Page images
PDF
EPUB

ANNUAL FIELD MEETING AT THE WEIRS.

FIRST DAY.

WEDNESDAY.-AUGUST 15.

The ninth annual field meeting of the state board of agriculture was held at the Weirs, August 15, 16, and 17, 1894, in coöperation with the Belknap County Pomona Grange. In opening the meeting, President Humphrey said:

PRESIDENT HUMPHREY.-This is the ninth annual field meeting of the board of agriculture. We have, heretofore, held our meetings at the seashore. It was thought advisable by the board.

that we should hold this meeting here, and perhaps continue to hold meetings here in the future. It is a central point and the facilities for getting here are good.

We have arranged a series of meetings through the state up into December, and I hope that they will be largely attended. I have been connected with the board ever since it was organized-about twenty-five years ago and I learn something at every meeting.

As the first speaker, I now introduce to you Hon. Joseph B. Walker, of Concord, who will tell you about the farm of the first minister.

THE FARM OF THE FIRST MINISTER;

OR,

FARMING IN CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE MIDDLE HALF OF THE LAST CENTURY.

BY JOSEPH B. WALKER.

Our gallant leader, Captain Humphrey, and his associates. upon the board of agriculture, have this year transferred our

summer outing from Boar's Head and the ocean shore to ancient Aquedoctan and the placid waters of Winnepesauke lake.

The fact that he has heretofore safely steered our craft along a coast where the headlands are sharp and the east winds often strong, gives confidence in his future pilotage over these placid waters which, coquetting with the mountains, reflect the smile of the Great Spirit by day and the stars which he has set in his firmament by night.

We are here for a good time, but skilled as is our leader, we must not depend upon him entirely for its attainment. Coöperation should be our watchword in the prosecution of our pleasures and all our great interests as well. It was not General Grant alone who forced the surrender of Richmond, in 1865, but the pressure of the great armies whom he led to victory. The announcement of my subject suggests three inquiries : Where was this farm?

I.

[blocks in formation]

3. What of his farming?

To answer these will be my present endeavor.

I.

Where was the first minister's farm?

On the 17th day of January, 1726, the general court of Massachusetts Bay granted to one hundred prospective settlers a plantation seven miles square, lying on its northern border and on both sides of the Merrimack river, at a place called by the Indians, Pennycook.

This was known at first as the Plantation of Pennycook. In 1733 it was incorporated by Massachusetts as the town of Rumford, which name it bore until 1765, when it was again incorporated by New Hampshire as Concord, by which designation it has ever since been known. To avoid confusion from these changes of name, I shall speak of it by its original Indian name of Pennycook.

These settlers were to be subsequently selected for their fitness, by a committee1 appointed by the general court, and the

This committee consisted of Hon. William Tailer, Esq., Elisha Cooke, Esq., Spencer Phipps, Esq., William Dudley, Esq., John Wainwright, Esq.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

territory thus granted was to be divided between them, the church, the school, and the first settled minister.

Pennycook, which had been long known to the early settlers of Massachusetts as an extensive tract of rich alluvion, had been previously granted to parties who, for failing to comply with the conditions of their grant, had lost it.' Up to this time it had been considered a valuable and undisposed portion of Massachusetts Bay Territory. Its boundaries under this last grant were substantially conterminous with those of the present city of Concord.

At this time, the northern boundary line of Massachusetts was undetermined. She claimed that it began at the sea, at a point three miles north of the Black Rocks, at the mouth of Merrimack river and thence ran westerly, three miles north of and parallel with this river to a white pine tree standing three miles north of the junction of its two main branches at Franklin; and thence due west to the South sea.2

New Hampshire claimed that her southern boundary line began at the sea, at a point three miles. north of the middle of the channel of Merrimack river, and thence ran due west until it met his majesty's other governments.

Capt. John Shipley, Mr. John Sanders, Eleazer Tyng, Esq., and Mr. Joseph Wilder.-Mass. Court Records, Jan. 17, 1725-6.

1 The character of the lands at Pennycook was well known to the people of the coast towns at an early day. A grant of a tract eight miles square was made in 1659, to Richard Walderne and twenty-one others; but it was subsequently forfeited by non-compliance of conditions.—Mass. Archives, Vol. 112, p. 117.

In 1662, Joseph Hills and others, of the town of Malden, Mass., petitioned the general court “That a Tract of Land About fowre Miles Square at A place Called Pennycooke may be Granted As An Addition to us, for our better Support And Incouragement." This petition was not granted.—Mass Archives, Vol. 112, p. 147.

June 9, 1721. In pursuance of an order of the general court of Massachusetts, a committee was appointed "To take an exact Survey of the Land on each side of Merrimack, between the rivers of Suncook and Cuntacook.” This committee discharged the duty assigned them and made report June 15, 1722. It also appears that, as early as 1722, the Scotch-Irish had a knowledge of these lands and contemplated a settlement upon them.-Mass. House Journal, June 15, 1722.

Belknap's History of New Hampshire, Ed. 1741, Vol. 2, p. 138.

« PreviousContinue »