204 FACTS RELATING TO GROTON, MASSACHUSETTS. 



removal of these sessions from Groton. The uprising in 

 Middlesex County was confined exclusively to this neighbor- 

 hood, and the insurgents always felt a bitter spite against the 

 Court of Common Pleas, which they had tried so hard to 

 abolish. The action of the Legislature in making the change 

 seems to have been in part retributive. 



During the period when the Courts were held here, Groton 

 was a town much more important relatively, both in size and 

 influence, than it is at the present time. According to the 

 National Census of 1790, it was then the second town in pop- 

 ulation in Middlesex County, Cambridge alone having more 

 inhabitants. In that year Groton had 322 families, number- 

 ing 1,840 persons; and Cambridge, 355 families, numbering 

 2,115 persons, while Lowell had no existence. Charlestown 

 had a population of 1,583 ; and Newton, 1,360. Reading, with 

 341 families (19 more than Groton), numbered 1,802 persons 

 (38 less than Groton). Woburn then had a population of 

 1,727; Framingham, 1,598; Marlborough, 1,554; and Wal- 

 tham, 882. Pepperell contained 1,132 inhabitants; Shirley, 

 ^-JT, Westford, 1,229; and Littleton, 854. 



The Court House at Concord was burned down early on 

 the morning of June 20, 1849, during a session of the Court. 

 The County Commissioners declined to rebuild, and left the 

 matter to the next General Court. On February 13, 1850, 

 Mr. Boutwell, then a member of the Legislature, presented to 

 that body a petition of Nathaniel Pierce Smith and others, 

 that the terms of the Court of Common Pleas ordered to be 

 held at Concord, should be held at Groton ; and the question 

 was duly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 

 subject was followed up, on March 18, by petitions from 

 Pepperell, Townsend, Shirley, Littleton, and other neighbor- 

 ing towns, in aid of Mr. Smith's petition, which all took the 

 same course. On March 26 the committee reported leave 

 to withdraw, which recommendation was carried on April 8, 

 after a long debate. One week later the matter came up 

 again in another form on April 15, when the project for a 

 change was defeated for the last time. 



