the mason title and its relations to new ...capt. john mason was interested are, brieñy, as follows...

18
1916.] The Mason Title. 245 THE MASON TITLE AND ITS RELATIONS TO NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MASSACHUSETTS BY OTIS GRANT HAMMOND The history of the Mason grant is founded upon confusion and obscurity. All the various grants to Mason and Gorges, or to Capt. John Mason alone, emanated from the "Council Established at Ply- mouth in the County of Devon for the Planting, Rul- ing, Ordering, and Governing of New England in America," which in common usage was called the Council of Plymouth, itself a confessed failure after only fifteen years of' aimless, ñoundering existence. On the 3rd of November, 1620, the Council received from King James a grant of all the territory in America from the fortieth to the forty-eighth degree of norther- ly latitude, and extending from sea to sea. The grants from the Council of Plymouth in which Capt. John Mason was interested are, brieñy, as follows : The grant of Mariana to John Mason Mar. 9, 1621- 2, comprised the territory between the Naumkeag and Merrimack rivers, bounded on the west by a straight line connecting the sources of the two rivers. The grant of Maine to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Capt. John Mason Aug. 10, 1622, included the tract between the Merrimack and the Sagadahock rivers, and extending sixty miles inland. The grant of New Hampshire to Capt. John Mason Nov. 7, 1629, comprised the territory between the Merrimack and the Piscataqua rivers, extending to

Upload: others

Post on 25-Jan-2021

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 245

    THE MASON TITLE AND ITS RELATIONSTO NEW HAMPSHIRE AND

    MASSACHUSETTS

    BY OTIS GRANT HAMMOND

    The history of the Mason grant is founded uponconfusion and obscurity. All the various grants toMason and Gorges, or to Capt. John Mason alone,emanated from the "Council Established at Ply-mouth in the County of Devon for the Planting, Rul-ing, Ordering, and Governing of New England inAmerica," which in common usage was called theCouncil of Plymouth, itself a confessed failure afteronly fifteen years of' aimless, ñoundering existence.On the 3rd of November, 1620, the Council receivedfrom King James a grant of all the territory in Americafrom the fortieth to the forty-eighth degree of norther-ly latitude, and extending from sea to sea.

    The grants from the Council of Plymouth in whichCapt. John Mason was interested are, brieñy, asfollows :

    The grant of Mariana to John Mason Mar. 9, 1621-2, comprised the territory between the Naumkeagand Merrimack rivers, bounded on the west by astraight line connecting the sources of the two rivers.

    The grant of Maine to Sir Ferdinando Gorges andCapt. John Mason Aug. 10, 1622, included the tractbetween the Merrimack and the Sagadahock rivers,and extending sixty miles inland.

    The grant of New Hampshire to Capt. John MasonNov. 7, 1629, comprised the territory between theMerrimack and the Piscataqua rivers, extending to

  • 246 American Antiquarian Society. [Oct.,

    the head of each, and from the head of the Pisca-taqua, "northwestwards," and from the head of theMerrimack "forward up into y" land Westwards"until a distance of sixty miles from the sea had beenreached on each course, and these limits to be con-nected by a line forming a westerly bound. Thesedescriptions indicate the general courses of the tworivers as then understood, the Merrimack as flowingout of the west, and the Piscataqua from the north-west.

    The grant of Laconia to Sir Ferdinando Gorges andCapt. John Mason Nov. 17, 1629, comprised an inlandtract of land of very indefinite bounds, being describedas all that land bordering on the river and lake of theIroquois for a depth of ten miles to the south andeast, westward half way to the next great lake, andnorth to the main river running from the Great Lakesinto the River of Canada. It was intended that thisgrant should convey a tract of land lying in back ofthe Maine grant of 1622. The Lake of the Iroquoiswas probably Lake Champlain, but this grant wasnever even located.

    The grant of Piscataqua Nov. 3, 1631, to Gorgesand Mason, with their associates, John Cotton, HenryGardner, George Griffith, Edwin Guy, ThomasWannerton, Thomas Eyre, and Eleazer Eyre, conveyedthe settlement a,lready begun at Piscataqua andextending north to the Hilton Patent, with a consider-able area to the south and west, very indefinitely andobscurely described.

    Mason was elected a member of the Council ofPlymouth in June, 1632, and in November followinghe became Vice-Président, the Presidency being heldby the Earl of Warwick. The work of the Counciltowards the settlement of New England was by thistime clearly unsatisfactory. Their knowledge ofthe territory they held was very meager, and theirgrants were indefinite and unsuccessful. The mem-bers themselves became convinced of their futility

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 247

    as a corporation organized for the development ofthe new world. Their enemies were numerous inboth New and Old England, and they determined todivide their lands among themselves as far as possible,and to return their corporate powers to the King.In pursuance of this policy the Council, on the 18i3hof April, 1635, gave a lease of New Hampshire andMasonia to John WoUaston of London, goldsmith, abrother-in-law of Mason, for 3000 years, in accord-ance with an agreement with Mason. New Hamp-shire was described as extending from the Naumkeagto the Newichwannock rivers, and sixty miles inland,and Masonia was a 10,000 acre tract at the mouth ofthe Sagadahock.

    Four days later, Apr. 22, 1635, the same lands weregranted to Mason, these grants also being made inaccordance with an agreement made February 3 ofthe same year. On the 11th of June following,WoUaston transferred his lease to Mason, whose titlewas thus doubled, and later in the same month theCouncil of Plymouth surrendered its charter to theKing.

    Capt. John Mason died late in 1635, and his willwas dated November 26 of that year. He devisedhis province of New Hampshire to his grandson, JohnTufton, on condition that he should take the name ofMason, and if he should die without issue the landswere to go to his brother, Robert Tufton, on the samecondition. These were the sons of Mason's onlychild, Ann, who married Joseph Tufton. ''

    John Tufton Mason did die without issue, andRobert Tufton became the heir, taking the name ofMason. Robert did not, however, come of lawfulage until 1650. Capt. John Mason's widow had nointerest in the province, and expressly notified Ma-son's agents in New Hampshire that she should takeno care of the settlement, and that the tenants mustmanage affairs themselves.

    Captain Mason was enthusiastic over his properties

  • 248 American Antiquarian Society. [Oct.,

    in the new world, and spent time, energy, and moneywithout limit in the effort to establish a permanentsettlement that should be not only a source of wealthto himself, but a principality, hereditary in his family,which should thereby forever perpetuate his name.Before his death he had sent over about seventysettlers, besides tradesmen, with an ample supplyof provisions, clothing, utensils, arms, and ammuni-tion, and artillery for fortifications which were to bebuilt. These colonists had entered upon a settlementat Piscataqua, built houses, cleared lands, and madelarge improvements. Cattle had also been sent over,a Danish breed, which is said to be still perceptiblein some parts of New England. A settlement wasestablished also on another plantation at Newich-wannock, where two mills, the first in New England,and other buildings for habitation and defense hadbeen erected. Altogether Captain Mason had ex-pended on his province about £22,000 sterling, andin a letter to his agent, Ambrose Gibbons, in 1634 hestated that he had never received a penny in return.After his death, when it became known that the widowwould not carry on the settlement, the agents andcolonists obeyed her injunction to shift for them-selves by looting the entire property. Francis Nor-ton, who lived in the "Great House" at Piscataqua,and acted as agent in charge of the plantation of athousand acres of cleared and improved land, drovea hundred head of Danish cattle to Boston, sold themfor £25 a head, and settled at Charlestown with hisprofits. The other agents and servants followed hisexample, taking everything movable, even to thebrass guns from the fort, and dividing the lands amongthemselves. Thomas Wannerton, another agent,seized large quantities of supplies and ammunitionand sold them to the French at Port Royal in 1644.

    All this occurred prior to 1650, and during theminority of Robert Tufton Mason. When he becamelegally qualified to care for his interests the state of

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 249

    public affairs in England during the period of theCommonwealth and the Protectorate afforded himno opportunity to regain possession of his property,and it was not until after the Restoration that anyeffective legal measures could be taken.

    Mason's first task'was to clear his province of theencroachments of the government of Massachusetts,which had not only granted lands within his domain,but had exercised political jurisdiction over the NewHampshire settlements for several years. The factthat the Massachusetts government was extended overthe New Hampshire towns at their own solicitationdid not effect Mason's property rights. In answerto his petition of 1660 the Crown reaffirmed his title,but there was no other result. Again in 1675 he peti-tioned the Crown for relief, and the result was thecomplete separation of the two provinces by theappointment of John Cutt as President of NewHampshire in 1679, and the establishment of a com-plete form, of government within that province,Massachusetts at the same time receiving peremptoryorders to keep within her own territorial limits.

    Having accomplished this most important begin-ning, and secured the official recognition of his title.Mason came to New Hampshire with his family, set-tled in Newcastle, took his seat in Cranfield's council,and began strenuous efforts to recover possession ofhis lands by bringing suits in ejectment against thosewhom he found in possession, their only title beingderived from the squatter's title of the early settlerswho had taken possession of the lands as well as thegoods of Capt. John Mason after his death in 1635.In these operations Robert Mason had the supportof the Lieutenant-Governor and that of the King.The infiuence of Cranfield in New Hampshire, how-ever, was less than his authority, and this was notalways respected. Judgment was secured in somecases, but public sentiment was hostile to the Mason-ian title, and eviction was resisted.

  • 252 American Antiquarian Society. [Oct.,

    opinion of Sir Edward Northey, Attorney-Generalof England, who advised Queen Anne not to interferewith the lands in possession of inhabitants, holdingtheir title good by right of possession. In accordancewith a v̂ ote of the Council and Assembly a conventionof representatives, specially elected, was held May 3,1705, to devise methods for a settlement of the dis-pute. The convention recognized Allen's title to alllands outside of the towns of Portsmouth, Hampton,Dover, Exeter, Newcastle, and Kingston, and pro-posed that if Allen would give thé inhabitants ofthese towns warrantee deeds of their lands theywould lay out to him 500 acres in Portsmouth andNewcastle, 1,500 acres in each of the towns of Doverand Exeter, and 1,500 acres in Hampton and Kings-ton together; also they were to pay Allen £2,000,and all suits were to be withdrawn; all these conditionsto be subject to the approval of the Crown. Allen'sdeath the next day, however, prevented the furtherconsideration of this proposition.

    Samuel Allen died May 4, 1705, and his rightspassed to his only son, Thomas Allen. He died in1715, and the Allen contest waned. The Allen titlewas disputed by the colonists on the ground that theMasonian entail was docked in the courts of England,which course they claimed to be invalid because atthe time sufficient courts existed in New Hampshire,whose jurisdiction could not be denied. It was heldthat Allen's interest, therefore, could be only a lifeinterest. This point was not brought to a legaldecision, but the Allen contest was allowed to lapse.With it went the Hobby claim, which was created bythe sale of half the Province to Sir Charles Hobby byThomas Allen in 1706.

    In the meantime John Tufton Mason, oldest heirin tail of Capt. John Mason, died unmarried in Vir-ginia, and his brother Robert succeeded to the estate.He married Katherine Wiggin, and was lost at sea,in 1696, leaving a son John, who died in Havana in

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 253

    1718, leaving a son John, born in Boston Apr. 29,1713. This was the John Tufton Mason who finallyrecovered title and possession of the Masonian grants,and sold his rights to the Masonian Propriety and tothe Massachusetts Bay.

    It is quite probable that the Masonian title wouldnot have been revived as it was in 1738, after twelveyears of absolute silence in the official archives ofNew Hampshire following John Hobby's appeal to theCouncil in behalf of his father's interests in 1726,when he was dismissed with the advice that he usethe facilities offered by the courts of law for the adju-dication of his claim, had it not been for the approach-ing settlement of the boundary between New Hamp-shire and Massachusetts, which had been in disputefor more than half a century. John Tufton Masonhad arrived at legal age five years before, and hadshown no inclination to test his title. He calledhimself as "of Boston, mariner," and was unknownto public life. After the Boundary Line Com-missioners had rendered their decision in September,1737, and both provinces had appealed to the Crown,Massachusetts called to mind the Masonian title,with its possible bearing on the case. An opinionwas secured from John Read and Robert Auchmutyof Boston in June, 1738, that the sale to Allen did notaffect the title on account of the entail, which was notlegally docked, and that Mason was sole and legalowner of the lands of the Province of New Hampshire.On the 1st of July Mason executed a deed to WilliamDudley, Samuel Welles, Thomas Berry, BenjaminLynde, Jr., Benjamin Prescott, John Read, ThomasCushing, and Thomas Hutchinson, agents for Mass-achusetts Bay, by which, in consideration of £500,he accepted and confirmed the boundary line estab-lished by Charles II in 1677, which was the line follow-ing the Merrimack river to the headwaters at a dis-tance of three miles north, and quitclaimed to theinhabitants and proprietors thereof all his right to

  • 254 American Antiquarian Sodety. [Oct.,

    such parts of the towns of Salisbury, Amesbury,Haverhill, Methuen, and Dracut as extended to thenorth of that line. This territory was estimated at23,675 acres. By this instrument Mason also agreedto proceed to London at the expense of Massachu-setts, and there, under the direction of the Massa-chusetts agents, to do everything in his power tosecure the establishment of the line as claimed by thatprovince.

    Francis Wilks, Massachusetts agent in London,writing to Secretary Willard Sept. 18, 1738, says:"The Affair of M' Masons Claim may be very Ser-viceable to the Province. The Lawyers being out ofTown we have not as yet had Opportunity to adviseabout it, but you may depend everything shall beImproved to the best Advantage. " In another letterFeb. 9, 1738-9, he says, "As to the Business of JohnTufton Mason We got his Case Stated, & laid beforethe King's Solicitor General, our Counsel, to be byhim maturely considered, after what manner & howhis Case might be set on foot and introduc'd so asto be of Service to our Cause, who upon the wholeaffair would by no means Advise to our Exhibitingany Petition or Memorial at all, in any thing relatingto him, for that the Lords would certainly look uponit in no other light than as an Artifice, trumpt up topuzzle & perplex the great Cause; And therefore, asit was uncertain how long it would be before we shouldbe able to bring things to an Issue, we judg'd it un-necessary to keep him here at a certain Expense tothe Province, but that it would be most for theirInterest to dismiss him, that he might return as soonas conveniently he could to New England, whichAccordingly we have done, after taking his receiptfor what money we Supply'd him with, which Am-ounts to £92.9.0."

    It may be assumed, with reason and with a certainamount of evidence, that Mason was offended andangered by the unceremonious manner in which he

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 255

    was to be shipped back home without being allowedto appear in the famous case, to be pointed out inLondon as the lord of an entire province in America.He did not return to New England at once, but fellinto the hands of John Thomlinson, the New Hamp-shire agent in the boundary case, one of the shrewdestand ablest men in London, who did not fail to appre-ciate the opportunity offered to him. On Apr. 6,1739, a tripartite agreement was executed betweenMason of the first part, John Rindge, Theodore Atkin-son, Andrew Wiggin, George Jaffrey, and BenningWentworthj all of New Hampshire, of the secondpart, and Thomlinson of the third part, whereinMason agreed that in consideration of the sum of£1,000, to be paid him by the government of theProvince of New Hampshire, or by the parties of thesecond part, within twelve months after New Hamp-shire should be declared a distinct and separate gov-ernment from the Province of Massachusetts Bay, hewould convey all his interests in the Province of NewHampshire to the said government, or to the partiesof the second part and other inhabitants then inpossession of lands in that province; and it was alsoagreed that in all future grants of land within thatterritory Mason was to have a share equal to that ofany other grantee. Of the parties of the second partin this agreement Andrew Wiggin was Speaker ofthe House of Representatives, and all the others weremembers of the Council.

    With this important document in his possessionThomlinson proceeded to carry on to a successfulissue the case of New Hampshire on the appeal to theKing and Privy Council. The line was establishedby the King's decree in 1741, and Benning Wentworthwas commissioned Governor of New Hampshire,which was thus finally given a political status abso-lutely independent of Massachusetts.

    The New Hampshire government failing to cometo a decision for taking Mason's deed according to the

  • 256 American Antiquarian Society. [Oct.,

    tripartite agreement, and the parties of the secondpart wishing to simplify the case by eliminatingMason, the entail was properly docked in the NewHampshire courts in 1746, a syndicate was formed,and on July 30 of that year Mason deeded his provincefor £1,500 to Theodore Atkinson, Richard Wibird,John Moffatt, Mark Hunking Wentworth, SamuelMoore, Jotham Odiorne, Jr., Joshua Peirce, NathanielMeserve, George Jaffrey, Jr., John Wentworth, Jr.,all of Portsmouth, Thomas Wallingford of Somers-worth, and Thomas Packer of Greenland. On thefollowing day these Masonian Proprietors, as theyafterwards called themselves, quitclaimed to theinhabitants thereof all their rights in the towns ofPortsmouth, Dover, Exeter, Hampton, Gosport,Kingston, Londonderry, Chester, Nottingham, Bar-rington, Rochester, Canterbury, Bow, Chichester,Epsom, and Barnstead, these being the towns settledin accordance with the terms of their various charters,and the older towns which had been permanentlyestablished without charters. Towns in which theconditions of settlement had not been fully compliedwith were considered subject to regrant, but in thecharters afterwards issued by the Proprietors theindividual settlers who had completed their workwere invariably included, and in this manner giventhe benefit of their industry.

    These Proprietors were substantial men, membersof the oldest and best families in the Province, andmost of them were wealthy and closely connectedwith the government. It may be said, without exag-gerating their infiuence, that they were the Royalgovernment of/ New Hampshire. A bond of kinshipheld them in a close and harmonious association.

    Mark Hunking Wentworth and John Wentworthwere brothers of Benning Wentworth, Governor ofthe Province at this time.

    Theodore Atkinson married a sister of Mark Hunk-ing and John Wentworth.

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 257

    Jotham Odiorne, Jr. was a cousin of the wife ofMark Hunking Wentworth.

    George Jaffrey was son of a sister of Mark Hunkingand John Wentworth.

    Richard Wibird's sister married a brother of thetwo Wentworths.

    Thomas Packer married a sister of the two Went-worths. His second wife was the mother of JohnRindge and a daughter of Jotham Odiorne, Sr.

    Joshua Peirce's brother, Daniel Peirce, married asister of John Rindge.

    Samuel Moore married a sister of Joshua andDaniel Peirce.

    Nathaniel Meserve married, for his second wife,Mary, sister of Jotham Odiorne, Jr., and JothamOdiorne, 3d, married Mary, daughter of NathanielMeserve.

    John Moffatt and Thomas Wallingford are notknown to be related to each other or to the others.

    Immediately upon the execution of the deed ofMason to the Proprietors, severe criticism arose inthe Assembly, and the Proprietors were accused ofdepriving the people of the Province of the advantageof a most excellent bargain. They replied that theopportunity had been before the Assembly for twoyears without result; that they had taken Mason'sdeed to keep the title within the Proyince; and thatthey were then ready to transfer the lands to thegovernment for the amount they had expended,though they could realize ten times that sum in otherways. But the Council and Assembly and theProprietors, after protracted negotiations, were unableto agree on the terms of a deed to the Province, par-ticularly as to whether the power of granting theselands should rest in the Assembly or in the Crown.Two years more were devoted to the endeavor toaccomplish an agreement between the Council, theAssembly, and the Proprietors without result, and the

  • 258 American Antiquarian Society. [Oct.,

    members of the syndicate finally met, organized, andbegan tp administer their property.

    A form of charter was adopted which containedspecific requirements for settlement, by which titleto the land should be acquired, and townships weregranted on petition of a sufficient number of intendingsettlers. The old towns could no longer provideland for their growing population, and the demandfor new territory was large. It was not until May 14,1748, that the Proprietors held their first meeting fororganization, and within six months they receivedpetitions for no less than thirty-one townships. TheProprietors were convinced of the futility of anyfurther negotiations with the Provincial government.They were disgusted with the bickerings of theAssembly, who for nine years, or since the executionof the tripartite agreement of 1739, had failed to takeadvantage of the opportunity offered them by Masonand the Proprietors, but instead had ignored andangered Mason, and abused the Proprietors as male-factors, who by their wealth and influence were en-abled to rob the people by the purchase of the Ma-sonian title.

    There were twelve original members of the syndi-cate, but the property was held in fifteen shares,Theodore Atkinson taking three, Mark HunkingWentworth two, and the other ten members oneeach. Colonel Atkinson held two extra shares forMason, and Wentworth took another share for hisbrother-in-law, John Rindge, then a minor. Variouschanges afterwards took place by sale and inheri-tance. On Sept. 30, 1749, the Proprietors receivedanother deed from Mason, which included the landsouthward to the Naumkeag River.

    The Proprietors could convey to settlers only thesoil. For political rights and the powers of govern-ment the grantees were obliged to resort to theProvince, and acts of incorporation were readilyobtained when the conditions of settlement had been

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 259

    fulfilled. For the return of the money invested, andany possible profits, the Proprietors adopted a pecu-Uar system. Charters were not sold, but each mem-ber of the syndicate was given an equal grantee'sshare in every township granted, with the provisionthat their lands should not be subject to taxationor assessment until improved by the owners, or by-some' other party holding title from them. What-ever profits they may have made arose from the saleof these rights. A right was reserved for the firstsettled minister, one for the ministry, and one for aschool, and it was required that a meeting houseshould be built within ten years. Ample time wasallowed for settlement, with the reversion to theProprietors of any township or right not settled withinthe specified period. Exceptions were made in caseof war with the Indians. In many grants a mill-right was also reserved. The first township granted bythe Masonian Proprietors was Goffstown, Dec. 3,1748.

    During the period of the minority of the last JohnTuftoh Mason, and the quiescence of the title, theneed of new lands becoming imperative, the RoyalGovernor of New Hampshire had begun the charteringof townships within the bounds of the Masoniangrant. Before the settlement of the boundary withMassachusetts, and the separation of the governmentsof the two provinces in 1741, New Hampshire hadgranted thirteen towns within the Masonian grant,Kingston, Nottingham, AUenstown, Barrington, Ches-ter, Londonderry, Barnstead, Bow, Canterbury, Chi-chester, Epsom, Gilmanton, and Kingswood, and hadincorporated several others. AU but two of thesegrants, Kingston (1694) and Kingswood (1737) wereissued in 1722 and 1727.

    In this same period Massachusetts was equallyactive in New Hampshire territory, but less effective.In 1726 a plan was instituted in the Assembly toprotect the northern frontiers from possible incur-sions of the Indians by laying out a line of towns from

  • 260 American Antiquarian Society. [Oct.,

    Dunstable to Northfield, but disagreements overminor details prevented action, and the project wasabandoned. In 1737 the idea was again broughtforth, and resulted in the chartering of a north fron-tier line of nine towns from Rumford (now Concord)on the Merrimack River, to the "Great Falls" inthe Connecticut, and a western line of four towns upthe east side of the Connecticut from Northfield tomeet the other line. From the Merrimack to theConnecticut the towns laid out were Warner (No. 1),Bradford (No. 2), Acworth (No. 3), Alstead (No. 4),Hopkinton (No. 5), Henniker (No. 6), Hillsborough(No. 7), Washington (No. 8), and Lempster (No. 9),forming a double line. The west frontier line con-sisted of Chesterfield (No. 1), Westmoreland (No. 2),Walpole (No. 3), and Charlestown (No. 4). TheNarragansett townships previously chartered. No. 3(Amherst), No. 4 (Goffstown), and No. 5 (Bedford),served to connect Dunstable with Rumford, formingan eastern frontier.

    The Masonian Proprietors were quite willing towaive their interests in all the settled towns withintheir bounds which existed by virtue of charters fromthe government of New Hampshire, but they werenot disposed to recognize the Massachusetts grantsin general. A few of them, however, being well estab-lished, they confirmed and quitclaimed, and in othersless advanced they protected individual interests asfar as possible in their regrants, though some cases ofcomplaint inevitably arose.

    Notwithstanding the occasional appearance of theghost of the old Allen claim, the Proprietors success-fully carried on their business of granting and settlingnew towns and disposing of their personal holdingsfor nearly forty years. In that time they establishedthirty-seven new towns, many of which, failing ofsettlement by the first body of grantees, were regrant-ed; they bestowed upon more energetic granteeshundreds of rights which had been forfeited by the

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 261

    original holders, both in their own towns, and in thosechartered by New Hampshire arid Massachusetts;they placed settlers on their own lands; and theyreceived, considered, and answered the innumerablequestions and complaints which naturally came tothem from the thousands of settlers under theirjurisdiction.

    One more important matter affecting the Masoniangrant was still to be met, considered, and settled. In1785 the towns of Lempster and Marlow, whose eastbounds were affected, protested against the locationof the westerly bound of the patent. Other townsfollowed, and the matter was brought to the atten-tion of the Legislature. It proved to be simplyanother appearance of the old Allen ghost.

    The original grant of New Hampshire to Capt.John Mason in 1629 gave him the lands containedwithin a line following up the Merrimack, and thenwestward to a point sixty miles from the sea, a lineup the Piscataqua, and then northwestward to apoint sixty miles from the sea, and a line crossingover to connect the two terminals. This connectingline was always generally understood to be a curvedline everywhere distant sixty miles from the sea, andwas so laid out by the Proprietors soon after theirpurchase from Mason. It had never before beenquestioned. The protesting towns insisted that theline should be drawn straight from one sixty mileterminus to the other, and based their remonstranceon the statement that their land titles were cloudedby the doubt as to the exact location of the line, andthat thereby their settlements were hindered and theirprogress greatly retarded. The Allen heirs thenappeared, with Gen. John Sullivan as their attorney,and petitioned the Legislature to survey the head-line of the Masonian patent.

    The Proprietors did not care to contest the point.Their lands were nearly all granted and settled, andtheir business was practically finished. They met a

  • 262 American Antiquarian Society. [Oct.,

    committee of the Legislature, agreed on terms, andon June 18, 1788, they took a deed from the State ofall claim to the territory between the straight lineand the curved line for a consideration of $40,000in public securities of the State, and $800 in silver orgold. On Jan. 28, 1790, the Allen claimants releasedall their interests to the Proprietors in exchange for£5, lawful money, and 8500 acres of waste and sc9.t-tered lands, and the Allen ghost was laid forever.

    The Proprietors continued to hold meetings withregularity until December, 1807, devoting theirattention to the disposal of small tracts of land over-looked in the original surveys, or forfeited by non-compliance with the conditions of settlement. Theirrecords show no further meetings until 1846, when ameeting was called by a Justice of the Peace, actingon a petition of W. H. Y. Hackett, J. W. Peirce, andAlexander Ladd, all of Portsmouth, claiming to bemembers of the syndicate. The Proprietors met onthe 5th of September, when officers were chosen, andthey adjourned until the 15th, when by-laws wereadopted and provision made for the continuance ofthe life of the organization. But here the records end.

    The great body of documents, plans, records, andmiscellaneous papers which accumulated to theProprietors in their long and busy existence fell intothe hands of Joshua W. Peirce, who was chosen clerkat the first meeting of 1846. In the possession ofPeirce and his descendants these records graduallylapsed into oblivion. Nearly fifty years later, or in1891, through the sagacity and persistent diplomacyof Hon. Ezra S. Stearns, then Secretary of State, theywere presented to the State of New Hampshire byRobert Cutts Peirce, a descendant of the last clerk ofthe Proprietors. The great value and importance ofthese papers, not only in the history of the State butin their relation to the land titles of a vast number ofhomes and farms of New Hampshire people, wasinstantly recognized by the administration, and they

  • 1916.] The Mason Title. 263

    were immediately and most carefully edited andprinted, filling three volumes of the State's long seriesof published archives.

    New Hampshire owes much to the Mason grantand to the Masonian Proprietors. To Capt. JohnMason's enthusiasm is due the first settlement ofthe Province, and had he lived its permanence andprosperity would have been secure. To RobertMason is due the establishment of a separate govern-ment for New Hampshire in 1680, and the adjudi-cation of the Massachusetts claims of jurisdiction inthe disputed territory north of the Merrimack. Tothe Proprietors we owe the actual settlement of nearlyforty towns in what is now the most populous andprosperous section of the State.

    The Proprietors were strong men, strong in socialand political achievement, in executive ability, infinance, and in character. They became possessedin fee simple of an immense tract of land, estimatedin their deed as 200,000 acres, but which was in factcertainly more than 2,000,000 acres. Waiving en-tirely the idea of personal profit, they looked upontheir estate as a trust for the benefit of the Province,and they administered that trust with far-seeingwisdom, and with a determined purpose. With alltheir power held in abeyance they did their workwith tact and diplomacy, and they achieved a successwhich would have been impossible to men of lowercaste, or less closely identified with all those influenceswhich controlled the opinions of the people, the courts,and the governrñent. The Masons and the MasonianProprietors made and saved the identity of theProvince of New Hampshire, and their work wasgood; but it has been forgotten, and the only monu-ments to their memory are the granite hills andmountains which overlook their ancient domain.