The Bay State Monthly. Volume 2, No. 1, October, 1884

Inhabitants of Groton

Timothy Read

Joseph fletcher

John Swallow

Samuel Comings

Benjamin Robbins

Joseph Spalding iuner

Inhabitants of Nottingham

Samuell Gould

Robert Fletcher

Joseph perriaham Daken [Deacon?]

iohn Collans

Zacheus Spaulding

and ten others

[Massachusetts Archives, cxv, 515.]

A manuscript plan of Dunstable, made by Joseph Blanchard, in the autumn of 1748, and accompanying these papers among the Archives (cxv, 519), has considerable interest for the local antiquary.

In the course of a few years some of these Groton signers reconsidered the matter, and changed their minds. It appears from the following communication that the question of the site of the meeting-house had some influence in the matter:—

Groton, May 10, 1753. We have concluded to Joine with Dunstable in settling the gospell and all other affairs hart & hand in case Dunstable woud meet us in erecting a meting house in center of Lands or center of Travel.

Joseph Spaulding jr.

John Swallow.

Timothy Read.

Samuel Cumings.

Joseph Parkhurst.

[Nason's History of Dunstable, page 85.]

The desired result of annexation was now brought about, and in this way Joint Grass became a part and portion of Dunstable. The following extracts give further particulars in regard to it:—

A Petition of a Committee in Behalf of the Inhabitants of Dunstable, within this Province, shewing, that that Part of Dunstable by the late running of the Line is small, and the Land much broken, unable to support the Ministry, and other necessary Charges; that there is a small Part of Groton contiguous, and well situated to be united to them in the same Incorporation, lying to the West and Northwest of them; that in the Year 1744, the Inhabitants there requested them that they might be incorporated with them, which was conceeded to by the Town of Groton; that in Consequence of this, upon Application to this Court they were annexed to the Town of Dunstable with the following Proviso, viz. "That within one Year from that Time a House for the publick Worship of GOD should be erected at a certain Place therein mentioned": Which Place was esteemed by all Parties both in Groton and Nottingham, so incommodious, that it was not complied withal; that on a further Application to this Court to alter the Place, Liberty was given to the Inhabitants of Groton and Nottingham, to withdraw, whereby they are deprived of that contiguous and necessary Assistance which they expected: Now as the Reasons hold good in every Respect for their Incorporation with them, they humbly pray that the said Inhabitants of Groton by the same Bounds as in the former Order stated, may be reannexed to them, for the Reasons mentioned.

Read and Ordered, That the Petitioners serve the Inhabitants of Groton therein refer'd to, as also the Clerk of the Town of Groton, with Copies of this Petition, that so the said Inhabitants, as also the Town of Groton, shew Cause, if any they have, on the first Tuesday of the next May Session, why the Prayer thereof should not be granted.

Sent up for Concurrence.

[Journal of the House of Representatives (pages 138, 139), April 4, 1753.]

John Hill, Esq; brought down the Petition of a Committee of the Town of Dunstable, as entred the 4th of April last, and refer'd. Pass'd in Council, viz. In Council June 5th 1753. Read again, together with the Answer of the Inhabitants of that Part of Groton commonly called Joint-Grass, and likewise William Lawrence, Esq; being heard in Behalf of the Town of Groton, and the Matter being fully considered, Ordered, That the Prayer of the Petition be so far granted, as that Joseph Fletcher, Joseph Spaulding, Samuel Comings, Benjamin Rabbins, Timothy Read, John Swallow, Joseph Parkhurst, and Ebenezer Parkhurst, Jun. with their Families and Estates, and other Lands petitioned for, be set off from the Town of Groton, and annexed to the town of Dunstable, agreable to the Vote of the Town of Groton on the 18th of May 1747, to receive Priviledge and do Duty there, provided that Timothy Read, Constable for the Town of Groton, and Collector of the said Parish in said Town the last Year, and Joseph Fletcher, Constable for the said Town this present Year, finish their Collection of the Taxes committed or to be committed to them respectively; and also that the said Inhabitants pay their Proportion of the Taxes that are already due or shall be due to the said Town of Groton for the present Year, for which they may be taxed by the Assessors of Groton, as tho' this Order had not past: provided also that the Meeting-House for the publick Worship of GOD in Dunstable be erected agreable to the Vote of Dunstable relating thereto in May 1753. Sent down for Concurrence.

Read and concur'd.

[Journal of the House of Representatives (page 21), June 7, 1753.]

The part of Nottingham, mentioned in these petitions, was not joined to Dunstable until a later period. On June 14, 1754, an order passed the House of Representatives, annexing "a very small Part of Nottingham now lying in this Province, unable to be made into a District, but very commodious for Dunstable;" but the matter was delayed in the Council, and it was a year or two before the end was brought about.

The west parish of Groton was set off as a precinct on November 26, 1742. It comprised that part of the town lying on the west side of the Nashua River, north of the road from Groton to Townsend. Its incorporation as a parish or precinct allowed the inhabitants to manage their own ecclesiastical affairs, while in all other matters they continued to act with the parent town. Its partial separation gave them the benefit of a settled minister in their neighborhood, which, in those days, was considered of great importance.

It is an interesting fact to note that, in early times, the main reason given in the petitions for dividing towns was the long distance to the meeting-house, by which the inhabitants were prevented from hearing the stated preaching of the gospel.

The petitioners for the change first asked for a township, which was not granted; but subsequently they changed their request to a precinct instead, which was duly allowed. The papers relating to the matter are as follows:—

Province of The Massechuetts Bay in New England.

To His Excellency W

: Shirley Esq

: Goveinr in & over y

Same And To The Hon

: his Majestis Council & House of Representetives in Gen

: Court Assembled June 1742:

The Petition of Sundry Inhabitants & Resendant in the Northerly Part of Groton Humbly Sheweth that the Town of Groton is at Least ten miles in Length North & South & seven miles in wedth East & West And that in Runing two miles Due North from the Present Meeting House & from thence to Run Due East to Dunstable West Line. And from the Ende of the S

: two miles to Run West till it Comes to the Cuntry Rode that is Laide out to Townshend & soon S

: Rode till it Comes to Townshend East Line then tur[n]ing & Runing Northly to Nestiquaset Corner which is for Groton & Townshend then tur[n]ing & Runing Easterly on Dunstable South Line & So on Dunstable Line till it comes to the Line first mentioned, Which Land Lyeth about Seven miles in Length & four miles & a Quarter in Wedth.

And Thare is Now Setled in those Lines here after mentioned is about the Number of Seventy families all Redy And may [many?] more ready to Settle there and as soon as scet off to the Petitioners & those families Settled in y

Lines afore s

: Would make A Good township & the Remaining Part of Groton Left in a regular forme And by reason of the great Distance your Petitioners are from the Present Meeting House are put to very Great Disadvantages in Attending the Public Worship of God many of Whom are Oblidged to travel Seven or Eight miles & that the Remaining Part of Groton Consisting of such good land & y

Inhabitants so Numerous that thay Can by no means be Hurt Should your Petitioners & those families Settled in y