Chapter 2

The incorporation of Nashobah on November 2, 1714, settled many of the disputes connected with the lands; but on December 3 of the next year, the name was changed from Nashobah to Littleton. As already stated, the plan of the original Groton grant had never been returned by the proprietors to the General Court for confirmation, and this neglect had acted to their prejudice. After Littleton had been set off, the town of Groton undertook to repair the injury and make up the loss. John Shepley and John Ames were appointed agents to bring about the necessary confirmation by the General Court. It is an interesting fact to know that in their petition (General Court Records, x, 216, February 11, 1717, in the office of the secretary of state) they speak of having in their possession at that time the original plan of the town, made by Danforth in the year 1668, though it was somewhat defaced. In the language of the Records, it was said to be "with the Petitioner," which expression in the singular number may have been intentional, referring to John Shepley, probably the older one, as certainly the more influential, of the two agents. This plan was also exhibited before the General Court on June 18, 1713, according to the Records (ix, 263) of that date.

The case, as presented by the agents, was as follows:--

A petition of John Sheply & John Ames Agents for the Town of Groton Shewing that the General Assembly of the Province did in the year 1655, Grant unto M'r Dean Winthrop & his Associates a Tract of Land of Eight miles quare for a Plantation to be called by the name of Groton, that Thom's & Jonathan Danforth did in the year 1668, lay out the said Grant, but the Plat thereof through Neglect was not returned to the Court for Confirmation that the said Plat thô something defaced is with the Petitioner, That in the Year 1713 M'r Samuel Danforth Surveyour & Son of the abovesaid Jonathan Danforth, at the desire of the said Town of Groton did run the Lines & make an Implatment of the said Township laid out as before & found it agreeable to the former. W'h. last Plat the Petitioners do herewith exhibit, And pray that this Hon'ble Court would allow & confirm the same as the Township of Groton.

In the House of Represent'ves; Feb. 10. 1717. Read, Read a second time, And Ordered that the Prayer of the Petition be so far granted that the Plat herewith exhibited (Althô not exactly conformable to the Original Grant of Eight Miles quare) be accounted, accepted & Confirmed as the Bounds of the Township of Groton in all parts, Except where the said Township bounds on the Township of Littleton, Where the Bounds shall be & remain between the Towns as already stated & settled by this Court, And that this Order shall not be understood or interpreted to alter or infringe the Right & Title which any Inhabitant or Inhabitants of either of the said Towns have or ought to have to Lands in either of the said Townships

In Council, Read & Concur'd, Consented to Sam'll Shute

[General Court Records (x, 216), February 11, 1717, in the office of the secretary of state.]

The proprietors of Groton felt sore at the loss of their territory along the Nashobah line in the year 1714, although it would seem without reason. They had neglected to have the plan of their grant confirmed by the proper authorities at the proper time; and no one was to blame for this oversight but themselves. In the autumn of 1734 they represented to the General Court that in the laying out of the original plantation no allowance had been made for prior grants in the same territory, and that in settling the line with Littleton they had lost more than four thousand acres of land; and in consideration of these facts they petitioned for an unappropriated gore of land lying between Dunstable and Townsend.

The necessary steps for bringing the matter before the General Court at this time were taken at a town meeting, held on July 25, 1734. It was then stated that the town had lost more than twenty-seven hundred and eighty-eight acres by the encroachment of Littleton line; and that two farms had been laid out within the plantation before it was granted to the proprietors. Under these circumstances Benjamin Prescott was authorized to present the petition to the General Court, setting forth the true state of the case and all the facts connected with it. The two farms alluded to were Major Simon Willard's, situated at Nonacoicus or Coicus, now within the limits of Ayer, and Ralph Reed's, in the neighborhood of the Ridges; so Mr. Butler told me several years before his death, giving Judge James Prescott as his authority, and I carefully wrote it down at the time. The statement is confirmed by the report of a committee on the petition of Josiah Sartell, made to the House of Representatives, on June 13, 1771. Willard's farm, however, was not laid out before the original plantation was granted, but in the spring of 1658, three years after the grant. At this time Danforth had not made his plan of the plantation, which fact may have given rise to the misapprehension. Ralph Reed was one of the original proprietors of the town, and owned a fifteen-acre right; but I do not find that any land was granted him by the General Court.

It has been incorrectly supposed, and more than once so stated in print, that the gore of land, petitioned for by Benjamin Prescott, lay in the territory now belonging to Pepperell; but this is a mistake. The only unappropriated land between Dunstable and Townsend, as asked for in the petition, lay in the angle made by the western boundary of Dunstable and the northern boundary of Townsend. At that period Dunstable was a very large township, and included within its territory several modern towns, lying mostly in New Hampshire. The manuscript records of the General Court define very clearly the lines of the gore, and leave no doubt in regard to it. It lay within the present towns of Mason, Brookline, Wilton, Milford, and Greenville, New Hampshire. Benjamin Prescott was at the time a member of the General Court and the most influential man in town. His petition was presented to the House of Representatives on November 28, 1734, and referred to a committee, which made a report thereon a fortnight later. They are as follows:--

A Petition of _Benjamin Prescot_, Esq; Representative of the Town of _Groton_, and in behalf of the Proprietors of the said Town, shewing that the General Court in _May_ 1655, in answer to the Petition of Mr. _Dean Winthrop_ and others, were pleased to grant the Petitioners a tract of Land of the contents of eight miles square, the Plantation to be called _Groton_, that in taking a Plat of the said tract there was no allowance made for prior Grants &c. by means whereof and in settling the Line with _Littleton Anno_ 1715, or thereabouts, the said Town of _Groton_ falls short more than four thousand acres of the Original Grant, praying that the said Proprietors may obtain a Grant of what remains undisposed of of a Gore of Land lying between _Dunstable_ and _Townshend_, or an equivalent elsewhere of the Province Land. Read and _Ordered_, That Col. _Chandler_, Capt. _Blanchard_, Capt. _Hobson_, Major _Epes_, and Mr. _Hale_, be a Committee to take this Petition under consideration, and report what may be proper for the Court to do in answer thereto.

[Journal of the House of Representatives, November 28, 1734, page 94.]

Col. _Chandler_ from the Committee appointed the _28th._ ult. to consider the Petition of _Benjamin Prescot_, Esq; in behalf of the Proprietors of _Groton_, made report, which was read and accepted, and in answer to this Petition, _Voted_, That a Grant of ten thousand eight hundred acres of the Lands lying in the _Gore_ between _Dunstable_ and _Townshend_, be and hereby is made to the Proprietors of the Town of _Groton_, as an equivalent for what was taken from them by _Littleton_ and _Coyachus_ or _Willard's Farm_ (being about two acres and a half for one) and is in full satisfaction thereof, and that the said Proprietors be and hereby are allowed and impowred by a Surveyor and Chain-men on Oath to survey and lay out the said ten thousand eight hundred acres in the said _Gore_, and return a Plat thereof to this Court within twelve months for confirmation to them their heirs and assigns respectively.

Sent up for Concurrence.

[Journal of the House of Representatives, December 12, 1734, page 119.]

The proprietors of Groton had a year's time allowed them, in which they could lay out the grant, but they appear to have taken fifteen months for the purpose. The record of the grant is as follows:--

A Memorial of Benj'a Prescott Esq: Represent'a of the Town of Groton in behalf of the Proprietors there, praying that the Votes of the House on his Memorial & a plat of Ten Thousand Eight hundred Acres of Land, lately Granted to the said Proprietors, as Entred in the House the 25 of March last, may be Revived and Granted, The bounds of which Tract of Land as Mentioned on the said Plat are as follows viz't.: begining at the North West Corner of Dunstable at Dram Cup hill by Sohegan River and Runing South in Dunstable line last Perambulated and Run by a Com'tee of the General Court, two Thousand one hundred & fifty two poles to Townshend line, there making an angle, and Runing West 31 1-2 Deg. North on Townshend line & province Land Two Thousand and Fifty Six poles to a Pillar of Stones then turning and Ruñing by Province Land 31 1-2 deg North two Thousand & forty Eight poles to Dunstable Corner first mentioned

In the House of Represent'a. Read & Ordered that the prayer of the Memorial be Granted, and further that the within Plat as Reformed and Altered by Jonas Houghton Survey'r, be and hereby is accepted and the Lands therein Delineated and Described (Excepting the said One Thousand Acres belonging to Cambridge School Farm and therein included) be and hereby are Confirmed to the Proprietors of the Town of Groton their heirs and Assignes Respectivly forever, According to their Several Interests; Provided the same do not interfere with any former Grant of this Court nor Exceeds the Quantity of Eleven thousand and Eight hundred Acres and the Committee for the Town of Ipswich are Allowed and Impowred to lay out such quantity of Land on their West line as is Equivalent to what is taken off their East line as aforesaid, and Return a plat thereof to this Court within twelve Months for confirmation.

In Council Read & Concurr'd.

Consented to J Belcher

And in Answer to the said Memorial of Benj'a Prescott Esq'r

In the House of Represent'a. Ordered that the prayer of the Memorial be Granted and the Com'tee. for the new Township Granted to some of the Inhabitants of Ipswich are hereby Allowed to lay out an Equivalent on the West line of the said New Township Accordingly.

In Council Read & Concurr'd

Consented to J Belcher

[General Court Records (xvi, 334), June 15, 1736, in the office of the secretary of state.]

This grant, now made to the proprietors of Groton, interfered with the territory previously given on April, 1735, to certain inhabitants of Ipswich, but the mistake was soon rectified, as appears by the following:--

_Voted_, That one thousand seven hundred Acres of the unappropriated Lands of the Province be and hereby is given and granted to the Proprietors or Grantees of the Township lately granted to sixty Inhabitants of the Town of _Ipswich_, as an Equivalent for about that quantity being taken off their Plat by the Proprietors of the Common Lands of _Groton_, and that the _Ipswich_ Grantees be allowed to lay out the same on the Northern or Westerly Line of the said new Township or on both sides.

Sent up for Concurrence.

[Journal of the House of Representatives (page 108), January 12, 1736.]

The record of the grant clearly marks the boundaries of Groton Gore, and by it they can easily be identified. Dram Cup Hill, near Souhegan River, the old northwest corner of Dunstable, is in the present territory of Milford, New Hampshire. From that point the line ran south for six or seven miles, following the western boundary of Dunstable, until it came to the old Townsend line; then it turned and ran northwesterly six miles or more, when turning again it made for the original starting-place at Dunstable northwest corner. These lines enclosed a triangular district which became known as Groton Gore; in fact, the word _gore_ means a lot of land of triangular shape. This territory is now entirely within the State of New Hampshire, lying mostly in Mason, but partly in Brookline, Wilton, Milford, and Greenville. It touches in no place the tract, hitherto erroneously supposed to comprise the Gore. It was destined, however, to remain only a few years in the possession of the proprietors; but during this short period it was used by them for pasturing cattle. Mr. John B. Hill, in his History of the Town of Mason, New Hampshire, says:--

Under this grant, the inhabitants of Groton took possession of, and occupied the territory. It was their custom to cut the hay upon the meadows, and stack it, and early in the spring to send up their young cattle to be fed upon the hay, under the care of Boad, the negro slave. They would cause the woods to be fired, as it was called, that is, burnt over in the spring; after which fresh and succulent herbage springing up, furnished good store of the finest feed, upon which the cattle would thrive and fatten through the season. Boad's camp was upon the east side of the meadow, near the residence of the late Joel Ames. (Page 26.)

In connection with the loss of the Gore, a brief statement of the boundary question between Massachusetts and New Hampshire is here given.

During many years the dividing-line between these two provinces was the subject of controversy. The cause of dispute dated back to the time when the original grant was made to the colony of Massachusetts Bay, The charter was drawn up in England at a period when little was known in regard to the interior of this country; and the boundary lines, necessarily, were very indefinite. The Merrimack River was an important factor in fixing the limits of the grant, as the northern boundary of Massachusetts was to be a line three miles north of any and every part of it. At the date of the charter, the general direction of the river was not known, but it was incorrectly assumed to be easterly and westerly. As a matter of fact, the course of the Merrimack is southerly, for a long distance from where it is formed by the union of the Winnepeseogee and the Pemigewasset Rivers, and then it turns and runs twenty-five or thirty miles in a northeasterly direction to its mouth; and this deflexion in the current caused the dispute. The difference between the actual and the supposed direction was a matter of little practical importance so long as the neighboring territory remained unsettled, or so long as the two provinces were essentially under one government; but as the population increased it became an exciting and vexatious question. Towns were chartered by Massachusetts in territory claimed by New Hampshire, and this action led to bitter feeling and provoking legislation. Massachusetts contended for the land "nominated in the bond," which would carry the line fifty miles northward into the very heart of New Hampshire; and on the other hand that province strenuously opposed this view of the case, and claimed that the line should run, east and west, three miles north of the mouth of the river. At one time, a royal commission was appointed to consider the subject, but their labors produced no satisfactory result. At last the matter was carried to England for a decision, which was rendered by the king on March 5, 1739-40. His judgment was final, and in favor of New Hampshire. It gave that province not only all the territory in dispute, but a strip of land fourteen miles in width, lying along her southern border, mostly west of the Merrimack, which she had never claimed. This strip was the tract of land between the line running east and west, three miles north of the southernmost trend of the river, and a similar line three miles north of its mouth. By the decision twenty-eight townships were taken from Massachusetts and transferred to New Hampshire. The settlement of this disputed question was undoubtedly a public benefit, although it caused, at the time, a great deal of hard feeling. In establishing the new boundary Pawtucket Falls, situated now in the city of Lowell, and near the most southern portion of the river's course, was taken as the starting-place; and the line which now separates the two States was run west, three miles north of this point. It was surveyed officially in the spring of 1741.

The new boundary passed through the original Groton grant, and cut off a triangular portion of its territory, now within the limits of Nashua, and went to the southward of Groton Gore, leaving that tract of land wholly in New Hampshire.

A few years previously to this time the original grant had undergone other dismemberment, when a slice of its territory was given to Westford. It was a long and narrow tract of land, triangular in shape, with its base resting on Stony Brook Pond, now known as Forge Pond, and coming to a point near Millstone Hill, where the boundary lines of Groton, Westford, and Tyngsborough intersect. The Reverend Edwin R. Hodgman, in his History of Westford, says:--

Probably there was no computation of the area of this triangle at any time. Only four men are named as the owners of it, but they, it is supposed, held titles to only a portion, and the remainder was wild, or "common," land, (Page 25.)

In the Journal of the House of Representatives (page 9), September 10, 1730, there is recorded:--

A petition of _Jonas Prescot, Ebenezer Prescot, Abner Kent_, and _Ebenezer Townsend_, Inhabitants of the Town of _Groton_, praying, That they and their Estates, contained in the following Boundaries, _viz._ beginning at the _Northwesterly_ Corner of _Stony Brook_ Pond, from thence extending to the _Northwesterly_ Corner of _Westford_, commonly called _Tyng's_ Corner, and so bound _Southerly_ by said Pond, may be set off to the Town of _Westford_, for Reasons mentioned. Read and _Ordered_, That the Petitioners within named, with their Estates, according to the Bounds before recited, be and hereby are to all Intents and Purposes set off from the Town of _Groton_, and annexed to the said Town of _Westford_.

Sent up for Concurrence.

This order received the concurrence of the council, and was signed by the governor, on the same day that it passed the House.

During this period the town of Harvard was incorporated. It was made up from portions of Groton, Lancaster, and Stow, and the engrossed act signed by the governor, on June 29, 1732. The petition for the township was presented to the General Court nearly two years before the date of incorporation. In the Journal of the House of Representatives (pages 84, 85), October 9, 1730, it is recorded:--

A Petition of _Jonas Houghton, Simon Stone, Jonathan Whitney_, and _Thomas Wheeler_, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf and at the desire of sundry of the Inhabitants on the extream parts of the Towns of _Lancaster, Groton_ and _Stow_, named in the Schedule thereunto annexed; praying, That a Tract of Land (with the Inhabitants thereon, particularly described and bounded in said Petition) belonging to the Towns above-mentioned, may be incorporated and erected into a distinct Township, agreeable to said Bounds, for Reasons mentioned. Read, together with the Schedule, and _Ordered_, That the Petitioners serve the Towns of _Lancaster, Groton_ and _Stow_ with Copies of the Petition, that they may shew Cause (if any they have) on the first Thursday of the next Session, why the Prayer thereof may not be granted.

Sent up for Concurrence.

Further on, in the same Journal (page 136), December 29, 1730, it is also recorded:--

The Petition of _Jonas Houghton, Simon Stone_, and others, praying as entred the 9th. of _October_ last. Read again, together with the Answers of the Towns of _Lancaster, Groton_ and Stow, and _Ordered_, That Maj. _Brattle_ and Mr. _Samuel Chandler_, with such as the Honourable Board shall appoint, be a Committee, (at the Charge of the Petitioners) to repair to the Land Petitioned for to be a Township, that they carefully view and consider the Situation and Circumstances of the Petitioners, and Report their Opinion what may be proper for this Court to do in Answer thereto, at their next Session.

Sent up for Concurrence.

_Ebenezer Burrel_ Esq; brought from the Honourable Board, the Report of the Committee appointed by this Court the 30th of _December_ last, to take under Consideration the Petition of _Jonas Houghton_ and others, in behalf of themselves and sundry of the Inhabitants of the _Eastern_ part of the Towns of _Lancaster, Groton_ and _Stow_, praying that they may be erected into a separate Township. Likewise a Petition of _Jacob Houghton_ and others, of the _North-easterly_ part of the Town of _Lancaster_, praying the like. As also a Petition of sundry of the Inhabitants of the _South-west_ part of the _North-east_ Quarter of the Township of _Lancaster_, praying they may be continued as they are. Pass'd in Council, _viz._ In Council, _June_ 21, 1731. Read, and _Ordered_, That this Report be accepted.

Sent down for Concurrence. Read and Concurred.

[Journal of the House of Representatives (page 52), June 22, 1731.]

The original copy of the petition for Harvard is now probably lost; but in the first volume (page 53) of "Ancient Plans Grants &c." among the Massachusetts Archives, is a rough plan of the town, with a list of the petitioners, which may be the "Schedule" referred to in the extract from the printed Journal. It appears from this document that, in forming the new town, forty-eight hundred and thirty acres of land were taken from the territory of Groton; and with the tract were nine families, including six by the name of Farnsworth. This section comprised the district known, even now, as "the old mill," where Jonas Prescott had, as early as the year 1667, a gristmill. The heads of these families were Jonathan Farnsworth, Eleazer Robbins, Simon Stone, Jr., Jonathan Farnsworth, Jr., Jeremiah Farnsworth, Eleazer Davis, Ephram Farnsworth, Reuben Farnsworth, and [_torn_] Fransworth, who had petitioned the General Court to be set off from Groton. On this plan of Harvard the names of John Burk, John Burk, Jr., and John Davis, appear in opposition to Houghton's petition.

The town of Harvard took its name from the founder of Harvard College, probably at the suggestion of Jonathan Belcher, who was governor of the province at the time and a graduate of the college.

To his Excellency Jonathan Belcher Esq'r. Cap't General and Governour in Chief The Hon'ble. The Council and the Honourable House of Representatives of His Majestys Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England in General Court Assembled by Adjournment Decemb'r 16 1730

The Memorial of Jonas Houghton Simon Stone Jonathan Whitney and Thomas Wheeler Humbly Sheweth