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.”]

The parish heeded not the frowns of the Court, but persisted inexorably in its purpose to get rid of Mr. Parris.  After an obstinate contest, it prevailed.  In the last stage of the controversy, it appointed four men, as its agents or attorneys, whose names indicate the spirit in which it acted,—­John Tarbell, Samuel Nurse, Daniel Andrew, and Joseph Putnam.  His dauntless son did not follow the wolf through the deep and dark recesses of his den with a more determined resolution than that with which Joseph Putnam pursued Samuel Parris through the windings of the law, until he ferreted him out, and rid the village of him for ever.

Finally, the inferior court of Common Pleas, before which Mr. Parris had carried the case, ordered that the matters in controversy between him and the inhabitants of Salem Village should be referred to arbitrators for decision.  The following statement was laid before them by the persons representing the inhabitants:—­

     "To the Honorable Wait Winthrop, Elisha Cook, and Samuel
     Sewall, Esquires, Arbitrators, indifferently chosen, between
     Mr. Samuel Parris and the Inhabitants of Salem Village.

"The Remonstrances of several Aggrieved Persons in the said Village, with further Reasons why they conceive they ought not to hear Mr. Parris, nor to own him as a Minister of the Gospel, nor to contribute any Support to him as such for several years past, humbly offered as fit for consideration.

“We humbly conceive that, having, in April, 1693, given our reasons why we could not join with Mr. Parris in prayer, preaching,