the building a Bridge over the said River and no other use whatever and your Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray &c Jon Lovewell for Self & Jo Blanchard Esq [In H. of Rep., January 23, 1754, the foregoing petition was granted.-Ed.] [7-105] [Relative to Representative, 1762.] To the Gen' Assembly of the Province of New Hampshire now Setting at Portsmouth in said Province The Petition of the Freeholders of the Town of Dunstable in said Province Humbly sheweth, that there are several persons Returned as Representatives whose choice is Ilegal (viz) Joseph Blanchard Esq' for merrimac and monson Capt Sam1 Grele for Nottinghamwest and Litchfield Cap' Jon" Carlton for Plastow and Hamstead m' Joseph Wright for salem and Pelham and John Goffe Esq' for Bedford and Amherst and that— in the Election of Each of said Persons as Representatives many persons wer Allowed to vote who had no Real Estate in the Town Parrish or Precinct where shuch Election was. directly against a Law of this Province Intitled An Act for calling and Ellecting Assembly men and their Quallification and even the Returns of the writs for the choice of said persons for Representatives shew that the meetings for Electing them wer Illegall and tho' the Town of Dunstable had thirty five families settled in it in the year 1680 most of which wer within the bounds of said Town as now Incorporated in this Province yet we are omitted and deprived of having any voice in the Election of a Representative in this Assembly the said Town Reca a Charter ap 1t 1746 from the Governor and Council of this Province with all the Powers and authorities Immunities and Franchises with other Towns within said Province or any of them by Law have and Enjoy and yet other Towns not so long Settled nor Taxed so much have the previledge allowed them which we are denied we pray that these Affairs may be Exam into and Considered and something determined upon the same so that people may know how to practice for the future we pray the said persons may not be allowed to set in the Assembly to vote and Act as assembly men that we may not have any Laws or Votes passed before the House of Representatives be purged of those whose choice is Ilegall and that said persons may not be Allowed to vote or act in any Affair before it be determined wheither their Election is Legal or not we pray that we may be supported protected and defended in the Enjoyment of our Lawful Rights and Previledges as a free people under the English constitution and Goverment so that we and others may not be Striped of the same and we as in Duty bound Shall ever Pray Oliver Farwell Ebe' Harris Samuel Searles Benja French Jonathan Whiting Medad Combs Jos: Senter [7-106] [Trouble at a Town-Meeting, 1762.] Province of N Hampshire Jan 19th 1762. Proceedings of a meeting held at Dunstable at the house of Collo Zaccheus Lovewell's, by the Inhabitance of the towns of Dunstable and Holles, being assembled by notifications, sign'd by the Select-men of both Towns, pursuant to a precept directed to them from the high Sheriff of said Province, to assemble the inhabitants of said Towns, Qualify'd for voting in the choice of Representatives, to make choice of a Person to represent them in Gen" Assembly; and being met, Jona Lovewell Esq' One of the Selectmen for the Town of Dunstable Open'd the meeting in the following manner, (viz) he read the precept sent up, also read one of the Notifications pursuant to the precept, sign'd by the Selectmen for both Towns after which he address't himself to the People assembled, setting forth what an unrighteous and unjust thing it was to Couple these Towns to make choice of a Representative, and signify'd it was taking away Our Priviledges &c, and after considerable of Preamble, said that Holles had no right to vote in this meeting, Only such as had a real Estate in the Town of Dunstable; to which One of the Selectmen for the Town of Dunstable, and the Selectmen for the Town of Holles, made answer, that the Inhabitance of Holles had as good right to vote as the People of Dunstable, by appealing to the Precept; and that those Towns has been Coupeld togather here to fore; and further appeal'd to the Notification pursuant to the Precept, sign'd by the Selectmen of both Towns-M' Lovewell said twas Contrary to Law for both Towns to vote together; and Desir'd the Inhabitance of Dunstable to seperate themselves from the Inhabitance of Holles, (Only such as had real Estate in the Town of Dunstable) and bring in their votes for a Moderator; upon which one of the Select men for the Town of Holles, refusd Complying with, and beg'd there might be no seperation between said Towns in their Voting, and Desir'd the People of both Towns to go on peacebly and According to the Precept, which was directed as much to Holles, as Dunstable, which Mr Lovewell publickly refus'd, by ordering the Inhabitance of Dunstable to seperate themselves from the Inhabitance of Holles, and to bring in their votes for a Moderator; upon which the Selectmen of Dunstable and Holles, spake Audibly to the People of both Towns, to bring in their votes together, for a Moderator according to the Precept, &c, and the votes being brot in there was one hundred and two for Deacon Worcester, and there was sixty five for Jon Lovewell Esq' upon which Esq' Lovewell Immediately declar'd, that the Town of Dunstable had made choice of himself for a Moderator; upon which the Select Men of Dunstable and Holles, as aforesaid, Declar'd the Inhabitance of Dunstable and Holles, had chosen Deacon Worcester for a Moderator for this meeting, by a great Majority, then Esq' Lovewell orders the men of Dunstable to bring in their votes for a Representative; M' Worcester Moderator, Insisted that it was his right to order as a Moderator, requested the Precept of Mr Lovewell, which m' Lovewell Publickly refus'd to let him have or see; upon which Mr Worcester (having one of the Notifications) said, Pursuant to the Notification founded upon the Precept &c to the Inhabitance of the Town of Dunstable and Holles, to bring in their votes for a Representative, the votes being brot in, there was One hundred and two for Doctor Hale, and there was sixty three for Mr Lovewell; which Mr Lovewell Immediately declar'd the Town of Dunstable had Chosen himself for their Representative Mr Worcester declar'd, pursuant to the Notification, founded upon the precept to Dunstable and Holles, they had made Choice of Doctor John Hale, to represent said Towns in Gen" Assembly &c Francis Worcester Moderator for said meeting Province of New Hamp'-Dunstable Jan" y 19th 1762 We the Subscribers, Testify the within is the proceedings of the meeting held this Instant David Hobart Selectman for Dunstable Sam" Cumings Selectmen Benja Abbett for Holles [7-107] [Petition relative to the foregoing, 1762.] To the Gen' Assembly of the Province of New Hamp' Now Holden at Portsmouth in sd Province The Petition of the Freeholders of Dunstable in said Province Humbly Sheweth that on the 19th Day of January Instant the freeholders of the Town of Dunstable in sa Province met in sd Dunstable to Elect a Representative and more than fifty Freeholders of sd Town of Dunstable who had a real Estate in the same of fifty pounds value Chose Jonathan Lovewell Esq' for their Representative which choice was made by a Great majority of those present which had a real Estate in s town of Dunstable of sd value. Tho after Reading the Law about the Quallification of voters in s meeting we ware much Disturbed by the Select men of Holles and a Great number of people that Joined them from Holles monson and Pepperel who set up a meeting without Joining with the Selectmen of Dunstable to Qualify the meeting accoring to Law, and in their pretended meeting Declared that Doct' John Hale was chose a Representative for Dunstable and Holles but among them that voted for said Hale we Cant find ten persons that had any real Estate in said Dunstable so that the choice of sa Hale was not made by a majority of the Freeholders of the Town of Dunstable where the meeting was held but the choice of sd Lovewell was, we therefore pray that the Choice of sd Hale may be Declared Null because against a positive Law which says no person shall have the Liberty of voting in the choice of Representatives other than such who has a real Estate of the value of fifty pounds within the Town Parish or Precinct where such Election shall be and we Desire that the choice of sd Lovewell may be confirmed and accepted because agreeable to Law Except any fault in the writ and if that should be the case that a new Writ may be sent to the sd Town of Dunstable from the assembly for a New choice without being Joined with any that cant agreeable to Law vote with us— We pray that the point may be Determined and Settled so that we may know whither we shall practice according to the positive Laws of the Province or not We pray that we may be Defended in our Lawful Rights and previledges as a free people under the English Goverment and not Stript of them by any power or Number whatsoever we dont desire to act against the Kings Prerogative, but pray that we may not Loose our Previlidge as a people and we as in Duty Bound Shall Ever Pray Dunstable January the 20th 1762 Zacheues Lovewell Joseph French Jonathan Combs Joseph Whiting Benja Taylor John Lovewell Oliver Farwell Daniel Searles [7-108] Sam11 Roby Samuel Searls pelatiah whittemor Jun Nathanel Severnce Elazar fisk David adams iuner James Harwood Jun Charles Butterfield John Phelps [Notice of Meeting, 1762.] Province of New Hamp Notice is here by Given to the Freeholders of the Towns of Dunstable and Holles in said Province, that are Quallified by Law to Elect Representatives, that they meet at the Dwellinghouse of Coll° Zacheus Lovewell Innholder in said Dunstable, on Tusday the nineteenth day of January Currant, at one oclock in the afternoon; and being meet, to Elect one Person |