persons, in proportion. to their Interest and Concerns in this Inland Navigation,-the Banks of the Merrimack Anticipates, the happy days. when Trade an Commerce will flourish beyond Our Most Sanguine Expectations, Which Time Only can Develope. [7-38] [Another Petition for the Protection of Fish in Cohas Brook, 1800.] To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Convened at Concord on the first wedensday of June AD-1800 The petition of us the Subscribers, Inhabitants of Derryfield and the adjacent towns humbly sheweth-That Formerly Great numbers of Alewives resorted to, and passed up, the stream known by the name of Cohass-Brook that leads from Massabeesick Pond to the river Merrimac. And for many years the Inhabitants of this and the adjacent towns drew ample supplies of these fish from the aforesaid Brook; until by means of Mill dams, erected across said stream, their passage to the aforesaid Pond was wholly obstructed. But application. being made to the Honorable General Court, they with cheerfulness and alacrity caused the aforesaid Obstructions to be removed, and from time to time passed such acts as were judged best calculated to cause the returen and preservation of said fish; the salutary effects of which are now plainly perceived by the return of the fish to their wonted stream. But the water falls so rapidly for nearly thirty rods previously to its junction with the river Merrimac as to render it convenient for fishing with dip or scoop nets; and unless the Public are prohibited from fishing at the aforesaid rapids, no considerable number of fish will ever pass them. And doubts have arisen whether the fifteen rods from the mouth of said Brook and the five rods from the Mill dam, as now by Law established, will cover the said rapids Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Your Honors would pass an act to prohibit the fishery for forty instead of fifteen rods from the mouth of said Brook. And as in duty bound do pray John Stark Isaac Huse Philip heseltine John Webster David Webster The township was granted May 20, 1752, by Joseph Blanchard, as agent for the Masonian Proprietors, to James Morrison and thirty-three others, by the name of Monadnock No. 5. Many of the proprietors and settlers came from Marlborough, Mass., and the town was unofficially called New Marlborough for some years prior to its incorporation, which occurred December 13, 1776, at which time it received its present name. A township by the same name was granted by Gov. Benning Wentworth, April 29, 1751, to Timothy Dwight and others, which was located in the southern part of the present state of Vermont. That charter, being on record in the secretary's office in this state, misled John Farmer into applying it to the New Hampshire town; and subsequent writers, who copied from him instead of consulting the original records, have been led into the same error. Settlements were commenced in town about 1760 by Abel Woodward, Benjamin Tucker, Daniel Goodenough, and others. By an act approved January 8, 1794, a small tract of land was severed from Swanzey, and annexed to this town. December 9, 1812, two ranges of lots, and a certain gore of land on the north end of the town, were combined with portions of Packersfield (Nelson) and Keene, and incorporated into the town of Roxbury. The formation of the town of Troy, June 23, 1815, took a portion of this town, and portions of Fitzwilliam, Swanzey, and Richmond. June 13, 1818, Joel Porter, Phinehas Farrar, Jr., and Ezra Porter, with their estates, were severed from the town of Dublin, and annexed to Marlborough. A small tract of land belonging to William Tenney and Luther Hemingway was severed from the north-east corner of Swanzey, and annexed to Marlborough, December 15, 1842. Among the Revolutionary soldiers from this town was Lieut. Col. Andrew Colburn, who was killed at Stillwater in September, 1777. [7-1] [Petition for an Act of Incorporation, 1775.] Monadnock N° five Jun ye 24 1775 to the Hon' members of the Congris at Exeter A Request from the inhabantans of monadnock No five Humberly shows that whare as this Town is Not in Corparated and by that meanes Never had aney Town stock of Ammonishon of pouder and ball and are not in aney proper Cappasety to Rais money for that or aney other purpos Exept the Province and County by Reason of Not having Town privealegs and as it appeares at this day to be verey much wanted for we know not how soon we shall be wanted to Defende oure Contery and Priveliges which are much Threatned daley theirfore we Humbeley apply our selves to this Congress for advise we have som money now in the hands of mr James Lucas a collecter of this Town that belonges to the Province and County that was granted for the year 1774 and is Not yet paid in and when it will be wanted or Coald for we Cant tell for we Conclude that the County will Not go on with their bulding this year as was intended theirfore we Humberly Apply our selves to this Hona' Court or Congress for their advise in that Afare wheather thay Can advise or give liberty for our taking this money for that youse we obligeing our selves to Return it when ever Called for thease from your humbel Purtisones appointed by the Town as a Commity for this purpos [7-2] [Another Petition for an Incorporation, 1775.] Province of New Hampshire Monadnock N° 5 September 28th 1775. To the Honob Congress of Said Province. Whereas In the month of July last the Congress See fit to Grant us privilidges which before we was Destitute of, and for which we do express our gratitude, viz, In recommending to us to chuse Town officers such as Select men, Constables, and a Committee of Safety, all which we have don, but as it is a Doubt whether the Congress Intended we Should Injoy privilidges equil to Towns Incorporated by a Governer, or not, and as we have a desire to Settle a Minister in this town, and as we have one a preaching here whome the people universally like, We theirfore pray the Congress to Incorporate Said N° 5 by the name of Washington, and appoint a Day for our Annual Meeting. In so Doing your Honours would much Oblidge your Humble pertitioners. [7-3] Committee In Jonathan Frost) [Petition for an Incorporation, 1776.] State of New-Hampshire To the Honble the Council & house of Representatives Convend at Exeter Sep' 5, 1776. Humbly Shews Eliphalet Stone of a place Called New Marlborough in the County of Cheshire Gent. in Behalf of the freeholders & Inhabitants of said place That your Petitioners under a title from the Purchasors of the Right of John Tufton Mason Esq' did Enter into & upon the premises & have with Great Toil & Labour formd Settlements for themselves & families. That the Said tract of Land is well Scituated for a Township & of the Contents of about Six Miles Square. That your Petitioners have Erected a Meeting house for Public Worship & had preaching. That they Labour under Difficulties for want of an Incorporation which Coud they Obtain Are perswaded would be for the Public Good. Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that they may be Incorporated into a Body Politick to have Continuance & be In vested with all the powers Priviledges and Immunities that Other Towns in this State by Law hold & Enjoy. And your Petitioners as in Duty bound Will Ever pray &c. Eliphalet Stone [The foregoing petition was granted, and the town incorporated by an act passed Dec. 13, 1776.] [R. 2-257] [Petition of Major Andrew Colburn, addressed to the Council and Assembly.] Humbly Shews, Andrew Colburn of Marlborough in the County of Cheshire Esq' that in the Beginning of the last Campaign he assisted Col Reid in recruiting his Regiment, in which he expended considerable sums of Money Afterwards he served as a Voluntier in the American Army till the arrival of Gen' Folsom, who on Account of the Irregularity of the new Army, found it absolutely necessary to have an Officer to act as Brigade Adjutant, in his Department He therefore applied to General Ward, then Commander in Chief for his Approbation & appointment of ye Petitioner as Adjutant to his Brigade, who approved & appointed him to act accordingly That he acted in said Office till Gen1 Washington took the Command of the Army, who issued in general Orders that every Officer should continue in his respective Department till further Orders-That he continued in said office accordingly during said Campaign-That as the Continental Congress had not appointed Brigade Adjutants for said Service, General Washington could not grant a Warrant for any Pay That one Mr Brewer who acted in the same Capacity in the Massachusetts Troops at Roxbury being in like Circumstances with regard to pay, represented the Case to the Gen' Court of the Massachusetts Bay & was allowed Eight Pounds ten Shillings L M p' Month-Your Petitioner therefore humbly Prays your Honours to take his Case under your wise Consideration, & to grant him such Recompence for his Services during said Campaign as in Your Wisdom shall appear adequate and Just -And as in Duty bound shall pray &c And Colburn [Andrew Colburn was commissioned lieutenant-colonel of the Third New Hampshire Regiment, under Col. Scammel, April, 1777, and was killed at the battle of Stillwater, |