entered the names of four persons who has no Interest in that part of the town viz Swallow Tucker Ames & Green That there is near Double_the_number On ye Lands Petita for and Setled amongst them who Declare Against their Proceedings. & here Signifie the Same That many of us now are at Least Seven miles from Our meeting And the Only Encouragement to Settle there was the undeniable Accommodations to make An Other town without wch we Should by no means have undertaken—

That if this their Pet" Shou'd Succêd-Our hopes must Perrishthay by no means benifitted-& we put to all the Hardships Immaginable. That the whole tract of Land thay pray may be Taken Out of groton Contain about Six or Seven Thousand Acres, (the Quantity And Situation may be Seen on yo plan herewith And but Abt four Or five hundred Acres therof Owned by the Petirs And but very Small Improvements On that-Under all wch Circumstances wee Humbly Conceive it unreasonable for them to desire thus to Harass and perplex us. Nor is it by Any means for the Accommodation of Dunstable thus to Joyn who have land of their Own Sufficient and none to Spare without prejudicing their begun Settlement Wherefore we most Humbly pray Ye Excellency & Hons to Compassionate-Our-Circumstances And that thay may not be Sett off And as in Duty bound &c

[Consent of Certain Dunstable Inhabitants to New Township,

1739.]

[Mass. Archives, Vol. 114, p. 285.]

Province of ye To His Excellency Jon Belcher Esq Gov Massachusetts Bay &c the Hon' his Majesty Council & House of New England Representatives in Gen" Court Assembled December 26: 1739

Wee the Subscribers Props of Lands in the Township of Dunstable at and near Nissitisset wou'd hereby Signifie to Yor Excellency & Hons Our Desire and Consent that the Lands there may be Erected into a Distinct and Seperate township According to the tenour and form of the Report made by the Gen" Courts Comtee Appointed to view the Circumstances of that Place & As in Duty bound &c

John Rush by order Joseph Wise

Dunstable Decem ye 22d 1739.

Isaac Farwell
John Fowle Jun'
Jos Whitcomb

These May Certify Whom it may Concern yt I Whose Name is hereunto Subscribd Notwithstanding our Names are in ye Petition of Richard Worner & others Inhabts of Groton & Dunstable that we Never Signed nor were Concenting nor by any meens Gave order for ye Same

his

Willm CO Adams

mark

[Remonstrance of Certain Dunstable Inhabitants, 1739.]

[Mass. Archives, Vol. 114, p. 286.]

Province of ye To HIS EXCELLENCY JONATHAN BELCHER Massachusetts Bay Esq GOVERNOUR &c To The Hon' his Majestys Council & house of Representatives in Gen1 Court Assembled December yo 26 1739

Whereas Some few of the Inhabitants of Dunstable And Groton at and near Nissitissett (so Called) have Joyned in their Petition to this Hon1 Court, as entered the 12th Currt Praying that Certain Lands in Groton together with part of Dunstable may be erected into a township—

Wherefore Wee the Subscribers being Authorized thereunto by The Town of Dunstable most Humbly beg Leave to remonstrate, the greate Difficulties And hardships (should their request be granted) it wou'd put us to―

first-Because the Lands in Dunstable (as reported by the Comtee of this Hon' Court, who went to view) are in a Sutable & Commodious form to be a Seperate Township And good Land Sufficient to make a Compact & good Town And so Situated that Should the Southerly part be taken off to groton it would render it Improbable for many of the Inhabitants now Settled there and those who will hereafter-which many is prepareing to do, ever to be Accommodated to Any Other meeting

And Althô the Original Grant of Our Township Included a Large Quantity of Land, Yet greatest part therof was in farms before-nor had the grantees or Settlers very Little Benfit by any Excepting what Lyes in the Said tract at Nissitissett; in all Other parts the Lands was mean And Slips Left amongst the farms all the good Lands on Merrimack Nashua & Souhegan Rivers and almost All Other good Spots, was before granted (Excepting what Lay there) so that very Considerable part of Our first Divisions has been Lay'd Out at and near the sd Nissitissett.

The Remoteness of those lands And the Lamentable Experience of the Danger of Indians Compelled us (in Order to Comply with ye terms of Our grant, to buy the farms on Merrimack where we are now Settled, And Althô Our Town has been thus Settled this Sixty years Our Families & Estates we may say has usually Served for a yearly Sacrifice for the Heathen

That the Lands at and near Nissitissett which was all the benefit we could promis Our Selves; at so Dear a price, has now a fair prospect If we may not be hack't by Other Towns, when we can Settle those Lands (which has for Some time made Considerable Progress) in some very Small degree make up for our former Sufferings. but if half a township Should be Sett to Groton Our hopes would prove Abortive And Our gains Immaginary for very Considerable part of our Interest there. (which Our more then forty Years hardships in this wilderness has procured & those Lands never Accomodated to Any Other place And Altho the

Contents in Dunstable is more then Six miles North And South. Yet ther's not more than that Distance from Groton line that can Admitt of Settlement, And Come that way by Reason of Mountainous & Barren Lands As by a Comtee of Dunstable was Observed to the Hon Comtee who went to view (when On the Spot) and a Further view Insisted on unless Groton, And the petiTM would Alow & own, which they readily did-And that in Laying out our Lands we Suted our Division for the making a township wholly in Dunstable And the present Inhabitants Are Settled there Accordingly under that Expectation Nor is there Any one Nonresident prop whose Gen" Interest it wou'd be to have Any Off our Lands Joyned to Groton nor reason to Suspect it, unless Some wrong Suggestions has been made, and then twou'd only Touch the ears of those who never Saw the place

When ye Comtee before mentad was On ye Spot the nonresident Props had been Duly Notified, And many of them by them Selves or Agents Appeard And Signified their unwillingness And the Disadvantage it wou'd put them Under to be Joyned to Groton—

And Wee beg Leave farther Humbly to Shew That thay have pretended the Names of ten persons in Dunstable to that Petin wch is unfair And A Sham, for Some of them Never Consented to Any Such Request As Certificates herewith, And two more of them has not One peneworth of Real Estate in Dunstable, vizt Gideon Houe & Phillip Olerick (or) Wolrick, the Sa Gideon being a minor And only transiently there his Guardian nor Relations has no Interest in that part of the town nor knew of his Name being thus Used. by them in Any Peti".

And had thay thus Increased their numbers Still. it would have Served for but A mere Amusement

The Whole Quantity of Lands Owned by them all in Dunstable Amounts to but About five Hundred Acres wch is not more then the fortieth part.—

And tho thay have been pleased to Sett forth Samuel Parker as One of the Inhabitants of Dunstable, tis making their work all of a peice for their is no Such Inhabitant in the Town nor ever was

And upon the whole we Humbly Conceive their Request to be altogether unreasonable. And that if desining men are thus @mitted to force their Scheems & Perplex their neighbours without Any Umbrage or Shadow for what thay do 'twill give us Continual

trouble

Wherefore we most humbly pray Your Excellency & Hons to take the premises into Your wise Consideration And that No part

of the Lands in Dunstable may be Sett of to Groton And As in Duty Bound Shall ever pray

Eleazer Tyng

Joseph Blanchard
John french

Comtee

John kendell

Abraham Taylor Jun

DURHAM.

[Petitioned to be set off from Dover as a parish by the name of Oyster River, May 27, 1669. Incorporated as Durham, May 15, 1732. Lee was set off and incorporated Jan. 16, 1766. The south line of the town was established June 19, 1818. A portion of Durham was severed and annexed to Newmarket, July 2, 1870.

See Masonian Papers in following volumes; IX, Bouton Town Papers, 234; XI, Hammond Town Papers, 566; Index to Laws, 159; Life of John Sullivan, by Thomas C. Amory, 1868, pp. 320; Memoir of Ebenezer Thompson, by Mary P. Thompson, 1886, pp. 86; sketches of history, 5, Collections of N. H. Historical Society, p. 129; sketch, Hurd's History of Strafford County, 1882, p. 616.]

[Mass. Court Records, May 31, 1660.]

In Ans to the peticion of the Inhabitants of Oyster River It is Ordered that major Atherton Joyne wth Capt Wiggens in keeping the next County Court at strawbery bancke & Yorke. And that he wth the rest of the Comissioners Joyned wth him for examining & setling the respective Interests & rights of Mr ffoxwell Jourdan & Phillips, doe heare examine & determine the matter in difference betwene Dover & oyster River and that all parties Concerned therein doe Attend the same at Strawberry bancke at the aforesaid Court, and that any three of the Comissioners Majo' Atherton being one be Impowred to act in all the premisses./

[Mass. Court Records, May 19, 1669.]

In Ans to the petition of the Inhabitants of Oyster River. The Court, by yeir Comittee having heard ye petitioners wth what Capt Walderne Alleadged in behalfe of Dover, that that Toune is not