which had made him the owner, in fee simple, of the parish property; and when he found that the record of the terms of his settlement, in the parish-book, absolutely precluded that idea, his exasperation was great, and no reparation Deacon Ingersoll or any one else could make was suffered to appease it.  The following deposition, made in court some years afterwards, gives an account of a scene in the meeting-house after Parris’s ordination:—­

     “IPSWICH COURT, 1697.—­Parris versus Inhabitants
     of Salem Village.

“We the undersigned testify and say, that, a considerable time after Mr. Parris his ordination, there was a meeting of the inhabitants of Salem Village at the usual place of meeting; and the occasion of the meeting was concerning Mr. Parris, and several persons were at that meeting, that had not, before this meeting, joined with the people in calling or agreeing with Mr. Parris; and the said persons desired that those things that concerned Mr. Parris and the people might be read, and accordingly it was.  And the entry, that some call a salary, being read, there arose a difference among the people, the occasion of which was finding an entry in the book of the Village records, relating to Mr. Parris his maintenance, which was dated the 18th of June, 1689; and, the entry being read to the people, some replied that they believed that Mr. Parris would not comply with that entry; whereupon one said it was best to send for Mr. Parris to resolve the question.  Accordingly, he was sent for.  He coming to the people, this entry of the 18th of June, 1689, was read to Mr. Parris.  His answer was as follows:  ’He never heard or knew any thing of it, neither could or would he take up with it, or any part of it;’ and further he said, ‘They were knaves and cheaters that entered it.’  And Lieutenant Nathaniel Putnam, being moderator of that meeting, replied to Mr. Parris, and said, ’Sir, then there is only proposals on both sides, and no agreement between you and the people.’  And Mr. Parris answered and said, ’No more, there is not; for I am free from the people, and the people free from me:’  and so the meeting broke up.  And we further testify, that there hath not been any agreement made with Mr. Parris, that we knew of or ever heard of,—­never since.

     “JOSEPH PORTER. 
     DANIEL ANDREW. 
     JOSEPH PUTNAM.

     “Sworn in Court, at Ipswich, April 13, 1697, by all three.

     Attest, STEPHEN SEWALL, Clerk.”

The answer which Mr. Parris made to Nathaniel Putnam’s inquiry probably settled the question in the suit then pending, and led to the final release of the parish from him.  It is hard to find any point of difference between his own account of the conditions he himself made, and the record of the parish-book, of sufficient importance to account for the storm of passion into which the reading of the latter drove him, except in the language which I have suggested as the probable occasion of his wrath.  Unfortunately for him, there is evidence quite corroborative of this suggestion.