In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 The “Poll Parish” After the Childs substitut e failed a second time, in convention, and the select committee’s revision of the third article passed to a second reading on January 7, 1821,delegates sought alternate and more modest means of liberalization. Samuel P. P. Fay of Cambridge proposed to extend to Congregationalists and Unitarians the privileges of choosing the ministers to whom their tax money should be paid. As matters then stood a “poll parish,” that is, a parish of the Congregational denomination but organized apart from the town or “territorial parish,” required a special act oflegislation. Fay’s resolution, by placing Congregationalists and Unitarians on the same f ooting as other denominations, struck at the parish system and the historic inviolability of ministerial contracts. It was vigorously opposed. The speeches of Samuel Hoar and Levi Lincoln in committee of the whole exhibit the two sides of this question. Mr. Hoar was sorry that any gentleman had thought it necessary to bring this proposition before the Convention at this late period.It had been twice substantially before the House, and had been negativ ed when there were more than a hundred more members present than were now here. But as it had been thought fit to bring up the question, it was necessary to consider what would be its operation. It was a shor t and plain proposition, and at first view seemed very fair, but it would be found on examination that its effect would be to annul every parish in the Commonwealth. It puts an end to all acts of the Legislature, dividing the Commonwealth into convenient From Journal, pp. 57 6–77, 581. 46 The Massachusetts Convention districts for the support of public worship. For what reason was this to be done? It was desirable to some persons to hav e the power of leaving their parish minister and going to another.This, no doubt, was sometimes a very convenient and pleasant thing , but there were two sides to the question. A parish forms a contract with a minister—an individual v otes in making the contract, but the next y ear changes his mind, and wishes to be liberated . He is only to say he has changed his mind and he is liberated. Would this be borne in any other c ase? Suppose there was a banking institution in which the individual pr oprietors were responsible for its engagements, and an individual should withdraw f rom it and avoid his responsibility? It would be considered a breach of good faith.This provision authorizes every member of a parish, which has a contract with a minister , to go where he pleases, and no tax c an afterwards be assessed upon him for fulfi lling the contract—this gives a new inducement to another to go—and the corporation may be left without corporators. The minister may sue and get execution against the corporation, but he can get no fruit of his execution—and there is no way in which his contract can be enforced. If all do not leave the parish—suppose only one half leave,those who remain will be compelled to pay a double tax, or to violate their contract. It was said that this might be the effect of the present law. This did not diminish the force of the objection . The law may be modified so as to prevent these consequences, but if the principle is incorporated into the constitution, it cannot be. It was said that these evil consequences had not r esulted f rom the law. One reason why the consequences of the law had not been felt was, that it was not generally understood. It was generally supposed that to entitle one to leave a parish and withdraw his taxes, he must become a member of a societ y of a different denomination. But the law had r ecently received a different construction, which was no doubt correct. It was true that under the law a person who becomes of a different denomination, has a right to withdraw, but this was understood, and the contracts have been made subject to this condition. This provision might be liable to abuses and f rauds, but it did not follow that ther e might not be benefi t in the r estriction. There were instances in which pretended changes of opinion to avoid taxation, had not availed. He stated an instance of a man who...

Share