The question of a new meeting-house was now agitating the inhabitants of Dunstable.  Their former building was in another Province, where different laws prevailed respecting the qualifications and settlement of ministers.  It was clearly evident that another structure must be built, and the customary dispute of small communities arose in regard to its site.  Some persons favored one locality, and others another; some wanted the centre of territory, and others the centre of population.  Akin to this subject I give the words of the Reverend Joseph Emerson, of Pepperell,—­as quoted by Mr. Butler, in his History of Groton (page 306),—­taken from a sermon delivered on March 8, 1770, at the dedication of the second meeting-house in Pepperell:  “It hath been observed that some of the hottest contentions in this land hath been about settling of ministers and building meeting-houses; and what is the reason?  The devil is a great enemy to settling ministers and building meeting-houses; wherefore he sets on his own children to work and make difficulties, and to the utmost of his power stirs up the corruptions of the children of God in some way lo oppose or obstruct so good a work.”  This explanation was considered highly satisfactory, as the hand of the evil one was always seen in such disputes.

During this period of local excitement an effort was made to annex Nottingham to Dunstable; and at the same time Joint Grass to Dunstable.  Joint Grass was a district in the northeastern part of Groton, settled by a few families, and so named from a brook running through the neighborhood.  It is evident from the documents that the questions of annexation and the site of the meeting-house were closely connected.  The petition in favor of annexation was granted by the General Court on certain conditions, which were not fulfilled, and consequently the attempt fell to the ground.  Some of the papers relating to it are as follows: 

A Petition of sundry Inhabitants of the most northerly Part of the first Parish in Groton, praying that they may be set off from said Groton to Dunstable, for the Reasons mentioned.

Read and Ordered, That the Petitioners serve the Towns of Groton and Dunstable with Copies of this Petition, that they show Cause, if any they have, on the first Friday of the next Sitting of this Court, why the Prayer thereof should not be granted.

Sent up for Concurrence.

[Journal of the House of Representatives (page 264), March 11, 1746.]

Francis Foxcroft, Esq; brought down the Petition of the northerly Part of Groton, as entred the 11th of March last, and refer’d.  Pass’d in Council, viz. In Council May 29th 1747.  Read again, together with the Answers of the Towns of Groton and Dunstable, and Ordered, That Joseph Wilder and John Quincy, Esqrs; together with such as the honourable House shall join, be a Committee to take under Consideration this Petition, together with the other Petitions and Papers referring to the Affair within mentioned, and report what they judge proper for this Court to do thereon.  Sent down for Concurrence.