fined "for not attending the town-meeting, in sea-
son." In 1659 it was ordered that if a town-meeting
was publicly warned on a lecture day, it should be
considered a sufl3cient notice. The lecture was at first
weekly, afterwards monthly, and it was almost as
obligatory to attend meeting on that day as on the
Sabbath itself.

The great ox-Common had been laid out before
1650, and in 1651 it was ordered that it "shall be for
the use of them who live upon the east side of the
mill brook, and for as many as will join with them."
" They that live upon the west side of the mill brook
shall have liberty to have an ox-Common westward
for them, and as many as will join with them, which
common is to be laid out in a convenient place, as
shall be judged meet by the major part of the
town."

At a meeting January 1, 1651, it was agreed that
those who had land in the plain or below it, " butting
upon the great river, should have liberty to make use
of the bank next to the river for a fence for the space
of four years : and also such as have land over the
little river, west, should have the same liberty so far
as Thomas Hale's lot."

An instance of the supervision the town intend-
ed to exercise over new-comers is to be found in the



1922



HISTORY OF ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.



vote of ihat vear : " iiKrced thai James Pecker should
bo an inhabitant with us, and that he shall have a
four-acre lot (house-lot) with accommodations propor-
tionable to it, which lot is to be bought of Bartholo-
mew Heath for eight pounds. James Pecker doth
jiromise to come and be an inhabitant with us by
June, 1653." He probably came accordingly, dying
in Haverhill, in 1696. The only children of his
recorded, were four daughters, but there were male
citizens of the name here long after. James Pecker
kept a tavern for many years, and, when he died in
1657, his widow succeeded him. About 1760 Matthew
Soley had it for a little while, and then Jeremiah
Pecker carried it on. Bartholomew Pecker, a native
of Haverhill, was a good Revolutionary soldier, said
at one time to have been a member of Washing-
ton's Life Guards. He loved New England rum too
well. That he presented himself to Washington's
notice on his visit to Haverhill in spite of vigorous
opposition, that his old chief recognized him, saying:
" Bart, is this you?" and gave him a gold piece, is
api)arently as authentic as any other incident of that
memorable occasion. "Pecker Street " and " Pecker
Hill," will always preserve the name of the graceless
veteran wliom his townsmen were ashamed of.

In this year George Brown and Daniel Hendrick
were appointed to lay out the highway between Hav-
erhill and Salisbury, and Theophilus Shatswell to
join the men from Rowley, and lay out a road be-
tween that town and this. The last was not approved
l>y the County Court at Ipswich till 1686.

Up to this time there had been no saw-mill, and
the people were compelled either to hew all the
boards and planks used for building or else to bring
them from Newbury ; in either case, the inconveni-
ence was great. There was plenty of timber, plenty
of water-power and an ardent desire for a saw-mill
of their own. December 1, 1657, it was voted that
a saw-mill should be "set up by Isaac Cousins and
such others of this town aa shall join with him : the
town and they agreeing upon terms, viz : that they
shall not make use of any timber within three miles
of the meeting-house: Item — That all timbers with-
out the compass of three miles from themeeting-
liouse should be free for the use of the saw-mill : they
])aying the twelfth hundred to the use of the town in
general. Item — Tliat the town for their use shall have
boards and planks at three shillings per hundred for
such pay as is merchantable. The town also reserv-
ing to themselves a liberty to make use of what tim-
ber they stand in need of, though it be without the
three mile compass from the meeting-house." De-
cember 15, 1651, " Granted by the major part of the
inhabitanti that Isaac Cousins shall have a sixth part
of a saw-mill or mills : and that Mr. Clement (Robert),
.lob Clement, Stephen Kent, William White and
Theophilus Shatswell shall join with him, together
with any others that they shall agree with, provided
that Mr. (Coffin (Peter Coffin, of Exeter) have libertv



to have a sixth part of it, if he come to be an inhab-
itant of this town. This mill is to be set up upon
the river, called Thomas Hale's river " (Little River
at Winter Street).

This grant wiis more explicit than that made two
weeks before, naming all the parties recognized and
the location. They were to set up the mill by April,
1653. They had liberty to set up a second mill by
April, 1654 — " If they set them not up by these times
above mentioned, then this grant is to be disannull-
ed. . . . The proprietors have power, if they see
cause, to remove one or both these mills up or down
the river."

December 16, 1651, " voted and granted by the in-
habitants that there shall no saw-mill be set up while
these forementioned saw-mills are going." At the
same time a committee was chosen to lay out ground
for the use of tlie saw-mill " for a Pen," to be " re-
turned to the town when the saw-mills are done." A
six acre house-lot, with all accommodations propor-
tionable, " was granted to the above mentioned Isaac
Cousins, provided he lived in town five years following
his trade of a smith." Three hundred and six acres
had now been laid out in house-lots, or accommoda-
tion grants.

Three days had thus been spent in adjusting the most
important matter of a saw-mill. Cousins was a black-
smith, as we have seen, the first in the town. He did
not, however, fulfill the conditions of his grant, and
in 1653, it was transferred to John Webster, upon
similiar terms. John Webster came from Newbury,
and returned there after four years. His brother,
Stephen, a tailor, removed from Newbury to Haverhill
soon after, and is supposed to have been the ancestor
of all the Websters of Haverhill and the many emi-
grants of that name.

A lot of land not exceeding four-score acres, was also
granted to the proprietors of the saw-mill as long as
they kept it in use. This lot was on the west
side of Little River or Sawmill River, as it then be-
gan to be called.

In 1656 the town voted to cancel all these grants and
privileges, if the present saw-mill or some other did not
cut boards enough for the town by midsummer. In
1658 all former grants and privileges were de-
clared forfeited, and Thomas Davis, one of the owners
of the mill, John Hutchins and Daniel Hendricks
were granted the privileges appertaining to the old
mill if they put up a mill and supplied the town with-
in twelve months. But no mill was built, and the
nest year the voters declared the privilege for-
feited.

Notwithstanding all these difficulties Daniel Ladd
and Theophilus Shatswell, in 1659, having received
liberty from the town in consideration of five pounds
a year, built the first saw-mill upon Spiggot (Spicket)
River, now in Salem, N. H.

The old saw-mill at Little River was still a source
of di.sqnietude. The town had more than once de-



11AVP]RHILL.



11)23



<'hirfd the privileges forfeited, but the niill cnviiors
aeeiii to have paid little attention to such de-
crees.

In 1660 a committee was chosen to request' the ex-
ecutors of Mr. John Clements to repair the mill or
â– " desert the place." If they refused the committee
were to " force them by law." Probably the mill was
repaired, for in 1664 the ownere of the saw-mill were
allowed the use of one hundred acres to pasture
their oxen, paying an annual rent of "100 boards."

In 1665 additional grist-mill accommodations were
needed. " The corn-mill now in Haverhill is not
sufficient to answer the town's end for to grind the
town's corn," and a committee was chosen to confer
with John Osgood and Andrew Greeley, its owners,
" to know whether they will maintain a sufficient
mill or mills," or to agree with others. Bartholomew
Heath and Andrew Greeley agreed with the commit-
lei' "to repair the mill that now is by September
ii'Xt, and if this mill proves insufficient to answer the
town's end, then to build another by September fol-
low ing," and so to maintain sufficient corn-mills with
skillful millers, good mill-stones, storeroom for bags,
'â–  with lock and key, & also we do engage not to grind
l'>i any other town or towns to the hindrance of any
oi I ho inhabitants of Haverhill." In consideration of
all which the town agreed, November 4, 1665, that
Heath and Greeley should have land " in the street on
both sides of the brook at the end of Michael Emer-
son's lot, to set another mill on or any other place on
the town's land." Also that the town would not give
le:ive to any others to set up any mill upon the town's
land.

When, in 1669, the bridge over Little or Sawmill
lliver was out of repair, it was considered that " the
jiresent saw-mill owners were engaged to do it; " yet
wlicn Thomas Davis, in open meeting, said, " I will
not." a committee was chosen to " compound the mat-
ter with Davis and to build a new bridge." The in-
haljitants were all called upon to contribute propor-
tionally of their labor towards constructing it.

September 17, 1669, a special meeting was called
about a corn-mill, " the town being wholly destitute
of any. Andrew Greeley, in whose hands the mill
was, being about to carry on a mill at the East
Meadow River, upon the motion and desire of the
town, did promise to take the frame down at the Lit-
tle River & bring it up & raise it at the place where
the former mill was (Mill Brook) ; many of the in-
habitants at the same time promising to allow him
freely some help towards the taking the frame down
and raising it again."

But the trouble continued, and March 6, 1671, it
was voted " that John Haseltiue or any other man
have liberty to build a mill to grind corn in the town
of Haverhill, either upon the west river, called the
saw-mill river, or upon east meadow river."

In 1675 the town voted to prosecute the owners of
the saw-mill for not keeping their agreement. This



came to nothing, and the tiict pj-obably was that more
mills were needed.

In 1678 Richard Bartlett, of" Almsbury," by unani-
mous vote, was "granted the privilege to set a saw-
mill in Haverhill, on the North Meadow River," on
condition that he should pay the regular rates (taxes) :
"deliver at our meeting-house 1000 merchantable
per year, " should sell to the Haverhill people at
three shillings per hundred, and secure the town
from any damages recovered by present saw-mill
owners on account of the new mill and damages to
meadows.

Five years later it was voted to allow Joseph
Kingsbury, Samuel Hutchins, Robert Swan, Jr., and
Josiah Gage to build a saw-mill on Merries Creek be-
low the bridge. Guided by past experience, the town
expressly reserved the right to allow others a similar
privilege on the same stream.

At the .same meeting, 1683, it was proposed to
Andrew Greeley to build another corn-mill, which he
refused to do, "and declared before the town that he
knew there was a necessity for the town to have
another corn-mill, & that he was not at all against
their having of one set up, provided it be set upon
any other brook or stream." Whereupon Stephen
Dalton " propounded for liberty to build a corn-mill,"
which request was granted.

In 1684 William Starlin was given 1-eave to set up a
corn-mill at Fishing River, with reservation of the
right to allow any others to put up mills on the
same stream. The town granted Starlin ten acres
of land " for encouragement." Starlin, in 1697,
deeded it to Thomas Dustin.

For years, negotiations were pending with differ-
ent persons — Andrew Greeley, Nathaniel Whittier,
Joseph Peasley and Peter Patie — about building a
grist-mill at East Meadow River. It was finally
erected, soon after 1696, at a place afterwards long
known as Johnson's mill about one-fourth of a mile
from the mouth of the stream, by Samuel Currier
and Joseph Greeley, to whom the town allowed the
use of ten acres of land.

In 1705, John Swan and Jonathan Emerson, were
granted the privilege of setting up a grist-mill, on
liittle River. This is supposed to have been built
midway between the mouth of the river and the
Winter Street bridge.

At the next annual meeting, John White was al-
lowed to build " a fulling mill on Mill brook, near
his own dwelling-house." This was the first mill of
that kind.

We hear very little more about saw and grist-mills.
At last the land had rest. Probably natural com-
petition took care of the whole matter in the end.

In 1651, it was voted " that all the meadows shall
be laid out by the 12th of June next, to each man
his proportion according to his house lot." It was
also " ordered that Hugh Sherrat, Theophilus Satch-
well, Bart H'ath, James Fiske, and Danifl Ladd,



1924



HISTORY OF ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.



shall view the upland that is lit to plough, by the
last of March or the tenth of April next, and that
they bring in their intelligence to the town by that
time." It was further ordered, "that all the undi-
vided land after all the meadow's and second division
of plough land is laid out, shall remain to the same
inhabitants the proprietors of the three hundred and
six acres, to every one according to honest and true
meaning, all commons remaining in general to
them."

The last was a vote of great importance in the
history of the town. It had been settled more than
ten years, and the title from the Indians to the in-
habitants of Haverhill had been made about ten
years before. The town was fairly prosperous, and
new settlers had come ; more were likely to do so.
The new comers would in a short time outnumber
the pioneers. Now that a division of all the mea-
dows and a second division of plough land was
about to be made, the question evidently arose to
whom will belong the large quantity of land
(commons) that will still remain undivided. Shall it
remain to such as have participated in previous di-
visions, namely,— the proprietors of the three hund-
red and six acres of house-lots, accommodation
grants, or shall it be regarded as the estate of all
the inhabitants, whoever they may be, now or here-
after; whether fairly or unfairly, the town by the
above vote, expressly and clearly declared that the
commons should " remain " and be the property of
the then proprietors of the house-lots. In after
years, when the population had much increased,
such a vote could not have been carried. Its vali-
dity was indeed stoutly contested and with a good
deal of plausibility. There was much wrangling, a
good deal of rough and tumble fighting and many
law-suits. The " proprietors," as the lot holders and
their successors came to be called, organized them-
selves, kept records and held their meetings for many
years. They made many grants, but probably their
expenses absorbed the proceeds. In other towns
also, similar controversies raged for years, but the
victory generally remained with the proprietors or
commoners, as may be observed at Salisbury at the
present time where the "Commoners" are asserting
their title to the beach without dispute.

The second division of plough land was made June
7, 1652. The division commenced at the head of
Pond Meadow, and extended north, east and west.
The lot-layers received for their services two pence
an acre or ten shillings each. Forty-one persons
received a share in the division, each having " his
proportion either in quality or quantity of his lot,
according to the discretion of the lot-layers."

Following are the names of those who received a
share in this division, or as the records have it,
"The lots or draughts for the second division of
plough land, with the number of each man's acccom-
modali'n."



John Davis



2. James Fieko 4

3. MatthiM Bulton C

4. Bartholomew Heath

5. Alirahani Tyler 4

G. John Ayer, Sr 8

7. Henry Palmer 9

8. Edward Clarke .4

0. Rohert Clement 6

10. llngh .'Jherratt 12

11. John Woodin .4

12. Thomas Peny ...5

13. Thomas Whittier. 7H

14. Stephen Kent 22>i

15. Joseph Peaseley 12

16. John Ayer, Jr 8

17. Thomas Linforth n

18. Richard Littlehale 4

19. Isaac Consins 8J^

20. William White 7

21. John Eaton 10

In the second division



22. Daniel llendrick

23. Thomas Davis ,

24. Richard Ormsbio...

25. Robert Ayer

2G. Henrj' Savage

27. George Brxmne

28. William rioldridge..

29. Mr. John Ward

3D. George Corlig

31. Theophilus Satchwi

32. John Williams

33. JohnChenarie

34. James Pecker

3d. Thomas Ayers

I Gild



.10



36. i

37. Daniel Ladd 6

38. James Davis, Jr 10

3il. Job Clement G

40. John Clement 8

41. James Davis, Sr 10

of meadow land, made in



1653, there were forty-eight lots drawn. About the
same time the island just below the vilLage was divided
intoforty-five lots. The names and the bounds of each
man's lot are given in the Commoner's Book of Re-
cords, but entered there under the date of 1727.

A third division of upland, or plowland, was also
ordered to be laid out; this was situated west and
north of West Meadow, in the West Parish.

Only three Estates equalled the valuation of two
hundred pounds, and received, according to the vote
of Nov. 6, 1643, a house lot of twenty acres, the
limit allowed — thoseof James Davis,Steven Kent and
John Hutchins. John Hutchins' valuation indeed,
was four hundred and eighty pounds, but he got no
more land for the excess over tw^o hundred pounds.

In 1650, the General Court passed a law forbidding
any person whose estate did not exceed two hundred
pounds, to wear any gold or silver lace or buttons
great boots, silk hoods, ribbons or scarfs, under a
penalty of ten shillings. In 1653, the wife of John
Hutchins was presented to the court for wearing a
silk hood ; " but upon testimony of her being brought
up above the ordinary way was discharged." But the
wife of Joseph Swett being also pre.sented at the same
time and for the same ofl'ense, was fined the ten
shillings, not being qualified by estate for such
vanities. In 1664, the General Court remitted to
John Hutchins, late constable of Haverhill, a sum for
corn collected for taxes and burned up while in his
hands. Stephen Kent, notwithstanding his con-
siderable property, was not always a satisfactory
citizen. In 1652, he was fined in the County Court,
at Hampton, ten pounds " for sufieringfive Indians to
be druncke in his house and one of them wounded."

He petitioned the General Court for relief without
avail, for it was ordered "that Stephen Kent within
one month shall pay the said tennc pounds to the
selectmen of Haverhill, wdio shall therewith satisfy
for the cure of the Indian." He petitioned then to
have the fine reduced, but without success. The fine
was a heavy one, but the harboring :uul debauching



HAVERHILL.



1925



of the ludiaus \va^ a serious ottense, for which Kent,
a few years later, would have buffered more than a,
pecuniary penalty. Hedoubtless has given his name
to Kent Street, near the old ferry.

Matthias Button was a Dutchman who came to
Salem with John Endicott in 1628. He was in
Ipswich in 1639, and came to Haverhill about 1646.
In 1662, William Simmons who had been the ferry-
man for five years previous, was voted "the overplus
in the constable's hands of the country rate, to satisfy
him for the curing of Matthias Button." This is the
fiist mention of a doctor on the records, although as
has been said, Joseph Peasely is reported to have
jiractised medicine, probably among his neighbors.
Button was an uneasy creature. He first lived in the
village, then west, then east of it, and finally was
living in a thatched house near the present residence
of Mr. Thomas West, where he was burned out in
1671. In 1663, he had married; Elizabeth Duston.
His son, Daniel, as is supposed, was in Lothrop's
Company — the Flower of Essex — and was killed at
Bloody Brook by the Indians Sept. 18, 1675. Button
gave to Eev. Thomas Cobbett, (minister at Ipswich
about thirty years) some of the facts communicated by
him to Increase Mather, concerning the early
troubles with the Indians. Button died in 1672 very
old.

About 16.51, the road ever since known as Mill
Street was laid out ; and for more than a hundred
years, it was known as the " Great Eoad" leading into
the village.

In 1652, the town voted Mr. Ward, the "Teacher,"
a salary of fifty pounds ; also, " that if any one or more
shall be disenabled to pay his proportion, that then the
rest of the inhabitants shall pay it for him or them to
Mr. Ward."

In that year the General Court changed the time
for elections in towns from November to March ; and
with the exception of a short period, the town meet-
ings were held in March, so long as there were town
meetings.

A prison, the second in the colony, was that year
built at Ipswich. Haverhill donated four pounds
seven shillings, to Harvard College. According to
the custom of their Saxon ancestors, the flocks and
herds were pastured together; and in 1652, James
George was appointed town's herdsman ; his pay was
twelve shillings and six pence a week, in Inilian rorn
and butter. "He was to keep y' herd r;iiililiilly ;is a
heard ought to be kept; if any be left (^liayid i ..n the
Sabbath when y" town" worship, they who keepe are
togoe y'next day, doing their best indeavore to find
them." He was not permitted to turn his flock into
the pasture on the Sabbath, until the "second beat-
ing of the drum" — when the people would be gone to
meeting.

In 1654 died Thomas Duw, the first adult to die in
the settlement.

The ox-commou (south of Kenoza) was enlarged



and the whole ordered to be fenced. "All those that
will join in the fencing of it, shall have a proportion
in it according to the fence they make and maintain,
provided that none shall keep more than four oxen
in it." Thirty-four persons helped to build the fence
and were entitled to keep an equivalent of ninety-two
oxen within it. Only oxen, steers and horses were to
pasture there. There were other ox-commons, but
none so large as this. Some were of only a few acres,
for single individuals; others for a number. But
this was the great ox-common.

There being no ferryman in 1655, the General
Court ordered Robert Haseltine, of Bradford, to keep
a ferry, charging " id. a person, if they pay presently ;
and 6d. if bookt ; and keepe entertainment for horse
and man, for one yeare, unless the General Court take
further orders." The year previously the General
Court enacted that ministers should be respectably
maintained in the several towns ; in case of neglect
the county courts were directed to assess a tax for
that purpose. Notwithstanding the liberal vote of
1652 as to Mr. Ward's salary, there were some,
as speedily as 1656, who thought it exorbitant. So
great was the disturbance that the council of magis-
trates intervened August 14th, 1656. Difiiculties also
existed at Salisbury. The order recites the existence
of difterences in the two churches, that the council
has hereto advised them to convene councils from
the neighboring churches to which they have not in-
clined, and orders the churches in Boston, Cambridge
and Ipswich, to send each of them respectively two
messengers to meet at Haverhill, August 27th, at
8 o'clock A. M., and '' at Salisbury the day after their
issuing or rising from Haverill for ye ends above ex-
prest." Mr. Robert Clements, of Haverhill, and Mr.
Samuel Hall of Salisbury, "shall take care for the
entertainment of the sayd councill & all persons
concerned therein who shall be sattisfied by the
Treasurer." One member of the council was that able
but bigoted John Norton, who had been colleague at
Ipswich with Nathaniel, John Ward's father, and who,
in this very year, was called to the first church in
Boston, whom the t^uakers scornfully called "the
chief priest."

There were other than pecuniary difiiculties at
Haverhill, as appears from the minutes of the coun-
cil which, upon the second branch. Chase prints at
length. There were knotty points of casuistry, which
may be more briefly stated. Henry Palmer, a mem-
ber of the church in Haverhill, having been by a
public arbitration censured as a delinquent in point
of defamation of Robert Swan, a member of the
Rowley Church, was it the duty of the church of
Haverhill "to take church notice thereof?" and the
council held that it was. But, second, the church at
Haverhill is not concluded as to its determination by