Norwich bulletin., 1920-11-17

layly increasing which renders it very (disrual) to attend on the Publick Worship of God at the stated place there of in sd. society, many of them hv- ing six miles therefrom, and that sd so- cietx, knowing the difficulties that sd. mems labored under, did, April S., l761, at legal society meeting for that purpose held, vote to divide sd. society by D North and So. line parallel with the line between Sd: Canterbury .and the town of Windham crossing the Center Of sd. town of Canterbury, etc. Moving that the l Sd. West part of the sd. town of Can terbury be made distinct Qine blurred, and not legible) the Second Society in sd. town that within West parte as per l memo on file, etc
 Resolved by this assembly that Saml Colt and Nathaniel Brown of Preston in 1 New London county and MT. SaInl Croft 1 of Pomfret be a committee and they are hereby appointed a committee -on the memorial to report to sd. First Society 1 of Canterbury on the circumstances of how the memorial by and al perform con- cerned and make report of what they shall find with their opinion thereon to | this assembly in Octe. next at the cost of sd. First Society of Canterbury. (Iay, 176S.)
 passed the Upper House seb George Concurred in lower House Segt wni. Williams, cler.
 | An important point in consideration of the petition, was if the new proposed so, ciety had sufficient ground for support and the following statement on Uninl- proved Land was submitted.
 Josiah Hide, Robt Rawson both oi | Canterbury for the county of Windhan and Elreathan Mainard of Windiam fol 1 sd. county, all of Lawful age testify and 1 say that we are we'll acquainted with the I westerly part of sd. Canterbury and ac.
 cording to the best computation we caf 1 make, we judge that there is in the New Proposed Society for the Vest par 1 of sd Canterbury sixteen hundred acres l of unsettled land yet uninproved and ex 1 cepting a sufficient quantity of wood ian6 l left to accommodate sd settlement tht | other inhabitants in sd. Proseped Society and also sd Society is yearly greatly | increasing and now settling with new set l tiers and further say not
 l Dated at Canterbury, this sd. day o 1 Oct, 1767.
 (This followed by statement of Jacol
 above 8 men took solemn oath to thu above statement, adding
 "saml Hunting. Esq, Society Clerk 0 HrSI OOClety III Sa- CdnlSFDury anu one U the principal inhabitants of the place 0 sd. Society notified and present ant i Thomas Basel of sd. Society a principf member of the Separate Church and Com munity and the rest of the members 0 | the community notified and not present. !" I But the unexpected obstacle to the ex pected division of The town came in tn shape of a protest against it from 5 members of the 1st Soc who claimed l that the former consent to the division was too nasty and that to divide Tou1t
 mean the death of the first Society. Another hindrance was from the cente of the town, where seven men objecte, because they said by the proposed divi sion they, Thomas Bradford. Joseph Wit ter, Abijah Cady. Jacob Smith. Jehl | Wheeler, Jacob Green and John Pellet 1 would be on extreme eastern edge of tn, new Society and, just as far from thei meeting-house if they ever build one al
 now from that of First Society. And ney we have a good road to church, if in Ney Proposed Soc. the way is so bad that is impossible there will ever be a goo
 road made.
 Next came proposition that the Is
 and proposed Society unite in buidlin a new church at the Plains but no vot
 could be had and the efforts of petitioner
 continued,
 I quote another legal document of in