to be taken away from their homes and lifelong 
associations. The proposition, however, met with the favor 
of a majority of the towns of Merrimack County, and, at a 
special meeting, December 20, 1865, Canterbury voted to sell 
its poor farm and apply the proceeds to the payment of debts. 
In 1868, however, it was voted that the selectmen receive pro- 
posals for the purchase of a town farm and report at some sub- 
sequent meeting. If any report was made, the records do not 
show it. This evidence, however, is significant of a dissatis- 
faction with the county arrangement which expressed itself 
later when the county buildings were burned. The town farm 
which had been acquired in 1827 and had answered the purpose 
of a house for the unfortunate as well as ^ house of correction 
for nearly forty years was now numbered with other institutions 
of the past which fast faded from memory. 

In 1867 there was an article in the warrant to see if the town 
would establish a house of correction, but no action was taken 
thereon. In 1870, however, Samuel Morrill was chosen keeper 
of the house of correction and took the oath of office prescribed 
by law. No place for the keeping of disorderly persons appears 
to have been appointed and this is the last record of this official. 
His appointment may have been made with a view to looking 
after that class of individuals known as "tramps, " who soon after 
became a menace to rural communities of New Hampshire. At 
the annual meeting of 1878 the town provided a place for the 
keeping and confinement of these travelers. 


In the warrant for the town meeting of 1874 the following arti- 
cle appeared, "To see if the town will instruct the selectmen 
to excuse from the payment of taxes all women not entitled to 
vote in town affairs." This is the only reference to woman 
suffrage that appears in the records, although several earnest 
champions of this cause were prominent citizens of the town 
for many years. The article in the warrant was indefinitely 




During the decade succeeding the Civil War there was little 
to indicate that the last quarter of the nineteenth century 
would show a marked decrease in the population and wealth 
of Canterbury. In spite of the burdens of the war period and 
the years immediately following, the rapid increase in the price 
of live stock and other agricultural products at this time brought 
prosperity to the farmers. Evidence of their thrift was apparent 
in painted buildings, increased furnishing of homes, improved 
farm machinery, pleasure carriages and the dress of the family. 
The old habitation, perhaps the first frame house of the orig- 
inal ancestor, had here and there given place to a more modern 
and commodious structure. This, too, was more fully equipped 
with the comforts of life. The rag carpet and the painted 
wooden chairs of the parlor and the "spare room" which sat- 
isfied an earlier generation had been superseded by more expen- 
sive fittings. There was an extra horse for driving that was 
not used in the farm work. The father's clothes were no longer 
cut over to fit the boys. What had been considered luxuries 
before were gradually becoming necessities for the household. 
Probably at no time in the history of the town had its families 
shown such a general air of prosperity. 

There were few unoccupied houses and no abandoned farms. 
The latter were well stocked with cattle. Flocks of sheep grazed 
upon the hillsides and the barns and granaries were filled at the 
close of the harvest season. Interest in agriculture was stimu- 
lated by the organization of a farmers' club, while the holding 
of an annual town fair excited keen rivalry in the exhibits of 


the products of the town. At the larger farmers' gatherings 
of the state, Canterbury was well represented, and, as a farm- 
ing community, it was favorably known throughout New 

While the large families of children of fifty years before were 
no longer to be found, the schools had a sufficient number of 
pupils to make them interesting. The town had a good number 
of its youth attending the academies of the state, and they, 
spending a part of the school year at home, contributed to its 
social hfe. These young people taught school, worked on the 
farm and assisted in the household cares when not away at the 
seminary and the college. An educational society was organ- 
ized for the instruction and entertainment of the inhabitants. 
In every family was to be found one or more weekly newspapers, 
usually indicating the political faith of the household, while 
the more prosperous subscribed for agricultural publications 
and for magazines. The ten years succeeding 1865, therefore, 
gave every indication of continued progress. 

Many of the old customs, however, still continued. The 
farmer raised most of his table supplies from the land. Late 
in the fall he killed a steer or two, or a cow whose profit for 
dairy purposes was past, and one or two hogs. With the excep- 
tion of such portions as could be kept by the natural freezing 
of winter weather to be eaten fresh, the beef and pork were 
salted and packed in barrels and supplied the family with meat 
eight months or more in the year. Salt codfish and a kit or 
two of salt mackerel were practically the only variations of this 
diet during the spring, summer and early fall months. In the 
summer, if a calf or lamb was killed, a quarter or a half was 
reserved for family use and the remainder distributed among 
neighbors, who returned it in kind later. Occasionally a hen 
or two might be sacrificed for specially invited guests. The 
only fresh meat that came to the farmer's table from March to 
November was supplied from these limited sources. The meat 
and fish carts running regularly from neighboring villages were 
later innovations. 

Corn huskings, apple bees, spelling matches and quiltings 
still lingered as sources of amusement. The boys took turns 
in -winter building the fire at the school house and the girls in 
keeping it clean. Half of those in attendance brought their 


dinners in tin pails and partook of the noonday meal in the build- 
ing where their studying and reciting was done. A man teacher, 
however, was exceptional even at the winter term, the ages of 
the children no longer requiring his masculine strength to main- 
tain order. The Sunday services at church, forenoon and 
afternoon, were fairly well attended, and the hour intermission 
was the occasion for the exchange of neighborhood gossip, the 
discussion of general news and friendly visits. Preaching at 
the Center, the Baptist's and Hill 's Corner was regularly main- 
tained. The school district bounded a neighborhood, and each 
made its social life more or less enjoyable by means of debat- 
ing clubs, lyceums, surprise parties and teas. Occasionally a 
dramatic entertainment was undertaken to raise funds for the 
church, the library or the educational society. In summer 
there was a return home of the young men and women who had 
gone elsewhere to seek their fortune, this visit perhaps being 
returned by the old folks during the succeeding winter. Summer 
visitors were in town, but few of them were summer boarders. 
For the most part, these guests abided with relatives and friends. 

The Canterbury of this decade from 1865 to 1875 had a min- 
gling of the past and the present in its life, but it was after all the 
beginning of a transition period from old to new and from growth 
to decline. The succeeding years brought a radical change in 
conditions. Like other rural communities of New England 
without a manufacturing village to add to their growth, this 
town for fifty years prior to 1875 had been contributing its ambi- 
tious young men and women to people the large centers of the 
East and to help make up the emigration to the West without 
being conscious of the drain upon its population. For a long 
time, it was only the surplus people, those not needed at home 
who emigrated. But as the size of families decreased from ten 
or a dozen boys and girls to three or four and this departure 
became a choice as well as a necessity, the community began 
to suffer. 

The building of the Pacific railroads soon after the close of 
the war opened up a great agricultural country beyond the 
Mississippi River. It was not many years before the farmer of 
the East found himself at a disadvantage when brought into 
competition with the cultivators of the soil in the West. There 
were rocky farms on the hillsides of Canterbury that might 


still be carried on at a profit so long as the labor was performed 
by the father and his growing family of boys, whose only 
wages were their board and clothes. But, when it became 
necessary to hire help, it was no longer a question of profit but 
a struggle for existence. As the sons scattered and the parents 
aged, these farms had to be abandoned as homes. Traveling 
over the Canterbury hills today, one marvels how the subsist- 
ence for a household of from six to a dozen people could have 
been wrung from some of these farms. Yet, when the soil was 
new, the wants of the family small and each member above the 
age of seven a contributor by his labor to the support of the 
whole, there was at least a prosperity which brought content. 

The more acres under cultivation the larger the harvest, and 
much land was taken into tillage which later proved to be more 
profitable for the production of timber. The pastures were 
becoming exhausted. Western beef, reared on the free ranges of 
a new country, was sold cheaper in the East than the New 
England farmer could raise cattle for the market, and the system 
of general farming by which the increase and growth of stock 
furnished the Eastern farmer with his ready cash was now at a 
discount. Machinery could not be used to advantage on these 
rocky farms, and they gradually deteriorated in value. Hard 
manual labor was essential to their successful cultivation, and it 
was not forthcoming. Hence, much of the land which had been 
used for the growing of crops and the pasturing of cattle was suf- 
fered to relapse into its former wild state, while the grass from 
the remaining acres was cut and sold by the owner who resided 
in a neighboring village. Specializing in agriculture by growing 
what would find a ready market, while it was advocated at this 
time by those who foresaw the future, was not readily adopted 
by men whose habits of life had become fixed. Moreover the 
attractiveness of the New Hampshire hills as summer homes 
and the cash returns from the summer boarder had not then 
impressed themselves as assets upon the people of Canterbury 
and other rural towns of the state. 

These were the causes of the decrease in population and 
wealth of the town, not exceptional to this community but per- 
taining to nearly all purely rural towns of New England. The 
closing years of the nineteenth century and the opening years 
of the new are, therefore, not so replete with stirring events as 


their predecessors, but the story is still interesting and shows 
the efforts that were made to stem the tide of deterioration, 
the course of which could not be changed. Pride in its past and 
hope for its future animate the present inhabitants of the town 
who, though fewer in numbers, are still for the most part of the 
good New England stock that for nearly three centuries has 
risen superior to its environments. 

Soon after the close of the Civil War, the Farmers and 
Mechanics' Association was formed in Canterbury. Its object 
was to promote interest in agriculture and the mechanics' arts, 
its scope being made broad enough to include any industry 
in town. Weekly meetings were held during the winter, at which 
papers were read and discussed. For more than a decade, this 
association was a feature of the educational and progressive life 
of the community. 

Within a very short time of its organization, the society under- 
took the holding of a town fair. This local display of the prod- 
ucts of Canterbury was held annually in the fall of the year. 
The first fair occurred in 1871, and, for a dozen years, it was 
an event of more than local significance. The common at 
the Center was fenced in and on these grounds were exhib- 
ited horses, cattle, sheep, swine, poultry, grain, fruit and dairy 
products, while in the Town House was displayed the handi- 
work of mechanics and of the household. The fair usually lasted 
two days and was made interesting to both young and old. 
Plowing matches, trials of strength of draft teams and rural sports 
were attractive features. The rivalry of the various school dis- 
tricts was intense, and these exhibitions contributed materially 
to secure for Canterbury the high rank that it then held as an 
agricultural town. The display in the Town House was most 
varied, including as it did home made cloth, wool frocking, rag 
carpets, stockings, rugs, needle work, cut flowers and specimens 
of painting and drawing executed by young women of the com- 
munity. The blacksmith, the cooper and the shoemaker also 
had specimens of their work. Premiums were offered for all of 
these exhibits in addition to the usual prizes for agricultural 

A fair bill or poster for the year 1872, preserved by Sam W. 
Lake, shows that the fair that year was held Wednesday and 
Thursday, October 16 and 17, and that Wilham C. Sturoc of 

Residence of Leroy A. Glines. 
Probable location of Capt. Jeremiah Clough, Jr. 

Town Fair. 


Sunapee was the orator of the day. The officers that year were 
Sylvanus C. Moore, president; Joseph G. Clough, secretary; 
Alfred H. Brown, treasurer; Edward Osgood, general superin- 
tendent; Wilham P. Small, Robert S. Morrill, Philip C. Clough, 
Myron C. Foster, Charles N. Clough, Nahum Blanchard and 
John J. Railey, committee of arrangements. 

The town agricultural fair was very popular in New Hamp- 
shire for a decade or more in the seventies. While it had not 
some of the features of the state and county fairs, it did 
more to promote interest in agriculture than these larger exhibits. 
It was at these local gatherings that the people saw what their 
fellow townsmen could produce, and the premiums and prizes 
awarded led to more active competition the next year. The 
town fair was the one event of the year to bring the people of 
the community together, and former residents made it an occa- 
sion for returning to visit relatives and friends. It was a fore- 
runner of the present Old Home Day. The Canterbury fair 
was one of the most popular of these local exhibits, and its 
nearness to the capital of the state secured the attendance of a 
large number of visitors who had no special interest in agriculture. 

In 1873 a grange was organized, one of the earliest in the 
state, and it has continued active ever since. At first, the con- 
ception of its members was that the organization would become 
a kind of farmers' alliance to protect their interests in the sale 
of products and the purchase of supplies. When this idea was 
eliminated, the social and educational features of the order came 
to the front and its benefit to the town was pronounced. The 
program of its meetings took a wide range, the public exer- 
cises affording interesting and instructive entertainment for the 
people. The Canterbury grange, in fact, gradually took the place 
of the Farmers and Mechanics' Association, in time absorbing 
the members of the latter organization. Of larger purpose and 
broader connections than a local farmers' club, the contribution 
of the grange to the welfare of the town, especially in its social 
life, has been continuous. 

Canterbury was one of the towns in the state where an early 
effort was made to divorce local affairs from state and national 
politics. After more than a generation of strenuous campaigns, 
where everything had been subordinated to partisan success, 
the old leaders on both sides became weary of the strife and 


dissatisfied with the results as apphed to the management of 
their town business. Under the stress of heated pohtical con- 
tests, the welfare of the community had been frequently obscured. 
Until 1878, the town and state elections of New Hampshire 
occurred on the same date in March. To eliminate party 
spirit from the choice of town officers, it was necessary to have 
an understanding between the two opposing organizations. 
Therefore, in 1871, the leading Republicans and Democrats 
of Canterbury drew up an agreement, covering a period of 
four years, by which for two years the Republicans were 
conceded the representative to the legislature, one of the select- 
men and the town clerk, while to their opponents were given 
the moderator, a majority of the board of selectmen and the 
town treasurer. At the end of two years, the order of arrange- 
ment was to be reversed. The organization thus created was 
known as the First Union party. 

Never a movement gave promise of more immediate success. 
It had the endorsement and support of substantially all those 
who for a quarter of a century had transacted the pubhc busi- 
ness of Canterbury. Its purpose, which was commendable, had 
in view the benefit of the town and the elimination of those 
reprehensible features of party politics which each side had 
hitherto justified by the fact that its opponents were equal 
transgressors. The leaders, however, failed to take into con- 
sideration the equation of personal ambition among the younger 
men of the town. 

These young men had been doing political work for years 
under the direction of the old leaders, looking forward to the 
time when they could be honored by election to some impor- 
tant office. That time seemed to them near at hand. They 
had not been consulted in the new arrangement, which was to 
change old methods, and they looked upon it as an alHance 
of their seniors in age to continue themselves in office. This 
view was strengthened by the course pursued by the First 
Union party in making its nominations. They were largely of 
men who had long been tried in the service of the town. It was 
the old story of weariness of "hearing Aristides called the Just." 
New men were coming upon the stage and were demanding 
recognition. They saw no prospect of this in the organization 
just formed and they set out to oppose it. They created a 


Second IJjiion party made up of those who were not affiliated 
with the First. Under this new ahgnment, the contest of 1871 
was fought. 

The personal element took the place of partisan feeling, but 
the battle was waged with all the intensity of previous political 
strifes. If the First Union had the better cause, the Second 
Union had the better men, or, in other words, the more numer- 
ous following, and for four successive elections, the latter won 
the day. The two Unions were then dissolved, and the voters 
returned to their former party allegiance. While the movement 
did not secure the immediate results expected by those who 
started it, there is little doubt that it contributed to the present 
arrangement, entirely feasible under the amended constitution, 
separating town from state elections, whereby local affairs are 
conducted on a purely non-partisan basis. 

An educational society was organized June 3, 1870, the call 
for the meeting of the inhabitants for this purpose having been 
issued by the school committee of the town. The preamble 
of the constitution adopted reads, "Beheving that all great 
and good objects can best be promoted by associated effort, we 
organize ourselves . . . into an association to promote the 
cause of education in the town of Canterbury and the state of 
Nev/ Hampshire." 

Thirteen persons signed the constitution at the first meeting. 
No superstition appears to have influenced these pioneers of 
progress, for the thirteen fixed the regular day of the monthly 
gatherings on Friday. At the second meeting, twenty-eight 
joined, and during the more than quarter of a century of its 
activities, one hundred and seventy-eight different members 
were enrolled. All expenses of the association were met by 
voluntary contributions or subscriptions. The officers elected 
at the first regular meeting July 1, 1870, were: president, 
Edward Osgood; vice-presidents, John J. Railey, Rev. Josiah 
Higgins; secretary, Martha J. Foster; treasurer, Alfred H. 
Brown; executive committee, Lyman B. Foster. 

The first lecturer to address the association was the Rev. 
Alpheus C. Hardy, who was then state superintendent of public 
instruction. At the early meetings, the subjects of lectures 
and discussions had to do entirely with education in the public 
schools. After the first few years, other topics were considered. 


Although the association paid only the expenses of its lecturers, 
the people of Canterbury had the pleasure of listening to some of 
the prominent public speakers of the state. The records dis- 
close these names as among those who in the early life of the 
society came to Canterbury: Jacob H. Gallinger, Orrin C. 
Moore, James W. Patterson, Amos Hadley, Stephen S. Foster, 
John H. Goodale, Abba Gould Woolson, Parker Pillsbury and 
James O. Adams. 

Prizes were given by members for excellence in speaking, 
reading, grammar and geography, the competitors to be the 
youth of the schools of the town. Evenings were set apart 
for this kind of entertainment. When for any cause a lecturer 
could not be secured, local talent contributed to the instruction 
of the meeting. Except for a period of three years from 1876 
to 1879, the gatherings were held with regularity and public 
interest in the association continued unabated. 

Through the influence of this educational society, Canter- 
bury very early gave voice to its desire for the school enfran- 
chisement of women. At a meeting June 2, 1871, the following 
resolution offered by Galen Foster was adopted: 

"Resolved, That this association ask the legislature to pass 
an act allowing women in the town of Canterbury to vote in 
our district school meetings on the same terms as men." 

A copy of this resolution was forwarded to the clerks of the 
Senate and House of Representatives of the Legislature then in 
session. In no town of the state have women taken a greater 
interest in school affairs since the privilege of suffrage was con- 
ferred upon them than in Canterbury. 

In 1873 the Educational Association aroused public interest 
in the observance of the Fourth of July, and a very creditable 
celebration was carried through under its superintendence. 

The benefits of the association came not only from the instruc- 
tion of the lecturers who addressed it but also from the consid- 
eration of the topic after the speaker had closed. Following 
every lecture, the audience took up the subject and discussed it. 
Woe to the speaker if he was not well grounded in his opinions ! 
He was sure to be challenged by some one present and called 
upon to define his position. The discussion would frequently 
take a wide range, and before the meeting adjourned the topic 


of the formal address would sometimes be completely ignored. 
However these discussions following a lecture might wander 
from the topic under consideration, no salient point of the 
speaker's discourse was ever lost upon the audience. 

The records of the association indicate that from 1876 to 1879 
its work was in abeyance, as no meetings appear to have been 
held. In the latter year there was a revival of interest, and, 
for twenty years succeeding, the society continued to hold 
regular sessions. The last public meeting was March 28, 
1899. Then for a period of eight years nothing was done under 
its auspices. The recollections of its excellent work of instruc- 
tion and entertainment still lingered, and in 1908 an effort was 
made to revive it. While this failed, a new organization was 
formed called The Canterbury Social and Educational Club to 
take its place. This new society became the successor and 
legatee of the Educational Association. The surviving members 
of the latter were called together November 16, 1908, and they 
voted to turn over the funds in the hands of their treasurer to 
the new organization and to deposit their records in the town 

The close of the Civil War found the state, counties and 
towns deeply in debt and a period of economy followed, that 
surplus revenue might be applied to the discharge of outstanding 
obligations. The voters of Canterbury scrutinized every item 
of expense, and at the annual meetings the town officers were 
specifically instructed as to their charges for services. 

Canterbury raised by taxation each j^ear a sum more than 
sufficient for its running expenses and applied it to the reduc- 
tion of its indebtedness. Several efforts were made to fund 
these obligations by the issue of bonds to take the place of notes 
which were largely held by its citizens. It was argued by some 
that the expenses incurred by putting down the RebelUon and 
preserving the Union were for the benefit of posterity as well as 
themselves and that posterity should bear some of the burden. 
On the other hand, there were those, like Col. David M. Clough, 
who reasoned that the town debts could be paid more easily 
while the period of inflation of currency and of prices continued 
than by postponing their discharge. They urged that special 
taxes be levied to secure the early payment of these debts. 
The outcome was a compromise by which an average of about 


two thousand dollars a year was raised to take up the notes 
of the town. 

Year by year these obhgations were discharged, and at the 
annual meeting in 1887, twenty-two years after the close of the 
Civil War, the selectmen were able to announce that the town 
was free from debt with a surplus in the treasury. It was a sea- 
son of rejoicing, and the citizens voted to celebrate the event 
with a supper at the expense of the town. The committee of 
arrangements were William H. Carter, Smith L. Morrill, Moses 
A. Foster, Alfred H. Brown, Nicholas A. Briggs, Henry L. Clough, 
Billy E. Pillsbury, Frank S. Davis, Olwyn W. Dow, John L. 
Nelson, Lewis Colby and John F. Lake. 

With a few exceptions, this list included men who were tax- 
payers when the debt was incurred, but the names of most of 
those who were prominent in town affairs during the war were 
missing. They had joined the great majority. Almost a new 
generation of voters had come upon the stage to whom the con- 
flict had but historic meaning, yet all could rejoice over the ex- 
cellent financial condition of Canterbury. The celebration was 
local in its character, but it was largely attended by citizens of 
the town. Then for several years, the people raised only the 
nominal sum of one dollar to pay town charges, the income from 
the savings bank and railroad taxes being sufficient to meet these 

In 1878 the county buildings at Boscawen having been de- 
stroyed by fire, a special meeting was called April 13 to act upon 
the following articles in the warrant: 

"Are you in favor of a return to the plan of supporting all 
paupers who have had a settlement in any town or city in the 
county by such town or cities or by the present plan? 

"Are you in favor of rebuilding the county buildings recently 
destroyed by fire and of continuing the county farm?" 

The vote on the first article was 114 yeas to 3 nays to provide 
for the support of paupers by the town, and the second was an- 
swered in the negative by a vote of 3 yeas to 122 nays. The 
county as a whole, however, voted in favor of continuing the 
county farm and erecting new buildings. 

The improvement of the highway from the Center to the 
Depot was a subject of consideration and contention during this 
period. Application to the selectmen to lay out a new highway 


for part of the route was refused and an appeal was taken to the 
county commissioners. The town voted at the annual meeting 
in 1879 to instruct the selectmen to appear in court and oppose 
the request of the petitioners. Special town meetings were 
called in October that year and again in February, 1880, at which 
the town reaffirmed its opposition by decisive votes, but without 
avail, for the county commissioners laid out the highway. The 
next board of commissioners, upon petition to the court, reversed 
the action of their predecessors. This was the last of the con- 
tested struggles in Canterbury to change existing routes of travel. 

The people of Canterbury have always taken an interest in 
music. For years the local singing schools in various districts 
were a prominent feature of the social life of the inhabitants. 
The Shakers gave special attention to the subject in their school, 
employing professional instructors to educate not only the chil- 
dren, but the adults. The musical conventions held at Concord 
for many years were largely attended by the people of this town. 
In October, 1878, the Canterbury Choral Union was formed. The 
preamble of the society stated its object to be "for the purpose 
of advancing the cause of music and for moral, social and intel- 
lectual improvement." The promoters were Joseph G. Clough, 
William M. Cogswell, Charles W. Emery, Mrs. Alpheus D. Smith 
and Mrs. Jonathan C. Greenough. The membership numbered 
forty-four. Officers were chosen as follows: president, Albert B. 
Clough; vice-president, Joseph E. Kimball; secretary, Charla 
Clough; treasurer, Mrs. Moses A. Foster; musical director, Joseph 
G. Clough; assistant, Mrs. Alpheus D. Smith; executive com- 
mittee, Charles W. Emery, Moses A. Foster, WilHam M. Cogswell. 

During the winter of 1880-81 Prof. John Jackman of Boscawen 
was engaged as instructor, and frequent rehearsals were held in 
different sections of the town. A cantata was undertaken and 
given at the three churches in Canterbury and at Boscawen. 
The Choral Union continued to hold meetings until the fall of 
1891, the last being a reunion of the members in October of that 
year at Kezer Seminary. It was then voted to continue the 
organization, but there is no record of any subsequent meeting. 

A village improvement association was started at the Center 
in June, 1867, having for its object the beautifying of the com- 
mon in front of the church. This public ground had been 
used for a number of years as a lumber yard and there was 


an unsightly frog pond in its center. Some thirty-five resi- 
dents became members of the society. Through their efforts 
the common was cleared of the debris that encumbered it, the 
pond was filled and grass seed was sown upon the land. The 
large elm in front of the church had been set out in 1862, but 
the maples by the cemetery wall were planted by Alfred H. 
Brown and Dr. Jeremiah C. Foster. After performing the spe- 
cific work for which it was organized, this society lapsed. 

A second association was started May 2, 1908, with twenty- 
eight members. Its scope was somewhat broader than the 
first, as its activities were to embrace the entire town in what- 
ever would improve its appearance or promote its welfare. This 
society has already accomplished much by its direct efforts, be- 
sides stimulating individual ambition to improve appearances 
about the homes of Canterbury. 

The town clock on the Congregational Church at the Center 
was the gift of two public-spirited citizens, James S. Elkins and 
Milton B. Neal. It was put in place in 1895. While never form- 
ally presented, the town assumed its care in 1904. 

The telephone was introduced in town by individual enter- 
prise. It was a local line connecting Canterbury and Boscawen. 
Sometime prior to 1896, the Canterbury and Boscawen Tele- 
phone Company was organized, and in August that year bought 
the plant of George A. Hall of Boscawen. In 1905 the company 
was incorporated with a capital stock of $1,500. This capital 
was increased the next year to $2,500 and in 1909 to $5,000. 
There are now about 115 subscribers. The line has been ex- 
tended into Loudon and Penacook. The company has reciprocal 
arrangements with the Citizens' Telephone Company of Laconia 
thus enabling, the people of Canterbury to have direct communi- 
cation at small cost over a considerable territory. These local 
telephone lines have been a great contribution to the social life 
of rural towns, bringing widely scattered families into daily 
touch with one another. The New England Telephone and Tele- 
graph Company has one station in Canterbury at the Shakers. 

A creamery was established by enterprising citizens at the 
Center in 1891. Two years later the average receipts were 100 
cans of milk a day.^ In 1893 the town voted to exempt the 
property from taxation for five years. 

iN. H. Statesman, April 18, 1893. 


More than thirty years ago, an attempt was made by patriotic 
citizens to prepare and pubhsh a history 6i Canterbury. It was 
the outgrowth of a town gathering in the grove near the Baptist 
Meeting House, at which the subject was considered. A com- 
mittee were appointed to take charge of the undertaking and 
they prepared and issued a circular letter, under date of Novem- 
ber, 1879, inviting the cooperation of the citizens of the town in 
furnishing material. The committee consisted of Lucien B. 
Clough, Galen Foster and David Morrill. In their letter they 

" We desire information upon the subjects and from the sources 
named below, also other facts within your knowledge or from reli- 
able authority relating to persons and places in town. The 
names, dates and places of birth of your ancestors as far back 
as possible. When and where they first settled in town. What 
farms they have owned and occupied. What offices in church, 
state or town they have held. What part any of them took in 
the War of the Revolution, W^ar of 1812 or the Rebellion. Com- 
plete copies of family records in family bibles or elsewhere. 
Copies of family histories or sketches showing genealogical facts." 

What responses came from this appeal there is no means of 
knowing but, at the annual meeting in 1883, there was an article 
in the warrant to see if authority would be given "to prepare and 
publish an early history of the town." There is, of course, no 
report of the discussion that took place, but it was voted to 
postpone indefinitely the article. For five years the subject lay 
dormant. Then in 1888, a similar article appeared in the warrant 
at the March meeting, only to be passed over by formal vote. 
In 1890 a more specific request was made in the following words: 
"To see if the town will raise $400 or some other sum for the 
preparation of the history of the town, provided some responsible 
person will secure or guaranty the pubhcation of said history 
in a creditable manner." This proposition was also defeated. 
Two years later the subject was renewed, but no formal action 
was taken. Then for more than a decade the proposition for a 
town history lapsed. At the annual meeting in 1909, after two 
years of individual effort and agitation and after several chapters 
of a history of Canterbury had been prepared, the town voted 
unanimously to loan its credit for the publication of such a his- 
tory. These volumes are the result. 



Until after the passage of the toleration act in 1819, the 
story of this religious body is so much identified with the history 
of the town that it has been made a part thereof in chronological 
order. It is, therefore, unnecessary to recapitulate here what 
has already been told. A church organization as distinguished 
from the society was probably organized prior to the installation 
of the Rev. Abiel Foster in 1761, but it is impossible to fix the 
date owing to the fact that the first record book is lost. This 
book also included Mr. Foster's pastorate which closed in 1779. 
Sufficient has been shown from the archives of the town, however, 
to indicate the trials of church members to maintain preaching 
and keep alive religious interest. Their numbers were small 
from the beginning, and for half a century after the settlement 
of the town, there were but few additions made. 

The Rev. William Patrick records that seventeen members 
belonged to and were received into the church at the time of 
Mr. Foster's settlement and that the whole number received to 
communion prior to 1791 was thirty-nine. The Rev. Frederick 
Parker was called to the pulpit in October, 1790, and he was 
installed January 5, 1791. During his pastorate of eleven years, 
fifty-two members were added. At the date of Mr. Patrick's 
installation in 1803, the church membership was, however, only 
fifty-one.^ Late in the eighteenth century a Congregational 
meeting house was built in Hackleborough, and it is quite likely 
that some of its members withdrew from the church at the Center. 

1 Historical Sermon of Rev. William Patrick, October 27, 1833. 


In addition, it was near this time that the Baptists and the 
Shakers had each organized reHgious societies in town. It is not 
strange, therefore, that the interest awakened by Rev. Mr. Parker 
did little more than make good the losses to the Center Church 
from such natural causes as deaths and removals from town. 

The first covenant of the Congregational Church of Canterbury 
of which there is record was that adopted in November, 1790, 
between the time of the calling of Mr. Parker and his installation. 
Members of the church met at the house of Abiel Foster and 
chose him moderator of the meeting. It was then voted 'Ho 
adopt the Congregational constitution as a plan of church dis- 
cipline for this church." It was also voted to strike out the 
words, "and with such a view thereof as the confession of faith 
in these churches has exhibited from the covenant signed by this 
church." The following is a copy of the covenant: 

"We the subscribers, inhabitants of the town of Canterbury, 
apprehending ourselves called of God into the Church state of 
the gospel, do first of all acknowledge ourselves unworthy to be so 
highly favored of the Lord and admire that free and rich grace of 
his that triumphs over so great unworthiness and thus with an 
humble reliance on the aid of his grace to them promised who in 
an humble sense of their inability to do any good thing, do wait 
upon him for all. We do now thankfully lay hold of his covenant 
and would choose the things that please him. 

" We declare our serious belief of the Christian religion as con- 
tained in the Scriptures, heartily resolving to conform our lives 
to the rules of that holy religion so long as we live in the world. 
We give up ourselves to the Lord Jehovah who is Father, Son 
and Holy Spirit, and avouch him this day to be our God, our 
Father and Saviour our Leader and receive him as our portion 
forever. We give up ourselves to the blessed Jesus who is the 
Lord Jehovah and adhere to him as the head of his people in the 
covenant of grace and rely on him as our Prophet, our Priest and 
our King to bring us to eternal blessedness. 

"We acknowledge our everlasting and indispensable obligation 
to glorify God in all the duties of a sober and a godly and a right- 
eous life, and very particularly in the duties of a Church state 
and body of people associated for obedience to him in all the 
ordinances of the gospel, and we depend upon his gracious 
assistance for the faithful discharge of the duties incumbent upon 
us. We desire and intend and with reliance upon his promised 
and powerful grace we engage to walk together as a Church of our 
Lord Jesus Christ in the faith and order of the gospel so far as we 
shall have the same revealed unto us, conscientiously attending 



the public worship of God, the sacraments of the new testament, 
the disciphne of his Kingdom and all his holy institutions, in 
communion with one another watchfully avoiding sinful stum- 
bling blocks and contentions as becometh a people whom the Lord 
hath bound up in the same bundle of life. At the same time we 
do also present our infant offspring with us unto the Lord, pur- 
posing by his help to do our part in all the methods of a religious 
education that they may be the Lord's. 

"And all this we do flying to the blood of the everlasting 
Covenant for the pardon of our many errors and praying that 
the chief Shepherd would prepare and strengthen us to every 
good work to do his will, working in us that which is well pleasing 
to him, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen."^ 

Dated Canterbury, November 3d, 1790. 

On which day the above covenant was signed by Abiel Foster, 
Asa Foster, Thomas Clough, Samuel Ames, William Moor, David 
Foster, Jonathan Foster, Laban Morrill, William Hazeltine, 
David Morrill. 

The separation of the town and church by the toleration act, 
together with the dilapidated condition of the building that for so 
many years had served the double purpose of sanctuary and 
town hall, led the inhabitants of Canterbury, interested in the 
Congregational form of worship, to consider plans for the erection 
of a meeting house. The people were called together for this 
purpose January 6, 1824. David McCrillis was chosen chairman 
and Ezekiel Morrill, clerk. It was voted to build near the old 
structure and a committee was appointed to solicit subscriptions 
for shares in the undertaking. The shares were to be twenty-five 
dollars each, to be paid in installments. The subscribers were 
to have as many votes as they held shares. After the meeting 
house was completed, the pews were to be sold and the proceeds 
used to pay the share holders. The following is a list of the 
subscribers with the amounts pledged by each: 

Samuel Boyce $25 . 00 Samuel C. Hazelton $25 . 00 

Richard Greenough 100 . 00 Abiel Foster 50 . 00' 

Samuel A. Morrill 212 . 50 Edmund Stevens 25 . 00 

Joseph Gerrish 162 . .50 Joseph Clough, Jr 50 . 00 

Jeremiah F. Clough 25.00 John Clough 125.00 

Roval Jackman 25 . 00 Thomas Clough 25 . 00 

Joseph Lvford 25.00 Ezekiel Morrill 50.00 

Stephen Moore 50.00 Frederick Chase 25.00 

Joseph Lvford, Jr 25.00 David Foster 25.00 

Leavitt Clough, Jr 150.00 Jeremiah Pickard, Jr 25.00 

I In 1835 there was a slight change made in the covenant. Four years 
later it was voted to adopt the "New Chester" Covenant. 




Josiah H. Pollard SoO.OO 

David Morrill 25.00 

James Greenough 75 . 00 

Thomas Ames 25 . 00 

Laban Morrill 50.00 

Nathan and J. T. G. Emery. 25.00 

Enoch Gibson 25.00 

David McCrilhs 125.00 

David Emery 25 . 00 

Ebenezer French 25 . 00 

John Greenough 125.00 

William Foster 25 . 00 

Morrill Shepherd 75 . 00 

John Foster 25.00 

Reuben Morrill $100.00 

Caleb M. Woodman 87.50 

Jesse Stevens 75 . 00 

Samuel French 25 . 00 

Asa Foster 25 . 00 

Joseph Bro^Ti 25 . 00 

J. E. Barrett 25.00 

Jeremiah Pickard 25 . 00 

M. N. Bro\\-n S7.50 

Nathan Emery 25 . 00 

Jonathan GKnes 25 . 00 

Jonathan Ayers 50 . 00 


Joseph Clough gave the timber for the frame of the meeting 
house and the subscribers were to cut the same. The latter were 
allowed fifty cents a day apiece, "boarding themselves." The 
building committee were John Clough, Ezekiel Morrill and 
Leavitt Clough and an advisory board was added to their number 
consisting of David McCrillis, Samuel A. ]\Iorrill, Thomas Ames, 
Richard Greenough and Joseph Gerrish. The Boscawen meeting 
house was selected as a model w4th some slight modification as to 
the steeple. At the time of the raising of the frame, a dinner 
was provided for those participating at a cost of twelve and a 
half cents per man. The meeting house was completed within a 
year and was dedicated February 2, 1825. Prior to the dedica- 
tion, the pews were sold at auction. The amount realized was 
more than sufficient to pay off the share holders, leaving a sub- 
stantial sum in the treasury of the society. The names of the 
purchasers of the pews with the prices paid are here given. 

No. 1 Joseph Lj-ford, Jr.. . .S59.00 No. 

No. 2 Ebenezer Bat chelder. 69.00 No. 

No. 3 Leavitt Clough 100 . 00 No. 

No. 4 Jesse Stevens 79 . 00 No. 

No. 5 Da^^d McCrilHs 1 12 . 00 No. 

No. 6 Reuben Morrill 103.00 No. 

No. 7 Hugh Tallant 09 . 00 No. 

No. S Joseph Ham, Jr 57.00 No. 

No. 9 Abiel Foster Gt . 00 No. 

No. 10 No. 

No. 11 No. 

No. 12 Samuel A. Morrill. . . 56.00 No. 

No. 13 Steven Moore 73.00 No. 

No. 14 Joseph Gerrish 80.00 No. 

No. 15 Samuel A. Morrill . ..115.00 No. 

No. 16 Samuel A. Morrill ... 110 . 00 No. 

No. 17 James Greenough ... . 74.00 No. 

No. IS John Clough 100 . 00 No. 

No. 19 Jacob Gerrish 55.00 No. 

No. 20 Samuel A. Morrill ... 80.00 
No. 21 Samuel A. Morrill ... 41.00 

22 Frederick Chase $42.00 

23 Stephen Hall 45.00 

24 Royal Jackman 54.00 

25 Joseph Clough, Jr. . . . 54 . 00 

26 Ezekiel Morrill 54.00 

27 Enoch Gibson 52 . 00 

28 IN'Iorrill Shepherd .... 53 . 00 

29 Jeremiah F. Clough.. 54.00 

30 Amos Pickard 46.00 

31 Samuel A. Morrill ... 51.00 

32 James & Eben Barrett 53 . 00 

33 WiUiam Foster 76.00 

34 Reserved 

35 Joseph Brown 53 . 00 

36 John Foster 53 . 00 

37 Jacob Blanchard 54.00 

38 Asa Foster 50.00 

39 Thomas Ames 41 .00 

40 Amos Cogswell 39.00 




Pews in Gallery. 

No. 1 John Whidden $29 . 00 

No. 2 Samuel Bovce 22 . 00 

No. 3 Amos Piokard 23 . 00 

No. 4 I.eavitt Clough 25.00 

No. 5 Levi Bennett 20.00 

No. 6 Thomas Clough 19.00 

No. 7 Edmund Stevens .... 20.50 

No. 8 Samuel A. iMorrill ... 28.00 

No. 9 Jonathan Randal .... 26 . 50 

No. 10 Jeremiah Pickard, Jr. 20.00 

No. 11 Obadiah Ghnes 37.00 

No. 12 Jonathan Glines 26.00 

No. 13 Caleb M. Woodman.. S19. 00 
No. 14 Jo.seph Clough, 3d. . . 35.50 

No. 15 Reuben Moore 17 . 50 

No. 16 Samuel A. Morrill ... 18.00 
No. 17 Rev. Wilham Patrick 19.00 

No. 18 John Hobart 23 

No. 19 Samuel Morrill 23 

No. 20 Joseph G. Clough ... 15.50 

No. 21 David Foster 15.00 

No. 22 i:noch Emery 15.00 



The pastorate of Mr. Patrick was the longest in the history of 
this church. He was installed October 26, 1803, and he was dis- 
missed at his own request November 22, 1843, serving the people 
for a little more than forty years. Mr. Patrick was born in West- 
ern, now Warren, Mass., July 4, 1777, and graduated at Williams 
College in 1799. Studying theology with the Rev. Charles Backus 
of Somers, Conn., he was licensed to preach in June, 1801. His 
only settlement was at Canterbury. He continued to preach for 
some years after his dismissal, but accepted no call to a pulpit. 
His first wife was Mary Gerrish, daughter of Joseph Gerrish of 
Boscawen. He married a second time Mary Mills of Dunbarton. 
Removing to Boscawen late in life, he died there October 25, 

No better selection for a pastor could have been made by the 
church at Canterbury at the time of his coming than that of the 
Rev, William Patrick. It was an era of change from the old to 
the new methods of supporting preaching. Opposition to a 
town church maintained by public taxation was pronounced. 
Dissent to the Congregational form of worship was growing. 
Other religious doctrines were becoming popular. A tactful 
man, therefore, was needed to pilot the society through the 
breakers ahead of it. The equipment of Mr. Patrick for the 
task before him was all that could be desired. He had a genial 
and kindly nature. Well grounded in his orthodoxy, he did not 
emphasize his doctrine outside of his pulpit. In the social 
amenities of life he was a good companion. He loved his fellow- 
men and in every way he was earnest in friendly and neigh- 
borly courtesies. Thus the church grew under his ministra- 
tion and in the forty years of his leadership 353 members were 


Mr. Patrick is thus described by one who remembers him: 
"He was a tall, thin, wiry man, dignified in his bearing but easy 
of approach, having a most kindly manner. Fond of argument, 
he was inflexible in his opinions if convinced that he was right. 
In the pulpit he was calm and convincing, never impassioned. 
His sermons were modeled after the methods taught in the 
theological schools of his time. After the many heads into 
which his subject was divided had been elaborated, he closed 
with 'remarks.' These consisted of a direct personal appeal to 
his hearers. He had a peculiar way of emphasizing a statement 
by giving a vigorous shake of the head, closing his lips tightly 
and glancing over his audience as though the truth of his remark 
could not be questioned." 

During his pastorate, Mr. Patrick conducted services at 
Hackleborough, probably every fourth Sunday, and after the 
building of the Union Church at Hill's Corner, once a month in 
that section of the town. His pastoral visits covered the whole 
of Canterbury, and early in his ministry he made his journeys on 
horseback, as did his parishioners from remote parts when attend- 
ing church. 

The records show that the church took cognizance of the con- 
duct of members towards one another in the daily walks of life. 
In 1810 it was "voted that we disapprove of a brother's taking 
unlawful interest for money loaned and that we disapprove of a 
brother going to law before the regular steps are taken as pointed 
out in Matthew xviii." 

Committees were often chosen to labor with church members 
who neglected public worship, or absented themselves from the 
communion table, or neglected church ordinances. Sometimes 
committees were appointed "to examine and see what may be 
done to promote the religious education of baptised children," 
or "to see if parents did their duty and if children revered the 
instructions of their parents." 

In 1829 Asa Foster presented resolutions condemning the use 
of intoxicating liquors, which were as follows: 

"Resolved that we will use all our influence to prevent the 
unnecessary use of ardent spirits. 

"Resolved that we will not make use of any ardent spirits 
ourselves nor permit distilled liquors to be used in our families 
except it be for medicine." 


The first resolution was adopted without dissent, but the 
following was substituted for the second resolution: 

"Resolved that we consider it inexpedient, improper and 
censurable for professors of religion to make use of ardent spirits 
internally, to give them to others for that purpose unless directed 
by a practicing physician."^ 

As early as 1837, Asa Foster and others undertook to commit 
the church on the slavery question. In November that year 
Mr. Foster introduced the following resolutions: 

"That we beheve slavery a condition of society incompatible 
with the benevolent designs of our Creator in making man, 
inconsistent with his plan of mercy in redeeming him, and fraught 
with incalculable evils temporal and eternal both to the slave 
holder and the hapless victim of his oppression. 

"Resolved that we beheve slave holding in all cases and 
under all circumstances to be a sin against God and a flagrant 
violation of the rights of man, in as much as it deprives him of 
his inalienable ownership, denies him the right of property and 
reduces the image of God, the living temple of the Holy Ghost, 
into a mere article of merchandise. 

"Resolved that fidelity to the cause of our Redeemer and 
duty to our brethren in bonds require us to withdraw Christian 
fellowship from those churches which tolerate slave holding 
in their members and to exclude all slave holders from our 


The subject was postponed for three weeks, when, after 
discussion, the first resolution was adopted. The second reso- 
lution was then considered, the yeas and nays taken, and it was 
defeated. Those who voted in the affirmative were Asa Foster, 
Dea. John A. Chamberlain, David Morrill, Robert S. Morrill 
and David Foster. Those voting in the negative were Dea. 
John Clough, Joseph Gerrish, Morrill Shepherd, Nathan Emery, 
Thomas Ames, Milton Giles and Enoch Gerrish. 

The third resolution was also rejected by the same vote. 
Then the following resolution presented by David Morrill was 

"Resolved that we believe slave holding to be a sin against 
God and a flagrant violation of the rights of man in as much 

1 The substitution of non-alcoholic wine in commemoration of the Lord's 
Supper was brought before the church, and committees were appointed to 
consider the subject in 1836 and again in 1844. 


as it deprives him of his inalienable ownership, denies him the 
right of property and reduces the image of God into a mere 
article of merchandise. " 

Not satisfied with the action of the church, Mr. Foster re- 
peatedly brought forward anti-slavery resolutions during the 
next two years, only to have them postponed and finally amended. 
In general terms the members were willing to condemn slavery, 
but they were not ready at that time to engage in a crusade 
against the evil or to refuse fellowship with the churches that 
tolerated slave holders as members. 

The Congregational Association which met at Concord in 1840, 
having refused to allow women who were members of the church 
to vote in the convention and having erased their names from 
the rolls, Adams Foster at a meeting of the Canterbury church 
May 20, 1840, offered resolutions condemning the proceedings. 
Consideration of these resolutions was postponed until July 2, 
when after discussion they were rejected by a large majority. 

Opposition to war was another subject brought by Asa Foster 
to the attention of the members, and an attempt was made by 
him to commit the Canterbury Church to the policy of non- 
resistance. His efforts failed, only four members supporting him 
when a vote was taken. Several withdrew from the church in 
the early forties probably on account of the refusal of a majority 
of the members to take more pronounced action on the slavery 

In 1832 "The First Congregational Society of Canterbury" 
was formed. This organization followed as a natural consequence 
the division of town and church, and the association was created 
for the purpose of providing for the expenses of the church, 
money being raised by assessment upon its members. 

As early as 1824 the organization of a Sunday School was 
undertaken. This first effort probably failed of continued suc- 
cess, for there is a second vote in 1833 to the same effect that this 
branch of the church service be established. In 1834 eight 
members of the church were dismissed to form a church in 
Solon, Ohio. 

Mr. Patrick's successor was the Rev. Howard Moody, who was 
born in York, Me., May 4, 1808. Until he was of age, he 
pursued his studies in the district schools and with the ministers 
of his neighborhood. Then for ten years he engaged in teach- 


ing, afterwards entering the Gilmanton Theological School. He 
graduated in 1843. The Canterbury church was his first pas- 
torate, and November 22, following the completion of his theo- 
logical studies, he was ordained as its minister. He was dismissed 
at his own request December 19, 1860. For two years he supphed 
pulpits of New Hampshire. In 1862, he removed to Ohio, where 
he remained until 1864. Returning East, he later became acting 
pastor of the Canterbury church and continued as such until 
1869, when he removed to East Andover, supplying the pulpit 
there until his death April 22, 1885. He was twice married, 
his first wife being Martha Garland. She died November 29, 
1858. His second wife was Cornelia A. Clough. 

Mr. Moody had a logical mind and was a deep reasoner. His 
sermons were argumentative and the creed of the church was 
usually his theme in the pulpit. In his day he was considered 
the ablest exponent of doctrines of any of the clergymen belong- 
ing to the Merrimack County Conference, and he was often 
chosen to elucidate some much discussed article of the creed at 
the annual meeting of the conference. His manner in the pulpit 
was deeply serious. He weighed well his words and his utter- 
ances were deliberate. Using no ornament or figures of rhetoric, 
his words went directly to the subject and he was very impressive. 
He was a fine singer, possessing a deep bass voice that was rich 
and melodious. A lover of good music, he did much during his 
residence in town to awaken and sustain a general interest in 
this subject. 

Mr. Moody was highly respected as a citizen, taking an active 
interest in town affairs. He appears to have safely conducted the 
church through the stormy period of anti-slavery agitation and 
the Civil War, when so many churches were wrecked by the in- 
tense pohtical feeling which at that time dominated everything. 
Additions were made to the church during his pastorate, but 
there was a gradual falHng off in membership, due to causes for 
which he was not responsible. In 1850 there were 129 members; 
in 1860 the number was 110. 

Rev. Josiah L. Armes, who suppUed the pulpit during the 
time Mr. Moody was in Ohio, was a native of Salem, Mass., 
born January 22, 1811. He was a graduate of Hamilton College, 
New York. Beginning his labors in Canterbury April 1, 1863, he 
continued as the minister of the church for two years. 


It was several months after Mr. Moodj^'s departure before a 
new pastor was secured. In February, 1870, the Rev. James 
Doldt was settled. He was then a man upwards of sixty years 
of age, having been born in Groton, Mass., September 30, 
1809. Entering Gilmanton Theological School, he graduated 
in 1841. After supplying pulpits in Ossipee and Effingham, he 
was called to the church at North Wolf borough in 1843 where 
he remained five years. His next pastorate was at Milton, which 
lasted twenty-one years. Coming to Canterbury, he was in 
charge of the Center Church for sixteen years, being dismissed 
at his own request. He died October 31, 1886, soon after his 
dismissal. His first wife was Eliza Stevens, who died March 1, 
1856, at the age of forty-five. His second wife, Lucia Chandler, 
was born April 23, 1816, and died June 14, 1888. Mr. Doldt and 
his wives are buried in the cemetery at the Center. 

Like his predecessors, Mr. Doldt was of the old school of 
preachers in the form of his sermons and the manner of his 
delivery. His pulpit utterances were less of a doctrinal nature 
than those of Mr. Moody. He emphasized the love of God 
more than his retributive justice. There was no mistaking that 
he was a clergyman, his dress and dignity at all times indicating 
his calling. His greeting, however, was kindly and his apparent 
reserve disappeared in conversation. 

These ministers of the Center Church preached two lengthy 
sermons every Sunday morning and afternoon, and frequently 
held evening service in school houses in outlying districts. Then 
there was often an additional mid-week meeting at "early 
candlelight" in some dwelling or school house. 

The next minister to be installed over this church was the Rev. 
Lucien C. Kimball, a native of that part of Boscawen now the 
town of Webster where he was born June 5, 1858. A graduate of 
Dartmouth College and Andover Divinity School, he came to 
Canterbury when twenty-nine years of age. His installation 
occurred June 17, 1887. He resigned March 17, 1889, and was 
followed by the Rev. Henry P. Page, a native of Gilmanton, who 
was born February 12, 1839. Also a graduate of Dartmouth and 
Andover, he was ordained a minister in 1868. His pastorate 
lasted until March 8, 1891. 

The Rev. Irving W. Coombs received a call to fill the pulpit 
and began his labors June 7, 1891, and remained until April 7, 


1895. A native of Hebron, where he was born October 9, 1842, 
he was educated at Brown University and studied theology at 
Rochester, N. Y. 

Mr. Coombs' successor was the Rev. Albert E. Hall, who 
served the society from June 16, 1895, to March 27, 1898. He 
was born in Windham, Me., February 14, 1837, and he was a 
graduate of the theological school at Lewiston in his native state. 
He was ordained to the ministry November 12, 1880. 

The next pastorate was that of the Rev. Joseph Hammond, 
beginning November 6, 1898, and closing April 1, 1901. Born 
February 29, 1840, at LaChute in the Province of Quebec, he 
studied theology in Boston and was ordained August 27, 1871. 
From November 23, 1902, to January 31, 1904, the Rev. Wilham 
Ganley ministered over the church. He was a native of Palmer, 
Mass., where he was born August 22, 1872, and he was ordained 
to the ministry September 2, 1897. 

The second pastor of this church to pass away during his term 
of service was Mr. Ganley's successor, the Rev. Henry E. Loeh- 
lin a native of St. Louis, Mo., where he was born September 1, 
1864. His pastorate continued not quite eighteen months. 
Coming to Canterbury May 1, 1904, he died September 19, 1905, 
after a short illness and was buried in the Center cemetery. For 
the next year the church was without a regular minister. Then 
from September 9, 1906, to April, 1907, the Rev. Albro G. Gates 
was acting pastor. 

The Rev. Thomas B. Windross had charge of the church from 
March 1, 1908, to January 24, 1909. He was a native of White- 
haven, Cumberland County, England, where he was born Sep- 
tember 18, 1874. The present pastor is the Rev. Frank E. Rand. 
He succeeded Mr. Windross and his pastorate began ]\Iay 1, 
1909. Born January 4, 1849, he was ordained in 1882. 

In 1898 a creed, rules of church government and rules of prac- 
tice were adopted. 

The number of members of the church January 1, 1910, was 
forty-nine, of whom seventeen were non-residents. Its largest 
membership was probably at the close of Mr. Patrick's ministry, 
when one hundred and seventy-five were enrolled. The history 
of this society covers a period of about one hundred and seventy- 
five years. Few churches have passed through so many vicissi- 
tudes and survived. 


The protracted delay of the early proprietors of the town in 
providing a suitable place of worship, the difficulty in securing a 
settled minister for this frontier community, the poverty of the 
early inhabitants, the dissensions arising late in the eighteenth 
century over differences in religious belief, the coming of the 
Baptists and Shakers with their more emotional form of wor- 
ship, the demand for another meeting house to accommodate 
people residing at a distance from the Center, and the struggle 
for relief from taxation for the support of the gospel, are all a 
part of the story of the first hundred yesLVs of the existence of the 
Canterbury church. Then it had a period of prosperity, to be 
followed b}^ another struggle in combating the gradual decline 
in religious interest which in recent years has overtaken nearly 
all rural communities of New England contemporaneous with the 
decline of population. Almost pathetic as is its history, this 
church nevertheless has a record of great service to this com- 
munity in promoting its spiritual and moral welfare. 

Deacons of the Church. 

Ezekiel ]\Iorrill, died 1783, aged 80; David Morrill, son of 
Ezekiel, chosen 1793, died 1798, aged 65; Laban Morrill, son 
of Ezekiel, chosen 1800, died 1812, aged 63; Asa Foster, chosen 
1773, died 1814, aged 81; Nehemiah Clough, chosen 1812, died 
1825, aged 84; Jesse Stevens, chosen 1814, died 1829, aged 73; 
Joseph Ham, chosen 1816; Ezekiel, son of Marston Morrill, 
chosen 1826; John Clough, chosen 1834; Joseph Ham, Jr., 
chosen 1837; John A. Chamberlain, chosen 1837, died 1853, 
aged 59; Benjamin Whidden, chosen 1846, died 1872; Samuel 
Hill, chosen 1853; Alfred S. Abbott, chosen 1866; John Ham, 
chosen 1866; Lorenzo Ames, chosen 1882; George H. Gale, 
chosen for five years, 1884; George H. Gale, chosen for three 
years, 1898; George H. Gale, chosen for three years, 1909; George 
E. Wiggin, chosen for five years, 1884; George E. Wiggin, chosen 
for three years, 1898; Lyman A. Conant, chosen for two years, 
1890; Lyman A. Conant, chosen for three years 1898, died 1903; 
James F. French, chosen for two years, 1890; James F. French, 
chosen for three years, 1909; Leroy A. Glines, chosen for three 
years, 1898; Moses C. Sanborn, chosen for three years, 1903; 
Alphonso B. Chute, chosen for three years, 1903; Louis D. 
Morrill, chosen for three years, 1909. 



Only two Baptist churches, those at Newton in 1755 and at 
Madbury in 1768, had been planted in New Hampshire until the 
year 1770. Little perceptible gain in adherents had been made 
until after the last-named year. In 1770, however, there was 
an almost simultaneous visit made by a number of Baptist 
ministers to different parts of the state. The most prominent 
of these itinerants was the Rev. Hezekiah Smith of Haverhill, 
Mass. In May of that year a church society gathered at Brent- 
wood consisting of fifteen members with the Rev. Samuel Shepard, 
a former physician of Stratham, as pastor. This society in- 
creased with great rapidity and had branches later in Epping, 
Lee, Nottingham, Hampstead, Northwood, Salisbury, Canter- 
bury, Loudon, Chichester and several other places, and included 
within its compass nearly a thousand members.^ It was in 1780 
that Mr. Shepard was instrumental in gathering churches in 
Canterbury, Loudon and Chichester and connecting them as 
branches with the society at Brentwood.^ 

This connection was hardly made before the church at Can- 
terbury and Loudon discarded the doctrines of Calvinism under 
the leadership of Rev. Edward Lock, who was preaching there 
at the time and who was ordained in March, 1780.^ Mr. Lock 

1 Annals of Baptist Churches of New Hampshire by Rev. Ebenezer E. 
Cummings, page 7. 
^Idem, page 9. 
« History of Freewill Baptist Churches by Rev. I. D. Stewart, Vol. I, page 46. 


was born at Rye in 1742. He removed to Gilmanton and united 
with the Baptist Church in 1775. Two years after he received a 
license to preach, and his labors were mostly in the adjoining 
towns of Loudon and Canterbury. Lock was never a Calvinist, 
nor were the people to whom he ministered. In December, 1779, 
he and others, including the Rev. Benjamin Randall, the founder 
of the Freewill Baptist denomination in New Hampshire, 
expressed before the Gilmanton church their dissent from its 
articles of faith. Lock requested permission to unite with the 
Free Church in Canterbury and Loudon. A council was called 
not only to consider his request, but one from the last-named 
church asking for his ordination. Three churches responded, and 
February 16, 1780, a majority not only refused to ordain him, but 
withdrew fellowship from him. A few weeks after this, he re- 
ceived ordination at the hands of a lay brother, and became a 
member of the society of Canterbury and Loudon.^ 

For two years Mr. Lock labored with the cordial support of 
his congregation. In 1782, however, news of the Shakers 
reached them. Two members of the church visited Con- 
necticut, and on their return were accompanied by Ebenezer 
Cooley, a Shaker from the society in New York. Almost 
immediately the people were captivated by the new doctrine, and 
Lock with most of the members of his congregation went over to 
Shakerism. Leavitt Clough of Canterbury and others labored 
in vain to prevent this catastrophe. Clough is said to have gone 
to Massachusetts and to have visited Ann Lee for the purpose of 
inquiry. The next year the remnant of the church at Canter- 
bury and Loudon appealed to the society at New Durham for 

help in the following letter: - 

"Loudon, January 13, 1783. 

"To Benjamin Randall and the Rest of the Church at New 

'^ Dear Brethren: 

" With a sorrowful heart I sit down to inform you of our diffi- 
culties. If I mistake not, all of our elders and deacons have left 
us and joined the Shaking Quakers (so called) and with them 
a great part of the church. Most of the rest seem to be in a 
cold, dull, melancholy state. . . . Dear Brethren, we are 
in want of your prayers. We want your help. The first Monday 

1 History of Freewill Baptist Churches by Rev. I. D. Stewart, page 49. 
« Annals of Baptist Churches of New Hampshire by Rev. Ebenezer E. 
Cummings, page 69. 


in this month we held a church meeting and concluded to send 
you this letter desiring Brother Randall would attend with 
us on Sabbath 27th of this month to have the Lord's Supper 
administered. Will he not come the Friday before and have a 
meeting on said day? Come without fail if the Lord wills. 

"Benjamin Sias, Clerk. 
"To the Baptist Church of Christ at New Durham." 

Mr. Randall being absent could not visit them as requested, 
but he went to their relief later, and by his aid they were kept 
together until the church could be reorganized. For the next 
eleven years the faithful few struggled against disintegration. 
In August, 1794, Mr. Randall visited Canterbury and baptized 
seven, who with others previously baptized were embodied as a 

The records of the Canterbury society begin with an account 
of a monthly meeting held at the house of Samuel Jackson,^ 
April 1, 1794. Winthrop Young was chosen "Clerk of the 
Church," and it was "Voted to give Winthrop Young, Elijah 
Matthews, Samuel Jackson, James Lyford, Noah Sinclair, 
William Berry, and John Kinney certificates." 

The monthly meetings were held at the house of John Kent 
from the May following until March, 1797. It was at this 
dwelling and at those of other members of the church that Sunday 
services were conducted until the first Baptist meeting house 
was completed early in 1803. It has been seeri in a previous 
chapter that their efforts to obtain the use of the North Meeting 
House in Hackleborough were futile,^ owing to the intolerance of 
that period. In the history of the denomination, to which 
reference has been made, and in their own records in Canterbury 
the term "church" is used by the Baptists to designate their 
organization rather than their place of meeting. 

The monthly meetings were held with continued regularity 
after April, 1794. The records of these meetings express the 
alternate hope and despair of those attending. The people were 
occasionally cheered by visits from Elder Benjamin Randall and 
other elders of the denomination who labored to sustain the con- 
fidence of the faithful and to win new converts. The Rev. 

1 Annals of Baptist Churches of N. H. by Rev. Ebenezer E. Cummings, 
page 147. 

« In Hackleborough. 
• Chapter VII. 


John Buzzell who came in the year 1795 has left on record a vivid 
account of his reception. He says: 

"The converts sat themselves close around me and received 
the word with gladness, while opposers mocked, made faces at 
me, twisted their bodies and limbs into all kinds of postures, 
and some even sat on the floor grinning at me, and every little 
while giving me the lie and charging me with false doctrine."^ 

"Few Churches," says the Rev. I. D. Stewart, "have struggled 
through greater conflicts than the one in Canterbury. The 
old church in 1779 was the first to declare for free will and free 
salvation. Then came the Shaker delusion that took both pastor 
and people, leaving but a small remnant. In later years the 
Osgoodites made great disturbance, and popular sentiment was 
greath' against the church and its members. It was made 
disreputable to attend their meetings other\\dse than from curi- 
osity, and as a sect they were regarded as religious outlaws 
whose meetings might be disturbed with impunity." 

The foregoing accounts for the action of the society at its 
monthh' meeting August 6, 1794, when it was "Voted Brother 
Seth Tirrell to keep order in meetings of worship." 

A church gathering was held at John Kent's October 3, 1795, 
at which Elder Benjamin Randall, Aaron Buzzell and John 
Shepard " convened with the brethren by appointment at our last 
quarterly meeting." Elder Randall was elected moderator and 
John Shepard, clerk. Winthrop Young and his wife were 
received into "visible fellowship." The church then numbered 
twenty-one members, and the visitors gave them the right hand 
of fellowship as members of the New Durham quarterly meeting. 
Mr. Young was chosen a ruling elder and David Kent a deacon 
"on trial." 

From this time the society in Canterbury had a fearless and 
indefatigable leader in Elder Young, though the reports of his 
gifts of prayer and exhortation that came from other places he 
had visited were received at first with some incredulity by his 
neighbors and brethren. At the monthly meeting February 4, 
1796, a letter from the quarterly meeting was read. The record 
then goes on to say that "The brethren think it will be to the 
glory of God to rest the matter until we have a more visible 
knowledge of Brother Young's gift." 

1 History of Freewill Baptist Churches bv Rev. I. D. Stewart, Vol. I, page 


Elder Winthrop Young came to Canterbury in 1787 and 
settled on the farm lately owned by Jeremiah Smith, something 
over a mile from Hill's Corner towards Hackleborough. He 
was born in Barrington in 1753, and married a sister of Micajah 
Otis. His name appears with that of Micajah Otis among nine 
petitioners from the Stratford church to New Durham in 
November, 1782, asking help on account of the Shaker agitation 
of that period which had wrecked many churches. Mr. Young 
became a school teacher and it is not improbable that he taught 
some of the early schools in Hill's Corner district. After he 
came to Canterbury, he served in the state militia and was 
chosen captain of a company. Converted under the ministry of 
Elder Benjamin Randall, he became deeply interested in religious 
work. He was ordained in the Freewill Baptist ministry June 
28, 1796, and entered upon a useful pastorate of thirty-five 
years. His labors were not confined to Canterbury, for it was 
chiefly through his efforts that a church with sixty-four members 
was organized at New Hampton, which within eight months 
increased to a membership of one hundred and fourteen. Elder 
Young was a man of commanding figure, of strong mind and of 
deep piety. Eloquent in speech and prayer, he was prominent 
in the Freewill Baptist denomination of New Hampshire for 
many years. At the age of seventy, he was still active in the 
work of the ministry, though seven years later Elder John Har- 
riman was made his assistant at the church in Canterbury. He 
died suddenly June 6, 1832, in the eightieth year of his age. 

The Rev. Thomas Perkins who was long associated with him 
says: "As a preacher, he did not excel in elucidating his text or 
in a logical presentation of his subject, but when he came to the 
practical or experimental part of his discourse, he moved like a 
giant applying the truth and carrying everything before him. 
Oftentimes there was such crying out in all parts of the audience 
that, had it not been for his stentorian voice, not a word could 
have been heard. Powerful as he was in preaching, he was still 
more so in prayer." Elder Randall is quoted as saying, "We 
have no man among us who can pray like Brother Young." 

The monthly meetings continued to show the character of the 
struggle that the small band of followers encountered to preserve 
their integrity as an organization; laboring in season and out of 
season to keep members from backsliding and to win converts. 


"We appear to be in a low condition, a very broken state" 
writes the clerk. Again his comment is, " In general a great trial 
is on us all because our brother is in prison." Whether the incar- 
ceration of the brother was physical or spiritual the records do 
not indicate. Occasionally there is a cheering note like this: 
''There was a searching among the brethren, some confessing 
their faults, and a measure of honesty appeared. We had a 
comfortable time. There was unison and fellowship in the spirit 
of love." But there is a dreary sameness in the records of the 
appointment of committees to labor with this brother and that 
sister for not attending monthly meetings. At the gathering 
held June 2, 1796, it was "Voted that no brother or sister shall 
leave the meeting on the first day of the week to go to any other 
meeting without leave of the branch." 

Secular affairs intruded upon the spiritual and the troubles 
of neighbors and the adjustments of their differences are scrupu- 
lously recorded by the clerk. As with all pioneers of a new 
religious faith, these early Baptists held peculiar views regarding 
the political concerns of the town. They were especially averse 
to accepting office and taking the oath prescribed by law. David 
Kent had been elected a hogreeve at the annual election in 1797 
and had been sworn to the discharge of his duties. He was 
immediately called to account by the church. The record 
reads, " Had a conference at Brother (Winthrop) Young's upon 
a difficulty that arose on account of Brother Kent's going to 
town meeting and desiring and taking the berth of hogreeve, 
and holding up his hand with the profane and taking a 
solemn oath, when a Christian God tells him to swear not at 
all," etc. 

Brother Kent appears to have been obdurate for a time, declar- 
ing, " If they had twenty meetings, he would not attend." Some 
two weeks later another conference was held and "the brethren 
labored with him from ten in the morning till the sun went 
down, and then he confessed that he was wrong." It was by 
such persistent effort and rigid discipline that the church was 
held together. 

From November, 1797, to March, 1798, there is no record of 
monthly meetings. At the first one in the new year the clerk 
makes this entry: "It appeared to be a very low time," but a 
month later four were baptized and added to the church. At 




least twenty-five more were brought into the fold before the year 
closed. The next five years were also fruitful in converts, and 
towards the close of 1802 the society felt itself strong enough to 
undertake the building of a place of public worship. The mem- 
bers met at the house of William Tirrell for this purpose, and it 
was "Voted to build a meeting house forty feet square, as near 
by Joshua Boynton's corner by the road as is most convenient 
for the society." 

The plan of the church drawn by Mr. Tirrell was accepted, and 
he, David Kent and Jonathan Davis were appointed a building 
committee. The pews were to be sold at public vendue Decem- 
ber 23, Joseph Clough acting as vendue master or auctioneer. 
The following is a list of those who bought pews and the prices 
paid for them. 


1 John Small 



2 Leavitt Clough.... 

.. 46.00 


3 Otis Young 

.. 33.00 


4 Jonathan Davis . . . 

.. 28.00 


5 Elijah Jackson .. . . 

.. 24.00 


6 WiUiam Tirrell. . . . 

.. 22.00 


7 Joshua Fletcher . . . 

.. 15.50 


8 Stephen Davis . . . . 

.. 15.50 


9 Benjamin Young . . 

.. 17.00 


10 William Tirrell.. .. 

.. 15.00 


11 Thomas Emery . . . 

.. 15.00 


12 Moses Jackson . . . . 

.. 16.00 


13 Miles Hodgdon . . . . 

.. 15.00 


14 David Kent 

.. 26.00 


15 John Kent 

.. 22.50 


1(3 Samuel Hill, Jr. . . . 

.. 22.00 

No. 17 John Fletcher .S40.00 

No. 18 Samuel Jackson 42.00 

No. 19 Noah Sinclair 30.00 

No. 20 Archelaus Moore. . . . 23.00 

No. 21 Ezekiel Oilman 27.00 

No. 22 George Peverlv 15.00 

No. 23 Thomas .Arlin 21 .00 

No. 24 Henry Beck 17.00 

No. 25 Jonathan Davis 17.00 

No. 26 Steven Davis 15.00 

No. 27 Moses Lovering 24.00 

No. 28 Joseph Durgin 15.00 

No. 29 Daniel Lovering 25.00 

No. 30 Minister's 


The record shows the following to have united themselves 
with the church before Elder Winthrop Young was ordained June 
28, 1796: 

Winthrop Young, Mary Young, Noah Wiggin, Ehzabeth 
Young, Thomas Jackson, Betsey Young, Archelaus Moore, 
Mrs. (John) Ingalls, John Kent, Polly Chase, David Kent, 
Molly Matthews, Elijah Jackson, Betsey Kent, John Small, 
Kisiah Small, Samuel Jackson, Elizabeth Jackson, Betsey 
Kent, Jr. 

The foregoing list was prepared by a committee in 1817. To 
it should probably be added the names of Edward Chase, Elijah 
Matthews, James Lyford, Noah Sinclair, William Berry and 
John Kinney, to whom certificates were issued in 1794, and the 


name of Seth Tirrell, whose "gift of exhortation and prayer" 
was commended at the monthly meeting May 5, 1796. 

The following members were admitted to the church after 
Elder Young became the pastor and prior to the building of the 
meeting house. 

Job Buzzell, Hubbard Lovering, Bradbury Green, Samuel 
Robertson, Ezekiel Clough, ]\Ioses Lovering, Samuel Jackson, Jr., 
John Fletcher, John Sleeper, Hannah Kent, Samuel Sleeper, Jr., 
Mrs. Ezekiel Clough, Benjamin Jackson, Jr., Lydia Wiggin, 
"William Wiggin, Nancy Sleeper, Benjamin Brown, Deborah 
Young, Ezekiel Gilman, Rene Shaw, Holman RoUins, Polly 
Jackson, Silas Willey, IMehitable Brown, Samuel Lord, Patience 
AVilliams, Josiah Watson, Lois Smith, Daniel Lord, Hannah 
Whidden, Nathaniel Lougee, Rachael Lord, Noah Wiggin, 
Betsey Vease}', Jonathan Wiggin, Hannah Small, Josiah JMarden, 
Hannah Whitcher, Jonathan Wadleigh, Mrs. Jonathan Wadleigh, 
George Arvin, ]\Irs. Leavitt Clough, Leavitt Clough, Hannah 
Winslow, Stephen Sutton, Hannah Jackson, Jesse Corbett, 
Betsey Robertson, John Ingalls, Betsey Fletcher, Archelaus 
IMoore, Abigail Chase. 

The completion of their house of worship helped to cement the 
society into closer bonds of union, but the Freewill Baptists were 
not yet relieved of their irksome position as dissenters from the 
established church of Canterbury. Prior to 1805 they were not 
recognized in New Hampshire as a religious denomination. In 
December, 1803, there was an article in the warrant of a special 
meeting held in Canterbury "to see if the town will release from 
paying the minister's tax the present year all those who have 
gotten certificates from Mr. (Winthrop) Young's society." A 
yea and nay vote was taken, only seven being recorded in the 
affirmative to forty-one in the negative.^ 

The Rev. I. D. Stewart writing of this period says, "When 
certificates of regular attendance at Freewill Baptist meetings 
were presented to a parish collector, they were often disregarded 
under the plea that the law did not recognize any such meetings, 
and rather than have a lawsuit, the minister's tax was paid. . . . 
When the Loudon and Canterbury church pubHcly discarded 
Calvinism, one of its members had just been released from a long 
and expensive lawsuit in which it was decided that dissenters 
must pay their assessed tax. A member of the Wolf boro church 

> See Chapter VII. 


refused to pay and his cow was taken. Rev. John Goodwin 
of Maine had his horse taken for the same reason. It was 
of little use to resist the parish collector and the taxes were 
generally paid, but the influence of such taxation was irritating 
and oppressive." ^ 

To obviate this, it was first proposed to request of the state 
an act of incorporation to include all the Freewill Baptist churches 
of New Hampshire, but after taking legal counsel, it was con- 
cluded to ask only for an act of the Legislature recognizing them 
as a religious denomination. This request was granted in 1805 
as follows: 

"Resolved that the people of the state commonly known 
by the name of Freewill, Antipedo Baptist Church and Society 
shall be considered as a distinct religious sect or denomination 
with all the privileges as such agreeably to the constitution. "^ 

Here ended all opposition to those Freewill Baptists who 
notified the selectmen of their unwillingness to be taxed for the 
support of the Congregationalists, The Baptists, Methodists 
and Universalists soon obtained a similar recognition of them- 

As the toleration act was not passed until 1819, the dissenters 
from the Congregational faith for a period of fourteen years 
following 1805 had to attach themselves to some religious sect 
and regularly attend worship on the Sabbath to avoid taxation 
for the support of the gospel. The Freewill Baptist churches 
were maintained almost wholly by voluntary contributions, and 
it is apparent that some individuals were prompted to join that 
society from no higher motive than to escape taxation. At a 
church meeting held in Canterbury, December 3, 1807, it was 
"Voted that those that had certificates, if they do not reform 
and attend meetings more, we expect not to clear them of taxes 
any longer." These certificates, if they conformed to the 
statute, set forth that the holders were members of the Freewill 
Baptist Church and that they attended its place of worship 
regularly on the Sabbath. When, therefore, the Canterbury 
Society served the foregoing notice on its delinquent members, it 
was uttering no idle threat, for these certificates had to be pre- 

» History Freewill Baptists, by Rev. I. D. Stewart, Vol. I, pages 105, 239. 

»N. H. Laws, 180.5. 

'History Freewill Baptists, by Rev. I. D. Stewart, Vol I, page 239. 


sented every year until 1819 if a citizen desired to avoid church 

During the year 1810 the Canterbury Society took on a new 
lease of life and greatly added to its membership. The most 
active of the new members was Dr. Joseph M. Harper, then a 
young man, who in a few years was to become the leading citizen 
of the town. Any cause he embraced received his earnest and 
continued support and the records show that in every emergency 
of the church he was the leader who piloted it clear of the shoals 
that threatened its destruction. As both layman and preacher, 
he labored to promote the welfare of the denomination. His 
work was interrupted during the War of 1812 by reason of his 
absence as a surgeon in the army. 

Other influential citizens taken into the church about this time 
were Amos Cogswell and Samuel Ames. From 1813 to 1818 there 
was apparently but little growth. The clerk of the society was 
also dormant, for there were but single entries in the record book 
for the years 1813, 1814 and 1815, while there is an entire hiatus 
from 1815 to July, 1817. The explanation of this is found in the 
growth of a new religious sect called the Osgoodites. The 
founder was Jacob Osgood of Warner. "He was a member of 
no church," says the Rev. I. D. Stewart, "but his doctrinal views 
and sympathies were generally with the Freewill Baptists. A 
proposition for his ordination was declined under the circum- 
stances. Soon he and his followers renounced all faith in ordina- 
tions, church organizations and gospel ordinances. They claimed 
to be the 'saints,' and it was a part of their religion to denounce 
all denominations in general and the Freewill Baptists in 
particular." ^ 

A considerable number of the members of the Baptist Church in 
Canterbury became followers of this leader, and such inroads 
were made upon the society that its very existence was at one 

> In the books of the town there was recorded April 27, 1813, by Ezekiel 
Morrill, town clerk, the following certificate, "This certifies whoever it may 
concern that Simeon Brown, late of Kingston but now of Canterbury, is a 
brother in regular standing with the Antipedo Baptist Church of Christ in 
Brentwood, has been and still is approved by said church as an honest, con- 
scientious Christian. 

"Given under our hands at Brentwood this 11th day of December, 1787. 

"Benjamin Judkins, 
" Levi Morrill. 

"Wardens of Said Society." 
» See chapter on the Osgoodites. 


time seriously menaced. A conference was held at the meeting 
house July 8, 1817, to take into consideration the state of the 
church. There were present Elder Winthrop Young, Joseph M. 
Harper, Samuel Hill, Jr., Hugh and Samuel Tallant, Mark and 
Stephen Davis, James Chase, Archelaus Moore, Noah Wiggin 
and Noah Sinclair. Few as they were in number, they were for 
the most part representative men of Canterbury. They voted 
to search the record of the clerk for members, to have them 
listed and then by personal work to bring them back into the fold. 

A year later a committee was chosen "to visit and labor with 
certain brothers and sisters who have departed from the faith 
and joined with the society whose leader is one Jacob Osgood, 
who we think, teaches the things he ought not and thereby 
subverts the simple." 

The committee reported at the next meeting as follows : 

"That we find Brothers Joseph Keniston and Samuel Ames 
and Sisters Phoebe Ames, Patty Clough, Hannah Ayers, Hannah 
Haines and Betty Keniston as holding things inconsistent with 
the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ and denying 
the ordinances of the New Testament, such as baptism by 
water, the Lord's Supper, and washing of feet, and further that 
they do not consider themselves under the watch and care of 
the church of Christ organized by Elder Winthrop Young, 

"That the above mentioned brothers and sisters wish to 
withdraw all connection with the church above mentioned, as 
they cannot walk with us. The committee recommend that, 
agreeably to their request, they be relieved from our care. " 

Late in the year 1818, Obadiah Morrill of Sanbornton was 
received into the Canterbury church as a member and as a 
minister to assist Elder Winthrop Young, whose health was 
impaired at that time. Samuel Hill, Jr., and Leavitt Clough were 
elected deacons. The former was set apart as a ruling elder in 
October, 1820, and at the same time Levi Hill and William 
Brown were made deacons. Elder Samuel Hill, Jr., was ordained 
January 18, 1821, and in December of that year it was, "Voted 
to consider Elder Hill as a ruler and teacher and that he take 
Elder Young's place in his absence." 

The society took a decided stand in favor of temperance in 
1822. At a meeting in March it was "Voted that we deem it 
inconsistent and unbecoming the character of a Christian on any 
occasion to mix with or to be found drinking or in any way 


associating with the drunken at a tavern or grog shop, especially 
on a holy day . . . also that we consider it indispensably nec- 
essary to refrain from the use of spirits in a great measure and to 
endeavor to use our influence to restrain drunkenness and sin of 
every kind." 

August 10, 1822, the records show that the church consisted of 
sixty male and ninety-six female members, fortj' of whom had 
been added since the previous May. 

The society was incorporated in 1823. This action was 
prompted by a gift to it of S500 by one of its members, Leavitt 
Clough. In the New Hampshire Patriot appears the follo-^dng 
religious notice: 

Agreeable to an act of the legislature of New Hampshire 
passed July 1, 1819, Jeremiah Clough, Amos Cogswell, ]\Iark 
Davis and their associates have formed themselves into a church 
to be hereafter known as the First Church of Christ in Canterbury. 

Joseph M. Harper, Clerk. 
Canterbuiy, May 8, 1823. 

The denominational name here assumed dates back to the 
early daj's of the Free"«all Baptists. "All of the first ministers," 
says the Rev. I. D. Stewart, "had been members of the Baptist 
denomination and they still claimed to be. They wanted no 
distinctive name. Hence their records for several years speak of 
them simply as Baptist ministers and Baptist churches. They 
did, however, often refer to themselves as 'The Church of Christ' 
and BuzzelVs Religious Magazine published in 1811 claims this 
as the appropriate name of the denomination. 

"As they everyr^^here declared that God had made a general 
provision for the salvation of men, they were opprobriously 
called 'General Provisioners.' As they declared that the will 
of man was free, they were more generally and derisively called 
'Freewillers.' Other names such as 'Randallites,' 'New Lights,' 
and 'Open Communionists' were given them by their enemies, 
while they gave themselves no name save that of Baptists, 
Antipedo Baptists or Church of Christ, but neither of these 
names was allowed them. They often speak of themselves in 
the early records as 'The Community.' As the church at New 
Durham, of which Randall was pastor, was the oldest, and as 
his counsel was everywhere sought, the term New Durham 
Connection was sometimes given to the denomination. The 
certificates issued by the ordaining council to (^Nlicajah) Otis and 


others in 1799 speak of no less than five of the above names, 
and they begin as follows: 

" 'This certifies that of , being a regu- 
lar member of the Church of Christ, commonly known by the 
name of the New Durham Church, also a member of The Com- 
munity in general, commonly termed General Provisioners or 
Freewill Baptists, was ordained' etc. 

"The term Freewill Baptist continued to be used only occa- 
sionally until 1805, when the denomination was acknowledged 
by the New Hampshire legislature with that title. Many would 
have preferred Free Baptists as a more expressive and appropriate 
name, since the denomination not only believed in free will but 
free salvation and free communion," ^ 

In January, 1829, the clerk of the Canterbury church makes the 
following notation in his record, "Elder John Harriman moved 
to this place in the month of March last. Since that our num- 
bers in meeting have increased." A revival occurred later at 
which one hundred were converted. At the May conference it was 
"Voted that Elder Harriman be received as a minister to watch 
over the church and labor with us." In September he was in a 
quandary as to his official connection with the society. This 
doubt was solved by making him an assistant to Elder Winthrop 
Young, with the cordial approval of the latter and of Elder Sam- 
uel Hill. A year later there was a unanimous vote to continue 
Elder Harriman's relations with the society. For six years the 
society continued under his leadership with cordial relations 
existing between pastor and people. Doubts then began to 
arise in the church as to the theological views of their minister. 
At a meeting January 18, 1836, Doctor Harper gave expression 
to the feelings of the members by introducing the following reso- 
lution : 

"Resolved that it is not expedient to give the watch and care 
of this church to an elder or teacher of any other sect or denomi- 

The subject was considered at length and Elder Harriman was 
interrogated by written questions as to his belief. Without 
reaching a conclusion, the conference adjourned, nor was any defi- 
nite action taken until two years later. It was evident, however, 
that the leading members of the church were not satisfied with 

» History of Freewill Baptists, by Rev. I. D. Stewart, Vol. I, pages 173-176. 


their elder's profession of faith, and at a meeting !March 16, 1838, 
he "was reheved of the watch and care of the church at his own 
request." ^ 

The church now suppHed from its own ranks its preachers. In 
1834, the conference "approbated the gifts" of Joseph and 
Jeremiah Clough and Jonathan Avers and, a month after Elder 
Harriman ceased to be its leader, the church "Voted that Joseph 
M. Harper, Joseph Clough and Jeremiah Clough be presented to 
the council for ordination." In September, 1840, they were ap- 
pointed "to take the pastoral care of the church for six months 
or until other^^ise ordered." 

At the annual meeting in 1836 the name of the society had 
been changed to "The First Freewill Baptist Church of Christ in 
Canterbury." Its membership at that time embraced not only 
residents in the town of its location, but also people who dwelt in 
Loudon and Northfield. The monthly gatherings were held 
at the church, at Hill's Corner and at Oak Hill in Northfield. 
The members from these several localities are classed in the rec- 
ords as the " Old IMonthly Meeting," the "East Monthly Meeting" 
and the "West Monthly IMeeting." It was near this time that 
the names of David M. Clough and Edward Osgood first appear 
in the records of the church, men who later were to become its 
leading supporters. 

Advance ground was taken by the Freewill Baptist Society of 
Canterbury in 1840 and 1841 in favor of temperance. Members 
of the church who used or sold intoxicating liquors were first 
admonished and then, if the admonition was not heeded, excluded 
from fellowship. 

In 1841 the subject of slavery came up for consideration. At 
a conference held in January, Dr. Joseph M. Harper offered the 
follo^\ang resolution: 

"Resolved That slavery is in direct opposition to the self 
evident truth that all men have certain inalienable rights, also 
that it is inconsistent with the principles of the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ and, therefore, should not be tolerated by the Church 
of God. 

J Elder Harriman towards the close of his ministry with this society was 
holding meetings at the Center, for at the annual town meeting in 1837 it was 
voted that he "have entire control of the towTi house every fourth Sunday when 
the Rev. William Patrick preaches at the East part." This vote for some 
reason, was rescinded the ne.\t j'ear. 


"Resolved That we as a church of Christ can not fellowship 
any person as a Christian or receive him at our communion or 
admit him into our midst who holds property in his fellow men, 
or who advocates the doctrine that it is right to buy and sell 
a human being, who is guilty of no crimes, for whom Christ died." 

The record which was made by Doctor Harper, as clerk, says, 
"After remarks by several of the brethren and some objection by 
Brother Samuel Hill, the resolutions were passed unanimously, 
that is, no one voted in the negative." 

Jonathan Ayers, who had become a preacher in the Freewill 
Baptist denomination, asked in 1840 for a letter of dismissal to 
join the Congregational Church at Gilmanton. He had entered 
the theological school connected with the academy in that town. 
A very interesting correspondence followed between him and a 
committee of the Baptist Church, which is spread upon the 
records. It shows that Mr. Ayers entertained very liberal views 
for his time and that he was bold in proclaiming his right to fel- 
lowship with all denominations of Christians. The church at 
Canterbury, while at first questioning its authority to comply with 
his request by reason of his being a recognized minister of the 
Freewill Baptist denomination, finally granted his dismissal. 

In 1842 the work of the ministry was divided among the elders 
of the church by requesting Doctor Harper and Elder Samuel Hill 
to officiate one fourth of the time each and Elder Jeremiah Clough 
the remainder of the year. This arrangement appears to have 
continued until 1847, when Elder Clough was invited to assume^ 
the pastorate. The invitation was declinied by him as being a 
work beyond his capacity to perform, requiring as it did attend- 
ance at three services of worship on Sunday and four regular 
monthly meetings. Recognizing his objection, the society elected 
him to be pastor of simply the "Old Monthly Meeting" or that 
part of the society which worshiped at the church in Canterbury. 
The interest of the funds of the society was divided, two fifths 
being retained by Elder Clough's congregation and the remainder 
being divided between the East and West Monthly Meetings. 

The records in 1845 show the membership of the church to have 
been 334. The ordained elders at that time connected with the 
society were Joseph M. Harper, Jeremiah Clough, Joseph Clough 
and William Plummer Chase. As a licentiate and itinerant 
preacher, the name of Uriah Chase is given. 


Especial mention is made in the records between 1840 and 1850 
of Elders Moores Cole, Samuel T. Catlin and Stephen Coffin as 
visiting the community and laboring ^vith the church. In 1843 
Benjamin Morrill was elected a deacon. 

All through the records of the early days of the Freewill Bap- 
tists in Canterbury there is an "approbation of gifts" of members 
of the church to preach the gospel. Here as elsewhere there was 
a sturdy belief in the direct call from on high to the individual to 
labor for the salvation of souls and that the laborer would receive 
his inspiration and instruction from the same source, regardless of 
the limitation of his education. The attitude of the Canterbury 
Baptists towards special training for the ministry is expressed in 
the formal reply in 1850 to a call made upon them for financial 
assistance to a theological seminary of the denomination that had 
been established at Whitestown, New York. The clerk of the 
society was requested to answer the call, and his reply was 
formally approved before being sent. 

For the first eighty years of its existence the pastors of the 
church in Canterbury contributed their services. Occasionally in 
the records there is a notation of offerings to some evangelist who 
had tarried with the flock for a few days. Dr. Joseph M. Harper 
and Elders Jeremiah and Joseph Clough, who for so many years 
supplied the desk, were men of means, who cheerfully exemplified 
their faith by gratuitous preaching. They were also men of abil- 
ity and education, and, while not serving any novitiate or prepara- 
tion for the ministry, they were nevertheless interesting speakers. 
Their knowledge of the Bible was acquired by constant study, and 
the interpretation they gave of its texts was in accord with the 
belief of those who heard them. Their labors in the pulpit were 
supplemented by practical benevolences to their fellow men. 
Blessed as the church in Canterbury was with such able, though 
untrained ministers, it is not surprising that the members of the 
society viewed with apprehension a preparatory school for the 
ministry, especially as the fervor of these lay preachers was in 
contradistinction to the more formal sermons of the educated 
clergy of the Congregational Church. Nor were they forgetful of 
early persecutions when they were looked upon by the Congre- 
gationalists as religious fanatics and outlaws and were refused 
admission to the places of worship of the latter. With these facts 
in mind, the extracts here quoted from the reply made by the 


society to this appeal to help maintain a theological school will be 
understood. After remarking that the church in Canterbury 
had not changed its views in regard to the usages and customs of 
the primitive Freewill Baptist Church, "as many others have," 
they say, 

"We can see no good reason why God can not take men 
from the fishing net, workshop or plow and make efficient min- 
isters of them now as well as thirty, forty, fifty or eighteen hun- 
dred years ago. We can not see why a proud hireling priesthood 
is not as injurious to the church in these present times as in 
former years when Freewill Baptist preachers were not permitted 
to preach in school houses or meeting houses if they could possibly 
be prevented. . . . We think, as far as our knowledge 
extends, that those ministers most intimately connected with 
that institution (the theological school in New York) are doing 
most to change the former customs and usages of the Freewill 
Baptists, and that the time is not far distant when a man to 
be a Freewill Baptist minister will be necessitated to pass through 
all the various institutions of learning and obtain certificates 
from the various authorities, as do the Congregationalists. . . . 
Such a state of things we can not give our aid to bring about." 

Other objections to a trained ministry as set forth in the com- 
munication of the Canterbury church were that "a scientific edu- 
cation produced spiritual death," that it substituted "popular 
literature for the spirit and power of God," that "it failed of its 
object," that "literary men were grossly ignorant of practical 
life," that it bred vanity and extravagance in the ministry and 
that "it costs more to support one such than two humble, devoted, 
faithful servants of God." 

Then, that their refusal should not be attributed to a parsi- 
monious spirit and that their answer was in accordance with their 
light, these Canterbury brethren conclude, "You are aware there 
is wealth in this church, and we hope to do good with it. If we 
could be convinced that it was our duty to give to the support of 
the Whitestown Theological School, we would cheerfully do it. 
If we are wrong, we are sincerely so. If you view us as wrong, we 
hope you will give information and try to put us right." 

Following close upon this expression of the Canterbury church 
of a trained clergy is a resolution of deep appreciation of the gratu- 
itous service of Elder Jeremiah Clough and a letter of approbation 
and recommendation to David M. Clough "to improve his gift," 


The next year the thoughts of the congregation were turned to 
the subject of a new meeting house. Their sanctuary was nearly 
half a century old, having been completed in 1803. The society 
was then Aveak in numbers and few of its members were in more 
than comfortable circumstances. Now there were connected 
with the church several very prosperous farmers. The first meet- 
ing house was inadequate and out of repair. In addition to the 
necessity for a new building, agitation had already begun for the 
formation of a second FrecAA-ill Baptist society in Canterbury, 
with the meeting house to be located at the Center. This 
would divide the present church, and a new place of worship 
would have a tendency to attract to the later organization. 

At the annual meeting in 1851 a committee consisting of David 
M. Clough, George W. Peverly, Edward Osgood, James H. Her- 
rick and John Fletcher was appointed to consider the question 
of building a new church. The structure was to be completed 
at a cost of $1,400, to be obtained by subscription, the subscribers 
to be reimbursed from the sale of the pews. The subscriptions 
were as follows: 

George W. Peverlv $200 . 00 Benjamin Gate $25 . 00 

David M. Glough". 200.00 Gordon Maxfield 25.00 

Jeremiah Glough 200 . 00 William P. Small 25 . 00 

John Kezor 200.00 Joseph Whitney 25.00 

Edward Osgood 100.00 D. W. Whittomore 25.00 

David Towle 50.00 Stephen Moore 25.00 

James H. Herrick 50 . 00 David Morrill, Jr 25 . 00 

Abiel F. French 25.00 True W. Hill 25.00 

W. Y. Hill 25.00 Samuel Hill 12.50 

John Fletcher 25.00 Otis Hill 12.50 

Josiah S. Fletcher 25.00 John S. James 12.50 

George Brown 25 . 00 

Moody Emery 25 . 00 Sl,412 . 50 

John Ingalls 25 . 00 

The old meeting house was sold to John Kezer for $30 and 
moved about fifteen rods to the east, being finally converted into a 
horse shed for the accommodation of members of the church. The 
new building "was raised" June 22, 1852, with appropriate exer- 
cises, and the record recites that this was done "without accident 
or harm to any one." Perhaps the significance of this notation 
is in the fact that the Freewill Baptists of Canterbury had already 
frowned upon the use of intoxicating liquors. Prior to this time 
no "raising" of a building was undertaken without a copious 
supply of ardent spirits to cheer on the workers. There is no 


record of any dedicatory services when the church was completed, 
but apparently it was ready for occupancy early in 1853. 

The division of that part of the parsonage fund which had been 
surrendered earlier to the Baptists occurred in 1853 after a series 
of conferences between the two societies in Canterbury. Both 
organizations agreed to vote one fifth of their annual income for 
the benefit of their members who worshiped at the Union Meet- 
ing House at Hill's Corner so long as the latter maintained serv- 
ices half the time. In 1869 this allowance was discontinued, 
those connected with the East Monthly Meeting having failed to 
comply with the conditions of the contribution. 

In 1858 the Oak Hill Monthly Meeting in Northfield requested 
the privilege of organizing a church and those who desired to join 
the new society were dismissed. 

Several times between 1853 and 1865 Elder Jeremiah Clough 
asked to be relieved of the care of his pastorate, but, at the urgent 
desire of the church, he continued his labors. In 1857 Elder 
Joseph Clough was elected as his assistant. Failing health 
finally compelled the former to relinquish his charge and he was 
formally dismissed as pastor May 5, 1865. Elder George W. 
Richardson was chosen his successor. The latter continued in 
charge for two years, when Elder Jeremiah Clough was asked to 
occupy the pulpit "as much as his health will permit." At the 
annual meeting in June, 1867, the standing committee was author- 
ized to supply the desk. The records seem to indicate that Elder 
Jeremiah Clough continued to be recognized as the pastor of the 
church for some years after, and perhaps he sustained this rela- 
tion until his death. When the annual meeting was held in 1874, 
the society "voted to pay Elder Alpheus D. Smith $15 for past 
services," and a larger sum was voted to him in subsequent 
years. In 1877 Mr. Smith's preaching and work were com- 
mended by resolution. Under date of July 30, 1879, the clerk 
makes the following record: 

"Elder Jeremiah Clough died. His funeral was largely 
attended at the church August first. He has been for many 
years a member of this church and its preacher and pastor for 
a long time. He came to his grave full of years and good works. 
We shall greatly miss him." 

Brief as is the foregoing tribute, it is still most expressive of the 
life and character of Elder Jeremiah Clough. Kindling in all a 


warm affection by his many kindly deeds as citizen, neighbor and 
friend, beloved by his people for his continued sacrifices in their 
behalf, he indeed came to his grave "full of years and good works." 
He was not only missed by the church to whom he ministered so 
faithfully and so long, but by the people of the whole town to 
whom his daily hfe of helpfulness to his fellowmen was an abiding 

An occasional preacher at this church was Elder John Cham- 
berlain, son of Dea. John A. Chamberlain of Canterbury. The 
former was ordained in 1858, the services being held in the grove 
near the Oak Hill school house in Northfield and witnessed by 
more than fifteen hundred people. This was the same year 
that the members of the Oak Hill Monthly Meeting had asked to 
be dismissed from the church in Canterbury to organize the 
society in Northfield. Elder Chamberlain was first settled over a 
society in Penacook which he had been instrumental in starting. 
When the Civil War broke out, however, nearly all the male mem- 
bers followed him to the front and the church became extinct. 
After the war, he preached at Canterbury, Meredith, Lisbon, 
Stark, Gilmanton, Salisbury and Northfield. 

He was an evangehst of uncommon power. The year follow- 
ing his ordination he traveled nearly 5,000 miles, preaching on an 
average one sermon every day. His opportunities in youth for 
an education were limited, but he was an omnivorous reader. 
Having a wonderful memory, he stored his mind with useful 
information. A close observer of men and events, he was a good 
judge of human nature. " His sermons were well arranged," 
says one of his contemporaries, "copiously illustrated and deliv- 
ered with much pathos. His strong individuality made him seem 
a bit eccentric in methods and manners, but he was abundant in 
good works along all ordinary lines of ministerial effort, and he 
did a good service for humanity that few of his brethren were 
furnished by nature to accomplish." In the pulpit Elder Cham- 
berlain had the appearance of deep solemnity and of a preacher 
terribly in earnest, yet he did not hesitate to illumine his 
sermons by anecdotes that drew smiles to the faces of his 

In 1885 the death of Edward Osgood left the church without 
any deacon, and George W. Fletcher and Myron C. Foster were 
elected to this office. The church statistics that year show that 


there were twenty-nine resident members and thirty-seven non- 
resident, with a Sabbath School numbering forty-five. The soci- 
ety had a permanent fund of SI, 605, to which were added legacies 
from Susannah Kezer of $500 and from Joseph ]\Ioore of $5. 

The death of Edward Osgood was a great loss to the society. 
For thirty years he had been its clerk and for fifteen years one of 
the deacons of the church. Tributes to his memory were paid 
at a meeting held June 6, 1885. One of the resolutions adopted 
stated truthfully that, "The wisdom and abihty which he exer- 
cised by cheerful counsel, earnest service and liberal gifts will be 
held in grateful remembrance by his associates." 

After the death of Elder Jeremiah Clough in 1879, the care of 
the church fell to Elder Alpheus D. Smith, who continued as its 
leader until his death February 9, 1886. Like many of his con- 
temporaries in the FreeT\'ill Baptist ministry, Elder Smith was a 
self-educated man. His thoughts turned to preaching when he 
was still young, and he delivered his first sermon when he was 
twenty-one years of age. After filling various pastorates accept- 
ably, he came to Canterbury in 1874 and there married for his 
second wife Mrs, Mary E, Clough. The closing years of his 
life were devoted to the interests of the church and Kezer Semi- 
nary. Conscientious and earnest, his labors both as a pastor 
and a citizen contributed material^ to the benefit of the to^Ti. 
Like his predecessors in the pulpit of this church, Elder Smith's 
work was largely gratuitous from a sense of duty and a love 
for his fellowmen. He was highly esteemed by the people of 

The society now had difficulty not only in securing a pastor, 
but also in keeping its pulpit supplied. The women of the church, 
however, volunteered to conduct Sunday services, and for the 
next few years sermons were read by them whenever a preacher 
could not be secured. Those who participated in these lay serv- 
ices were Mrs. Mary E. Smith, Mrs. Frank Fletcher, Mrs. Nellie 
Peverly, Mrs. Almira J. Sargent, Miss Charla E. Clough, jMiss 
Christiana Clough, Miss Sarah Glines and Miss Belle Davis. 

Between 1886 and 1892, the pulpit was suppHed part of the 
time by Rev. F. L. Wiley and by Walter J. Malvern, the latter 
being at the time a theological student at New Hampton 
Institution. Charles H. Ayers of Canterbury preached one Sun- 
day, and during the year 1892 sermons were read twenty-three 


Sabbaths. The desk was occupied from 1893 to 1895 by Rev. 
Herbert W. Small, who at the same time was discharging the 
duties of principal of Kezer Seminary. The immediate successors 
of Mr. Small were Rev. G. T. Griffin, Rev. L. E. Hall and Rev. 
John Vance, the latter serving the church as its pastor from the 
summer of 1900 to March, 1906. Until October following sermons 
were read by Miss Christiana Clough and Mrs. Almira J. Sar- 
gent. Then Rev. Dyer M. Phillips was engaged as the regular 
minister, and he has continued to fill the pulpit to the present 

In 1890 the question of providing a parsonage came up for 
consideration. A committee consisting of George W. Fletcher, 
Myron C. Foster, Alonzo B. Lovering, Moses M. Emery and 
Charles F. Adams was appointed to raise funds and select a 
suitable location. In June, 1893, the home of Austin S. Bronson 
was purchased for $1,300. The principal contributors were 
Christiana Clough, Mrs. Mary E. Smith, Charla E. Clough, the 
Baptist and Kezer Union, George W. and Hattie C. Fletcher, 
Moses M. Emery, Mrs. Charlotte Osgood and George W. Arm- 
strong of Boston, the latter giving in memory of his mother and 

At the annual meeting in 1906, the treasurer, Christiana Clough, 
reported eighty years of continuous service in this office by her 
father, Elder Jeremiah Clough, and herself. Following in the 
footsteps of her father, she has been a generous contributor for 
the support of the church, her latest benefaction being the 
general repair of the parsonage. 

In May, 1907, the society received a legacy of $950 from the 
estate of Wilham Maxfield. Its permanent funds now amount 
to $2,555. From the income of these and from voluntary offerings 
the church is able to maintain regular preaching. 




On the lot south of Mrs. Albert F. Drew's house at the Center 
stood at one time a Freewill Baptist meeting house. The first 
gathering of this society was held at the dwelling house of Joseph 
M. Harper on Monday, the sixth day of March, 1848, at which 
time a constitution was adopted. Laban Morrill was chosen 
moderator; Joseph Clough, clerk; Joseph M. Harper, treasurer; 
and Nathan Emery, Jr., Thomas Clough and Charles H. Ayers, an 
executive committee. Immediately afterwards there appeared 
in the New Hampshire Patriot and State Gazette the following 

"We, Joseph M. Harper, Joseph Clough, Laban Morrill, 
Nathan Emery, Jr., Joseph Ayers, Thomas Clough and Charles 
H. Ayers, all of Canterbury etc. and our associates and successors 
hereby form ourselves into a religious society for the purpose 
of promoting the cause of Christianity, by the name and style 
of the First Freewill Baptist Society in Canterbury." 

A house of worship had been erected four years before, prob- 
ably in the summer or fall of 1844, as the, records of the Merri- 
mack County Mutual Fire Insurance Company show a premium 
note of $60 signed by Joseph M. Harper, " by order of the building 
committee," and it is marked "Meeting House in Canterbury." 
Who were the contributors to the expense of erecting this build- 
ing the society records do not show, but the original society 
members were those whose names appear in the published call. 
A notation, made by the clerk, March 27, 1851, states that on 
this date the name of Thomas Clough was erased at his request. 

1 The only distinction between the titles of the two Baptist societies in 
Canterbury is that the one in the Baptist School District is known as the 
P'irst Freewill Baptist Church of Canterbury and the one at the Center is 
known as the First Freewill Baptist Society of Canterbury. 


How soon additions were made to the membership does not 
appear, but the follo'v\'ing were admitted and enrolled upon the 

Abiel Cogswell, Jeremiah Cogswell, Edward Osgood, William 
M. Cogswell, Dudley Hill, John Chamberlain, Samuel Huckins, 
Albert B. Clough, Benjamin McClary, Charles H. Fellows, 
James S. Elkins, Roxie J. Morrill, Elbridge G. Chase, Frank W. 
Morrill, Dan W. Morrill, Charles Ghnes, Joseph C. Sanborn, 
Charles W. Emery. William F. Sargent, Henry L. Clough, George 
W. Richardson, Joseph P. Dearborn, E. P. Carter, Sarah J. 
IMiller, George P. Morrill, George W. Lake, Lorrain T. Weeks, 
Benjamin ]\Iorrill, Solomon J\I. Clifford, Moses Worthen, Plumer 
Chesley, William P. Small, Thomas L. Whidden, Eliphalet Gale, 
Jonathan K. Taylor, Beniah S. Cawley, Josiah B. Higgins, 
Edward P. Dyball, Milo S. Morrill. 

It will be seen that these members were from all parts of the 
town, several being from the Hill's Corner school district. It 
was not, therefore, for the sole convenience of those attending its 
services that this society was formed and its meeting house built 
at the Center. The records of both this society and that in the 
Baptist School District show conferences between the two from 
1849 to 1853 regarding the division of that part of the par- 
sonage fund which at an early date had been allotted to the 
Baptists of Canterbury. It seems that this fund was in the 
hands of the treasurer of the society at the Center at the time 
of the formation of tliis later organization. There does not 
appear in the records of either society to have been any differ- 
ence of opinion as to the proportion each was to receive, but 
there was a contention over the wording of the resolutions 
adopted providing for the division of the funds, and apparently 
an apprehension that the action taken might be construed as 
embracing more than this one subject. The final settlement is 
thus set forth: 

"The First Freewill Baptist Church and the First Freewill Bap- 
tist Society in Canterbury, also the West Monthly Meeting, mutu- 
ally agree to settle forever by way of compromise all difficulties 
and disputes between them growing out of the money they hold 
as parsonage or church funds as follows, namely: 

"The treasurer of the Society to pay over to the treasurer 
of the Church two hundred dollars and interest from the first 
day of April 1853, which with the funds they now hold shall 


be forever for the use and benefit of those who worship at the 
Freewill Baptist Center Meeting House. ^ 

"The understanding is that both branches of the fund are 
for the sole use and benefit of the people called Freewill Baptists, 
and that each party, church or society holding the same shall pay 
over to any person authorized to receive it one fifth part of 
their annual income for the benefit of those who worship at 
the Union Meeting House in the east part of the town^ so long 
or whenever they shall so keep up a Freewill Baptist meeting 
there one half of the time. 

"Before collecting the fifth the treasurers shall deduct what 
they have to pay the yearly or quarterly meeting for assess- 
ments made by them on the church or churches if divided; 
the assessment to be paid in the ratio six bears to seven, that 
is the church to pay seven while the society pays six. 

"And it is further understood and agreed that the West 
Monthly Meeting have no further claim on the old church funds, 
whether the church should be hereafter divided or not. " 

Then follows a copy of the receipt dated April 1, 1853, and 
signed by Jeremiah Clough, treasurer of the Freewill Baptist 
Church, acknowledging the payment to him of two hundred 
dollars by Joseph M. Harper, treasurer of the Freewill Baptist 

At the annual meeting in 1854, David M. Clough for the 
church and Joseph M. Harper for the society made a supplemen- 
tary report which states that nothing in the action of the above 
bodies in dividing the parsonage fund "shall be so construed as 
to effect anything further than simply a division of the funds, 
other matters, if any, embraced therein being left out." 

What the other differences were, or from what cause arising, the 
records of neither of these Baptist organizations show. The 
reason for the promotion of this second Baptist society is equally 
obscure. The motto over the pulpit was, "If the Son, therefore 
shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." The pews were 
free to all and no contribution was asked of the people attending 
service. There was no church organization as distinct from 
that of the society. It is therefore probable that a desire for 
freedom from the regulations of older Baptist churches led to the 
formation of this rehgious body. 

I The church edifice at what is now known as the Center in Canterbury 
is called in the records "the Free Meeting House," while that in the Baptist 
neighborhood is referred to as "the Center Meeting House." 

»At Hill's Corner. 


Misfortune early attended the second Baptist Society in the 
destruction of its place of worship by fire. This occurred some- 
time between January 18, 1853, when a meeting was called to 
take into consideration "the propriety of erecting horse sheds 
near said meeting house," and February 26, 1853, when the 
records of the Merrimack County Mutual Fire Insurance Com- 
pany show that the company voted "to pay Joseph M. Harper 
two thirds of his interest in the Free Meeting House recently 
burned." No attempt was made to rebuild, but the society 
has kept up its organization to the present time, worshiping 
in the halls at the Center for the most part until the last 

Ministers were engaged soon after the meeting house was built 
but no settled pastor was ever installed. In 1849 it was voted 
to pay one dollar a day for preaching. This compensation was 
doubled -^dthin the next ten years. Like the early pay of school 
teachers, the gratuity voted the minister included his board 
while he remained in town, unless he was a resident. The itiner- 
ant Baptist preachers came with their teams on Saturday and 
preacher and horse were cared for over the Sabbath. Then they 
departed, unless the church desired them to hold protracted 
meetings during the week following. 

Perhaps the earliest preacher heard by this society was the 
Rev. Edmund B. Fairfield, who preached in this neighborhood in 
1847-48 before the society was organized. The Rev. Samuel T. 
Catlin filled the desk in 1849 and the Rev. Plumer Chesley in 
1852-53. Elder Preble preached certain Sundays, probably once 
a month, from 1855 to 1860, receiving at the latter date two 
dollars per Sunday. From 1865 to 1868 there is a record of the 
payment of the Rev. George W. Richardson for preaching. He 
was at the time the pastor of the other Baptist Church. From 
1869 to 1877 the Rev. Josiah B. Higgins supplied the pulpit about 
a fourth of the time at a compensation of a hundred dollars a 
year. He may have served for a longer, period. 

This Baptist Society appears to have worshiped in the Congre- 
gational Church at the Center as early as 1863, for the records 
show that allotments for "the care of the meeting house" were 
made from that date until 1877. Ten years later an effort was 
made to unite the Baptist and Congregational Societies in the 
support of public worship. A public meeting was held early in 


the year 1887 at which this proposition was considered, and the 
follo%Aing preamble and resolutions were adopted: 

"Whereas — it occurs in the Providence of God that for the 
first time in many years this parish is without a resident pastor 
and is dependent upon aid from without, and 

" Whereas — it is very desirable that a parish that has the 
rehgious and moral character as well as the wealth, intelligence 
and enterprise that this has should, for its own good and its 
own credit, have a minister within its limits, and 

" Whereas — all denominations worshipping here are practically 
in accord in their religious belief and ministers of different names 
have worked together harmoniously for a number of years past, 

" Whereas — neither of the two leading denominations is able 
alone to support a resident pastor properly, but if all were to 
unite for the support of one a reasonable salary could easily be 
raised, and 

"Whereas — a large majority of those who attend church here 
are in favor of union of effort, Therefore, 

"Resolved that it is the sense of this meeting that the best 
interests of this community require that all denominations should 
unite upon some one man who shall minister to us in holy things 
and shall be our pastor, teacher and friend and that we cordially 
and heartily support him. 

"Resolved that we respectfully ask the two societies. Congre- 
gational and Freewill Baptist, to call meetings and take such 
action as may be necessary to secure the services of some minister 
of the Gospel." 

A copy of the foregoing was sent to Jeremiah Cogswell, clerk 
of the Freewill Baptist Society, by Joseph .G. Clough, clerk of the 
meeting, in a letter dated February 14, 1887. The Baptist 
Society was called together March 7 follo'U'ing to take action. A 
committee consisting of Charles H. Ayers, Charles W. Emery, 
Jonathan K. Taylor and Jeremiah Cogswell were appointed to 
confer with a like committee of the Congregational Society. 
At an adjourned meeting held March 17 the committee of the 
Baptist Society reported "that under all the circumstances no 
agreement to unite could be made." This report was accepted. 

Although this effort failed, it did not discourage the promoters, 
for in 1891 the Baptist Society "voted one hundred dollars toward 
hiring the Rev. Irving W. Coombs a part of the year, provided 
the Congregational Society will furnish a sum sufficient to hire 
him the balance of the vear." Mr. Coombs was at that time the 


pastor of the Congregational Society. This arrangement was 
completed and continued mitil 1895. 

At the annual meeting of the Congregational Society in 1899 
it was "voted that the Baptist Society could occupy the Congre- 
gational Meeting House Sunday afternoons when not otherwise 

The present ofl&cers of this Baptist Society are Jeremiah Cogs- 
well, clerk, and Albert B. Clough, treasurer. 



Situated on the brow of the hill, as one comes from the Shak- 
ers and descends into the village of Hill's Corner, is the Worsted 
Church, SO called. Seldom used at the present time, it repre- 
sents the efforts of a generation seventy yesLTs ago to main- 
tain regular religious services in this part of the to-um. It was 
erected as a union church for the use of all denominations, 
although the Baptists and Congregationalists predominated in 
this community. The old "Shell Church" at Hackleborough 
had been destroyed and the nearest churches in to'^Ti were the 
Baptist IMeeting House and the Congregational Church at the 
Center. The prime mover in the enterprise to build a house of 
worship at Hill's Corner was Amos Cogswell, who was a member 
of both the Congregational and Baptist Societies in town. The 
undertaking was started by the Freewill Baptists who put up 
the frame and boarded the building. Their funds being ex- 
hausted, a proposition to make it a union church was made 
and accepted. The Congregationalists then contributed to 
the completion of the structure. Lumber and labor were un- 
doubtedly freely given by the inhabitants of this school district, 
but the larger expense connected with the erection of the church 
was met by the sale of pews after it was fuiished. Nearly all 
of the well-to-do families in this section of the to"UTi o"«Tied pews, 
and there appears to have been no dissenting voice in the com- 
munity to the spirit promoting the movement. The build- 
ing was completed in 1839. The Congregationahsts organized 
as the Second Congregational Society- of Canterbury, the prin- 
cipal members being at that time members of the Congregational 
Society at the Center who were regularly dismissed for the 
purpose of organizing the society at Hill's Corner. 


Among these members was Gideon Ham, who was persuaded 
by Amos Cogswell to make provision in his will for the permanent 
support of Congregational preaching in this locality. Mr. 
Ham died a year later, and the society found itself endowed 
with a fund of S2,000. By his testament, Mr. Ham left his 
real estate to his family, while his bequest to the church 
was realized from the sale of his personal effects. These 
were disposed of at an auction sale which lasted three days. 
With the knowledge that the proceeds were to be devoted to 
the maintenance of the gospel in this part of the towii, the 
attendance was large. The bidding was spirited and many 
of the articles offered for sale brought more than they were 
intrinsically worth. 

Preaching was supported for a time by subscription, the Con- 
gregationalists and Baptists alternating in the use of the meeting 
house. The Rev. William Patrick, pastor of the Congregational 
Church at the Center, regularly officiated one Sunday each 
month. Occasionally students from the theological school at 
Gilmanton Academy occupied the pulpit. The Baptist preachers 
were more numerous. The best known were Elder John Harri- 
man, Elder Ezra Ham, the Rev. Edmund B. Fairfield, Dr. 
Joseph M. Harper, Elders Joseph Clough and Uriah and William 
P. Chase, both the latter being born and reared in this school 
district. The preaching of the Baptists was largely missionary 
labor without compensation, or partially requited by contri- 
butions taken at the time of the service. Mrs. Susan F. Perkins 
of Campton, daughter of Abiel Cogswell, writes of the early 
days of this church, "I never thought there was any scarcity 
of Free Baptist ministers when I was a young girl. As most 
of them were entertained at our house and I was always shy of 
'the cloth,' their coming did not tend to increase my happiness 
or Sunday freedom." 

Mr. Patrick's successors at the Congregational Church at 
the Center regularly supplied the church at Hill's Corner every 
fourth Sunday until 1871. With the death of Elder Jeremiah 
Clough, Baptist preaching was of rare occurrence. 

Soon after the Chicago fire in 1871, when the whole country 
was asked to make contributions for the sufferers, Mrs. Sarah 
Elizabeth (Harper) Monmouth came to Hill's Corner on this 
benevolent mission. The people gathered at the church to 


hear her. She made such an eloquent appeal for the afflicted 
inhabitants of Chicago that not only was her immediate mission 
successful, but she was led to engage in a work of great good to 
this community. The people were moved by her earnestness 
and charmed by her personality. Remaining for a few days, 
she learned of the then almost perfunctory ser\ice held at the 
church once a month. Her inquiries and the responses of the 
people led to her offer to read on Sunday the published sermons 
of the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher and other eminent divines 
and to conduct a religious service if the Congregational Society 
would vote to give to her the income of the Ham Fund. This 
offer was immediately accepted and for nearly eight years 
Mrs. Monmouth ministered to the spiritual wants of this com- 

The church was immediately repaired. The interior was 
changed, the old singing seats removed and a room over the 
vestibule was fitted up for Mrs. Monmouth's occupancy during 
her weekly visits. The pulpit was also changed so as to place 
the choir back of the preacher. She used her own funds in 
improving the appearance of the building, and it is probable 
that during the time of her pastorate, if such it may be called, 
she spent more for the benefit of the people than she received 
for her services. Very early she began the work of decorating 
the interior of the church with worsted mottoes and trimmings. 
It was this handiwork of Mrs. Monmouth which created an 
interest in the edifice beyond the confines of the state. The 
following description of a visitor written twenty years ago 
shows how the church impressed a stranger at that time : 

"The walls of the Church are covered with mottoes, emblems 
and other devices, all of cotton, paper or worsted. The pulpit 
is profusely trimmed and in the front and rear of the auditorium 
are immense floral arches, rising to the height of twelve feet 
from the floor and having a span of twenty feet. Standing on 
the platform and in corners are large vases, made of paper and 
filled with giant bouquets of artificial flowers. The eight long 
windows are curtained with what looks like richly figured lace, 
but which a closer inspection shows to be mosquito netting 
trimmed with designs cut from wall paper. In all of the work 
in the church the colors are so harmonious and the effects brought 
out so tasty that a first view gives the visitor the idea of Oriental 


magnificence and suggests the outlay of large sums of money. 
But herein lies the most wonderful part of the decorations. 
The jflowers are leaves, the mottoes are all made from paper and 
cotton with the exception of perhaps one hundred worsted 
flowers. The amount of work and patience required for this 
task maj' be partially appreciated when it is kno\\'n that the 
decorations include more than a million pieces, the largest 
scarcely the size of a man's hand and all of this accomplished 
by one woman." 

Mrs. Monmouth organized a Sunday School, the people 
cordially cooperating to make her work a success. Largely 
through her instrumentality, the social life of the community 
broadened. The years of her ministry are delightful memories 
to the people who then resided at Hill's Corner. In speaking 
of the years which she spent in this locality' Airs. Monmouth 
said, "They embraced the dearest work of my life." The loss 
of her property led her into retirement at the homestead of 
her father. 

Sarah Elizabeth Alonmouth was the only daughter of Joseph 
M. Harper. She was born in Canterbury, October 9, 1829, and 
was educated in the schools of that to"«ai, at Tilton Seminary 
and at North Scituate, Rhode Island. Early in life, she devel- 
oped a taste for literature and, when a mere girl, began to con- 
tribute poems and short stories to the Boston Cultivator and 
the Waverly Magazine under the nom de 'plume of Lil Lindon 
and Effie Afton. She published a book of poems called "Even- 
tide," which met wdth a large sale. Other of her publications 
were "Afton Ripples," "Half a Dime a Day," "The Abundant 
Entrance," " Rest Valley" and "The Worstecl Church." In addi- 
tion to her writings, she prepared and delivered several lectures. 

Mrs. JMonmouth was a great traveler and made three trips 
to the far South, spending several winters wdth her brother 
Colonel Charles A. Harper in Texas. During her last trip, 
she met and married Jacques Eugene Monmouth. The Civil 
War breaking out soon after her marriage, her husband enlisted 
and was killed in one of the early engagements while serving 
as colonel of a Louisiana regiment of Zouaves. Returning 
home, she cared for her father until his death in 1865. She 
inherited from him a large share of his property which consisted 
of the Harper homestead and a well-invested personal estate. 


Mrs. Monmouth's last years were truly pathetic. She was 
the victim of a clever swindler who induced her to loan him most 
of her personal property. The most remarkable portion of 
Mrs. Monmouth's life began when she was practically penni- 
less. She still had a farm on which there was a comfortable 
house, and she determined to live upon the income of the land, 
which averaged about forty dollars a year. The story of her 
economies and privations is told in some of her later publications. 
She lived the life of a recluse, refusing to see any but a few 
intimate friends. 

The income from the farm she allotted as follows: periodicals 
$7, books $3, food $17, and fuel $13. For the first winter 
she had on hand sufficient fuel, but the second she bought wood 
and sawed it herself. To save expense, she would crawl into bed 
with a warm soapstone and read. The money thus saved she 
spent on books, never for food. No appropriation was made 
for wearing apparel. She made an every- day suit out of a straw 
bed tick, trimming it with strips of blue drilling cut from a 
pair of overalls which some former workman had left in the 
house. This suit was not unattractive and at a little distance 
looked like a neat striped gingham. For shoes she took the soles 
of old rubbers, lined them with flannel and laced them to her 
feet as sandals. Later she made shoes from a thick overcoat 
which had belonged to her father. Of these she was very proud. 
Unraveling a shawl and some homespun garments, she knitted 
herself stockings, which lasted her for several years. The 
garments she made always fitted, for she was skilful in her 

Mrs. Monmouth claimed that her food cost her only five 
cents a day, and the formula of her meals is set forth in her 
writings. It is probably true that this sum represents the aver- 
age of her daily expenditures for what she ate. But neighbors 
knowing her circumstances often made contributions to her 
larder. These offerings of provisions were placed under a win- 
dow of the chamber where she spent most of her time. She 
would let down a rope, without exposing herself to view, which 
the donor attached to a basket containing the gifts and then 
departed. Later Mrs. Monmouth would pull up the basket 
to her room. She decorated her house much as she had the 
Hill's Corner Church and made it so marvelously attractive 


that it became an object of interest to summer visitors in Can- 
terbur3^ Charging a small fee for its inspection, she derived 
a little income from this source. This house she named "Rest 

Failing health compelled her to accept the care of others 
and she went to reside ^^'ith her niece, Mrs. John H. Huckins 
of Loudon, during the last few months of her life. She died 
January 16, 1887. At the probate of her -^dll it was discovered 
that her property amounted to about $2,000, besides the real 
estate left her by her father. This she bequeathed to relatives 
and to charity. 

After Mrs. Monmouth ceased her labors at Hill's Corner, 
there was no attempt to maintain preaching at this church 
except during the summer months and wholly from the income 
of the Ham Fund, The churjch is still an object of interest 
to visitors in Canterbury. 



The Canterbury society of Shakers dates from the last decade 
of the eighteenth century, and it was one of the early communi- 
ties in this country. Shakerism had its birth in England, where 
its foundress. Mother Ann Lee, was born February 29, 1736, in 
Toad Lane, Manchester. Her father was a blacksmith with a 
family of eight children. As was common then with poor people 
of manufacturing towns, the children were obhged to contribute 
to their own support as soon as they were old enough to work, 
instead of being sent to school. Therefore, while Ann acquired 
habits of industry, she could neither read nor write. During her 
youth she was employed in a cotton factory, next as a cutter of 
hatters' fur, and later as cook in the infirmary of her native town. 
As a child she was serious and thoughtful, subject to rehgious 
convictions and given to reveries and visions. When she grew 
older, she was deeply impressed with the wickedness of mankind 
and showed a marked repugnance to marriage. While under 
these exercises of the mind, she became acquainted with James 
and Jane Wardley and the rehgious society under their care. 
These people were a remnant of the " French Prophets," and Jane 
Wardley was regarded as the "spirit of John the Baptist operat- 
ing in the female line." They were called Shakers or Shaking 
Quakers, because, hke the early Quakers, they were seized with 
violent tremblings and shakings when under the influence of 

» The authority for many facts in this chapter is found in various pubHca- 
tions of the Sha'kers, especially "A Summary View of the New Millennial 
Church," 2d edition, 1848, and "Shakerism, Its Meaning and Message," by 
Anna White and Leila S. Taylor, Mt. Lebanon, N. Y., 190-1. 


strong religious emotions. In September, 1758, when twenty-two 
years of age, Ann united herself with this society. 

In spite of her aversion to marriage, she was induced in 1762, 
by the importunities of her family, to become the wife of Abraham 
Stanley, a blacksmith, who deserted her after she came to Amer- 
ica. Of the four children born to them, three died in infancy and 
the other hved to the age of only six years. After the death of her 
children, Ann Lee gave herself wholly to religious thought, tak- 
ing the lead of the Shaker Society, to whom she promulgated the 
doctrine of celibacy. 

Their previous instruction had led them to expect that the 
second coming of Christ would be in the form of a woman. As 
Eve was the mother of all living, so in their new leader, the Shak- 
ers recognized in Ann Lee "the first mother or spiritual parent in 
the female line." 

Among the revelations which Ann claimed to have received 
from on high were these, "The duality of Deity, God both father 
and mother, one in essence — one God, not two, but God who pos- 
sessed the two natures, the masculine and feminine, each distinct 
in function yet one in being, coequals in Deity. The second was 
that the secret of man's sin, the hidden cause of man's fall from 
uprightness, his loss of purity, lay in the premature and self- 
indulgent use of sexual union." ^ 

Suffering persecution and imprisonment on account of her reli- 
gious belief, Mother Lee sought an asylum in the New World. 
With eight of her disciples she set sail from Liverpool, England, 
May 19, 1774, and landed in New York the following August. The 
eight disciples were her husband, WilHam Lee her brother, Nancy 
Lee her niece, James Whitteker, John Hocknell and his son 
Richard, James Shepherd and Mary Partington. For two 
years the little band remained in the vicinity of New York City. 
In the meantime, John Hocknell, who was the only one of the 
company possessed of means, bought a tract of land about seven 
miles northeast of Albany in the wilderness, called "Niskeyuna," 
now the town of Watervliet, N. Y. Here, in 1776, the Shakers 
made their first permanent settlement. For the next three years 
they lived the life of celibates in comparative seclusion, holding 

1 Shakerism, Its Meaning and Message, page 19, by Anna White and Leila 
S. Taylor. 


everything in common and toiling diligently to cultivate their 
land and provide suitable habitations. 

In 1779 a remarkable religious awakening in the adjoining 
toA\'n of New Lebanon led to visitations by converts to the Shaker 
community. Tidings of this strange people and their peculiar 
religion soon spread far and wide. These reports were followed 
by inquiry and converts in large numbers were made, some re- 
maining with the community at Watervliet, while others returned 
to their homes. In May, 1781, Mother Lee and the elders who had 
been chosen for the church made a pilgrimage to Massachusetts 
and Connecticut to preach the gospel and to encourage those who 
had already embraced the faith. They were absent two years 
and four months, some of the elders visiting New Hampshire. 
It was a journey attended with much suffering and privation and 
with no little persecution. 

It was early in 1781 that Benjamin Thompson, an itinerant 
peddler, became acquainted with the Shakers near New Leba- 
non, and coming to Canterbury later, his account greatly inter- 
ested members of the Freewill Baptist Church of that town, then 
under the ministration of Rev. Edward Lock. Among those in 
whom the tidings caused an awakening and further inquiry were 
Benjamin Whitcher and Henry Clough. The former was one of 
a committee appointed to visit the Shakers at Harvard, Mass., 
where Mother Lee and the elders were preaching, and to investi- 
gate the new religion. Following this visit, two Shaker preachers, 
Ebenezer Cooley and Israel Chauncey, appeared in Canterbury 
and the surrounding towns. By them the Shaker testimony was 
first given in New Hampshire in the church at Loudon Center in 
September, 1782.^ Whitcher and Clough immediately became 
converts and others soon followed in their footsteps, including 
Ezekiel Morrill of Loudon. 

Henry Clough was the son of Capt. Jeremiah Clough, the elder, 
and he originally owned the farm that Joseph Ayers bought in 
1784 of Ezekiel Morrill when he settled in Canterbury. The 
buildings were destroyed by fire several years ago, but the land 
is still in the possession of Joseph Ayers' descendants. The 
house at that time was a long, one-story building, which Mr. Ayers 
used as a dwelling until he built for himself, and then it was 
attached to the new building as an ell. It was here that Elder 

> Shakerism, Its Meaning and Message, pages 90, 92. 


Henry Clough, — later he became an elder in the Shaker Church, — 
assembled the believers. This was before the formal gathering of 
the Shakers at New Lebanon in communal relations. It is prob- 
able that within two years the Canterbury followers of !Mother 
Ann Lee were transferred to Benjamin Whitcher's farm, which is a 
part of the present Shaker Village. 

Elder Clough was one of the earlj' converts to the Freewill 
Baptist faith and he was a zealous worker and earnest preacher. 
Embracing the Shaker gospel, he at once became an efficient 
missionary in the cause. In 1788 he was called to New Lebanon 
to be the assistant to Father Joseph Meacham, then the leading 
elder of the Shakers, and the organizer of the followers into socie- 
ties. Here Elder Clough resided until his death ]\Iarch 12, 1798. 
In the ministry of the order he was a trusted counselor and a most 
effective exponent of its principles. "He was not considered 
eloquent in the common acception of the term," says Elder Henry 
Blinn, "but he abounded in that spiritual pathos which seldom 
failed to meet the state of his hearers. The di\'ine spirit which 
he was blessed to receive, in coimection with his unwavering integ- 
rity as a natural man, made him a powerful preacher."^ 

Benjamin Whitcher was born in Stratham, IMarch 8, 1750. His 
father, whose name was also Benjamin, bought for him a tract 
of land in the eastern part of Canterbury about the year 1774. 
That section of the to^Mi was then a wilderness. After clearing 
some of the land and building a house and barn, the son, in 1775, 
moved his family to their new home. Accompaming Benjamin 
and !Mary, his vdie, was her brother, Joseph Shepherd. The near- 
est neighbor of the new settlers was several miles distant, and it 
was five or six years before settlements were made north of them 
at Hill's Corner. Benjamin Whitcher was an early convert to the 
Freewill Baptist faith and continued a member of that church 
until he joined the Shakers in 1782. With generous enthusiasm he 
opened his doors to the faithful, and his home soon became their 
rallying point in Canterbury. On the Sabbath meetings were 
held there, or at Ezekiel ^Morrill's on Clough's Hill in Loudon, for 
nearly a decade before the Canterbury Shaker Society was organ- 
ized in 1792. The United States census of 1790 shows that Ben- 
jamin Whitcher had thirty-five persons dwelling under his roof, 

1 Shaker Manifesto, Canterbur}-, October, 1SS3. 


and two years later the number had increased to forty-three. 
Then it was that he donated his farm of one hundred acres, 
valued at that time at more than two thousand dollars, to the 
Shaker society. 

Until 1785, there was no distinct Shaker community except 
that at Watervliet, converts from a distance for the most part 
continuing to reside at their homes and making visits to the 
society at Watervliet or receix^ing visitations from Mother Lee 
and the church elders. Adherents of the new faith had now be- 
come so numerous in New Lebanon that a church was built and 
dedicated in 1786. In 1787, the elders notified all those who had 
accepted the Shaker doctrine that the time was ripe for the for- 
mation of a church society and that all who desired and were 
qualified might come into the association. The first formal organ- 
ization was that at New Lebanon, N. Y., which later took the name 
of the Mount Lebanon Society, from the post office established for 
their benefit in 1861. The Watervliet community was similarly 
organized soon after and these two societies formed what was 
called a bishopric under the immediate jurisdiction of the ministry 
at Mount Lebanon. Here was concentrated at this time nearly 
all the talent of the church, and from the Mount Lebanon Society 
was issued a few years later the first publication of the Shakers. 
Thus the Mount Lebanon community became the parent society 
of the Shakers and with its governing board originated the move- 
ment of planting colonies or communities in other states. 

This movement began in 1790 when-those of the Shaker faith 
residing about Hancock, Mass., were brought together as a society. 
The next year another Shaker community was started at Har- 
vard in the same state. February 10, 1792, the fifth society in 
this country was organized at Canterbury, under the guidance of 
Elder Job Bishop, Edmund Lougee, Hamiah Goodrich and Anna 
Burdick. The following year the Shakers at Enfield were gath- 
ered into one fold. Elder Bishop was given authority to unite 
the two societies at Canterbury and Enfield into the bishopric 
of New Hampshire. 

Associated with the early history of the Canterbury Shakers 
were such men as Zadoc Wright and Josiah Edgerly, by whose 
direct management and counsel the temporal concerns were 
gradually and harmoniously regulated, also Peter Ayers from 
Mount Lebanon, N. Y., Elder Henry Clough, John Wadleigh, 

View of Shaker Village. 

Shaker Bams. 



Francis Winkley and Joseph Sanborn. John Wadleigh and Peter 
Ayers were both Revolutionary soldiers. True to the Shaker 
faith which he espoused after the war was over, Mr. Wadleigh 
refused to apply or to receive a pension for his service m the 
army Peter Ayers was thirty-two years of age when he came to 
Canterbury, and there he spent the remainder of his long and use- 
ful life, dying an honored member of the Shaker fraternity m 
1857 at the advanced age of ninety-seven years. 

The order of elders and elderesses was estabhshed January 1, 
1794 by the appointment of Benjamin Whitcher, William Lougee 
Mary Hatch and Molly Drake. Mary Whitcher was chosen 
one of the directors of the secular interests of the society. 

Three f amihes were formed in process of time and were called 
the Whitcher, Wiggin and Sanborn families after the men who 
donated land to the community.^ Later they were known as the 
Church, the Second or Middle and the North families. 

The covenant, which constituted the membership contract 
was at first oral, but in 1796 it was committed to writing and 
signed voluntarily by every adult in the ranks. The first signa- 
tures were appended on May 12th and 16th and they were as 

^ ^^^" Benjamin Whitcher Ehzabeth Avery 

Ezekiel Stevens Anna Carr 

Francis Winkley Sarah Beck 

Micajah Tucker Molly Drake 

John Bishop Molly Cotton 

Josiah Corbett Hannah Beck 

John Fuller Nellie Tibbetts 

Jonathan Lougee Sarah Wright 

Peter Ayers Johanna 1 ietcher 

Timothy Jones Martha Wiggin 

Daniel Fletcher Sarah Go wen 

William Lougee Abigail Sanborn 

James Fletcher Amey Beck 

John Wadleigh Betty Muffett 

James Daniels Mercy Elkms 

Samson Merrill Comfort Smith 

Jeremiah Sanborn Abigail Wiggm 

Elijah Fletcher Mo ly Chase 

Zadock Wright Lydia Wright 

Josiah Edgerly Zilpha Whitcher 

Nathaniel Sleeper Rhoda Mills 
1 Benjamin Whitcher, Chase Wiggin and Joseph Sanborn. 


Benjamin Sanborn Lydia Sanborn 

IMoses Stevens Sally Sanborn 

Elijah Brown Dolly Lougee 

John Beck IMichal Parker 

Calvin Goodell Lydia Lougee 

Jesse Wright Lucy Williams 

Ezekiel Stevens, Jr. Anna Merrill 
Benjamin Whitcher, Jr. Elizabeth Cowden 

William Fletcher Ruth Stevens 

Josiah Lougee Betsey Lougee 

Clement Beck Rachael Parker 

James Johnson Lovej^ INIuffett 

Israel Sanborn Tabitha Williams 

John Whitcher Bettj" Lougee 

John Jewett Sall}^ Fletcher 

John Sanborn Hepzibah Williams 

Joseph Sanborn jNIahala Sleeper 

Mary Hatch Hannah IMuffett 

Sarah Winkley Hannah JXIerrill 

Mary Whitcher Sarah Drake 

Mother Ann Lee died in 1784, before there had been any formal 
organization of her followers. Her life had been too brief and 
her missionary labors too arduous to admit of her giving attention 
to such details, but she had gathered about her those who were 
abundantly equipped for this . work. Upon Father Joseph 
IMeacham this duty devolved. Having created the societies at 
Mount Lebanon and Watervliet, N. Y., he divided each community 
into orders or classes. The first or non-communal were those who 
received the faith and came into a degree of relation with the soci- 
ety but chose to live in their own families and manage their own 
temporal concerns. Thej^ were regarded as brethren and sisters in 
the gospel so long as they lived up to its requirements. Members 
of this class were not to be controlled by the society with regard 
to their property, families or children. They could act as freely 
in all these respects as members of other religious bodies. More- 
over such persons were admitted to all the privileges of religious 
worship and spiritual communion belonging to this order and also 
received instructions and counsel according to their needs when- 
ever they expressed a desire for it, and they might retain their 
union with the society, provided they did not violate the faith 
and the moral and religious principles of the institution. 

This non-communal class was, however, never numerous, except 
about New Lebanon, for, with the planting of Shaker colonies in 


other localities, the converts were brought almost immediately 
into membership with some society. 

The communal body of Shakers was divided into three classes, 
called families. At Canterbury, these took the names heretofore 
given. Just beyond the North Family, there stood for many 
years a farm house, painted red, which was the dwelling place for 
applicants seeking admission to the Shakers until they had become 
familiar with the obligations they were to take and had shown 
sufficient evidence of their sincerity to be admitted as members 
of the society. Then, they were taken into the North or novi- 
tiate family, which was composed of probationary members. 
These were under the special care, direction and instruction of 
resident elders, two of each sex, called Novitiate Elders. Here 
the probationer was fitted and prepared for advancement in 
Shakerism at the will of the candidate, or he was at liberty to 
leave the society if, after a full understanding of the requirements 
of the order, he did not find himself in sympathy. If a candidate 
was bound by the ties of matrimony to an unbelieving partner, 
he was refused admission, unless a separation was the mutual 
desire of both husband and wife or a legal separation had taken 
place. Under such circumstances, if the convert was a husband, 
he must before admission convey to his wife a just share of all his 
possessions. The probationer was required to sign a covenant in 
which he promised not to prefer any account, claim or demand 
against the society for the use of any money or property brought 
into the society nor for any labor or services performed while 
residing in the same. In this covenant, it was mutually agreed 
that he should be free to withdraw whenever dissatisfied and, upon 
giving sufficient notice, to receive all the money and other prop- 
erty which he brought into the society or their value at the time 
of his becoming a member. He also agreed to conform faith- 
fully to the rules of the organization and to refrain from acting 
or speaking in such a way as to create dissatisfaction, disunion or 
inharmony in the family. 

The Middle Family of the Canterbury society, while in exist- 
ence, corresponded to the second or junior family as organized 
by Father Meacham. It was composed of those who had come 
into the order under the same covenant as the probationer but 
untrammeled by the embarrassments of the matrimonial class and 
who were thus one step further advanced towards perfect Shak- 


erism. In this family, as well as in the novitiate, all were amply 
provided for in health, sickness and old age. Also they could 
retain lawful ownership of all their property so long as they 
desired, or they could donate the use of any part or all for the 
benefit of the family with which they were connected, or they 
could dedicate a part or the whole and consecrate it forever to 
the support of the association. While members of either of these 
two families, they had the privilege of resuming possession of 
their property at any time. 

The Church Family was the third or senior family. It was 
made up of those who had had sufficient time and opportunity to 
prove their faith in Shakerism and who were prepared to enter 
freely, fully and voluntarily into a united and consecrated inter- 
est. They covenanted to devote themselves and all they pos- 
sessed to the service of God and the support of the gospel forever, 
solemnly promising never to bring debt or damage claim or demand 
against the society for any property or service they might have 
devoted to the use and purpose of the community. It is to the 
credit of Shakerism that few if any of the number withdrawing 
have ever made a legal claim for the recovery of property brought 
to the society. Nor has any person upon notice of withdrawal 
been sent away empty handed.^ 

Today there are only the contract members and the covenant 
members. Beginners sign a contract for the protection of them- 
selves and the society. Later,' if they are satisfied to remain and 
embrace the faith, they subscribe to the covenant. There is 
neither novitiate nor second family at Canterbury. One family, 
the Church, embraces all who have signed the covenant. 

The central executive authority is vested in the ministry and 
elders, with the approval of the members. Each family in a soci- 
ety usually has an order of elders and elderesses who have super- 
vision of its spiritual affairs. Its domestic concerns are looked 
after by deacons and deaconesses, while trustees have charge of 
the general business of the society. All their positions of care 
and responsibility have been filled from the beginning in the same 
manner, women having everywhere equal privileges with men. 

"Great difficulty will be found," says Charles Edson Robinson, 
" in the attempt to separate the civil from the religious feature in 

» History of the Shakers, Charles Edson Robinson, with prefatory approval 
by Elder Henry Blinn of the Canterbury Shakers. 


Shakerism, for they go hand in hand and are inseparable. Indeed, 
were it not for the religious, the communistic feature would prove 
a failure, as have all other attempts in this direction which have 
neglected to ehminate selfishness, root and branch, and which 
have proved to be the great stumbling stone in the pathway of 
success." ^ 

He gives the following as the nine cardinal principles of 
Shakerism : 

1st. Purity in mind and body — a virgin life. 

2d. Honesty and integrity of purpose in all words and 

3d. Humanity and kindness to both friend and foe. 

4th. Diligence in business, thus serving the Lord. Labor 
for all, according to strength and ability, genius and circum- 
stances. Industrious, yet not slavish; that all may be busy, 
peaceable and happy. 

5th. Prudence and economy, temperance and frugality, 
without parsimony. 

6th. Absolute freedom from debt, owing no man anything 
but love and good will. 

7th. Education of children in scriptural, secular, and scien- 
tific knowledge. 

8th. A united interest in all things, — more comprehensive 
than the selfish relations of husband, wife and children, — the 
mutual love and unity of kindred spirits, the greatest and best 
demonstration of practical love. 

9th. Ample provision for all in health, sickness and old age; 
a perfect equality — one household, one faith, practicing every 
virtue, shunning all vice. 

Fifty years ago so much emphasis was laid by the curious 
minded upon the Shaker life of celibacy, their dress and the march- 
ing and dancing connected with their worship, that it was quite 
forgotten that from the beginning these people have exemplified in 
their lives the ''pure religion and undefiled" as defined by St. 
James. Their early followers were mostly drawn from the 
ranks of the lowly at a time when the barrenness of the Congrega- 
tional service, especially in New England, was unsatisfying. It 
was this very emotional testimony of the Shakers, with its joy 
expressed by the rhythmic movements of the body and by songs of 
praise, that impressed those to whom the wearisome, doctrinal 

1 History of the Shakers, Charles Edson Robinson, with prefatory approval 
by Elder Henry Blinn of the Canterbury Shakers. 


discourses of the pulpit were meaningless. That in the early days 
of proselyting the emotional features of the Shaker worship 
should be carried to excess by some of the followers, and that it 
should obscure from the public the teachings of the elders that 
Christianity consisted in living better lives, is not strange. As in 
other new faiths born about the same time, all of which were pro- 
tests against prevailing creeds, there was a tendency among 
ignorant converts to enlarge those characteristics that marked 
them from their fellowmen, while those who scoffed at the "new 
lights" laid stress upon the peculiarities of worship of all dis- 
senters. It was not so much what the new leaders of religious 
thought taught, as how they taught, and how their teachings 
affected those under conviction that engaged the attention of the 
general pubhc. 

In the writings of the Shakers, when speaking of the early 
days of their gathering, it is frankly admitted that zeal often- 
times outran discretion. Evolution with them, however, has 
ever been a leading principle of their belief, and a century of prog- 
ress has eliminated all the features, except celibacy and their 
communal life, that once stamped them as a peculiar people. 
Long before they gave up holding public meetings in Canter- 
bury their services on the Sabbath could not be distinguished 
from those of any other body of Protestant worshipers. It 
is, therefore, only because of its historical interest that a 
description of their forms of worship half a century ago is 

For many years the religious meetings of the Canterbury 
Shakers on Sunday were open to the public during the summer 
months. People came from far and near to attend these services. 
The broad avenue leading to the church was lined with carriages 
and frequently there was difficulty in finding a convenient place 
for the horses of visitors driven from Concord, Laconia, Tilton, 
and other localities. On a pleasant day the space in their church 
reserved for the public was crowded, the wooden benches, in the 
early days without backs, being all occupied, with many specta- 
tors standing throughout the service. A large number of people 
were drawn to these meetings out of curiosity. Yet there were 
few who were not impressed by the deep religious devotion of the 
Shakers. Occasionally some of the visitors were moved to speak, 
and these testimonies were always welcomed. 


The church building/ now no longer used for public rehgious 
purposes, stands on the right of the highway leading through the 
village as you approach from Concord, back several rods from 
the street. It is a plain, substantial structure, without internal 
ornamentation. There were two entrances for the pubhc, the 
men going in one door and keeping on that side of the building 
and the women using the other, the visitors as well as the Shakers 
being obliged to separate by sexes. At the tolling of the church 
bell the latter entered by a rear door, the brethren taking their 
seats on one side of the room and the sisters on the other. When 
the hour of service arrived all arose and the benches upon which 
they had been seated were removed from the center of the room. 
One of the elders now made a short exhortation. Then, to the 
inspiration of a lively hymn, all keeping time with their feet and 
a swaying motion of the body, they began to march, taking three 
steps forward and tapping three times, then with the same num- 
ber of steps marching backwards. This was continued through 
one or tAvo hymns, and it is the only approach to dancing that has 
entered into the Shaker service for more than sixty years. 

Resuming their seats, the elder in charge then made an address 
of from fifteen to twenty minutes. This differed in no respect 
from the ordinary sermon of the pulpit except that there was 
usually emphasis laid upon the necessity of withdrawing from 
the world in order to lead a life of virgin purity. 

The Shakers now arose and formed in Hues four abreast, and to 
the music of a hymn began to march in a circle around the room, 
the brethren leading and the sisters following. In this march, as 
in the former exercises, there was a waving movement of the hands 
by drawing inward, as if gathering in spiritual good and storing 
it up for the necessities of the week. Occasionally there was a 
clapping of hands in perfect concert, this being repeated several 
times in succession. In marching and countermarching, the 
worshipers frequently changed their positions, reducing their 
ranks to two abreast and finally to single file, when they formed 
in four circles with the singers as a common center. 

During this marching about the room, or at its close, it fre- 
quently happened that one or more of the sisters would go into a 
trance and, while in this condition, give testimony of the spiritual 

iThe meoting house frame was raised May 9, 1792. It was completed 
September 20 following. 


manifestations made to her. The service closed with the singing 
of hymns and a benediction from the presiding elder. The Shak- 
ers claim to be the original spiritualists, and this feature of their 
religion at a period prior to 1850 was quite prominent. It was 
owing to the tendency of some visitors to treat these spirit mani- 
festations of the worshipers with levity that public meetings were 
discontinued for a time during the early fifties. 

It was in 1870 that all semblance of dancing steps ceased, and a 
few years later the marching was discontinued. Then for a 
period of several years while the public meetings of the Shakers 
continued to be held, there was nothing in their exercises to dis- 
tinguish their services from the Congregational form of worship. 

However much in the early days of Shakerism the dancing may 
have been prominent in their devotion and to whatever excess it 
may have been carried by the zeal of converts, it had become be- 
fore 1850 a most impressive, even if a novel, part of their service. 
The sincerity of the worshipers was as marked in this as in the 
testimony given at their meetings. A devout observer saw in 
the dancing and marching nothing more than the peculiar expres- 
sion of a religious people of their faith in the teaching of their 
leader. To the stranger who came in the spirit of candid inquiry, 
the fact was not obscured by the novelty of their worship that the 
Shakers taught and exemplified in their lives the essence of true 
religion. They were honest in their dealings with their fellowmen 
and helpful in every good work. This has been their record from 
the beginning. 

Among those who were leaders of the Canterbury Shakers for 
the last quarter of the nineteenth century and who were well 
known to the public were Elder Henry Clay Blinn and Eldress 
Dorothy Ann Durgin. The former was one of the most lovable 
men of his day and generation. Of large figure, strong features 
and handsome presence, he would have commanded attention 
anywhere. His kindly manner, melodious tones and hearty 
greeting drew people to him in admiration and friendship. No 
one acquainted with him but felt his spiritual influence, and even 
a chance conversation impressed his auditor with the purity of 
Elder Blinn's thoughts and the nobleness of his aspirations. He 
was a preacher of great power. His speech had the easy flow 
and modulation so characteristic of Henry Ward Beecher, and 
his manner of delivery had in it other points of resemblance to the 


Brooklyn divine. While he seemed to use only the conversational 
tone, his rich musical voice penetrated every part of the room and 
his audiences were held in rapt attention. Although a self-edu- 
cated man and his language simple, he seemed the scholar as well 
as the thinker. Speaking without notes and as the spirit moved, 
he became at times eloquent. In later years when the Shakers 
held services in Concord and other towns contiguous to Canter- 
bury and again when occasionally Elder Henry appeared on the 
platform in behalf of some public benevolence, few speakers were 
as impressive. His whole life was a benediction to the circle in 
which he moved and his influence was felt throughout the town. 
He died April 1, 1905. 

Dorothy Ann Durgin for a period of forty-six years, with the 
exception of one year spent in the ministry, held the position of 
first eldress of the Church Family of the Canterbury Shakers, or 
until her death August 24, 1898. She was a woman of strong 
individuality, rare talent and deep spiritual nature. A speaker 
of no common power, her testimony was always heard at the 
public meetings of the society. She had also a musical gift, and 
hundreds of sacred songs composed by her were adopted by the 
Shakers. A book of five hundred pages containing many of her 
hymns and anthems has been published. 

Eldress Dorothy had a most fascinating personality. Intensely 
earnest, the expression of her face and the accent of her voice 
when speaking indicated, to use the words of one who frequently 
heard her, "a lofty, forceful and benignant person." She seemed 
at times almost imperious in her utterances, but, beneath this 
stateliness of manner, there was found upon acquaintance a warm 
and considerate disposition. A beloved leader of the Shakers, she 
enjoyed also the affectionate regard of a large circle of acquaint- 
ances outside of that society. Few public men and women at their 
demise have received such spontaneous tributes to their worth 
as appeared in the press when Elder Henry C. Blinn and Eldress 
Dorothy A. Durgin departed this life. 

Contemporaries of these two were Elder James Kaime, son of 
Elder John Kaime, Eldress Joanna J. Kaime and Mary Whitcher. 
Although not so well kno^wTi to the public as Elder Blinn 
and Eldress Durgin, they were nevertheless active in the affairs 
of the society, Elder Kaime being for a time at the head of its 
business interests. Their acquaintance extended beyond the 


Shaker circle, and they were well known by the people of 
Canterbury, by whom they were held in high esteem. 

Another member of the Shaker society at Canterbury who 
was perhaps better known to the world than any of his asso- 
ciates was David Parker. He was a man of unusual ability. 
A native of Boston, he joined the community at the age of 
ten years. The early maturity of his judgment led to his 
election as a trustee soon after he became of age. From that 
time until his death, he was not only the executive head of the 
Canterbury society but his counsel was sought by the Shaker 
communities in other parts of the country. At no time was 
the Canterbury body more prosperous than under his manage- 
ment. Shrewd and sagacious, he was considered one of the 
best business men of the state. He carried through many 
large undertakings and he was a tower of strength to the order 
in time of trouble and persecution. When but thirty-two years 
old he ably defended the Shakers before the New Hampshire 
Legislature and at his earnest request a searching investigation 
was made of the life and practices of this people, which resulted 
in their exoneration of all charges brought against them. This 
victory won by his courage and sagacity ended all attempts 
in this state to embarrass the .Shakers by hostile legislation. 
His death, which occurred January 20, 1867, in the sixtieth 
year of his age, was not only a loss to the Shakers, but to the 
town of Canterbury as well. 

The dress of this people half a century ago emphasized their 
separation from the world and attracted attention whenever 
they appeared in public. The men wore the broad brimmed 
hat, and clothes of a bluish shade cut in a uniform and unvarying 
style. The dresses of the women were of a grayish tint, full 
in the skirt with an unadorned waist. For a head covering 
they had the well-known Shaker bonnet for summer use and 
the warm hood for winter. Their Sunday costume in the sum- 
mer of 1854 is thus described by a visitor at one of their public 
meetings, "The adults and children were dressed nearly alike. 
The trousers of the brothers were of blue cloth with a wide 
stripe. The vest was of deeper blue, exposing a full bosomed 
shirt, with deep turned down collar, fastened with three buttons. 
The sisters had on pure white dresses, their necks and shoulders 
being covered with white kerchiefs. Their heads were crowned 


with lace caps, while over the left arm hung a pocket handker- 
chief. Their feet were ensconced in high-heeled, pointed-toe, 
cloth shoes of a brilhant ultramarine blue."^ 

For years the Shakers made their own cloth and dressed all 
alike. Now they find it more convenient and economical to 
purchase their garments. The dress of the men no longer 
distinguishes them from other people. The women adhere to 
the style of garments adopted in the earl}- years of the order, 
but greatly modified to conform to principles of hygiene and 
with a view to comeUness. The material of which they are 
made and their color varies according to the taste of the individ- 
ual. The Shaker bonnet, however, is still worn in the summer 
season. Except for the "yea" and "nay" of the speech and 
the style of dress of the women, there is little to distinguish the 
inhabitants of Shaker Village in' Canterbury from the people 
of any well-ordered and peaceful community. 

The Shakers have been from the beginning an industrious 
people. When they gathered at Benjamin Whitcher's, they 
were on the border of a wilderness. They cleared awaj' the 
forests, they turned their land into tillage, they broadened the 
acres under cultivation, and they built homes for themselves. 
The little water power which Nature had provided in this section 
of the town they developed. In 1800 a reservoir was constructed 
three miles north of the village, which was later enlarged. From 
this a canal was cut to carry the water into the pond east of the 
North Family. Then a small mill for the grinding of grain 
and sawing of lumber was erected at a point about 150 rods 
southeast from the meeting house. In 1834 this mill was 
removed and a larger one built on the same site. The new 
structure was two stories in height and its dimensions were eighty 
feet by forty. It was equipped with four run of stone, two 
bolts and a smut mill. At this date the facihties of the Shakers 
for grinding wheat and making fiour were equal to any in the 
state. Not only did they make flour for themselves, but their 
grist mill did service for their neighbors. Machinery for the 
turning and finishing of iron was placed in the second story of 
the building and workmen were hired from outside the community. 

New industries were added from time to time. When it 
ceased to be profitable to raise wheat, the society engaged in 

1 History of the Shakers, Charles Edson Robinson. 


the manufacture of washing machines and mangles. Later they 
made brass clocks, skimmers, ladles, copper teakettles, hair sieves 
and hats. They also tanned and curried leather and made 
boots and shoes for their own use. Dependent upon themselves 
for nearly all their supplies, they manufactured wool and cotton 
cards and wheels, wagons, wooden shovels shod with iron or 
steel, whips, hoes, scythes and tobacco boxes. They also raised 
their own garden seeds. The surplus of their productions they 
sold. Building a village, thej^ aspired to something more than 
frame buildings. In 1824 they began the manufacture of bricks 
and this became an industry of no small importance. Until 
mills and factories were concentrated in the larger centers, 
the Shaker Village of Canterbury was a busy hive of industry 
and their productions became famous as standard articles 
because of the excellence of their work. 

"Of the early industries of the Canterbury Shakers the most 
prominent was weaving," says Elder Henry Blinn in his reminis- 
cences. "In 1796 this was all done on hand looms. From a 
personal diary handed down by one of the sisters, Ruth Stevens, 
the following results are credited to the weavers of the society 
that year, \\'ide cloth 4,170 yards, binding 2,975 yards, tape 
1,140 yards. Carding was performed by hand until 1812. Spin- 
ning wheels and hand looms were used by the sisters until 1824, 
when the spinning jenny was introduced and power looms fol- 
lowed in 1842. Other means adopted for a livelihood were 
the manufacture of Shaker flannel from sheep raised in Shaker 
pastures, hand knit wool hose and underwear, also brooms, 
brushes, scythe snaths, rakes, boxes, chairs, tubs, pails, leather, 
candlesticks, etc. 

"Later butter and cheese were sold, also apple sauce and 
some medicine. It is recorded that in 1811 there was made 
by the Canterbury society 2,884 pounds of cheese. Among 
the medicines were witch hazel extract of more recent date and 
a good sarsaparilla prepared from a formula by Dr. Thomas 
Corbett, the only Shaker physician in New Hampshire." 

Blooded stock and dairy products were and are a source of 
revenue. Rugs, mats and fancy work, preserves and other 
products of the housewife's art furnished the women with a 
lucrative employment. The Dorothy Shaker cloak, so called 
from Eldress Dorothy A. Durgin, is known all over the country. 

Shaker Turning MiU and Pond. 

Shaker Cemetery. 


It is now stamped with their registered trade mark. The 
Shakers for a long time did a large business in the manufacture 
of knit underwear using knitting machines of the most approved 
pattern. At the present time they make sweaters. 

Few luxuries were enjoyed in the early days of the Canterbury 
society either in dress or food, though by economy a sufficiency 
for comfort was maintained. Tables were laid with wooden 
and pewter plates as late as 1807. The use of imported tea 
was countenanced in 1808, "liberty tea"^ having been previ- 
ously used as a beverage. The latter drink continued to be 
served for many years afterwards. The temperance move- 
ment in the society opened in 1802, and subsequently total 
abstinence took its rank as one of the standard regulations. 
The use of tobacco and snuff were discontinued soon after. 

The society early gave attention to the education of the 
youth committed to their care. Prior to 1823, when their 
school house was built, the children were regularly gathered in 
some building and instructed in the rudiments of learning. 
After the Shakers were included in a district by themselves and 
had control of the school money allotted to this district, they 
began to excel both in their methods of instruction and in the 
equipment of their school room. All through the public reports 
of the superintending school committees of the town are to be 
found commendations of the work of their teachers and the prac- 
tical interest of the society in promoting the welfare of the 
young. The meetings of the Educational Society of Canterbury 
and such gatherings as were called by the state and county 
boards to discuss school methods were always attended by a 
delegation of Shakers. 

The study of music has been a special feature in the instruc- 
tion of the Canterbury society. The attainments of its mem- 
bers have been marked and many of the most thrilling of the 
Shaker hymns have been their production. Abram Whitney, 
a teacher of music and for many years a Shaker of the commun- 
ity at Shirley, Mass., was the first person to urge systematic 
training in this accomplishment. He early came to Canter- 
bury and gave a few practical lessons. Speaking of the musical 
evolution of this society. Elder Henry C. Blinn says: 

» Made from Lysimachia slricta, a wild herb with a yellow flower. 


"The first attempt at singing in harmony was ventured in 
1845, but only melodies were permitted in worship. The first 
harmony was indeed a feeble attempt, as only a few words at 
the end of a line were furnished with a second row of notes and 
these were a third, fifth or eighth below the melody. At a later 
date Prof. Benjamin B. Davis of Concord was engaged to give 
a course of lessons to the singers. This new departure was more 
or less subject to criticism, but the round notes soon led to a 
deprecation of the other styles. From this time, interest in 
music steadily increased. 

"August 18th, 1870, Dr. Charles A. Guilmette, of Boston, 
was introduced to the society by Professor Davis, as a superior 
teacher of vocal music, both in theory and practice. He proved 
to be not only an accomplished vocalist, but an elocutionist 
and learned physician as Avell. A series of lectures bearing upon 
the vocal apparatus and the means of its development and 
culture opened a new era, as classes were soon formed for daily 
drills, of which the Doctor proved a wise and earnest teacher. 
Rehearsals for correct breathing and tone production multiplied, 
until the seed of interest was firmly planted in the minds of the 

"During these early visits, both Professor Davis and Doctor 
Guilmette broached the need of a musical instrument as imper- 
ative to aid the singing. This subject was urged until an agree- 
ment was reached by the leaders. A melodeon, or small cabinet 
organ, was the first musical instrument purchased, in November, 
1870. The first piano was brought into the community two 
years later by one of the members." 

As early as 1843 the Shakers began to do their own printing. 
That year they pubhshed the "Sacred Roll," the first book 
produced in Canterbury. Since then, a number of volumes 
have been issued from their printing office. From 1882 to 
1899, the Shaker Manijesto, a monthly paper, was edited 
and published by this society. 

The Shakers of this town have kept abreast of the times, 
availing themselves of all modern improvements. In the 
days of Elder Job Bishop, they traveled on foot or on horseback. 
Now they find automobiles essential to their business needs. 
The telephone connects them with the outside world. Daily 
newspapers and the better class of magazines are taken. The 
Shakers mingle more freely with the general public. At the 
fashionable resorts in summer, and at the hotels of the larger 
cities in winter, the sisters are frequently seen seUing the 


products of their handiwork. Visitors at the Canterbury society 
are welcome. 

The same equahty of the individual which pertains to the 
daily life of the Shakers is observed in death. For years their 
cemetery had its rows of small uniform headstones mth brief 
inscriptions, and there was no distinction between the elder 
and the humble follower. In 1900 these were removed and 
there was erected a monument of granite, a square block, on 
which is inscribed the single word "Shakers." This was the 
gift of Mrs. Anita Porter (Shaw) Singer, a summer resident 
of Canterbury, whose home is two miles north of the village 
at Hill's Corner. 

The Rev. William Patrick, strong in his religious conserv- 
atism, speaking of this community in 1833, said, "The people 
called Shakers^ established their society in the eastern part of 
this town about 1782. Whatever may be said of their enthu- 
siasm and eccentricities at the beginning, they have now settled 
down in regular order and however deluded on the subject of 
religion we may and must view them, they are still peaceful and 
industrious citizens." 

This testimony from an orthodox minister of the old school 
who probably questioned fully as much the Uberality of the 
Shaker faith as he did the emotional character of their worship, 
is not the earliest tribute to their citizenship. The}' were 
publicly thanked by the town a year earlier for their gifts to 
the poor and several times in the years immediately follo-s\dng 
for their beneficence. 

The relations of the townspeople with the society for more 
than three quarters of a century have been most cordial. Except 
the vote in regard to their performing military duty and a refusal 
of the town for several years to permit them to become a school 
district by themselves, there is no record of conflict between 
the Shakers and the inhabitants of Canterbury. In no section 
of the country has this people met with less antagonism from 
the beginning than here, and in no town where a colony was 
planted has greater respect been shown to them or higher appre- 
ciation expressed of their conduct as citizens, neighbors and 

' They gathered at Benjamin Whitcher's about 1782, but the society was not 
organized until 1792. 



"hireling priest," THE DOCTOR AND THE LAWYER. CHARAC- 
TER OF Osgood's followers, their Sunday services, pro- 
tests voiced in prayer, exhortation and song, simplic- 
ity of their burial service, quaint hymns and epitaphs. 

Although originating in Warner, this rehgious sect had at one 
time as influential a following in Canterbury as in the former 
town. Around Zion's Hill the Osgoodite families resided and on 
this hill was the burial place of their dead. On the tombstones 
are inscribed their tenets of faith in tributes to the departed. In 
a few years these inscriptions will have become obscure even if 
the stones remain standing. Not a follower of the faith now 
remains, the last one, Sally Grover, dying a few years ago. In the 
Merrimack County History ^ Fred Myron Colby gives the follow- 
ing account of the origin of the Osgoodites and of the characteris- 
tics of their leader: 

"The religious sect known by this name first made themselves 
prominent about the year 1814. The founder was one Jacob 
Osgood, son of Philip Osgood, one of the early settlers of the town. 
He was an enthusiast, a powerful singer and of much skill in 
repartee. In the early part of this century he took an active 
part with the Freewill Baptists. Naturally ambitious and head- 
strong, he was disposed to be autocratic, and, as some of his 
religious views were not strictly conservative, he was not ap- 
proved by them as a leader. He then opposed them, claiming 
a special power from the Almighty and announcing that he was 
a prophet and could heal the sick and was a sort of vicegerent. He 
was opposed to going to law, to performing military duty and 
supporting preachers. For sometime his followers increased about 
Mink Hill,^ the Gore,- Sutton and vicinity. There were also 
about thirty families in Canterbury led by Josiah Haines. Dur- 

1 F&ge 663. 

2 In Warner. 


ing two or three years subsequent to 1830 the Osgoodites held 
great revival meetings, one of which was on Kearsarge Mountain. 
Their singing and peculiar service attracted many hearers. The 
hymns sung by them were usually of their own composition. Songs, 
prayers and exhortations were intermixed in their services without 
any regularity. Osgood's custom was to sit in his chair and 
preach with both eyes shut and one hand on the side of his face. 
He was a very large man physically, weighing over three hundred 
pounds. He died in 1844, and Nehemiah Ordway and Charles H. 
Colby became the ruling elders. They were an honest, upright 
people in their dealings with others, but sometimes dishonorably 
treated by the officers of the law." 

Jacob Osgood was born in South Hampton, March 16, 1777, and 
he moved with his parents to Warner when he was about twelve 
years old. In his ''Christian Experience," a little pamphlet 
containing the story of his life, and the songs of the Osgoodites, 
published in 1867, he says that, owing to the poverty of his par- 
ents, they could not give him " much learning." He describes his 
thoughts of " God and Heaven " and the " devil and hell " from the 
time he was fourteen years of age until his final conversion in 
October, 1805, when he was called to preach. His troubles then 
began with ministers and members of existing churches and with 
the civil authorities. "I began to speak in the meeting house in 
Warner where I was brought up," he says, "but they soon began 
to stamp and rap. At length one of them took hold of me. I 
asked the pharisee if he was not afraid that God would strike him 
dead, and his hand fell off of me and he looked pale as a ghost, 
trembling. They told me then that they should present me before 
the rulers. I told them I was willing to die for the Lord Jesus. 
The clergy pharisee then asked me what my principles were. I 
told him I had none. But he said he never saw such a Christian 
before. I must have a principle. I told him I loved God with all 
my heart and my neighbor as myself. But this would not do, I 
must have something more for a foundation. I then began to be 
scared and thought I must own Calvinism, but God told me to 
own what I knew . . . 

"The Freewillers were for the most part in the power of God 
then, of any people I knew, and I joined the church, but the 
elders soon began to find fault with my testimony yet they never 
could tell what was wrong. ... At length God led me 


out of town meetings and trainings, but the churches were all 
in them, believing in politick religion, fighting and kilhng one 
another. ... At length, I found that all of the churches 
were going back into Egypt and the world, voting for elders to 
become law makers instead of gospel preachers. I then had to 
prophesy against them, and persecution came hot against the 
church in Warner. Even my own relation would turn me out 
of doors. . . . But we had heavenly meetings and we kept 
that faith which was delivered unto the saints, to heal the sick 
by the laj'ing on of our hands, which made the hypocrites awful 
mad, and the doctors would swear, and the lawyers would swear 
also, for we put the woe on lawyers. The gospel leads people 
to pay their debts without lawj'ers, and it troubles merchants 
and all other craftsmen. ... 

"We healed the sick by faith in Christ. One girl in Canter- 
bury had the consumption and her father had paid four hundred 
dollars to doctors and the}' gave her up and said she must die, 
but we laid our hands on her and cried to God, and she was healed 
and got up from her bed and was whole. One pharisee woman 
told her to give God the glory for Osgood was a sinner. It 
was awful work among the friends of this world and pharisees, 
for they trusted in doctors, and lawyers and ministers. " 

The foregoing indicates wherein Osgood and his followers were 
in conflict ^N'ith the churches and wdth society. The ministers, 
lawyers, doctors and merchants all came in for their denunciation. 
Tj'pical of their hostility to the world about them is their "Pick- 
pocket Hymn" from which the following verses are quoted: 

"There are pickpockets all around, 
A-talking very fair; 
Look out or they will steal your teeth 
And then they'll shear your hair. 

"The priests will pick, I tell j'ou now 
The doctors they'll pick some; 
The lawyers will pick whenever they can 
When to your town they come. 

" The merchants they -v^-ill pick too, 
If round their stores you lay; 
They'll sell their goods as cheap as dirt 
And trust you for their pay. 

"But after j^ou have gone awhile 
And thinking of no harm; 
They'll have a mortgage on your goods, 
Your cattle or your farm. 


"The rulers are picking now, 
And if I rightly guess 
They'll pick so close before they're done 
You'll greatly be distressed." 

In 1820, at a time when the state law required all able-bodied 
men to train for service in the militia, the Osgoodites refused to 
respond. Not paying the fines levied against them, Jacob Osgood 
and some of his followers were put in jail. This confinement, 
however, was welcomed as a martyrdom to their faith. 

In proselyting, they were obtrusive and oftentimes offensive, 
writing into hymns and songs their prejudices against customs and 
individuals. At meetings held largely in school houses, the Os- 
goodites spoke with unlicensed freedom of the faults of neighbors, 
and there was no hesitancy on their part to comment openly upon 
the failings of any wayward individual who happened to be pres- 
ent. Sustained by an almost fanatical zeal, they gloried in the 
opposition provoked by this method of "proclaiming the truth." 
The "hireling priest" was an especial abomination to them, and 
all existing forms of worship received their condemnation. A 
few intelligent people became Osgood's converts, but his followers 
were mostly men and women of limited education whose environ- 
ment had been circumscribed and whose testimony voiced the 
narrowness of their lives. The character of their songs, which 
were crudely and sometimes vulgarly worded, and the frank 
criticism they made of the shortcomings of others, attracted the 
curious to the Osgoodite meetings, where laughter and ribald 
interruptions sometimes greeted the speakers. 

As individuals, the Osgoodites were honest in their dealings, 
good neighbors and, except when their beliefs conflicted with con- 
stituted authority, obedient citizens. While Mr. Osgood lived, 
they kept their members intact, but after his death there were no 
new accessions, and they gradually dwindled in strength. Along 
in the seventies, their meetings in the vicinity of Canterbury were 
held only twice a year, in the spring and fall, and, before 1890, 
they had ceased altogether. 

As illustrating their peculiarities, a brief reference to a gath- 
ering held in a school house at Northfield in the spring of 1871 
will suffice. It was just after the election of James A. Weston, 
Democrat, as governor of the state. Only five Osgoodites 
were present, but the room was filled with spectators. In 


addition to the desks in the school room, extra seats were pro- 
vided by putting boards upon blocks of wood. Soon after the 
service was opened, Elder Charles H. Colby, referring to the 
recent Democratic victory, thanked God for turning the "black 
legs" (Republicans) out and putting the "hunkers" (Demo- 
crats) in. "Now," said the speaker, "we shall have a good 
apple crop and plenty of cider. The Republicans have had 
prohibition in this state and God has cursed the apple trees, 
so that they have borne but little fruit for years. You can 
see His pleasure in the defeat of the 'black legs' in the boun- 
tiful blossoming of the apple trees. It has been very difficult 
in years past to do our haying without cider." 

In spite of this protest against prohibition, the Osgoodites 
were an abstemious people, using no liquors unless it was cider 
and that in the most moderate quantity. Their political 
preferences as here voiced signified nothing, as they did not 
believe in voting or holding office. 

The prayers on this occasion were conversations with the 
Lord, in which He was advised rather than supplicated for 
His help. When speaking, their talks were a mixture of prayer 
and exhortation, the one running into the other. Upon invitation 
from the audience, particular songs composed by them were 
sung, while Elder Colby and the others answered all inquiries 
addressed to them by the spectators upon any subject whether 
pertinent to the occasion or not. While there was no attempt 
to discredit the worshipers, the audience regarded the meeting 
as an entertainment rather than a religious service, and those 
present familiar with the sect sought to develop all the oddities 
of this people by questions as to their belief on a variety of 
subjects. All inquiries were treated by them seriously and 
readily answered. 

The garments of the Osgoodites were as peculiar as their 
religious professions, especially those of the women. The 
dresses were cut straight and were entirely plain. Across the 
shoulders they wore a white kerchief and on the head a linen 
bonnet in the summer and a woolen hood in the winter. 
The dressing of the hair conformed to the plainness of the 
clothes. The garments of the men were not so strikingly odd 
as those of the women, but they resolutely refused to conform 
to the styles of their generation. They wore their hair long 


and unkempt as showing their contempt for the fashions of 
the day. 

Sally Grover, the last survivor, had a habit of calling at 
homes, where she was acquainted, near the meal hour. Being 
invited to the table, she took occasion in prayer to admonish 
members of the household. Her supplications did not pre- 
cede the repast but broke out at any time during the meal 
that the spirit moved. At one home where the wife was not 
a favorite with Sally, she emphasized her rebuke of the mother 
by telling the Lord that the husband or father was "a just 
man and feared God." 

The austerity of their lives was carried into the rites for the 
dead. The coffin inclosing the remains was usually of white 
pine and unpainted, with no finish or decoration of any kind 
and often made by a neighboring carpenter. During the serv- 
ice, in prayer, exhortation and hymn, the fact that there was 
no pomp or display shown for the departed was frequently 
referred to, as were the other facts that neither doctor nor 
"hireling priest" attended the deceased. 

Among the quaint inscriptions on the headstones that mark 
the graves on Zion's Hill are the following: 

"Here lies Phebe, vnie of David Ames, who was a succorer 
of many and Brother Osgood also. She died October 30, 1838." 

"Here beneath these marble stones 
Sleeps the dust and rests the bones 

Of one who lived a Christian Life. 

'Twas Hannah Haines, Josiah's wife. 
She was a woman full of truth. 
And feared God from early youth. 

And priests and elders did her fight 

Because she brought her deeds to light." 

" Josiah. 
He was a blessing to the saints, 

To sinners rich and poor. 
He was a kind and worthy man. 

He's gone to be no more. 
He kept the faith unto the end 

And left the world in peace. 
He did not for a doctor send 

Nor for a hireling priest." 



Provision for the school master and the school house was con- 
temporaneous in the provincial laws of New Hampshire with the 
authority given to tax the inhabitants for the support of the min- 
istry and for the building of houses of worship. When the prov- 
ince was included in the Dominion of New England in 1686 
under Gov. Joseph Dudley, it was ordered that "all contracts, 
agreements or orders for the support of ministers and school 
masters" be continued in full force. ^ 

In 1693, after New Hampshire again became a separate prov- 
ince, selectmen were directed to raise money "for the building 
and repairing of meeting houses, minister's houses, school houses 
and allowing a salary to a school master in each town."' Although 
this act was vetoed by the Queen in 1706 on account of its liberal 
provision for the support of the ministry, it was reenacted in 

That education should be compulsory and that towns should 
have no excuse for neglecting to provide by pubhc taxation for the 
instruction of children, an act was passed May 2, 1719, which 
provided that "every town having the number of 50 householders 
or upwards shall be constantly provided of (with) a school master 
to teach children and youth to read and write, and when any town 
or towns have the number of 100 families or householders, there 

» Laws of N. H., 1679-1702 (Batchellor), page 115. 

> Idem, page 560. 

« Idem, pages 867, 868. 


shall also be a grammar school set up & kept in every such town, 
and some discreet person of good conversation well instructed in 
the tongues shall be procured to be master thereof, every such 
school master to be suitable encouraged and paid by the inhabi- 
tants." ^ 

If any town neglected for the space of six months to procure 
such a school master, it incurred a penalty of £20 for every con- 
viction upon complaint made, the fine to go to the support of 
schools within the province "where there may be most need." 
Any town which regarded itself incapable of complying with this 
act could appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for 

All of these provisions for schools antedated the granting of the 
charter for the township of Canterbury in 1727. The first 
reference in the proprietors' records to this subject was in 1754. 
At the annual meeting that year there was an article in the war- 
rant "to see if the town will raise money to keep a school for the 
education of the children and youth of Canterbury and how much 
money." There is no record that this article was acted upon at 
the meeting. It is doubtful if there were fifty householders in 
town at that time. 

Four years later at the annual meeting March 16, 1758, there 
was an article in the call for the meeting "To see if the town this 
year or any part of the year will have a town school for the instruc- 
tion and education of their children and to see what method they 
will take for regulating the same." 

Among the votes recorded at that meeting is the following: 
"Voted £200 old tenor for the benefit of schooling the children, 
and that each Fort's people shall enjoy the benefit of their own 
money in their own Fort." 

This vote explains why no earlier action was taken by the in- 
habitants to provide for schools. Being a frontier town, the peo- 
ple were menaced by the Indians during most of the years of the 
early settlements and they were not without apprehension until 
after the French were driven out of Canada. At the time this 

1 Province Laws Vol. I., page 240. In 1721, the act of 1719 was amended 
and its operation extended and made more explicit. Laws, Ed. of 1771, page 
163. See also act of 1771, Laws, Ed. of 1771, page 260. The act of June 18, 
1789, Laws, Ed. of 1792, page 275, is a new school act repealing all provisions 
of previous dates. See also act of 1714, Laws, Ed. of 1625, page 140. Idem, 
Laws, Ed. of 1771, page 163 Idem, 260. 


vote was passed, the English and French were in a life and death 
struggle for the possession of Canada, and Quebec was not cap- 
tured until a year later, in 1759. Hence the provision that "each 
Fort's people shall enjoj' the benefit of their owti money in their 
own Fort." The forts or stockades were the only safe places 
where the children could be assembled. 

Prior to 1758, such instruction as the children had must have 
been given at the fireside by the parents, though it is not unlikely 
that the Rev. James Scales, the first minister in town of whom 
there is record, combined with his pastoral duties the imparting 
of knowledge to the j^oung. He was a man of varied attainments, 
being a teacher, phj'sician and survej'or as well as a minister.^ 
Mr. Scales came to Canterbury in 1742 and did not remove 
to Hopkinton until 1757. As he was a public spirited citizen, he 
may have met conditions as he found them in Canterbury by 
combining the duties of pastor and school teacher. 

From 1758 until late in 1762 the town records are silent on the 
subject of schools and presumably no appropriation was made for 
the maintenance of one, as after 17'49 the town clerk was a resi- 
dent of Canterbury and the register of the transactions at to-WTi 
meeting was quite full and complete. 

At a special town meeting held December 27, 1762, £500 old 
tenor was appropriated for the "support of a school," and it was 
"voted that the selectmen provide a school master to teach said 
school and order in what parts of the towm said school shall be 

After the apprehension of Indian raids had subsided, the school 
was kept at the dwellings of the inhabitants, and in time a special 
room in some of the houses was set apart for this purpose. Tradi- 
tion has it that these school rooms were not always the best that 
the house afforded, one being located, it is said, so near to a hog 
pen that the grunting of these animals frequently disturbed the 
teacher and pupils. In 1765, the town voted four months' school- 
ing for the year ensuing, two months to be kept in the winter and 
two months in the summer "half of the time at John Dolloff's and 
the other half at William Glines." 

The inhabitants at this date were distributed over the three 
present towns of Canterbury, Loudon and Xorthfield, for Loudon 
was not created a separate township until 1773 and Xorthfield was 

1 See Chapter I. 


not set off until 1780. In 1767, a town school of six months was 
provided and the people east of Soucook River were to "have 
their part of the schooling voted at this meeting." The teachers 
did not always receive cash payments for their services, for in 
1768 and later it was provided that the school and town rates 
"should be paid in such things as the people raise." Currency 
was scarce and the products of the town were legal tender for pay- 
ment of the taxes. The school master at the end of his term was 
fortunate if the selectmen had turned the Indian corn which was 
delivered to them by the inhabitants for schoohng rates into 
currency with which to pay him. If the people of Canterbury 
were no more prompt in paying their school rates than they were 
in paying the minister tax, the school master may have had to do 
his own collecting from house to house. 

"In the early settlements of this place," says the Rev. William 
Patrick, "the opportunity for the improvement of the rising 
generation was very limited. For several years we find no traces 
of a school. Indeed, the inhabitants had not the means. Good 
instructors were not easily to be found, and, if they had been, the 
people were not able to defray the expense. Still, the children 
were not left wholly in ignorance. Parental instruction together 
with the perseverance of the children enabled some to acquire the 
rudiments of science. It is not a little surprising to see with what 
facility and accuracy the public business of the town has been 
done by the children of the first generation."^ 

The first teacher mentioned in the records of the proprietors is 
"Master Mooney." This was in 1772 when he is referred to as 
teaching school at the east side of the Soucook River in Loudon. 
That town was set off from Canterbury the next year. In 1797 a 
"Master Obadiah Mooney" was one of a committee appointed by 
the town to inspect schools. The United States Census of 1790 
shows Obadiah Mooney to be the head of a family in Canterbury 
that year, his family consisting, besides himself, of one male under 
sixteen and three females. As "Obadiah" Mooney is several 
times mentioned as a school inspector, it is very probable that the 
identity of one of the first, if not the first, school master in Canter- 
bury is established. Whether he came to the town originally as 
a settler and took up teaching as incidental to his work of clearing 

I Historical Sermon by Rev. William Patrick, October 27, 1833. 


a homestead or was drawn to the settlement by its desire for a 
school master and later became an inhabitant is not known. 

In the call for a town meeting October 17, 1774, were articles 
"To see if the freeholders and inhabitants will vote to have the 
school stationed at one place for the space of eighteen months for 
the benefit of the inhabitants living south of Scoonduggady Pond 
and if so to agree upon a place where the said school shall be 

"To see if the inhabitants will vote that the inhabitants liv- 
ing within a mile and a half of said stationed place shall erect a 
school house at their own expense. 

"To see if the inhabitants living north of Scoonduggady Pond 
shall have their school money among themselves." 

Upon all of these articles the town acted as follows: 

"Voted the school of this town be stationed at one place eigh- 
teen months from our next annual meeting, exclusive of those 
inhabitants living above Scoonduggady Pond. 

"Voted that the stationed place for the above school house is 
at or near wliere the meeting house road and the mill road cross 
each other. 

"Voted that the inhabitants of this town living above Scoon- 
duggady Pond have the benefit of their school money laid out 
among themselves at the discretion of the selectmen." 

There is a question as to the location of Scoonduggady Pond. 

The History of Northfield identifies it with Chestnut Lake in 
the easterly part of that town, from which the Tilton and North- 
field Water Precinct draws its water supply.^ If this is the body 
of water referred to in the Canterbury records, then some of the 
inhabitants of the " Northfields " living south of the pond sent 
their children some distance to school. Another theory is that 
Scoonduggady Pond was situated north of the present Northfield 
railroad station and is synonymous with the pond known as Sun- 
duggady. In 1774, when the foregoing votes were passed, there 
were very few inhabitants in the easterly part of the present towns 
of Canterbury and Northfield, the settlements being mainly in the 
western section, the intervales along the Merrimack River being 
the earliest land to be cultivated, later settlers pushing eastward. 
Equal doubt exists as to the location of the school south of this 
pond. The description "at or near where the meeting house road 

» History of Northfield, Part II, page 208. 


and the mill road cross each other" is indefinite to the present 
inhabitants of Canterbury. A "mill road" did not necessarily- 
mean at that time a regularly laid out highway'. There were sev- 
eral streams in town upon which sawmills were built before 1774. 
There is a tradition of a school house located on the right hand 
side of the highway from the Center to Canterburj^ Depot, about 
two thirds of the distance from the Center to the Billy E. Pillsbury 
house, or where the Capt. Jeremiah Clough Fort stood. This 
would have accommodated the residents of Canterbury at that 
time and those who resided in the southwestern part of what is 
now Northfield. That part of the original town embraced within 
the limits of Loudon had been made a separate township the year 
before. If a school house was built at that time it was erected at 
the expense of the people benefited by this location, namely, those 
south or below Scoonduggady Pond. There is no subsequent 
reference in the records to this school or to any school house sit- 
uated as this is described. It was at least fifteen years later before 
the subject of school houses was again brought to the attention of 
the voters.^ 

The period of the Revolution was to intervene, and, as has been 
seen in Chapter V, the resources of the people were taxed to the 
utmost to answer the calls of the state government for men and 
supplies. From 1774 to 1779 there is no reference to schools in 
the town records. In the latter year there was voted at the annual 
meeting SI, 000 for schooling, but the size of this appropriation 
shrinks when at the same meeting it is seen that $4,000 was voted 
for highways to be worked out at the rate of S8 per day per man. 
The dollar of that period was of the depreciated currency of a 
government whose independence was not yet established. 

In the warrant for a town meeting held December 19, 1782, is 
an article "To see if the town ^^all raise money for a town school, 
as we expect to be complained of for neglect." 

There was a penalty for not maintaining a grammar school, as 
Canterbury had at this time at least one hundred householders or 
families. With a shrewdness characteristic of the early settlers, 
they sought to evade the consequence of their laches by calling a 
meeting in December and then voting, "not to hire a town school 

» The Rev. William Patrick says in his historical sermon that the first school 
house was built in 1781. This may refer to a school house of which there is 
tradition near the residence of John P. Kimball. 


the present year, it being so near the end of the year." There was 
no refusal to comply with the law, but rather a disposition shown 
by this vote to conform to its requirements if the season had not 
been so late, leaving the inference to be drawn that another year 
the subject would receive their attention. What was done, if any- 
thing, at the next annual meeting does not appear in the records, 
but March 18, 1784, Deacon Asa Foster, David Foster, Samuel 
Gerrish, Abraham Durgin, John Bean and Leavitt Clough were 
chosen a committee "to divide the school keeping into classes in 
this town." The term classes was but another name for districts, 
as in 1786 it was "voted that the schools shall be kept this year in 
the several parts of the town in classes and for every class to pro- 
vide their own teachers and have the benefit of their own money." 
The town included only such territory as is now embraced in the 
present limits of Canterbury, the "North fields" having been set 
off as a township in 1780. 

During the latter part of the provincial period, the towns had 
become deplorably negligent in providing for the maintenance of 
schools. In his message to the Assembly December 14, 1771, 
Governor John Wentworth felt called upon to direct the attention 
of that body to existing conditions in emphatic terms. He said, 
"Among other important considerations the promoting of learn- 
ing very obviously calls for legislative care. The insufficiency of 
our present laws for this purpose must be too evident, seeing nine 
tenths of your towns are wholly without schools or have such 
vagrant foreign masters as are much worse than none, being for 
the most part unknown in their principles and deplorably 

The difficulty, however, was not in the insufficiency of the stat- 
utes, as the governor states, but in the disposition to evade them. 
Maurice H. Robinson in his "Monograph on the History of Tax- 
ation in New Hampshire"^ referring to this subject says: 

"Notwithstanding the excellence of the school law as perfected 
in 1721, the evidence indicates that public taxation for schools was 
irregular in kind and uncertain in amount. The town of Chester 
in 1748 voted 'that the town defend and secure the selectmen from 
any damage they come at for not providing a grammar school.' 
Again in 1756 the same town was warned by an 'express from the 

•American Economic Association, August, 1902, pages 177 to 179. 


court' to provide a grammar school and thereupon voted 'to fulfill 
and answer the interests of law if possible.' 

"Amherst, another of the leading towns, shows a similar record. 
The town was incorporated in 1762. There were then 110 tax 
payers and the largest tax paid by a single individual was £46, 18s. 
3c?. Yet in the years 1763, 1765 and 1766, no mention was made 
of any effort to secure an appropriation for schools. In 1764, 1767 
and 1769, the town refused to vote a tax for that purpose. Finally 
the selectmen were in danger of being 'presented' for neglect of 
duty, and on the 12th of December 1769 the town voted to 'keep 
a school a part of this year.' " 

The Revolution followed the change from province to state, and 
the people were too fully occupied by the pressing calls for troops 
and supplies to give attention to schools. It was not, therefore, 
until after peace was declared with Great Britain and the state 
government w^as firmly established that the authorities could 
properly enforce existing statutes for the maintenance of schools 
or the legislature find time to improve them by amendment. 
The vote of Canterbury in December, 1782, "not to hire a town 
school the present year, it being so near the end of the year" was 
merely in keeping with the spirit of the times and almost 
identical with the vote of Amherst, December 12, 1769, to "keep 
a school a part of this year." 

At the annual meeting March 19, 1789, the first attempt at 
supervision of the schools was made. Asa Foster, Laban Morrill, 
Benjamin Blanchard, Joseph Ayers, Samuel Gerrish and James 
Lyford were chosen a committee "to inspect the school classes 
and the spots where each school house shall stand." If this com- 
mittee was appointed to locate school house sites, another five 
years was to elapse before the town took action to erect school 

In 1793, a town meeting was called "to see what method the 
town will take for building convenient school houses in town." 
No action was taken, but the number of classes was fixed at five. 

At the annual meeting in 1794, it was voted to build six school 
houses and "leave it with the selectmen to determine the places 
where they were to be built." The town appropriated £150 old 
tenor for this purpose and the selectmen were authorized to "lay 
out so much of said sum on each house as is paid by the persons 
rated in each class on the house belonging to that class." 


The location of some of these school houses is shown by the 
record of a subsequent town meeting. There was dissatisfaction 
with the location of two of the buildings, those for the "South 
Class" and the " North Meeting House Class." After recon- 
sidering the vote by which they were authorized, it ivas voted in 
July, 1794, "to have one a small distance north from the old 
meeting house ^ and the other near Wilham Moore." 

The location of a third school house was at Hill's Corner at the 
junction of the highways leading therefrom to Hackleborough and 
to Tilton. It is known that the first school house in this locahty 
was destroyed by fire. At the annual meeting in 1795, the town 
voted £10 old tenor towards building a school house in the 
northeast part of the town where one was lately burned " The 
Hill's Corner District had at this time a considerable number of 

In 1796, Joseph Clough was chosen inspector of schools The 
next year Obadiah Mooney, Joseph Ham, Leavitt Clough Asa 
Foster, Joseph Ayers and Shubael Sanborn were elected In 

1798, these inspectors were Samuel Gerrish, Joseph Ham, Leavitt 
Clough, WilHam Forrest, David Foster and Asa Foster, Jr. 

The inspectors of school classes were probably prudential offi- 
cers with a general oversight of the schools. They may have 
engaged the teachers for the different classes, and, after school 
houses were built, they may have looked after the buildings. In 

1799, the selectmen, the town clerk and the Rev. Frederick 
Parker were made " general inspectors of the schools of the town. " 
Ihen later at the same meeting Lieut. Samuel Haines, Col. Jere- 
miah Clough, William Forrest, Enoch Emery, Leavitt Clough 
and Moses Cogswell were elected "a joint committee with the 
atoresaid selectmen, town clerk and Rev. Mr. Parker " and the 
committeemen were empowered "to call class meetings in their 
respective districts" and "to give their respective school masters 
caution not to leave the school houses at night till the fires are 
extinguished or taken a proper care of." One school house had al- 
ready burned, perhaps through carelessness in not attending to the 
fire when school was dismissed, and others may have beenm enaced 
with destruction from the same cause. Hence the necessity for 
instruction and caution to both school master and pupils, for the 

. 'This was the meeting house at the Center. It was caUed the "nlH m^Pf 
mg house" to distinguish it from the North Meeting^use at HackletorS: 

^^*''^rr^ ^' 

'■ •*'.'; AJXIj^-^" '"•" 

First type of School House, 1794. 





1 1"* 





The Red School House, 1843. 


larger boys probably took turns building the fire in the morning 
and banking it at night. 

At the annual meeting in 1800, it was "voted that the money- 
raised over and above what the law obliges may be laid out in 
women's schools by those districts which desire it." The next 
year a similar vote was passed. As early as 1767 there was an 
article in the warrant of the annual meeting "to see if the inhabi- 
tants settled in the southeasterly side of Soucook River ^ have a 
school dame if the major part of them think best." If any action 
was taken on this article, it is not recorded. 

The "'school dame" in New England at this date referred to 
women employed to teach girls who were not generally admitted 
to grammar schools until towards the close of the eighteenth 
century. In some instances the "school dame" taught a primary 
school for boys and girls, the boys graduating to the grammar 
school while the girls stopped there with their education. There is 
little evidence that the people of colonial days considered the 
education of their daughters as important. "Doubtless in the 
home many of them became familiar with at least the first two of 
the 'three R's' and occasionally a girl in some of the larger settle- 
ments seems to have prevailed upon some fortunate brother of 
grammar school privileges to share with her his knowledge of the 
third, but such cases were extremely rare." ^ 

In marked contrast with the people of other New England colo- 
nies, the settlers of New Hampshire very early made provisions 
for the coeducation of the sexes. "When the town of Hampton 
engaged John Legat as school master in 1649, it was for 'all the 
children . . . both male and female (which are capable of 
learning to write, read and cast accounts'). And when Dover in 
1658 voted to raise £20 a year for the support of a teacher, it was 
distinctly stated that it was for 'all the children' within the town- 
ship."^ The action of the town of Hampton appears to have 
been the first attempt in New England to give equal opportunity 
for education to boys and girls. 

In Portsmouth in 1773 the selectmen employed David McClure 
to take care of a girls' school, and he makes this interesting note 
in his diary: 

1 Loudon. 

•Dexter, History of Education in the U. S., pages 424 and 425. 

'Idem, page 52. 



"Opened school consisting the first day of, about 30 Misses. 
Afterward they increased to 70 and 80; so that I was obhged to 
divide the day between them and half came in the forenoon and 
the other half in the afternoon. They were from seven to twenty 
years of age. ... I attended to them in reading, writing, 
arithmetic and geography principally. This is, I believe, the only 
female school (supported by the town) in New England and is a 
wise and useful institution." ^ 

Until the nineteenth century such action as was taken for the 
education of girls in New England was that of the town rather 
than of the colony or state. Each community determined this 
question for itself. It is, therefore, to be presumed that the 
article in the warrant of Canterbury in 1767 for the employment 
of a "school dame" and the votes of the town in 1800 and 1801 
for "women's schools" referred to the public education of the 
daughters of the settlers. 

The term "school mistress" first appears in the records in 1809 
when provision was made for the examination of teachers by a 
town committee and the issuing of certificates to those found 
qualified. The women might have taught some of the sum- 
mer schools at an earlier date, but it is doubtful if any woman 
could have maintained order at the winter term, which was 
attended by all the boys at home until they were twenty-one years 
of age. The first test of the school master's qualifications at a win- 
ter term was whether he was enough of an athlete to maintain his 
authority over the larger boys. This test was usually made the 
first day of school, and the teacher either subdued these ambitious 
youngsters, proud of their physical prowess, or he was thrown out 
of the school house. At the summer term, the larger and older 
boys were either working at home on the farm or were earning 
wages elsewhere for the support of the family until they became 
of age or were "given their time," as it was called. 

That the five or six classes into which the town was divided did 
not furnish convenient school facilities for all of the inhabitants 
appears in the records for the year 1804. At a town meeting in 
November it was "voted that Ebenezer Parker, Reuben French, 
William Brown, Jesse Ingalls, Nathaniel Ingalls, Josiah Rolhns, 
Benjamin Colhns, Jonathan Blanchard, Francis Sawyer and 
Noah Sinclair have and receive their respective school taxes this 

1 Dexter, History of Education in the U. S., page 427. 


current year, provided they make it appear to the selectmen that 
they have laid out the same in schooling." The warrant for the 
town meeting sets forth that "they receive little or no benefit from 
the schools in w^hich they were classed." This may have been 
due to the distance they were from schools or the condition of the 
highways in the winter season. 

The first regularly elected superintending school committee 
were the Rev. William Patrick, Samuel Hazelton, Isaac Smith and 
Samuel Ames, chosen in 1809. The legislature the year before had 
revised the school laws of the state and provided that each town 
at its annual meeting should appoint three or more suitable per- 
sons whose duty it was to annually visit and inspect schools "in a 
manner which they may judge most conducive to the progress of 
literature, morality and religion." ' By vote of the town Mr. Pat- 
rick and his associates were to issue certificates to "school masters 
and school mistresses" if found upon examination to be properly 
fitted for their duties. 

The statute of 1789 defined an English grammar school to be 
one "for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic," and it pro- 
vided for "a grammar school for the purpose of teaching of Latin 
and Greek" in all "shire or half shire" towns of the state.- The 
latter was evidently intended for a high school which the acad- 
emies later more fully supplied, as this provision disappears when 
the school laws were revised in 1804.^ English grammar and 
geography were added to the curriculum of the common schools 
four years later."* 

The law of 1789 provided that "no person shall be deemed 
qualified to keep such a school unless he produce a certificate from 
some able and reputable school master, and learned minister, or 
preceptor of some academy, or president of some college that he 
is well qualified to keep such school." 

To this was added in 1808 the provision "and likewdse a certi- 
ficate from the selectmen or minister of the town or parish to 
which he or she belongs that he or she sustains a good moral 

The latter statute also provided that "the literary qualification 
of school mistresses be required to extend no further than that they 

I Act of December 22, 1808. 
sAct of June 18, 1789. 
•Act of December 13, 1804. 
«Act of December 22, 1808. 


are able to teach the various sounds and powers of the EngUsh 
language, reading, writing and English grammar, granting them 
the liberty always of teaching such other branches of female educa- 
tion as may be deemed necessary to be taught in schools under 
their tuition." ^ 

The examination of school teachers by a committee of the town 
does not appear to have been provided by statute until 1827. The 
action of Canterbury, therefore, in authorizing Mr. Patrick and 
his associates in 1809 to issue certificates to "school masters and 
school mistresses" after examination, was in advance of the 
requirement of the state. 

In 1807, at the annual meeting of Canterbury, the Shakers first 
made application to be set off as a separate school district, which 
was denied by the town. Their apphcation was renewed in 1812, 
when it was voted to make the Shaker community a school dis- 
trict by itself. In 1814, it was "voted that the Shakers receive 
from District Number 4 such part of their money as their 
proportion of children from four years to twenty-one (is to the 
number of) children of the same age in said district and also from 
Districts Number 5 and 6 in the same proportion respectively, 
provided that they shall never receive more money than they 

In 1813, a committee consisting of John Clough, Samuel Gerrish, 
William Forrest, Jeremiah Pickard, Abiel Foster and Wilham 
Brown was chosen to establish the bounds of school districts 
"where they now are, or district the town anew, or make such 
alterations as they shall think proper and make report to the next 
town meeting."" Their report was submitted at the annual meet- 
ing of 1814. It provided for six districts, and, if it were thought 
best to subdivide District No. 1 and make two districts of it, the 
bounds of the two districts were given. The town voted to accept 
the report of the committee for six districts. 

The Shakers having been classed by themselves in 1812, and in 
1814 having been voted their proportion of the school money in dis- 
tricts Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the whole number of school districts num- 
bered seven. This number was recognized at the annual meeting 
of 1814, when the town chose the following persons class masters, 

»Act of December 22, 1808. 

2 Towns were authorized to divide into school districts by act of December 
28, 1805. 


District No. 1, John Clough, No. 2, Joseph Gerrish, No. 3, William 
Forrest, No. 4, Thomas Ames, No. 5, John Foster, No. 6, Joseph 
Moody, No. 7, Reuben French. 

The foregoing division of the town into school districts did 
not prove satisfactory, for at a town meeting December 7, 1814, 
William Foster, Joseph Gerrish, Enoch Emery, John Kimball and 
Israel Sanborn were chosen a committee to divide the town into 
school districts "according to law." This committee made their 
report at an adjourned meeting one week later dividing the town 
into nine districts. This report was accepted. 

From time to time various minor changes were made in the 
boundaries of these districts. Suiting the convenience of the 
inhabitants situated at 'a distance from the school house, they 
were annexed upon application to some contiguous district. The 
principal change, however, was in District No. 2. This eventually 
was subdivided and made into four districts, the new ones being 
numbered 10, 11 and 12.^ 

Nothing of importance in regard to schools is found in the town 
records for the next decade. In 1825, the Rev. William Patrick, 
Amos Cogswell and Dr. Joseph M. Harper were chosen a com- 
mittee to examine school teachers, and the selectmen were in- 
structed to pay none but those who secured certificates from this 
committee. The next year an article in the warrant of the annual 
meeting "to see if the towoi will raise $20 to purchase school books 
for poor scholars" was dismissed without action. There was no 
uniformity of text books at this time nor for many years later in 
the schools of the rural towns of New Hampshire. Arithmetics, 
geographies, grammars and even reading books descended in 
families and were used by successive generations. 

At the annual meeting in 1828, the town "voted that the sev- 
eral school districts in Canterbury be empowered to choose a per- 
son in each district as a prudential committee agreeably to the act 
of the General Court." ^ This statute provided that there be 
chosen in each town of the state at the annual meeting a district 
committee consisting of one person for each school district "who 
shall be called the prudential committee thereof, whose duty it 
shall be to contract with the teachers for his district, to provide 

I For the detailed story of these districts see the special chapters devoted 
to them. 
* Act of July 6, 1827. 


for their board, to furnish the necessary fuel for the school and 
immediately on the commencement of any such school to give 
information thereof to the superintending school committee of the 
town." Any town, however, could authorize its school districts 
to choose their own prudential committee instead of selecting 
them at the annual meeting. 

This act was the first recognition in the statutes of the state of 
that important functionary, although in Canterbury the various 
class masters and district inspectors of the previous forty years 
probably performed the duties which now devolved upon the 
prudential committee. For the next half century this public 
official in each school district of the state was something of an 
autocrat in his little domain. He served without pay, but the 
emoluments of his office consisted in the profit from the teacher's 
board, unless the latter "boarded around," the wood that he sold 
to the district and the opportunity it afforded him to hire some 
relative to keep the school. The office usually went the rounds 
of the district among the substantial citizens, though there was 
sometimes much maneuvering among both parents and pupils 
to secure the employment of some favorite teacher. The story 
is told of one individual in Canterbury, who afterwards became 
prominent in public affairs, beginning his political career by defeat- 
ing the election of his father, whose turn it was to be prudential 
committee, because the latter was not likely to employ the teacher 
the son desired. 

The authority given at the annual meeting of 1828 to the school 
districts of Canterbury to choose their prudential committees does 
not appear to have been wholly satisfactory, for the question of 
continuing the practice was raised at the March meeting two 
years later, but the subject was dismissed by vote of the town. 

The legislature of 1827 also provided for the appointment by 
the selectmen of a superintending school committee of not less 
than three nor more than five persons to examine school teachers, 
inspect schools twice a year and to "inquire into the regulations 
and discipline thereof and the proficiency of the scholars therein." 
Power was given this committee "to dismiss incompetent teachers 
and expel any scholar who refuses to obey and submit to the neces- 
sary and reasonable rules, orders and regulations of such school." ^ 
This authority vested in the superintending school committee to 

i Act of July 6, 1827. 


expel unruly scholars was undoubtedly prompted by the prev- 
alence of that old custom, previously referred to, of the larger 
boys ''trying titles" of physical strength with the teacher at the 
beginning of each winter term. It frequently occurred that a 
term of school was wasted until the prudential committee secured 
some master of the "manly art" rather than of the sciences and 
the languages to preside over the school. 

The Rev. William Patrick has this to say of the schools of Can- 
terbury in 1833. "The town is now divided into twelve districts, 
with nine convenient school houses and not far from five hundred 
scholars between the ages of four and twenty years. But all of 
these do not attend constantly. Not more than four hundred 
may be considered regular attendants. The three districts with- 
out school houses are small, containing not more than twenty-five 
scholars. For tAventy-five years past it is thought that few towns 
in the vicinity have furnished a greater number of qualified in- 
structors. This is particularly the case in the female department. 
While most of the summer schools have been taught by those 
belonging to the town, an equal or greater number have instructed 
in other places." 

Mr. Patrick continued on the school board until 1843, at which 
time he retired from the pastorate of the Congregational Church. 
His associates at various periods, so far as the records show, were 
Elder John Harriman, Dr. Joseph M.Harper, Elder Joseph Clough, 
Dr. Robert Morrill, Dudley Hill, Gardner T. Barker and William 
H. Foster, the last two having been school teachers prior to their 
appointment as committeemen. For many years the clergymen 
of the town were selected for service in this capacity, with due 
recognition of the medical profession. The Rev. Howard Moody, 
who was Mr. Patrick's successor as pastor of the Congregational 
Church, followed him upon the school board and served at various 
times until 1867. Other ministers who were associates with Mr. 
Moodjnn school work were the Rev. Edmund B. Fairfield, and the 
Rev. Samuel T. Cathn. Dr. Lorrain T. Weeks was the successor 
of Doctor Harper, while the laymen who were appointed to this 
position for a decade following 1846 were Jonathan Ayers, Edward 
Osgood, Luther Sargent and B. Frank Tallant, all of whom were 
qualified for their service by previous experience as teachers. 

Mr. Sargent was first appointed in 1850, and for a good share of 
the time for thirty-eight years he discharged the duties of superin- 


tending school committee either alone or in conjunction with asso- 
ciates. Thoroughly equipped as a teacher, he was undoubtedly 
the most efficient member of the school board of Canterbury dur- 
ing his generation. His reports show a thorough knowledge of 
conditions derogatory to the schools of the town and his recommen- 
dations, had they been followed, would have contributed greatly 
to their advancement. Mr. Sargent was a man of pubhc spirit 
and a most useful citizen. At one time he contemplated the writ- 
ing of a history of Canterbury and he prepared and pubhshed in a 
local newspaper some chapters of the early life of the town. 
Unfortunately, the data he collected has been lost since his death. 

The service rendered by the early members of the school board 
of Canterbury and their successors is deserving of the highest 
praise. Their work was often performed with little or no com- 
pensation and with but little appreciation on the part of the pub- 
lic of the duties of the position. It is almost painful to read, year 
after year, their comments upon the defects in the schools, most of 
which required the initiative of parents to correct. Yet it was by 
constant reiteration that the awakening finally came, and the 
people of the town were prepared to accept readily state legisla- 
tion for the betterment of the common school system in later 

For a little more than a quarter of a century following Mr. 
Patrick's account of the schools in 1833, the only record to be 
found of them continued to be confined to the votes on the subject 
at the annual town meetings. These are meager, relating almost 
wholly to appropriations for their support and the choice of com- 
mitteemen for their supervision. Occasionally it is recorded that 
the school committee made a report at the annual meeting. If 
such reports were written, they have not been preserved. Until 
recent years, the success of the schools depended more largely 
upon the prudential committee of each district than upon the 
efforts of any supervisory board. Each school was a local affair 
concerning the people of that district. If the teachers employed 
were inefficient, the remedy was wholly in the hands of the voters 
when they gathered at a subsequent school meeting. The super- 
intending school committee hesitated to exercise the powers 
vested in them by the statutes of the state. Unless those powers 
were invoked by the people of the district, they were reluctant to 
interfere. Even after 1860, when the first printed town report 


appeared, which also contained a summary of the work of the 
schools, the school board were not always specific in their criti- 
cisms and there is no record of summary action on their part. 

For the most part, however, the interest of parents compelled the 
employment of competent teachers. While in the early days none 
had the advantages of modern normal training, these teachers 
were the ambitious young men and women of this and other towns 
of the state who were seeking an advanced education and in many 
instances paying for this education by their own exertions. 
Teaching summers or winters, they attended the academies or 
colleges the remainder of the school j'ear. Success in the school 
room was essential to their further employment in this capacity, 
and, while their teaching was not as systematic as now, they stim- 
ulated their pupils with their own ambition. Considering the 
conditions with which they had to deal, crowded school rooms, 
inadequate appointments, lack of uniformity in text books and 
innumerable classes, these teachers for the first half of the nine- 
teenth century wrought a great w^ork in the cause of common 
school education in New Hampshire. Canterbury furnished more 
than its share of competent instructors of j'outh. Many of them 
were engaged at home, while others attained success elsewhere. 

At the annual meeting in 1860, the town adopted the provisions 
of a recent statute providing for a superintending school committee 
of three, to one of whom might be delegated the duty of \dsiting 
and examining schools, but all were required to participate in the 
examination of teachers. In their next report the committee of 
Canterbury say that they appointed times and places for inquiring 
into the qualifications of teachers for both the summer and the 
winter terms, but only one or two attended these meetings. 
Regret is expressed that so few teachers availed themselves of the 
institutes held for their benefit. General interest in the cause of 
education seems to have been marked, for the committee report 
that a lecture given by the county school commissioner was 
attended by a large audience. It is also noted that, except in the 
Shaker school, the study of physiology is generally neglected. "In 
this one district, it had been pursued ever since its introduction to 
the curriculum of the common school several years before." The 
general good health of the Shaker community is ascribed by the 
committee to their knowledge of physiology. It will thus be seen 
that the school board still relied more upon moral suasion to 


improve conditions than to the powers vested in them by the 
statutes of the state. 

The next year the committee say, "Our district schools, taken 
as a whole, are not wholly what they should be. A higher qualifi- 
cation on the part of teachers is required. The schools are faUing 
back in the accuracy of the scholars in elementary knowledge. 
There is a crowding in of higher branches to the neglect of the 
elementary. Pupils are puzzling over problems of Greenleaf's 
Higher Arithmetic and Robinson's Algebra, while utterly unable 
to apply the first principles of simple arithmetic." 

In 1862 and subsequently, the choice of prudential committees 
in the several districts is the subject of comment and suggestion. 
Instead of passing this office around in the neighborhood, the 
school board recommend the selection of the best men and their 
retention during good behavior. 

Lack of discipline is the frequent comment in these reports. 
In speaking of one of the schools, the committee say of the teacher, 
"She is very mild and amiable, with a patience almost equaling 
that of Job. The order was not perfect. The teacher should 
exercise a little more authority at times, and, when occasion calls 
for it, she should not be sparing of the rod." Yet a few years 
later, Edward Osgood, as supervising school committee writing 
of the school at Hill's Corner taught by Miss Tirzah A. R. Dow, 
says, " Complete order was maintained during the entire term with- 
out the rod." These two reports contrast the attitude of different 
school boards at that time in regard to the method necessary to 
maintain order in the school room. 

The school in the Shaker District is commended in the report 
for the year 1864 as well as in earlier reports as an example for 
other districts to follow. The high standard of excellence there 
attained is ascribed by the committee to "the care with which 
teachers are selected, to the support the community gives to 
the teachers and to the influence that surrounds the scholars. 
No expense is spared in providing a school house and school 

The committee set forth in the report what they think are the 
requisites to seek in the teacher. "She should be," they say, 
"engaging in person and manner. It is cruel to impose a for- 
bidding and repulsive teacher upon the school, from the bare sight 
of whom the pupil will shrink or feel instinctive rebellion. The 


looks and manner of the teacher, when agreeable, become a pass- 
port to the pupil's favor and confidence. Teachers should be not 
only patient and amiable but persevering and constant, not spas- 
modic and fitful. The easy, slack or careless should never be 
employed, however well educated or otherwise proficient. A per- 
son who exhibits the least dereliction in morals should never have 
the care and training of our youth. The voice should be observed. 
.Every teacher should possess a good, clear voice, neither too rapid 
nor too moderate, of sufficient volume and sufficiently soft to be 
pleasant. She will then be able to correct defects in the voices of 
her pupils. It may be proper to remind parents of their woeful 
neglect of their children in permitting them to grow up in careless 
habits of speaking, the bad effects of which are seen in our schools 
and elsewhere." 

Teachers' institutes, in the opinion of the committee in 1865 and 
1866, are without profit for the reason that few teachers attend, 
and they recommend that some means for the special training of 
teachers be adopted. This recommendation was in anticipation 
of state action in estabUshing a normal school. "Preference," 
the committee think, "should be given to teachers of our own 
town of acknowledged skill to strangers of whom little is known." 
Uniformity of text books is recommended as both a saving of time 
and as a distinct advantage to the schools. It was even later 
than this that students in the same grade in the Canterbury schools 
were using different arithmetics, geographies, grammars and even 
reading books. In 1870, the committee report that they have 
secured uniform geographies and arithmetics thus reducing the 
number of classes in those studies in some schools one half. 

Following the Civil War there was necessity for economy of 
expenditures in town affairs. Retrenchment was the order of the 
day. A saving was attempted in the meager salary of the super- 
intending school committee by inviting voluntary service of some 
man or woman in each school district. It was felt at that time 
that each district had several individuals of sufficient education 
and capacity to supervise the school in that district. The school 
board was, therefore, enlarged to twelve, who were to serve with- 
out pay. The change did not meet the expectations of those who 
proposed it. When there was trouble in the schools, it was found 
that so large a board was without individual responsibility and 
that collectively they exercised no authority. 


It was the privilege of the writer at the second town meeting he 
attended as a voter to advocate successfully a return to the old 
system of a board of three to whom compensation should be given. 
A year or two later, however, the town fell back to the larger 
board of twelve who contributed their services. In 1881, Charles 
F. Jones was the chairman of this popular school board, and he 
made so vigorous a protest in his report against its continuance 
that the town permanently returned to a board of three and paid 
them for their service as it did its other public servants. Mr. 
Jones was a believer in undivided responsibility and authority, 
and he voiced his opinions in a most forceful manner. 

He was a son of Charles Jones, a man of strong intellect and 
forceful character. Of a judicial temperament, the father was a 
most careful observer and his conclusions were always based upon 
sound reasons. Retiring in his disposition, he seldom took part in 
public affairs but his views carried great weight with his fellow- 
townsmen. No citizen of his generation in Canterbury was more 
highly respected. 

During the decade from 1870 to 1880, there is outspoken criti- 
cism of the condition of the school houses in town and their lack 
of maps, globes and other equipment. The decrease of children 
in some of the districts led the committee to recommend taking 
advantage of the law passed in 1878 whereby districts having less 
than twelve pupils might send to other schools and appropriate a 
certain sum of money for conveying to and from school such 
pupils as resided a mile and a half from the school house of a con- 
tiguous district. This was the beginning of a movement which in 
the next ten years resulted in the consolidation of some of the 
school districts of Canterbury. 

It will be recalled that the Rev. William Patrick estimated the 
number of children in town of school age in 1833 at 500, of whom 
400 attended school regularly. This number had fallen in 1869, 
the first year in which statistics appear in the town reports, to 253 
attending school in the winter term, and 18 between four and 
fourteen years of age who for some reason did not attend. The 
shrinkage in the next fifteen years was slight, but in the decade 
from 1885 to 1895, the number of students dropped from 226 to 
137. At the present time there are about 130 pupils of school age 
attending the district schools. 

The extension of school suffrage to women resulted in 1880 


in the election of Eliza Randall as prudential committee in 
District No. 2 and :\lrs. David M. Clough in District No. 10. ^ 

Prudential committees for school districts were abolished by a 
■ statute which went into effect in 1886, and the school money for 
the town was paid to the school board who hired all the teachers 
and performed the other functions of the prudential committees 
in addition to the duties that devolved upon the .superintending 
school committee. In 1887, the number of regular schools in town 
was reduced to eight and the opinion was expressed in the report 
of the school board that no further consolidation was practical. 
Local conditions such as the teaching of small children who were 
too young to be carried a distance from home, however, called for 
a single term of school in some localities in addition to the terms 
in the regular districts, but for the past twenty years there have 
been practically only eight districts in town. Soon after the 
founding of Kezer Seminar}' the common school education of the 
children in the Baptist District was provided for in this institution. 
The first year the seminary was opened the tuition of twenty- 
three pupils was paid there instead of maintaining schools in the 
Baptist and Hackleborough Districts. 

In 1899, a report of the school committee says that it is a 
matter of congratulation that in the number of weeks of school 
Canterbury stands seventh among twenty-six towns of Merrimack 
County. " Only sixty towns and cities of the state have as many 
or more weeks of school in the year. An additional expenditure 
of two hundred dollars annually would place the town among the 
first forty of New Hampshire, a position we might well be proud 
to occupy considering our resources and the extent of our 

During the years 1887. 1888 and 1889, the school year averaged 
twenty-seven weeks. This was under the town system which 
began in 1886. Three years previous to this under the district 
system, the average school year for the whole town was only 18.2 

For the last twenty-two years the to^m has elected a woman to 
the school board, and it is not too much to say that her interest 
and activities have excelled those of her male associates. A con- 

iLaws of N. H., acts approved August 13, 1878, and July 19, 1879. The 
law extending school suffrage to women was secured largelj' through the efforts 
of Da^ad M. Foster, representative from Canterbury in the legislature at that 


siderable number of the reports have been written by the women 
of the board and thej' show a thorough comprehension of school 
work. That for the year 1906 by Jennie E. Pickard is a terse and 
vigorous arraignment of the shortcomings of the schools and spe-. 
cific in its recommendations. The expediency of uniting with one 
or more towns in forming a supervisory district for the purpose of 
having a competent superintendent of schools is clearly set forth. 
The last half century has shown great changes in the schools of 
Canterbury. A decrease of 75 per cent, in the number of children 
has lessened the interest of both teachers and pupils in their work, 
owing to the smallness of the classes and the earl}^ age when the 
boys and girls of the town are sent away to school. The studies 
now are all elementary. While the pupils have more individual 
attention from the instructor and the schools have better equip- 
ment and supervision than formerly, the stimulus is lacking w^hich 
fifty years ago came of large classes and the advanced work of older 
scholars who attended the district school until they were of age. 
The younger cliildren at that time may not have learned so much 
from the text books as thej^ do now, but they absorbed informa- 
tion from the recitations of their elders. The school problems of 
the early part of the nineteenth century were quite as easily solved 
as those of today in a rural town like Canterbury. Such towns 
have the same territory as formerly but fewer inhabitants, a 
largely diminished num^ber of children, a smaller value of property 
for assessment and less opportunity for the ambitious teacher. 
From almost the beginning of the settlement, however, the cause 
of common school education in Canterbury has never lacked 
sturdy advocates, and, in spite of shortcomings and failures, there 
has always been a perceptible degree of progress. Especially is 
this true in regard to the school buildings and school equipment. 
In 1894, the town built three new school houses and repaired two 
others. Some of the abandoned structures, Uke that of Hill's Cor- 
ner, had done service for nearly a century. The committee in 
charge of this work were Paul H. Jones, Frank P. Dow, Alfred G. 
Chase, Smith L. Morrill and Millard F. Emery. 

Kezer Seminary. 

Provision for this institution was made by John Kezer of Can- 
terbury in his will dated September 1, 1851. After devising a life 
interest in his estate to his family, he left the remainder in 


the hands of trustees for a school fund to be used for the 
maintenance of an academy to be called "Kezer Seminary or 
Kezer Maple Grove Institute" as the trustees should elect. The 
trustees named in the will were all residents of the town. They 
were: Elder Jeremiah Clough, David M. Clough, James H. Her- 
rick, Edward Osgood, George W. Peverly, Charles C. Clough and 
Henry L. Clough, and they were given authority to fill vacancies 
in their board. 

Mr. Kezer having died in 1866, the trustees met October 11 
that j'ear and organized with the choice of Elder Jeremiah Clough 
as president and Edward Osgood as secretary. The latter and 
David M. Clough Avere appointed a committee to draft a consti- 
tution and bj'-laws for the seminary, and the board then adjourned, 
subject to the call of this committee. 

The trustees did not have occasion to meet again until after the 
death of Nancy Towle, one of the legatees under the vnW, who 
died May 31, 1879. At a meeting a month later, they filled a 
vacancy in the board by the election of the Rev. Alpheus D. Smith. 
In December they adopted a constitution and by-laws and elected 
the folloAving officers: president, David IM. Clough; vice-presi- 
dent, Alpheus D. Smith; secretary, Edward Osgood; treasurer, 
Alpheus D. Smith; executive committee, George W. Peverly, 
Alpheus D. Smith and Henry L. Clough. 

A committee was appointed to confer with School District No. 4 
to secure a union with the academy of the school in this district. 

In 1880, the trustees were incorporated mider the name of Kezer 
Seminary "to estabhsh, regulate and maintain within the limits 
of School District No. 4 in Canterburj^ a school agreeable to the 
will of the late John Kezer." 

They took ample time to dispose of the real estate that 
they might realize as much as possible from its sale. In October, 
1884, the treasurer reported that the value of property in his hands 
to be accounted for amounted as nearly as he could estimate to 
Slo,885. Preparations were then made to build. A lot was 
purchased near the Freewill Baptist Church and a building com- 
mittee chosen in 1885. Owing to the death of two members of 
the board of trustees within the next few months, it was necessary 
to fill these vacancies and appoint a new building committee. The 
latter finally consisted of Alfred H. Brown, Henry L. Clough and 
Myron C. Foster. Plans were prepared and accepted and a con- 


tract for erecting the academy was awarded. The building was 
completed and accepted September 6, 1889, and on this date the 
dedication occurred. The exercises were as follows: 

Organ Voluntary, Miss Charla E. Clough. Opening Address, 
Alfred H. Brown, chairman of the Building Committee. Invo- 
cation, Rev. Walter J. Malvern. Singing, Baptist Choir. 
Prayer, Rev. Lewis Malvern. Singing, Baptist Choir. Dedica- 
tory Address, Rev. De Witt C. Durgin, D. D., President, Hillsdale 
College, Mich. Historical Sketch, Henry L. Clough. 

Speeches were made by Rev. T. L. Willey, Rev. Lewis Malvern, 
0. A. Clough, editor of "The South," and Lucien B. Clough, 
former residents, and by Charles A. Hackett of Belmont, Charles 
H. Ayers, George St. John of the Shaker Family, and Willard E. 
Conant, the first principal. A letter of congratulation from 
Elder Henry C. Blinn of the Shakers was received and read. 

In the historical sketch, Mr. Clough gave an account of the life 
of John Kezer. The latter was the son of Edmund Kezer of 
Northfield, whose residence was so near the town line that he was 
included in the Hill's Corner School District. John Kezer came 
to Canterbury in 1816. Previous to this he had married and 
become an early settler in Stewartstown, where he remained for 
ten years. His wife, Susannah, was the daughter of Miles Hodg- 
don, a prominent citizen of Canterbury late in the eighteenth and 
early in the nineteenth centuries. Mr. Hodgdon's home was in 
the Baptist School District on the farm now owned by Granville 
W. Morgan. 

John Kezer came to Canterbury to care for his wife's parents 
who were then advanced in years. Industrious and thrifty, he 
accumulated considerable property. Public spirited as a citizen, 
he was a generous contributor to every worthy cause. He was 
interested in education and during his life he gave freely to pro- 
mote the instruction of the youth of the town. When solicited 
for contributions he invariably responded with cheerfulness, sup- 
plementing his gifts by the remark, "If not enough, come again." 
In 1822, Mr. Kezer was admitted to the Freewill Baptist Church 
and to the end of his days he was a cordial coworker with the mem- 
bers of that society. The project of an academy for Canterbury 
he long contemplated, and, when his means enabled him to provide 
for such an institution, he made the bequest in his will, which was 
drawn some fifteen years before his death . Of the trustees selected 


by him, Henry L. Clough was only nineteen years of age at the 
date of the will and Charles C. Clough only twenty-one. At the 
time of the dedication but two of the original trustees were living, 
George W. Peverly, aged eighty-three, and Henry L. Clough. 

The first term of the seminary opened September 9, 1889, with 
an attendance of twenty-seven students. The school year com- 
prised two terms. Mr. Conant continued as principal until the 
summer of 1892, a most acceptable instructor. The income of 
the school not being sufficient, with the tuition of pupils from 
outside the district, to employ a suitable teacher, the Rev. Herbert 
W. Small was engaged in the dual capacity of principal of the 
school and pastor of the Freewill Baptist Church. At the end of 
two years, F. J. Sherman succeeded him as principal of the school. 
His services continued until 1895. Miss Nellie A. Dow was 
assistant from 1894 to 1895. The succession of teachers from 
this date was as follows: 

J. H. Storer, 1896 to 1897; Miss Edna M. Hunt, 1897 to 1899; 
Mrs. Clara M. Currier, principal, and Miss Sadie Buehler, assis- 
tant, 1899 to 1900; Mrs. Clara M. Currier, 1900 to 1902; Miss 
Charlotte Robertson, first term, 1902; Miss Gertrude E. Phil- 
lips, second term 1902-1903 to 1906; Sherman E. Phillips, 1906 to 
1907; Miss Ahce M. Brown, 1907-1908 first two terms; Miss 
Blanche P. Morgan, third term 1907-1908, second term 1908-1909; 
Miss Elsa P. Kimball, 1909-1910. 

Among the trustees of Kezer Seminary none took greater inter- 
est in its welfare than Mrs. Mary E. Smith. For nearly twenty 
years she was the efficient secretary of the board and the records 
are evidence of the character of her work. As the wife of the 
pastor of the Freewill Baptist Church, she was most helpful to 
that society. After the death of her husband. Rev. Alpheus D. 
Smith, and to the close of her own life the church and seminary 
received her most devoted attention. 




The boundary of this district as estabhshed in 1814, and not 
materially changed since that date, is as follows: 

"To begin at the southwest corner of Canterbury, then 
following the town line to the corner of Loudon, then north- 
eastwardly to the range road at the west end of land owned by 
William Dwinell, then north on the range road to the south line 
of David Clough's land, then west to the east end of John Clough's 
farm, then north to the northeast corner of said farm, then 
westerly in such a direction as to divide the school house south 
of Stephen Hall's equally to the northwesterly corner of Col. 
(David) McCriUis' farm, then south to the southeast corner 
of Col. Morrill Shepherd's farm, then on the line of No. 2 to 
the river, then south to the first mentioned bound." 

In this district were some early settlements. It was here 
that Ensign John Moore, one of the proprietors, located with 
his sons, William, Archelaus, Samuel and Nathaniel. Other 
pioneers were William Curry, who died here, willing his farm 
to his widow and his son Thomas; and James Head, who after 
a few j^ears' residence moved elsewhere. The Moores were 
large landowners and for half a century this school district 
was a Moore settlement. It was not until after the second 
generation of this family had passed off the stage that their 
farms were divided and new homesteads were made thereon by 
others. The Revolutionary War had begun before many new 
names appeared in this locality. Few of the sites found upon 
the accompanying plan date back a century, except those orig- 
inating with the Moore family. Some of the locations are 
today only cellar holes where dweUings once stood. Of these, 
a part were the residences of people employed by the farmers 
of this school district. Their stay in town was often temporary. 
All trace of them is lost. 


The earliest business activities of the town were in this school 
district. Here was built the first tavern in 1756 or earlier. 
In August that year, an auction sale of pews in the Meeting 
House was appointed at the house of Samuel Moore, "innkeeper." 
This tavern antedated any store of which there is either record 
or tradition. Here the settlers gathered to learn the news of 
the outside world from the travelers through Canterbury who 
tarried for rest and entertainment. Here also they assembled 
in the long winter evenings to enjoy its "good cheer" and to 
discuss public affairs and matters of personal interest. For a 
number of years it was the only place of public resort in town. 
Before mail routes were established, it served as a post office, 
the travelers bringing letters and messages to the inhabitants 
and carrying away with them such communications as the 
people desired to send to distant relatives and friends. In the 
absence of a store, the tavern was also a center for trade and 
dicker of the people among themselves. This building contin- 
ued as a tavern for about a century, though its importance 
as a meeting place ceased soon after the Revolutionary War. 
Except the Soapstone Quarry, which was operated a few years 
in the middle of the nineteenth century, and one or two sawmills 
erected for local accommodation, there was no other business 
than farming carried on in this school district. 

There was a "block house," or fort, located here during the 
Indian troubles. It was one of the early buildings in Canter- 
bury, and its site is marked upon the plan. The children were 
sent here to school when there was apprehension of Indian raids. 
In 1794, when the town authorized the building of six school 
houses, one of them was located "near William Moore" in this 

The influential men of this school district have been referred to 
in the general narrative of the town. Some of the descendants 
of the settlers in this locality migrated to other states and there 
became useful and leachng citizens. One of its native sons, 
John L. Tallant, however, moved just across the boundary line into 
Concord, and his achievements were, therefore, familiar to 
his early associates in Canterbury. From early manhood he 
was closely identified with the affairs of the capital city. 
Taking an interest in politics, he several times represented 
Ward 2 in the legislature. A man of clear judgment and of 


forceful character, he stood high in the counsels of the 
Democratic party. He was frequently honored by that party 
in its nominations for office, and he was a staunch supporter 
of its policies. As a farmer and business man, he was 
successful, and his activities gave him prominence throughout 
the state. Mr. Tallant was educated for the ministry. 

Two sons of Marstin M. Tallant, Frank E. and George M., early 
emigrated to Minnesota, where they became prominent business men. 
They are of the type of New England men whose enterprise and 
progressiveness have contributed to the building of the west. Like 
their ancestors of Canterbury they have wrought successfully in new 

The accompanying plan on page 405 shows a list of the loca- 
tions of present and of abandoned homesteads. The succession 
of residents at each so far as they can be determined follows:^ 

No. 1. Soapstone quarry. The Merrimack County Soapstone 
Company was incorporated in 1851 with a capital of $30,000. 
Nathan Emery, Joseph Clough, Freeman Webster, Henry Emery 
and others were incorporators. The quarry was worked for a 
few years, then abandoned. 

No. 2. Buildings probably erected for use of employees of 
soapstone quarry. Land owned by Enoch Gibson, of whose 
children the quarry company bought. Now in possession of 
the heirs of Samuel Emery, brother of Henry Emery. 

No. 3. Laura A. Robinson (colored) who was a daughter of 
Peter Sampson. The railroad crossing near by was called Peter's 
Crossing. Probably Mr. Sampson resided there prior to his 
daughter. House fell down after it was abandoned. 

No. 4. John B. Glover only known occupant. House gone. 

No. 5. Samuel or Stephen Currier. His son, J. Clark Currier. 
Humphrey Currier, who may have been an ancestor of Samuel 
Currier, was perhaps the first settler. 

No. 6. Benjamin B. Morrill, who married, in 1837, Abiah, 
daughter of James Tallant, and probably settled here about 
that time. The next occupant was John Colby, who was followed 
by his son, John S. Colby. The latter still resides there. 

No. 7. Stephen Wiggin. Present occupant, Fred Boynton. 

No. 8. Benjamin B. Nudd. Joseph Rogers, who married 
Nudd's daughter. 

No. 9. North Concord Station, now called Boyce. Built 
about the time the railroad was completed. Although in Canter- 
bury, its first designation was North Concord. 

1 Prepared by Howard P. Moore of Albany, N. Y., a descendant of Ensign 
John Moore. 




Blancmard School DiSTRicT, Ni/MBe.f\ 1, 



No. 10. Milton G. Boyce, about 1858. Luther Nutting, later. 

No. 11. Built by Milton G. Boyce. John Colby, George 
Tucker. Occupied by tenants since. 

No. 12. Samuel H. Runnels, Milton G. Boyce. 

No. 13. Joseph Tallant settled here. House gone. 

No. 13i. Present school house. 

No. 14. William Curry one of the early settlers. He died 
January 30, 1763. In his will he gave Home Lot 100, on which 
his residence stood to his widow, Ann, and to his son, Thomas 
Curry, who is given in the U. S. Census of 1790 as a resident 
of Canterbury. How long it remained in his possession and 
that of his descendants is not known. According to the County 
Map of 1858, Jeremiah C. Elliott was then the occupant. After 
him came Addison Moore, Augustus Gilman, Morrill Shepard, 
Augustus Gleason, John Tucker, Josiah Harris, John H. Batch- 
elder, Frank Sargent. 

No. 15. Built by Royal Jackman early in the nineteenth cen- 
tury. Abel B. Boyce. Samuel Kidder Boyce and his sister. 

No. 16. The forty-acre lot on which these buildings stand was 
bought by John Moore, one of the proprietors, in 1740. He sold 
it to his eldest son, William, who resided here until his death in 
1804. The house is the one originally built. While the barn was 
being raised, news of the Revolution came. The night was spent 
in "running" bullets, and, in the morning, one of the Moores, 
probably Capt. Joseph, son of WilHam Moore, went to the war. 
In 1819, Nathan, Mary and Sally Moore sold to Adoniram 
Coburn, who sold to Ara Sargent. Capt. Samuel Gilman, who 
married Parmelia Blanchard, probably resided here prior to its 
ownership by Sargent, perhaps from 1832, date of his marriage, 
to 1838, date of his death. He left two sons, Charles Augustus 
and Samuel, Jr. The widow Gilman married for her second hus- 
band, Ara Sargent. Mrs. Margaret (Slack) Gilman, widow of 
Samuel Gilman, Jr., is the present occupant. 

No. 17. In 1823, Adoniram Coburn sold to Abraham Moore 
a piece of land seven rods square, a quarter acre, for $80, it being 
the northeast corner of lot 55 on which the Moore, Coburn, Gilman 
house now stands. Although the house in the corner was under- 
stood to have been ancient, it was probably put up after 1823. 
The cellar hole now filled was discernible within recent years. 
The house was not finished off up stairs. In 1828, Abraham 
Moore sold to his uncle or possibly his cousin, David Moore. 
Soon after it was occupied by John Moore, "Uncle John Moore," 
who had previously lived at No. 34. The house was taken down 
about fifty-eight years ago by Joseph W. Scales. The land is now 
part of the Gilman place. 

No. 18. Lots 55 and 57 were bought by Col. Archelaus Moore 
in 1745 and 1748. The house is believed to be the original built 
by him. He sold to Simon Stevens in 1790. Here until his 


freedom was granted, Sampson Battis, the slave, worked for 
his master, Archelaus Moore. Stevens sold, in 1793, to Ebene- 
zer Greenough. The latter and his son, James Greenough, resided 
there for many j'ears. George Harvey succeeded James Green- 
ough. Then J. Addison Moore or Moores bought it. He was 
not connected with the Moores of Canterbury. Afterwards 
Russell Burdeen carried on the farm. Then Albert Blanchard, 
Amos and Henry Stone OA^aied it. The next owner was Frank 
Sargent. Ralph Roundy bought it several years ago, selling in 
1910 to the present occupant, Kenneth Pope. 

No. 19. Here was a block house with port holes, the windows 
and doors being constructed for a defence against the Indians. 
It must have been one of the earliest buildings erected in Can- 
terbury. In April, 1810, Matthias M. Moore was born in this 
"blockhouse" dwelling. After the block house was torn down, 
the present house was built. Abby Merrill, whose father at one 
time owned the place, married John Snyder, Jr., who died here. 
It is now owned by his widow. 

No. 20. Ezekiel Moore bought this farm without buildings 
of Obadiah Mooney, school master, and erected the dwelling 
now standing. In 1818, he sold to Andrew Taylor, who later 
sold to James Elkins. He and his son, James S. Elkins, were the 
owners and occupants until the latter moved to the Center. 
George F. Blanchard is the present owner and occupant. 

No. 21. Settled by Samuel Moore, son of Capt. Samuel of 
the tavern. He was there as early as 1785. The County Map 
of 1858 shows the occupants to be Enoch and Enoch Gibson, 
Jr. Moore lived in a log house. The elder Gibson built the 
frame house. Alvah J. Dearborn is the present owner. 

No. 22. This was the site of a house erected by Nahum Blanch- 
ard or his father for the use of the help employed on their farm 
or about the tavern. John B. Glover was one of the occupants. 
It was taken down before 1892. 

No. 23. In 1748, Samuel Moore bought Home Lot 61. In 
1756, he was described as an innkeeper. He owned in addition, 
Home Lots 62 and 63. The tavern was probably built between 
1748 and 1750. Capt. Samuel Moore became wealthy, dying 
suddenly at 50 years of age in 1776. His widow, Susannah, 
married Col. David McCrillis. They carried on the tavern 
until his death in 1825. He was succeeded by his son-in-law, 
Jacob Blanchard, and he in turn by his son, Nahum, who kept 
this as a hotel property until about 1850, making a hundred 
years of continuous family occupancy as an inn. The place 
is now the summer residence of Mrs. Ethel Blanchard Stearns 
of Winchester, Mass. There were fourteen buildings, counting 
the annexes until 1860, when a number were removed and the 
remainder modernized. 

No. 24. Betsey and Dolly Wheeler are the earliest residents 


known to have occupied this building. They were succeeded 
by Luther Durgin. According to map bearing date of 1892, 
Clara P. Gale was the owner. It is let to a tenant at the present 

No. 25, The house is located back from the road. Joseph 
G. Clough, St., with his son, Joseph G. Clough, lived here 
George Pickard. 

No. 26. Capt. John Clough, his son, Arthur Clough. Owned 
by Edwin Kimball. Unoccupied. 

No. 27. Henry H. Clough, son of Capt. John Clough, Albert 
Blanchard, Benjamin K. Tilton, William Morrill. 

No. 28. Originally owned by Capt. Samuel Moore of the tavern. 
His son Stephen resided here and raised a large family of chil- 
dren, one of whom, Martha Cogswell, born in 1818 is now hving 
in Manchester. He died in 1846. The next known occupant 
was Jacob Blodgett. The County Map of 1858 shows D. C. 
Tenney as residing here. In 1892, Wilham H. Carter was the oc- 
cupant. Leonard J. Pickard now resides here. 

No. 29. A small house without much land. In 1858, Joseph 
G. Glover was the occupant and in 1892 D. Glover. This 
was part of lot 106, the homestead of Ensign John Moore, being 
the southwest corner. 

No. 30. Lot 67 bought in 1764 by WiUiam Moore, who owned 
lot 55 on the west. He sold, in 1771, to Benjamin West, price 
£30 for the forty acres. It is probable that no house was then on 
the property. In 1817, Samuel Moore sold to Royal Jackman 
"where I now live" (probably the house No. 31 commonly 
called the French place), excepting " i acre on which the school 
house stands." The date of the erection of this school house 
is unknown. At the town meeting in 1794, it was voted to divide 
the town into school districts, one to "stand a small distance 
to the north from the old Meeting House and another to stand 
near Lieut. WiUiam Moore's." There is a tradition that, before 
the school house was built, the front room of No. 31 was used 
for a school. At one time this school was very large, the 
several Moore families sending over forty children. The largest 
attendance is given as 108 scholars. The old school building 
was taken down but the remains of some of the timbers may 
still be seen on the site. 

No. 31. See notes on No. 30. The house was owned at one 
time by Joseph W. Scales. Albert Blanchard bought it later 
and continued to live there until his death in 1910. 

No. 32. Lot 106 bought in 1733 by Ensign John Moore, 
head of the family and father of William, Archelaus, Samuel 
and Nathaniel. He hved here all his life (first having built 
a cave in the bank of the brook) selling in 1784 "where I now 
live" to his grandson Ezekiel, son of Nathaniel who probably 
lived with his father. Ensign John, until he removed to Loudon. 


After the death of Ensign John, the place had various members 
of the family as owners or occupants. John Moore who after- 
ward Hved at No. 15 was one, for his daughter, Judith G., was 
born in this house in 1806. After that, William Whitcher who 
married Ruth, sister of Judith, was the last occupant. The 
house disappeared about 1830. jSIrs. Mary J. (Blanchard) 
Wheeler, age ninety-one, is the only one living who remembers it. 

No. 33. Lots 104 and 105 were owaied by James Head, who 
sold them to Samuel jMoore, "with all edifices," who sold them 
to his brother, Archelaus, in 1764. Archelaus sold these lots to 
his son, John, who disposed of them in 1778 to Jonas Sherburne. 
The only known house on the propertj'' w'as a small dwelling 
at the junction of the road leading to the Tallant places. John 
T. G. Emery lived here awhile about 1850. The County Map 
of 1858 show^s Stephen C. Hanson. Later one-armed James 
Moore and his sister, Hannah, lived here. Buildings gone many 
j^ears, but the site is plainly discernible. 

No. 34. The houses upon the now neglected range road were 
called "Bennettville." Levi Bennett lived to the east on the 
now' closed E. & W. road over the hill. His house has been 
gone for about forty j^ears. For a time a small house stood to the 
west of No. 34. 

No. 35. Harrison Bennett resided here until he went to Mont 
Vernon before 1840. This dwelling has also gone. 

No. 36. David Bennett, brother of Levi, lived in a two-roomed 
house right in the rangeway. Various members of the Bennett 
family followed him. The County Map of 1858 shows Mrs. 
E. Dickerman (a Bennett) as the occupant. The buildings 
are all gone. 

No. 37. Joseph Bennett, the father of Joseph, Levi, David 
and Amos, resided here. The buildings have disappeared. 

No. 38. A new house built after the fire which destroyed 
No. 39. Nothing is known of this site except that the present 
occupant is Joseph W. Scales, son of Joseph W. Scales referred to 
in No. 17. 

No. 39. This place was owned by John T. G. Emery before 
the buildings were destroyed by fire. 

No. 40. Lot owned in 1764 by Nathaniel Moore, but probably 
no house was built until many years after. Josiah Moore owmed 
it in 1825 and it is probable that the present cellar hole in the 
pasture is the site of his house. About that time James Moore 
owned part of the lot. In 1844, his sister Hannah had an interest 
in it. They hved here, the last occupants, until she went w^est. 
The house did not stand much later. 

No. 41. The County Map of 1858 shows James Tallant as the 
owner. His father, James Tallant, settled here towards the close 
of the Revolutionary War. In 1892 John Colburn occupied the 


No. 42. Hugh Tallant, brother of James, was the earliest 
known occupant. The County Map of 1858 shows John Carter 
residing here and in 1892 Francis A. Fisk. Henry Cushing. 

No. 43. Samuel Tallant located here about 1814. In 1892, 
Thomas S. Tucker resided here. 

No. 44, The 1858 map locates James Tallant at this site. 
The house does not appear on the 1892 map. 

No. 45. David Tallant from 1835 to 1843. The 1858 map 
shows Daniel Sanborn as the occupant, and the 1892 map 
gives the owner as George A. Morrill. 

No. 46. The 1858 map gives the resident as A. Hamblett. 
James H. Bennett occupied the house in 1892. 

No. 47. The 1858 map shows Christopher Snyder as the 
occupant and in 1892 George P. Morrill resided here. 

No. 48. The 1858 map indicates another house opposite 
No. 47. Miss Elizabeth Snyder was the occupant. 

No. 49. The 1858 map shows this to have been in the owner- 
ship of the D. Elliott estate. In 1892, George E. Tucker is given 
as the resident. 

No. 50. Louis D. Morrill. 

No. 51. In 1858, this was the sawmill of John P. Kimball. 
Largely to accommodate the lumbering business at present owned 
by the Morrill family, the new road between 46 and 53 was 
built about fifty years ago. 

No. 52. The 1858 map shows Alfred S. Abbott as the occu- 
pant. Buildings gone. 

No. 53. This site does not appear on the 1858 map, but in 
1892 Charles C. P. Moody is given as the occupant. 



This school district as originally laid out in 1814 was bounded 
as follows: "Begins at the northwest corner of Canterbury, 
thence east to the Northwest corner of Joseph Lyford's farm, 
thence south to the southwest corner of William Hazelton's 
farm, thence east to the rangeway, thence southerly by the east 
side of Col. Jeremiah Clough's land to the mill road (so called) 
thence south to Col. (David) McCrillis' land, thence west to 
the rangeway, thence south to the southeast corner of Col. 
(Morrill) Shepard's farm, thence west to the southwest corner 
of said farm, thence south and westerly by land owned by Joseph 
Clough and Jacob Mann to Merrimack River, a few rods below 
Muchido Hill (so called), thence northerly by Merrimack River 
to the first mentioned bound." 

These bounds indicate the original No. 2 District. It then 
included No. 10, the depot district, No. 11, the upper intervale 
or Colby district, and No. 12, the Carter district. In the descrip- 
tion of locahties and inhabitants that follow, all these districts 
are given. 

Within its limits some of the earliest settlements in Can- 
terbury were made. To this locality Capt. Jeremiah Clough, 
Sr., the Indian fighter, came as a pioneer. Here was built the 
old fort for the protection of the settlers, and within its walls 
was born the first white child of the town, Capt. Jeremiah Clough, 
Jr., the Revolutionary soldier. Lieut. WiUiam Miles and his 
son, Josiah, both Indian scouts, settled in this district. John 
Dolloff, Samuel Shepard, Richard Blanchard, Nathaniel Per- 
kins and James Lindsey located within half a mile of the fort, 
while Joseph Simonds and John Forrest pushed on farther 


north, the latter purchasing land near the Northfield line not 
far from the original Ayers farm. 

Daniel Randall, son of Nathaniel, one of the original proprie- 
tors, located in this district when he came to Canterbury before 
1776, and here he and his descendants lived for many years, 
making a Randall neighborhood. Moses Randall, a brother of 
Daniel, who was taxed in town in 1770 and 1771, and, after a 
stay of a few years moved to Conway, may also have been a set- 
tler in this locality. He may have tarried in Sanbornton on 
his way to Conway as one of that name signed the association 
test in the former town. 

Here also, in 1784, came Joseph Ayers from Portsmouth with 
his ox team, on which were loaded, besides his household goods, 
a liberal supply of molasses and rum, essential equipments 
for pioneers going into the wilderness. He was accompanied by 
three slaves, and these slaves were enumerated in the U. S. Cen- 
sus of 1790, where his name was phonetically spelled "Joseph 
Aras." Within the radius of a mile of his home most of his de- 
scendants were born. He became, in his day, the largest land- 
owner in this section of the town. His home was one of the early 
taverns. The home farm is still in the possession of his descendants. 

"Master" Henry Parkinson, scholar and teacher, established 
himself in this district and resided here until his death. He 
was succeeded by John J. Bryant, an enterprising business man, 
who was licensed to keep a hotel and who ran a sawmill near by. 

Some of the Haines, Heath and Chamberlain families were 
residents of this district, and probably one of the sons of John 
Glines, an original settler, located here. The record is far from 
complete, but such as it is, it is worth preserving. As in other 
school districts, the numbers on the accompanying plan show 
the locations, and the succession of inhabitants is given at each 
location on the following pages. 

No. 1. John S. James, Samuel Neal, Perry. House 


No. 2. Henry Clough, Ezekiel Morrill, Joseph Ayers, Jona- 
than Ayers, Charles H. Ayers, Jonathan Ayers, Jr., Joseph G. 
Ayers. House burned. This was where Joseph Ayers, the 
ancestor of the Ayers family in Canterbury, settled. Earlier, 
some of the Shakers gathered here. Not far from this location 
John Forrest settled. 




West Road School DIstrIct Ho.3j, 


No. 3. Robert Chase, James Chase, Edwin Kimball, Frank 
Plastridge. Present occupant Mrs. Olina Johansson. 

No. 4. Jonathan Glines, Charles H. Ayers, Joseph Ayers, 
Joseph P. Dearborn, Matthias M. Moore, Frank Plastridge. This 
farm was kno^vn as the Glines place and it was probably owned 
originally by some ancestor of Jonathan Glines. 

No. 5. Thomas Lake, John Lake, George W. Lake, Fred 
Merrill, Mrs. Olina Johansson. 

No. 6. Mrs. Hannah C. Smart, Samuel French. House 

No. 7. Jeremiah Shepard, Amos Brown, John F. Lake. 

No. 8. William Whitcher, Sylvanus Whitcher, Tristram 

No. 9. Harris, Charles A. Morse. Buildings gone. 

No. 10. James Lake, who married Betsey, daughter of 
William Randall at No. 24. He built the house. William R. 

No. 11. School House, built, 1851, when district was divided. 

No. 12. Jonathan Glines, Jonathan Ayers, Jr., Nathan Emery, 
Joseph Emery, Jeremiah Pickard, John N. Hill, Milton B. Neal, 
Rev. Josiah B. Higgins, his son josiah B. Higgins. 

No. 13. "Master" Henry Parkinson, John J. Bryant, John 
Small, as tenant, William Randall and his son-in-law, Reuben 
R. Hutchins, Moody Emery, Grover Merrill, Rev. Lucien C. 
Kimball, Leroy A. Ghnes. Later occupied by a tenant, now 

No. 14. William McDaniel, who built the house, Joseph 
McDaniel. Buildings gone. 

No. 15. Mrs. Susan Arhn, house built for her by neighbors, 
Harriet Mclntire. Buildings gone. 

No. 16. Sumner Glines, who built the house, Frankhn Dwyer, 
A. W. Tainter. Buildings gone. 

No. 17. Jonathan Ghnes, who built the house, John Marsh, 
Samuel B. Chase, Joseph Heath, 2d, Fred Potter. 

No. 18. Reuben R. Hutchins, who married Apphia, daughter 
of William Randall at No. 24, John Marsh, Eben Glover. 

No. 19. Caleb Heath, his widow who married a Thorne, 
Daniel Randall, grandson of Wilham Randall at No. 24, WiUiam 
Lake, Mrs. Sanders, a tenant. 

No. 20. Joseph Heath, John N. Hill. Then bought by Daniel 
Randall, who used the buildings for storehouses. 

No. 21. Tristram Dearborn, Miss May Dearborn. 

No. 22. Jonathan McDaniel, Eben Avery. Unoccupied. 

No. 22i. Hannibal Haines, who built the house, Edward 
Osgood, Jonathan Ayers, Jr., Rev. John Chamberlain, Andrew 

Taylor, Charles L. French, Milton B. Neal, Perry, 

Eben Hutchins, Charles Plastridge. 

No. 23. House built by Jonathan Randall, who was given 


the farm by his father, Daniel, perhaps about 1814, when he 
married. He died in 1870. Sally, Mary Jane and Eliza Randall, 
daughters of Jonathan. The next occupant was Edward 

No. 24. Perhaps Moses Randall, whose grandfather, Nathan- 
iel, was one of the proprietors, was the first settler here. He 
was taxed in Canterbury in 1770 and 1771, and soon after moved 
to Conway. Daniel Randall, his brother, was the first known 
occupant. He came to Canterbury before 1776, when his 
name is found on the tax list. Then followed William Randall, 
son of Daniel, who died in 1860. With him was his son, Samuel 
W. Randall, who died in 1847. Then followed Nathaniel 
Peverly, Charles Peverly and Bert G. Wheeler. The original 
Randall farm included 23, 24 and 25 and the earliest location 
may have been near 23. 

No. 25. Daniel Randall, son of WilHam at No. 24, Oren J. 
Randall, son of Daniel. JMrs. John bloody. 

No. 26. Blacksmith Shop. 

No. 27. Shingle Mill. 

No. 28. Saw :Mill. 

No. 29. School House, original for the old district. Building 
sold and now part of barn at No. 30. In 1851, School District 
No. 2 was divided and the locations that follow made up Dis- 
trict No. 12. 

No. 30. John Hutchins, who built the house. Rev. John Cham- 
berlain, Mrs. Nancy Randall, ^^ddow of Samuel W. at No. 24, 
Joseph Dow, George K. Noyes. 

No. 31. Deacon John A. Chamberlain. The house was 
probably built by him. Charles Glines, Leroy A. Glines. 

No. 32. Hiram G. Haines, who probably built the house, 
George Haines, and his descendants. Unoccupied. 

No. 33. John Randall, son of William at No. 24. He died 
in Canterbury in 1849. Samuel Colby, John G. Miles, John 
Miles, Sarah Miles, George Drake. 

No. 34. Josiah Dow, Peter Smart, Stewart Noyes, Hiram 
Miles, Mrs. Annie Noyes Miles. 

No. 35. John Glover, who probably built the house, Byron 
K. Neal, Sam W. Lake, present owTier. Occupied by tenant. 

No. 36. The old fort. It was sold by the to^\Ti in 1759 
and converted into a dwelling. First known occupant Samuel 
French, Billy E. Pillsbury, who married Martha, daughter of 
Samuel French, Charles H. Pillsbury, Wilham Dawes. Near 
this location dwelt Capts. Jeremiah Clough, senior and junior, for 
many years. 

No. 37. School house built about 1851, when district was 
divided. The site of John Dolloff's home was very near this 

No. 38. Eben P. Carter, whose father preceded him. Now 


owned by Charles Wesley Carter of Boscawen and occupied 
by a tenant, Norman Tobine. 

No. 39. Stewart Noyes, Shepard Phillips, widow of John 
B. Carter. 

No. 40. John B. Carter. Buildings gone. 

No. 41. Joseph Dow, James F. Noyes, Joseph Dow, his widow. 

No. 42. Benjamin Osgood Foster. 

No. 43. Col. John Wheeler. Buildings gone. 

No. 44. Lieut. Joseph Soper, who appears on the tax lists 
as early as 1769 and who was living at the time of the census 
of 1790. Probably succeeded by descendants. Samuel Neal, 
Joseph Dow% Benjamin Osgood Foster for a brief time. Build- 
ings gone. 

No. 45. Col. Morrill Shepard place. Miss Statira Shepard, 
who married Shepard Phillips, William Haywood, Oren J. 
Randall, Dr. C. L. True as summer residence. Originally this 
farm was owned by Richard Blanchard who was killed by the 
Indians in 1746. 

No. 46. Nehemiah Gibson, house built for him by his father. 
Charles H. Ayers, who bought in 1856, Morrill Fletcher, Charles 
H. Fletcher, Jeremiah Cogswell. 

No. 47. Col. John Wheeler, his widow, Mary J., his son, 
William W., and his daughter, Mary Frances Wheeler. 

No. 48. James Wiggin, George E. Wiggin, the present owner. 
In this locality Wilham and Josiah Miles and Samuel Shepard 

No. 49. John H. Moody, house built for him. 

A.^ Wilham Hazelton, Obadiah Clough, Tristram McDaniel. 
Buildings gone. 

B. Obadiah Clough, Ralph Streeter, William Avery, Mrs. 
Sarah Bennett. 

C. Moses Sargent. 


No. 50. Deacon Francis Sawyer, Capt. Joseph or Abiel 
Gerrish, John Colby, David Davis, Lewis Colby, John M. Colby. 

No. 51. Abiel Gerrish, Deacon John Chamberlain, John 
Colby, Isaac Heath, Joseph Heath, Frank Heath. 

No. 52. School House, built in 1853, afterwards taken down. 

No. 53. John Corhs, Charles Morse, Benjamin Noyes, 

Whitcher Wheeler, Kimball, Hiram Stewart, James 

Colby. A room in this house was used for school purposes 
several years before school house was built. 

No. 54. Caleb Jackman, ■ Elliott, Capt. Joseph or 

Abiel Gerrish, Hilton Burleigh, John Colby, Leonard Colby, 
Osborn Colby. Present house built by Leonard Colby. 

lA, B and C, probably belonged to the Center District. 


No. 55. A family by the name of Bumford. House gone. 

No. 56. Patrick Clough, Capt. James Sanders, Andrew J. 
Taylor, Charles Keniston, Ray Colby. 

No. 57. Brickyard. 

No. 58. Joseph Bland. 

No. 59. A family by the name of Simons. 

No. 60. School House. A brick school house stood at No. 65. 
It was torn do^v^l and a new school house built near the railroad 
station. Later it was moved to this site. 

No. 61. Nehemiah Clough, Samuel Osgood, Hilton Burleigh, 

Cilley, Jeremiah Chamberlain, Samuel C. Pickard, 

Mrs. Samuel C. Pickard, Arthur Pickard, Frank Haven. 

From No. 50 to No. 61 inclusive is the territory embraced in 
the present Intervale or Colby District. 

No. 62. Capt. Joseph Gerrish, Charles Gerrish, Humphrey 
Carter, Milton B. Neal, Shepard Phillips, B. Frank Brown, 
Thomas Leighton, Albert Bro%\'n, Herbert L. B^o^vn. 

No. 63. Joseph Clough. After his decease, occupied by ten- 
ants for several years. Col. David j\I. Clough, Ilenr}^ L. Clough. 

No. 64. Charles N. Clough. House built b}'^ him. 

No. 65. Brick School House. See No. 60. 

No. 66. Tenement house belonging to No. 67. 

No. 67. Nathaniel Clement, who kept the ferry, Capt. Joseph 
Gerrish, Smith Sanborn, Benjamin Sanborn, Mrs. Benjamin San- 
born, James Dodge, John K. Chandler (brother of William E. 
Chandler), Ahce Chandler Daniell, Adam Engel. 

No. 68. Railroad Station. 

No. 69. House occupied by employes of railroad. 

No. 70. Bagley. 

No. 71. Ralph Streeter. House built for him by Col. David 
M. Clough. Destroyed by fire. 

No. 72. Martha (Patty), Lucy and John Burdeen. Build- 
ings gone. 

No. 73. John Carter, who built the house. 

No. 74. Dustin Battis. Buildings gone. 

No. 75. Nathaniel Battis. Buildings gone. 

No. 76. John Battis. Buildings gone. 

No. 77. Leavitt Ludlow. Unoccupied. 




The bounds of this district as laid out in 1814 were as follows: 
"Begins on Northfield line at the northeast corner of Joseph 
Lyford's Farm, then south to Wil'm Hazelton's Farm, then 
southeasterly to the northwest corner of Joshua Whitcher's Farm, 
then south to the southwest corner, then east to Sam A. Morrill's 
Farm, then south to the southwest corner of said farm, thence 
east (leaving Nathan Emery's land in No. 7) to the southeast 
corner of said farm, thence north to the northeast corner of Mar- 
cellus Morrill's land, thence east to the southeast corner of Simeon 
Brown's land, then north to Northfield Hue, then on said Hue to 
the first mentioned bound." 

The Sanborn family settled here soon after the close of the 
Revolutionary War, Simon Sanborn being the ancestor. His 
farm has been in the possession of his descendants to the 
present time. Joseph Lyford, son of John Lyford, a pioneer in 
Hackleborough, moved to this locality, and this branch of the 
Lyford family have been residents of this school district ever 
since. Here also came the Bradleys, whose descendants emi- 
grated to the West. Samuel Ames settled here after a few years' 
residence at the Center. Stevens, Morrill, Forrest and Ayers were 
names once prominently identified with this part of the town. 
Except a grist mill and some brick kilns, the industry of this 
district has been wholly agriculture. 

While the number of locations were not numerous the famihes 
were large, and during the first half of the nineteenth century 
there were many cliildren attending school. It was an excellent 
farming community and there were no better farms in town than 
those of Samuel Ames, David Morrill, Simon Sanborn, Jesse 
Stevens and Abiel Bradley of the early settlers. At a later day 
that of Joseph Ayers, subsequently owned by his brother, Charles 


H. Ayers, was most productive, as were those of Samuel and 
William Sargent. The largest orchard in Canterbury was 
located on the David ^Morrill farm. Some years, between one 
and two thousand barrels of apples were shipped to market from 
this district. 

The descendants of the Bradleys emigrated to the West with 
the early tide of emigration to that section and became prominent 
in Chicago and other places of Ilhnois. This district furnished 
its proportion of college graduates and of enterprising young 
men and women who attained distinction in other states. 

The accompanying plan shows the location of homesteads past 
and present. 

1. Joseph Lyford, his widow and son, Winthrop D. Lyford. 
Tristram Dow, Joseph Ayers, Charles Haines Ayers, Charles 
Henry Ayers. 

2. Buildings gone. George Shannon, Revolutionary soldier, 
killed at Bunker Hill. His widow. 

3. Joseph Pallet, great grandson of Joseph Pallet at No. 9. 

Joseph Keniston, Israel C. Whitney, Ordway, Charles 

Colby, Charles Plastridge, Smith Roberts, George C. Goodhue. 
The present house was placed over the cellar of the original for 
Charles Plastridge, and one acre of land was conveyed to him. The 
remainder of the farm, sixty acres, is now owned by Charles H. 

4. Weeks, Winthrop D. Lyford, his widow and son, 

Frank Lyford. The house was finished by Winthrop D. Lyford 
when he moved from No. L 

5. DollofT, Jeremiah Lake, OHver Locke, Frank Lyford. 

6. School House. Its predecessor was situated south of the