in the earlier history of this town, politics and religion were closely related. for many years the affairs of the legally established, or congregational, church were arranged by vote of the town. the intimate relation existing between the church and the town made the meeting-house and town-house at first identical. the earliest town-meeting held in the first meeting-house was on the 2d of march, 1767. previously, town-meetings had been held at private houses. town-meetings continued to be held in the church till 1799, when use was first made of the old hillsborough county court house, the annual meeting of that year being held in the upper room of the county edifice. town-meeting has since been held annually on the same spot.
at the time of the incorporation of the town, in 1765, annual town-meetings were legally held only on the first monday in march. in the year 1803, the state legislature fixed the date of annual town-meetings at the second tuesday of the same month. till the year 1813, when the state established a law requiring the use of an alphabetical list of voters at town-meetings, public legal gatherings in town had been conducted with less formality than has been maintained since, but the regard for parliamentary proprieties had been sufficient to prevent any disorder or unskillfulness of a serious nature.
the instincts of the people of this town have always largely partaken of a democratic character. there has been a prominent jealousy of individual rights. this feature of local political life was exhibited in the very earliest times, when individuals frequently appeared at the moderator’s desk to record their names in opposition to some measure or other passed by the majority. 225even to this day the doctrine of individual rights is strongly asserted by the mass of persons of whatever party name. in the days of the prolonged supremacy of the democratic party, the lines of party distinction were drawn so clearly that scarcely a whig was ever permitted to represent the town at the general court. once, in 1844, there was a kind of general compromise between parties, and moses colby, a whig, and samuel colby, a democrat, were sent to the legislature together. for quite a number of years there was a compromise on the subject of selectmen, and a general consent gave the whigs annually one member in a board of three; but this arrangement was broken up by a fancied or real attempt of the whigs to take more than their customarily allotted portion of the chosen.
till the year 1855, when the democrats lost the general control of political affairs in town for the first time, the constantly prevailing superiority had prevented the practice or necessity of much caucusing. a few leading ones put their heads together and gave a definite impulse to the party movement. the process worked very well, except when now and then an accident would happen, as, for instance, when a refractory candidate insisted in pushing his private claims at all hazards. caucusing, however, had been practiced more or less previously to 1855, but since this date the closeness of the popular vote has often led to a degree of figuring and planning that can be easily comprehended by all accustomed to watch the movements of political leadership in new hampshire during the last quarter of a century.
we have shown, in a previous article, that the democrats of this town held a majority on the governor’s vote till 1865. however, in 1855, the american party elected two representatives—paul r. george and timothy colby—and three selectmen.
