On June 12 1700, Richard Hilton petitioned the general assembly to establish a permanent ferry on his land. He requested a 50-year term to the right of the ferry, and permission to keep a public house as well.
 His request was granted, provided he created access to the ferry on both sides at his own expense. He could charge 6 pence for every horse and man, and 2 pence for each individual.

    Jonathan Wiggin challenged Hilton's right to the ferry in 1721. On April 22, Wiggin petitioned the Governor for the right to the ferry because Hilton had failed to make access to the ferry on the south side of the river. Consequently, travelers were crossing Wiggin’s land at two different locations, a mile long section and a half mile section. Also Hilton would not pay Wiggin for the damage to his land caused by the travelers. Wiggin was inconvenienced further by people needing to stay the night at his farm because of the length of the journey from Hilton’s house and ferry.

    Wiggin was granted the ferry on July 12, 1721 for a period of 29 and one half years, the remaining period of the original 50 years given to Hilton, and under the same requirements and charges.

    Other inhabitants of the area, who wanted the original site of Hilton’s ferry reestablished near the village of Newfields, challenged Wiggin’s ferry in 1742 and in 1750.

    Wiggin’s location was about a mile south, and in approximately the same location as the current bridge, between Stratham and Newmarket.

    The new ferry was granted to Joseph Hall, but did not resolve all of the traveler’s problems crossing the Squamscott River. In the spring and fall, the ferries had difficulties operating due to the freezing and thawing process of the river.

     Even before the second ferry was established, the local inhabitants, in 1746, petitioned the Governor and General Court for a bridge across the river at either ferry location. There were many petitions from the local towns, for and against the bridge. Some locals were concerned about river craft being hindered by a bridge and wanted a drawbridge.  They were heard in the House and the next day, the petitions for the bridge were heard. The House voted, on May 14, 1746, to approve the building of a drawbridge, at the cost of the petitioners, for “ye publik use”. A committee was appointed to view the proposed location and report back to the House and Council.

    The committee decided the location at the Wiggin’s ferry was the best and even laid out specifications for length, width, height etc. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, these petitioners never built the bridge. Eight years later, another petition reached the General Assembly on November 25, 1755.

    In this petition, the preferred location was Hall’s ferry because the river was shallower there, the current less strong and the river traffic more infrequent. For these reasons, a bridge built there would be cheaper, easier and faster to build. This petition had 304 signatures from the local populace.

    Again, this petition was not acted upon. It was the financing of these proposals that delayed construction. The original proposal had two thousand pounds secured toward construction. The money would only be released after the bridge was completed, and since it was impossible to build on credit, some Stratham inhabitants conceived the idea of a lottery to raise the funds. On January 4, 1760  they petitioned the General Court to do so.

    There were three petitions for lotteries. The original asking for the bridge location to be near or at the Wiggin ferry, and the other two wanted the upper ferry to be used for the bridge. The House passed the original petition on February 22.   The drawbridge, later named the Lottery Bridge, was completed around 1775, after delays and time extensions. By 1780, it was in need of repair and lotteries were again proposed. In 1792, inhabitants of Newmarket suggested the bridge financing be supported by a toll, instead of lotteries. The legislature passed a Toll Bridge Act on June 21, 1792.

    The care and financing of the bridge continued to change throughout the next century. In 1806, a chartered company was organized to rebuild and care for the bridge. Governor John Langdon signed this charter on June 18, 1807, and Henry Wiggin, of Newfields, rebuilt the bridge for a price of $4900.00. The bridge was formally opened on December 10, 1807.It was rebuilt in 1838 and the drawbridge repaired in 1884. Promissory notes were issued by Selectmen of Stratham and Newfields in 1892. And finally, on April 10, 1907, Rockingham County was given full possession of the bridge by the legislature and Stratham and Newfields assumed the outstanding debt of $7000.00 in 1908.

    In 1911 the river was dredged for navigational purposes creating an 8 mile long 40 foot wide 6 foot deep channel.  It was about this time that a rotating bridge was built.  Spun to allow boat traffic to pass then spun back to allow street traffic to pass.  This bridge became known as the "swinging bridge".  Then in the 1950's the bridge spinning mechanism was welded shut.  The name the "singing bridge" was later used as a result of the loud noise which tires make on the metal grate.

    The bridge remained as it was for about 50 years until August of 2000 when construction on a new bridge began.  The new bridge location is just upstream from the old one and measures 400 feet long with a 5-foot side walk for walking and biking.  The bridge is a $1.8 million piece of a $5 million dollar road project on Route 108 and 87.

    For historical purposes the old mechanical piece that made the swinging bridge swing will be moved just slightly yet remain so it can be viewed by interested historians.

Photo by Emily Reily taken from the Exeter News Letter

As of November 21, 2001 the new bridge was compleated.  It has been in use ever since.  The first to drive across was Richard Ramsdell.  He made the first trip from Stratham to Newfields on the new bridge in a very fitting Ford Model A.  The final price of the project was 3.4 Million dollars.  The bridge is 400 feet long and has a 5 foot wide side walk/biking lane.
 
 
 
 

Click here for more information