Page:The Granite Monthly Volume 2.djvu/341

 NEW LONDON CENTENNIAL ADDRESS.

��3*9

��town of Alexandria ; and all the plans of the town are based upon that grant and upon the allotments and drawings or purchase of lots under that title. But these grants of the territory gave only the title to the lands, and did not give any political or municipal rights, and hence when the inhabitants de- sired to act as a body politic, to lay out highways and build the same, to elect town officers, to impose taxes for town purposes, for schools or for preaching, they needed an act of in- corporation by the state government, which was oBtained in 1779, as has been seen, and the town organized and making progress under the same.

I find a difference of opinion in regard to the original name of New Lon- don. Some sav its first name was Dantzick, others that it was first called Heidleburg. Which are right? The earliest writer I have been able to find on that subject is Dr. Belknap, the au- thor of the early history of New Hamp- shire. In the third volume of his his- tory of this state, he gives us a table of statistics, in which, on page 235, he mentions Fishersfield (now Newbury) and says of it " First called Dantzick," and on page 236, he mentions New London, and says of it, " First called Heidleburg. " He mentions these both as facts that were to his mind well au- thenticated, and concerning which there was no dispute or doubt.

The N. H. Gazetteer of 1823 (Farm- er & Moore's), says that Fishersfield was first called Dantzick, according to Dr. Belknap, and that New London's " first name was Dantzick, Dr. Belknap says Hiedleburg." But they give us no rea- sons why they differ in opinion from Dr. Belknap in this regard. Dr. Bou- ton follows Farmer & Moore and says that New London was first called Dant- zick, but says nothing of Fishersfield. Fogg in in his Gazetteer says that New- bury (formerly Fishersfield) was orig- inally called Dantzick, and says the same of New London. No one of them, subsequent to Dr. Belknap, has given any reason for differing from him, nor do they refer us to any books, maps or records, to substantiate their

��claim. I have been able to find nothing in the office of the Secretary of State, bearing upon the question. In the State Library are many maps and charts, which I have consulted. Carrk r ain's

O

Map of New Hampshire, published in 1S16, shows nothing on this point, but it shows the curve line which was for many years claimed as the western and northwestern boundary of the Masonian Grant. Neither does Dr. Belknap's map, in the first volume of his History, show any thing upon the point in controversy, while it does show the straight line, that was established in 1787, by the legislature as the northwestern boundary of said Masonian Grant. Holland's Map of New Hampshire, published in Lon- don, Eng., in 1 784, from a survey made about 1 775, gives us no aid in this mat- ter.

But I find a large Atlas of Maps in the State Library, published in London, Eng., in 1 768, in which is a map of New Hampshire, which is said to have been made from surveys of the State, made by Mitchell and Hazzen, in 1750. Upon this map we find put down Pro- tectworth (now Springfield), Alexan- dria, Heidleburg, Dantzick, and Perrys- town (now Sutton), and judging from that map, and comparing it with our modern maps, it would seem to leave no doubt that Dr. Belknap is right. Dantzick, on the map, covers nearly all the territory now covered by Newbury, and extends easterly so as to cover a considerable part of what is now Sutton ; but it does not extend farther north than the north line of Newbury and Sutton, and Heidleburg lies north of Dantzick, and covers very nearly the ground afterwards covered by New London.

I also find another map of New Hampshire in the same atlas, prepared by Col. Joseph Blanchard and Rev. Samuel Langdon, at Portsmouth, N. H., in 1 76 1, and engraved and publish- ed in London with the rest, in which the curve indicating the claim of Ma- son on the west and northwest, is well marked, and showing all the towns in the vicinity within that curve line, and scarcely anything outside of it,

�� �