its completion and occupancy are found in the Town Record of "the 11th of (11) 1647." "Voted that the Deacons shall have power to agree with a man, whome they shall thinke fitt to keepe the meeting-house clean, and to ring the Bell, and what they shall agree with him shall be paid out of the Town Rate." Finishing touches remained to be made, however, as it was voted in 1653 (Town Records), "to make a sheete for the turret window and cover for upper scuttle hole," and two years later, some repairs were in order, as a bill of £10, 14s. 4d. was approved for "mending the windows, new banding, soldering and new glass' (Town Records, 1655). This building was probably of the hip-roof order, with a "turret" for the bell at the apex, resembling generally the "Old Ship Church" of Hingham, with diamond paned glass set in lead sashes. It was surrounded by a fort. The earlier Meeting-House was very likely protected in similar fashion, as the Pequot War broke out in 1637 and, for a half century after, the settlers were never free from fear of Indian attacks. Men brought their arms with them to public worship and sentinels paced their beat without, during the time of service. The Meeting-House was a place of deposit for ammunition. Four swords of the common stock were kept there in 1647, and in 1681, there was a "magazine in the meeting-house" (Town Records). In case of attack, as it was the largest building in the town, and the one best adapted for defence, the people would naturally have hurried thither. Hence the value and need of the fortification which was erected around it. In 1650, it was voted by the Town, "The wall about the meetinghouse shall be made up and kept in repair." The implication of the final clause "kept in repair," is that this work was in the nature of a rebuilding of the wall, that may have fallen into disrepair, and not the original erection. Again, in 1671, a few years before King Philip's War, the Constable was ordered to "pay John Brewer 20s. for charge he is out about building the fort" (Town Records), and by vote of August 20, 1696, when the Indians were assailing the Maine colonists, the Town Treasurer was instructed "to hire laborers at the Town charge to repair the fort about the meetinghouse" (Town Records). No record of the style or size of this ancient fort has been preserved, but there was a similar one in Topsfield, built in 1673, five or six feet high and "three foote brod at the botom." On the south side of the MeetingHouse, it was twelve feet, and on the other three sides, ten feet distant, and at the southeast corner, within the wall a watch-house ten feet square was built, which was called "the old Meeting-House fort" at the beginning of the eighteenth century.' Happily no occasion for defence ever arose, and a few years after the last Indian outbreak the Town voted in 1702, that the "rocks at the old meeting house" should be sold and the proceeds used towards buying a town clock. 1 History of Boxford, by Sidney Perley. As to the new Meeting-House, the third on the Green, the vote of Jan. 26, 1699,' directed that the foundation should be laid "as near the old meeting house as the Committee shall appoint," and the Committee was instructed to "levell the place for the floor of ye said new Meeting House.'' The old house was turned over to the Committee, but it was stipulated that they should "suffer the Inhabitants to meet in it until the new Meeting House is finished" and "provided they remove the old meeting house in six months," "provided also they bank up with stones and gravel against the sides of the new meeting house, the Town allowing stones to do it out of ye Fort" (Town Records, 1699). The new house was a stately structure, sixty-six feet long, sixty feet wide, and twenty-six feet stud. It had a "turret" or belfry for the bell, and in 1702, provision was made for a town clock with a dial. The sexton, Simon Pinder, was instructed in 1716 to ring the bell daily at five o'clock in the morning. The old Meeting House was sold back to the Town by the building committee in 1701, and in 1703 the Town voted to sell it to anybody for £20. No purchaser was forthcoming, and a dreary suggestion of the ruinous and melancholy condition into which the venerable building fell, and the wanton appropriation of it by piecemeal, is contained in the vote of March 16, 1703-4. "Voted that the Selectmen do inquire and make search of all p'sns yt have disorderly taken away out of ye old Meeting house and converted ye same to yr own use, shall prosecute them at law, unless they will comply and make satisfaction." The most decisive note as to the location of the new house is afforded by the curious map, made in the year 1717, of the north side of Main street. It locates "Potter's House," on the corner of Loney's lane, and there is a quaint remark in the margin: "Had there been but a little more room on this side the meeting-house should have been set down." The meeting house is but little more than 4 rods from Potter's house."' Measuring a radius of seventy-five feet from this corner brings us to the terrace north of the present building, and on this the third meeting house probably was built. The fourth building was erected in 1749. It was sixty-three feet long, forty-seven feet wide, and was twenty-six feet stud. It was admirably built and was used for a century. Its location is well remembered on the precise spot occupied by the present edifice, which was erected in 1846-1847, but the tall steeple was at the northern end, and the building stood with its broad side facing down the hill. The pulpit and sounding 1 Felt inclines to believe that the third meeting house was erected some years before this. In 1667, it was agreed with Ezekiel Woodward and Freegrace Norton to gett and hew the timbers for the meeting house roof." In 1671 an appropriation was made for ten days' work for raising the frame. These items refer rather to enlargements or repairs of the existing building. It is worth noting that a Committee to repair the meeting house was chosen in 1663, only about fifteen years after it was built. The use of green timber, and the difficulty of keeping the roof tight, often alluded to, may explain the frequency of repair. board were famous works of handicraft, and are preserved in the steepleroom of the present edifice, in a much abridged form. At the southeast corner of the Green, on the spot now occupied by the chapel of the First Church, the town pound was built, a fenced inclosure into which stray cattle were driven and kept confined. Much annoyance and no small damage were often caused by the straying of cattle, horses or swine into the tilled fields or gardens. Consequently stringent regulations were adopted by the Town to prevent the breach of the laws, with reference to pasturage. Thus it is recorded under date, 13 January, 1639: (Town Records) "agreed that whosoever shall find mares, horses or oxen in the cow common two hours after sunrising and bring same either to the Pound or to the owner of the same, the said owner shall give to such a p'ty double recompense for his pains. The forfeits of 10s. are to goe half to the Towne, and halfe to him that shall impound such trespassing cattell." Swine were to be impounded by an order of the year 1643, and in the same year, it was voted: "The Common Pounder or any other party shall have ii d a peece for all piggs, or any other Cattell, that they shall impound, out of any Comon-field or fenced ground, except house lotts and gardens." A discolored and dimly written old document, preserved in the Court Records in Salem, has a very interesting association with this old pound, and the method of enforcing the laws, which governed its use. It appears that John Leigh had driven five cows belonging to his neighbor, Simon Tompson of Rocky Hill, to the pound. To secure their release, Tompson was obliged to petition the august magistrate, General Denison, who issued the following writ to Theophilus Wilson, the constable, with his autograph in his familiar hand. To the Constable of Ipswich You are required to replevin five Cowes of Simon Tompson's now impounded by John Leigh, and to deliver them to the sd Simon, provided he give bond to the value of fifety shillings wth sufficient sureties to prosecute his Replevin, at the next Court, holden at Ipswich & so from Court to Court till the Cause be ended & to pay such costs and damage as the sd John Leigh shal by law recover agst him and so make a true return hereof under your hand Dated 9th of August, 1654. DANIEL DENISON. This bears the endorsement, which is scarcely legible from the scrawling hand: 9th of August, 1654. I replevined 5 cowes of Simon Tompson and took bond of hym accordingly. by me THEOPHILUS WILSON Constable. Every time the pound gate closed upon a stray animal, this formal proceeding was necessary before it could be recovered by the owner. This |