"On the 3d of February, 1693, a warrant was issued for a meeting of the
inhabitants of the village, signed by Thomas Preston, Joseph Pope,
Joseph Houlton, and John Tarbell, of the standing annual committee, to
be held Feb. 14, 'to consider and agree and determine who are capable
of voting in our public transactions, by the power given us by the
General-court order at our first settlement; and to consider of and
make void a vote in our book of records, on the 18th of June, 1689,
where there is a salary of sixty-six pounds stated to Mr. Parris, he
not complying with it; also to consider of and make void several votes
in the book of records on the 10th of October, 1692, where our ministry
house and barn and two acres of land seem to be conveyed from us after
a fraudulent manner.'"
At this meeting, it was voted, that "all men that are ratable, or
hereafter shall be living within that tract of land mentioned in our
General-court order, shall have liberty in nominating and appointing a
committee, and voting in any of our public concerns."
By referring to the account, in the First Part, of the controversy
between the inhabitants of the village and Mr. Bayley, "the power"
above alluded to, "given us by the General Court," will be seen fully
described. In its earnestness to fasten Mr. Bayley upon "the
inhabitants," the Court elaborately ordained the system by which they
should be constrained to provide for him, and compelled to raise the
means of paying his salary. As no church had then been organized, the
General Court fastened the duty upon "householders." The fact had not
been forgotten, and the above vote showed that the parish intended to
hold on to the power then given them. This highly incensed the Court of
Sessions. It ordered the parish book of records to be produced before
it, and caused a condemnation of such a claim of right to be written
out, in open Court, on the face of the record, where it is now to be
seen. It is as follows:—
"At the General Sessions of the Peace holden at Ipswich, March the
28th, 1693. This Court having viewed and considered the above agreement
or vote contained in the last five lines, finding the same to be
repugnant to the laws of this province, do declare the same to be null
and void, and that this order be recorded with the records of this
Court.
"Attest, Stephen Sewall, _Clerk_."