There is one other consideration that might legally deprive Mr. Fish of his rights in the parsonage, even if he acquired any by the transaction in 1811, which is denied. When he went to Marshpee, and first preached there, he was of the Unitarian faith, and so continued some time. Subsequently, (and most undoubtedly from high conscientious motives,) he became Orthodox in his creed, and has remained so ever since. [This fact has been named by the President of Harvard College, as one reason why the Williams fund has continued to be diverted from its proper use; the delicacy Harvard College felt at dismissing Mr. Fish, lest it should be ascribed to persecution, for his change of sentiments from Unitarian to Orthodox.] But if Mr. Fish claims to hold the parsonage by the "_laws_," he must be governed by the decision of the Court in the celebrated case of Burr, vs. the first parish in Sandwich. Mr. Burr was settled an Unitarian, and became Orthodox, and this the Supreme Court decided was just cause for the parish to dismiss him. Chief Justice Parsons, said in that case, that "according to the almost immemorial usage of Congregational churches, before the parish settle a minister, he preaches with them as a candidate for settlement, with the intent of declaring his religious faith, and if he is afterwards settled, it is understood that the greater part of the parish and church agree in his religious sentiments and opinions. If afterwards the minister adopts a new system of divinity, the parish retaining their former religious belief, so that the minister would not have been settled on his present system, in our opinion the parish have good cause to complain." On this ground the Court decided that Mr. Burr had forfeited his settlement. The principle is the same applied to the relation Mr. Fish holds to the Marshpee Indians. He was placed over them by others, and the Indians are now compelled either to lose all the benefits of their own parsonage, or to hear a man in whose doctrines they do not believe, and whom they cannot consent to take as their spiritual teacher. Upon a full investigation into this branch of the inquiry, there seems to be no legal or equitable ground, on which Mr. Fish can claim to hold the parsonage and Meeting-house against the Proprietors, and he must therefore, be regarded as a trespasser, liable to be ejected, and the men he employs to cut and cart wood from the plantation, are liable to indictment under the new law of 1834.