UC-NRLF 
 
 $B 52 MES 
 
 /i 
 

 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Universiiy of California. 
 
 ^IFT OF 
 
 Class 
 
 
 
 
 

 [Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society, Vol. III. J 
 CHAPTERS ON THE 
 
 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT; 
 
 WITH CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY REMARKS ON 
 
 TIIK CONSTITUTIOI^ OF 1639. 
 By Henry Bronson, M.D. 
 
 [Read March 3, 1879, and Feb. 23, 1880.] 
 
C'OI 
 
 [Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society, Vol. III. J 
 
 CHAPTERS ON THE 
 
 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT; 
 
 WITH critical and EXPLANATORY REMARKS ON 
 
 THE COJSrSTITUTION OF 1639. 
 By Henry Bronson, M.D. 
 
 [Read March 3, 1879, and Feb. 23, 1880.] 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 The first planters of the three towns on the Connecticut 
 River, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Hartford, came from Water- 
 town, Dorchester, and Newtown (now Cambridge), near Boston. 
 They were distinct ecclesiastical bodies before they started, 
 each proposing a settlement of its own. For the most part, 
 they were farmers seeking more and better land tlian could be 
 obtained at the Bay. All were respectable, and among them 
 were some of the foremost' men of New England and the 
 Puritan faith, distinguished alike for wisdom, learning, purity, 
 and piety. They were honest, resolute, zealous, and at the 
 same time prudent and sagacious — in the latter qualities sur- 
 passed by none. The General Court of Massachusetts was 
 asked to sanction their design to remove. A majority of the 
 magistrates strenuously opposed ; the deputies consented. 
 Jealousies, contention, and a great hubbub ensued, when the 
 Court, according to custom in cases of perplexity, "agreed 
 to keep a day of humiliation to seek the Lord," and adjourned. 
 The day was observed "in all the congregations." When the 
 members again assembled, they were edified by a set sermon 
 
 228387 
 
2 EAELY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 preached by the famous Mr. Cotton, of Boston. But stead- 
 fastness, in those times, was not a rare quality, and the pro- 
 posed general movement, mostly without official sanction, was 
 not long delayed. After it had begun, the General Court, in 
 May, 1636, with the acquiescence of John Winthrop, Jr., 
 whom the patentees in England had appointed governor of 
 Connecticut, granted a commission to eight discreet persons 
 to govern the new settlements for one year. Their names and 
 the names of the towns they were probably expected, in some 
 way, to represent, were : Roger Ludlow and William Phelps, 
 of Windsor, John Steele and William Westwood, of Hartford, 
 William Swaine and Andrew^ Ward, of Wethersiield, William 
 Pynchon, of Agawam (Springiield), and Henry Smith, his 
 son-in-law. Seemingly, for mutual convenience and support, 
 Agawam was at iirst associated in government with the towns 
 below. This connection, always wavering or disputed, w^as 
 not formally ended till 1641. (See Palfrey's History of ^^ew 
 England, i, 604.) There was a controversy about the bound- 
 ary line and the right of jurisdiction which caused confusion 
 and a vacillating policy. 
 
 Undeniably, that was an extraordinary form of government 
 which the people of Connecticut accepted as their own. Pro- 
 vided, as it was, by another colony — one with which they had 
 now no political connection — it had, of course, no rightful 
 authority, and could bind nobody. On the 2)art of Massachu- 
 setts, it was a manifest usurpation. In appearance, the gov- 
 erned, as a body, had no voice in it, took no action concerning 
 it, yet they submitted with seeming cheerfulness, considering 
 it, probably, as a needful and convenient provisional arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 To the commissioners was given "full power to hear and 
 determine, in a judicial w^ay, all differences between party and 
 party ; to imprison, impose lines, and inflict corporal punish- 
 ment for crimes, and to order the affairs of the plantations in 
 trading, planting, building, military discipline, etc., as shall 
 best conduce to the public good." (Hazard, i, 322.) As "A 
 Courte," they met, for the first time, April 26, 1636, in Hart- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 6 
 
 ford, and then irregularly in the other settlements. Without 
 claiming all the authority their commission assumed to grant, 
 they took charge of the general interests of the towns, leaving 
 local affairs to local management. I infer this from a very 
 brief record of their doings. They regulated trade with the 
 Indians, made rules concerning swine running at large, ap- 
 pointed committees to trace the town lines, and ordered the 
 soldiers to provide themselves with ammunition, and to train 
 once a month. To prevent surprise l)y hostile Indians, they 
 required watches to be maintained. They ratified certain 
 church proceedings, and performed the duties of courts of 
 justice and of probate. Largely, doubtless, they acted as an 
 advisory committee, their own interest prompting them to 
 seek the good of the people they governed. '* The court of 
 magistrates " was the name they applied to themselves when in 
 session. On tlie whole, their government was so reasonable 
 and just that those Living under it did not probably much care 
 by whose authority they held office. 
 
 The first planters on the river had not a perfect title to the 
 soil they appropriated. Faithfully they extinguished, by pur- 
 chase, the conflicting and often doubtful claims of the native 
 Indians, who, hoping for protection from their old oppressors, 
 the Mohawks and Pequots, had, several years before, invited 
 a settlement among them ; but the conceded claim, based on 
 priority of discovery, of another party, the English patentees, 
 they for the time ignored. When we refuse to call them 
 trespassers and s({uatters, we concede much to their conspicu- 
 ous respectability and high purpose. Soon they were called 
 on, by proclamation, to acknowledge the prior right of the 
 foreign proprietors. The demand was most honorably met by 
 an offer to remove on the payment of expenses incurred. 
 (Palfrey, i, 451.) But they did not remove, and were not 
 called to account. Judged by the rule of righteousness, they 
 were not debtors, but large creditors. Their enterprise and 
 sacrifices had added nnich value to the estate of the patentees. 
 The latter were their friends and well-wishers, and seemed to 
 take this view of the case. Not till the charter was obtained 
 
4 EAKLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 in 1662, were their titles and the right of jurisdiction made 
 secure. Before the union, the Colony of 'New Haven was in 
 the same condition as that of Connecticut. 
 
 The government accepted in the beginning by the planters, 
 according to Dr. Palfrey (i, 455), " was found in practice 
 inconvenient," and the commission, when the year had ex- 
 pired, was not renewed. But I suspect that inconvenience, 
 merely, was not the motive for non-renewal. Much heavy 
 work was to be done — work requiring the assistance of every 
 able-bodied man — and it is probable that a more popular gov- 
 ernment was demanded. An army was to be raised and war 
 material provided, and nothing could be accomplished without 
 efficient organization. So, on the first day of May, 1637, a 
 '' General Corte" (the first in Connecticut), assembled in Hart- 
 ford, having two classes or ranks of members. In the first 
 were Roger Ludlow, William Phelps, Thomas Wells (of Hart- 
 ford), John Steele, William Swaine, and Andrew Ward, two 
 from each town, all members of the old commission, Mr. 
 Wells a short time only. They were grave magistrates, and 
 the trusted counselors of the settlements, whose business it 
 doubtless was to represent wisely 'the several communities as a 
 whole. They apparently occupied a position in the govern- 
 ment similar to that of the magistrates under the Constitution 
 of 1639. A very brief record does hot give all the informa- 
 tion we desire on this and other points. 
 
 The second class of members, called " committees " by the 
 recorder, numbered nine, three from each town. They, too, 
 were distinguished, each having the title of Mr. ; but they 
 occupied a position, both socially and politically, much inferior 
 to that of the other class. Presumably, tliey represented the 
 plantations from which they came. But till recently nothing 
 has been certainly known as to the manner in which they, or 
 their more dignified associates in the Court, were selected 
 for office. In the first volume of Collections of the Con- 
 necticut Historical Society, Mr. J. H. Trumbull has pub- 
 lished a letter of the Pev. Thomas Hooker, written in the 
 fall of 163 8 J and addressed to Governor Winthrop, of Mass., 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 5 
 
 in wliich he says: "at the time of our election, the commit- 
 tees of the town of Agawam came in with other towns, and 
 chose tlieir magistrates, installed them into their government, 
 took the oath of office of them for the execution of justice 
 according to God," etc. In this passage (as I read it) it is 
 affirmed that the committees (deputies) chose the magistrates, 
 and it is in a high degree probable that each of the towns, by 
 a popular vote, elected its committee, as was afterward done 
 by a constitutional provision. 
 
 Thus constituted, the General Court, all the members seem- 
 ingly acting and voting together as one representative body, 
 assembled as stated. Its weighty business, without preamble 
 or any whereases, was at once set forth, in a few brief sen- 
 tences, as follows : 
 
 **It is ordered that there shall be offensive war against the Pequot, 
 and there shall be ninety men levied out of the three plantations, . . . 
 out of Hartford, forty-two, Windsor, thirty, Wethersfield, eighteen, 
 under the command of Captain John Mason, and, in case of death or 
 sickness, under the command of Robert Seely, Lieutenant ; and [under] 
 the eldest sergeant or military officer surviving, if both these miscarry." 
 
 In two weeks, Captain Mason, leading seventy-seven fight- 
 ing Puritans, armed with clumsy tire-locks, fire-brands, and the 
 prayers of Mr. Stone, the chaplain, having little help from 
 four hundred and sixty friendly but frightened Quaker Indi- 
 ans, destroyed, captured, and scattered forever, the whole tribe 
 of heathen Pequots, the most powerful and ferocious in New 
 England. The latter had among them one thousand warriors, 
 while the whole population of the three towns was only about 
 eight hundred. History will attribute the victory to the 
 superiority of tire-arms and broadswords over 'bows and 
 arrows, l)ut religious men proclaimed it due to providential 
 interference. At the same time, Captain Mason and his brave 
 soldiers were gloritied as if tliey had done something. They 
 were rewarded, too, by a special grant of land in Hartford, 
 called the "soldiers' tield." In the prosecution of the war, 
 there were certainly some remarkable escapes. 
 
 Under the date of February 9, 1637 (1038 as we now reckon). 
 
6 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 the General Court was dissolved, "no more attendance of the 
 members thereof to be expected, except they be newly chosen." 
 This step, at this time, may have been taken in order to admit, 
 on equal terms, Agawam into the union of the towns. Though 
 furnishing no men, she had submitted to be taxed £86, 14:S. 
 for her proportion of the cost of the Pequot war, the whole 
 expedition equaling £420. It was right, then, that she should 
 be represented. After the additions, the General Court which 
 met March 8, 1638, consisted of eight magistrates and twelve 
 committee-men. Of the former class were Mr. Pynchon and 
 Mr. Smith of Agawam. The next meeting, April 5, 1638, was 
 the last before the Constitution, so called. Mr. Moxon and Mr. 
 Burr, as a committee from Agawam, were present. 
 
 Of the nature of the compact which at this time united the 
 towns, I know nothing more than has been stated. I infer 
 that the union was of a provisional character, wholly voluntary 
 in its origin, and perhaps sustained throughout by consent 
 alone — sustained, it may be, while the leading men were un- 
 folding, discussing, and perfecting the scheme for a permanent 
 government which was soon to be ]3 resented and adopted. 
 But whatever the bond which connected the towns, the ad- 
 ministration was of the most vigorous kind, peremptory in all 
 its methods. If the General Court had not absolute power, I 
 know not what were the limitations. Without wasting words, 
 it acted with promptness and power, and there was none to 
 gainsay. Like the commission-government which preceded, it 
 enacted general laws for the plantations, apportioned taxes 
 among the towns, 'appointed a treasurer and collectors for the 
 jurisdiction, took measures to remedy the short supply of corn 
 and regulate the price, fined its own members one shilling 
 each for absence or tardiness, and one shilling for " disorderly 
 speaking privately, two or three together, during the sitting 
 of the Court, if the Court think meet." Faithfully, no doubt, 
 it stood guard over the "commonwealth," so styled in its 
 proceedings. 
 
 When the first companies from Massachusetts reached their 
 proposed homes on the Connecticut, society (politically speak- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 7 
 
 iiig) is supposed to have been in a chaotic state. For mutual 
 helpfulness and defense, they settled in groups not far apart. 
 Sinking for the moment the question of allegiance to a foreign 
 power, each man must have been his own sovereign, bound by 
 the moral law, but having no political ties. Their lands and 
 other property owned in common were to be divided, roads 
 laid out, bridges constructed, mischievous cattle, swine, and 
 boys restrained, taxes levied, and collectors, treasurers, consta- 
 bles, and surveyors appointed. That these things may be 
 done, a community must be organized. Where all have equal 
 rights, equal power, and diverse interests, an organization 
 could be best secured by meeting together on terms of equal- 
 ity, and after discussion and perhaps nmtual concession, agree- 
 ing on certain rules and regulations to be established and 
 enforced for the good of all. In the same friendly way, 
 officers could be chosen to superintend the public affairs, and 
 carry the agreements into effect. A gathering of this kind, 
 embracing a whole people living within convenient limits, 
 would be a town-meeting, the birth-place and starting-point, 
 the laboratory and training-school of our republican institu- 
 tions. Where justice, right, and power come together on a 
 footing of equality, government could begin in no other way. 
 Each individual would have a vote because he could command 
 it ; because there was no existing force, compatible with the 
 object sought, to resist it. If the vote should be divided, the 
 majority rather than the minority would rule, because might, 
 now organized, is on its side. How might is converted into 
 right, as dogmatists assume, how divinity, which alone gives 
 authority to government, can afford so faithfully to follow 
 power, is a mystery. Why a protesting minority retain their 
 equal privileges up to the moment when a vote is taken and 
 declared, and after that may be rightfully coerced, I cannot 
 even conjecture. But here is deep water, and I must go 
 ashore. 
 
 Under the pressure of circumstances, the three river towns 
 were organized in the beginning, as suggested. They became 
 distinct political bodies, infant connnouwealths. Practically, 
 
8 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 they were independent sovereignties, having no occasion or 
 necessity or inducement to recognize any human authority out- 
 side of themselves. Their right to be, to exercise power, and 
 to make laws and execute them, was in some way derived 
 from the people — from the people entering into compact (im- 
 pliedly at least) in town-meeting. These meetings were held 
 in the first year of the settlements, one, certainly, in Hartford 
 in 1635 (Stuart's Olden Time, p. 50), and one or more in 
 Windsor in the same year, when George Hull was selectman 
 (Stiles' History of Windsor, p. 129.) 
 
 There is other evidence that the towns were in existence 
 and duly equipped for business before April 26, 1636, for at 
 that date the Massachusetts commissioners, holding their first 
 Court, referred to them by name, and appointed committees to 
 run the boundary lines. Their orders and those of the Gen- 
 eral Court which succeeded them were usually addressed 
 directly to the towns, as if they alone had the machinery 
 wanted to carry commands into effect. Thus said the Court, 
 in its imperial way, when calling for supplies for the Pequot 
 war: "Windsor shall provide 60 bushels of corn, Hartford, 
 84 bushels, Wetherstield, 36 bushels," etc. When, however, a 
 tax was levied to pay the cost of the expedition, public officers 
 were appointed, a common treasurer, and one collector from 
 each town. 
 
 It is probable that the whole male population who had 
 arrived at the age of twenty-one years, exclusive of slaves, 
 were permitted to vote in the earliest town-meetings. They 
 were residents, . so-called, or intended residents, all, as I sup- 
 pose, good men and true. But erelong the goats came and 
 mingled with the sheep. They were drones, idlers, beggars, 
 vagrants, or " tramps," of both sexes, persons of loose moral- 
 ity and soiled reputations, " who hoped to better their condition 
 without reforming their lives." (Stuart's Olden Time, pp. 52, 
 100 ; Chapin's Glastenbury, p. 30.) If the records must be be- 
 lieved, they were a graceless, scurvy lot, not much better than 
 the peasantry and servants of New Haven whom President 
 D wight describes as " distinguished for vice and profligacy." 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 9 
 
 (Statistical Account of New Haven, p. 36.) Whence came 
 they ? It cannot be tliat they formed a part of the original 
 companies tliat led the way into Connecticut, under the 
 auspices of such men as Hooker, Stone, Warham, Ludlow, 
 Wolcott, Haynes, and others. If they were servants trained 
 up in Puritan families, in accordance with the rigfd notions of 
 that day, how was it that they became so wicked and worth- 
 less ? Largely, doubtless, they were interloping visitors set 
 ashore by merchant and fishing vessels along the coast, chiiefly 
 at Boston, who, driven from town to town by stringent laws, 
 were seeking a resting place, finding none. 
 
 Not only was the example of these people contagious, but 
 they might at any time become paupers. As dangerous and 
 costly intruders, they were harried by the authorities, and 
 when possible made to leave the plantations and the country. 
 Of course they were excluded from town-privileges. By law 
 no one could gain a legal residence, or acquire the rights of 
 local citizenship, till accepted by a majority vote in town- 
 meeting. The persons thus accepted were called admitted 
 inhahitants. Those not admitted, termed residents, were of 
 course not all vagrants, idlers, etc. Among them were doubt- 
 less new-comers whose names had not been presented. Others 
 of good reputation were not in haste to assume unnecessary 
 responsibility, and had no time to give to town business. 
 There were then no fat offices to be distributed, and " rings" 
 for plunder liad not been invented. Seemingly, those not 
 qualified as inliabitants were, and continued to be, a somewhat 
 numerous class. If any among them were likely to become a 
 pu1)lic charge, they might be warned to depart. If they then 
 lingered, they could be forcibly removed, and occasionally 
 were given bounties to go. (Stuart's Olden Time, p. 196.) 
 
 Said Governor Leete, in 1680 : " Beggars and vagabonds 
 are not suffered in the Colony, l)ut when discovered are bound 
 out to service [that is, sold for a limited time] ; yet sometimes 
 a vaga])ond person will pass up and down the country, abusing 
 the people with false news, cheating and stealing ; but when 
 discovered he is punished according to the oifense." Whip- 
 2 
 
10 EARLY aOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ping, administered by some one who had himself suffered the 
 infliction, was the usual punishment. It had the effect to dis- 
 franchise the person receiving it. (Stuart's Olden Time, 238, 
 248, 300 ; Conn. Col. Rec, i, 559.) 
 
 So far as they are a defense against outside pauperism, the 
 regulations referred to, somewhat modified, are still in exist- 
 ence. Individuals are now made inhabitants eitlier l)y a town 
 vote, "or by the consent of the civil authority and select- 
 men." 
 
 When the roving and obnoxious class became more numer- 
 ous and troublesome, as in a few years it did, the towns, gain- 
 ing wisdom from experience, seem to have been increasingly 
 rigid in admitting to town privileges. About 1659, there was 
 a large accession to the class named, and between 1650 and 
 1665 but eight admissions are noted on the Hartford town 
 records. (Stuart's Olden Time, 196.) Families were forbid- 
 den to give them encouragement. Those receiving them as 
 boarders or tenants incurred a penalty of five pounds. Is it 
 possible that at first, or at a later period, they were driven 
 from the Bay and told to " go West," where, according to 
 popular opinion, the land flowed with milk and honey, and a 
 living could be had without work? In the caustic letter 
 already referred to from Mr. Hooker to Governor Winthrop, 
 in 1638, the writer complains bitterly of the course pursued 
 by Massachusetts in dissuading immigrants, at that time numer- 
 ous and of good quality, from going to Connecticut. In the 
 inns at Boston, in Boston harbor, on their first arrival, and 
 even in London before embarkation, they were met and be- 
 sought, if they would not be undone, not to go to Connecticut, 
 "where [the detractors alleged] the cows were all dead, •^- -^ * 
 the upland will bear no corn, the meadows nothing but weeds, 
 and the people were almost all starved." It is certain that the 
 large removals two or three years before, and the departure of 
 the Eaton and Davenport company afterward, greatly annoyed 
 the older colony {ante, p. 293). Yehemently and not always 
 patiently they were opposed, and it is probable that the like 
 opposition was continued whenever the occasion presented. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 11 
 
 Evidently, there was a 8crani])le among the plantations to 
 secure the choicer lots of settlers, and equal endeavor, doubt- 
 less, to persuade evil-minded or suspected persons not to tarry. 
 In the struggle, those living near the usual landing-place, 
 Boston, got the first chance at the new-comers, having a great 
 advantage over Connecticut and New Haven colonists. Had 
 they not improved it, they would have been unlike the other 
 children of our fallen ancestors. However the business was 
 conducted, the criminal records of the western settlements 
 show that they fared very hard in the contest, certainly in that 
 part of it which related to the disposal of the vagrant and 
 vicious classes. 
 
 Among the laws of the IS'ew Plaven Colony (Code of 1656) is 
 one forbidding any person to receive or entertain strangers or 
 sojourners (men or women), proposing to become planters, or to 
 sell or lease to them houses or lands, or to permit them to remain 
 longer than one month, without a license from a magistrate, or 
 the consent of the major part of the freemen, etc.," under the pen- 
 alty of ten pounds." A year afterward, 1657, an order required 
 that a seaman or other person bringing any one into any town 
 without leave, who should not be accepted as an inhabitant, 
 should be forced to carry him away again, " that the plantation 
 be not troubled or charged mth him." (N. H. Col. Rec, ii, 610, 
 217.) These enactments indicate that the settlements were 
 overrun by " strangers, sojourners," intruders, characters not 
 wanted either for use or ornament ; that they were introduced 
 by seamen and others, and that the safety of the '' Jurisdiction " 
 required their removal or exclusion. 
 
 The united towns, in General Court, must have made free- 
 men, for freemen are recognized as already existing by the Con- 
 stitution of January, 1639. That instrument required that all 
 the members of the General Court should be freemen of the 
 Commonwealth before they could be elected, and before the 
 existence of the new Court, which alone had authority to admit 
 freemen. 
 
 After a memorable life of twenty months, the united gov- 
 ernment (the first Commonwealth of Connecticut) was allowed 
 
12 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 to expire, a more elaborate one having been prepared to take 
 its place. As I understand it, its dissolution left the three towns 
 in the same condition they were in when first organized, inde- 
 pendent or quasi-sovereignties, directed and controlled by the 
 original settlers and admitted inhabitants. For adequate cause, 
 the whole people, holding in abeyance their several town com- 
 pacts, and falling back on their primitive rights, consented to 
 assemble on the 14th day of January, 1638 (January 24, 1639, 
 new^ style), for the high purpose of considering and (if approved) 
 adopting a written constitution, and establishing a consolidated 
 and enduring government. They met in convention, and after 
 a prayer, probably by Mr; Hooker, chose a Secretary, John 
 Steele, and, of course, a Moderator, John Ilaynes Q). Then, 
 having severed all political ties, each his own sovereign and del- 
 egate as in the primal towm-meeting, they " pooled," so to say, 
 their respective sovereignties, throwing all into a common stock. 
 At this stage the unassorted and formless elements of a body poli- 
 tic were in a state of solution or fusion. But this is not history, 
 and I forbear. 
 
 The Constitution which grew out of these proceedings has 
 been said by a distinguished historical writer, to be " the first 
 example in history of a written constitution, a distinct organic 
 law," " proceeding from a people and in their name establishing 
 and defining a government." (Dr. Bacon's Early Const. History 
 of Conn.) So far as the two can be compared, the government 
 which it instituted was similar to that which immediately pre- 
 ceded it. Having acted a distinguished part in the affairs of 
 Massachusetts, its framers were prepared to select and appro- 
 priate whatever was good in the polity of that colony, and reject ^ 
 the evil. 
 
 Says the remarkable document which the people were called 
 on to approve : " We, the inhabitants and residents [" the free 
 planters," say Dr. Trumbull and others] of Windsor, Hartford, 
 and Wethersfield, now cohabiting and dwelling on the river 
 Connecticut," " for ourselves and successors, and such as shall 
 be adjoined to us hereafter," " do associate and conjoin ourselves 
 as one public state or commonwealth," etc. The language is 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 13 
 
 comprehensive — we^ the inlmbitmits and residents — as if the 
 whole population (exclusive, doubtless, of those whom custom 
 disqualified, as minors, women, bondmen, and convicted crimi- 
 nals) was present. We are not told whether all were, in fact, 
 present, or whether all had been properly warned. Probably 
 some, perhaps many, were absent, detained by sickness, lame- 
 ness, watching and warding, or by deep snows, bad weather and 
 worse roads. If the meeting was held in the most convenient 
 place, Hartford (as it probably was), the people of Windsor 
 would have had a long distance to travel in midwinter, through 
 the wilderness. Besides, there was then but little interest taken 
 in political affairs — so little that Hartford, to secure a better 
 attendance at town-meetings, was constrained to impose a fine 
 of sixpence on those who staid away. (Stuart's Olden Time, 
 p. 53.) At that period there was no drumming and bannered or 
 mousing politicians to get out the voters. 
 
 If any were not notified, or were absent by no fault of their 
 own, how were they represented in convention, or how bound 
 by the uninvited, perhaps condemned action of others? As 
 recorded, the Fundamental Orders, so called, unlike the Funda- 
 mental Agreement of the l^ew Haven colonists, have no 
 signers to show who (then or afterward) assented. Unwilling 
 to pursue this subject, I must only whisper my suspicion that 
 the meeting was not large. It may be too that those in at- 
 tendance were half -frozen in an unheated room, and impatient 
 to get away. On such an occasion, there could not have been 
 much religious fervor to keep out the cold. To save time, and 
 forestall needless debate and delay, the important work was 
 doubtless done beforehand, in private conference. Among 
 those present, it will be safe to count Roger Ludlow, John 
 Haynes, and the Rev. Thomas Hooker, the reputed authors of 
 the document to be considered. To these distinguished names, 
 on plausible grounds, may be added those of Edward Hopkins, 
 George Wyllys, John Webster, Henry Wolcott, magnates all, 
 besides a few commoners, and a sprinkling of stragglers and 
 passers-by. 
 
 The pilgrims who came to Connecticut were shrewd, com- 
 
14 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 mon-sense Englislimeii. Tliey loved tlieir native country and 
 its government. They loved the church and its doctrines, but 
 not its discipline. When landing on these western shores 
 they did not renounce either, but those who settled the three 
 towns found it necessary or convenient to ignore both. They 
 were beyond the jurisdiction of Massachusetts; were not 
 hemmed in like others by the restrictions of a joint stock com- 
 pany, nor fettered by a royal charter. They were alone in the 
 wilderness, dependent on themselves for protection and the 
 means of existence. They were farmers. Their lands were 
 to be parcelled out and subdued, order established, laws en- 
 acted, crimes punished, hostile Indians kept at bay, churches 
 planted and defended. There was no power outside the settle- 
 ments to which they could look for help. Whatever relation 
 they may have sustained to the mother country, three thousand 
 miles away, it had for the moment no present or practical value. 
 Meeting under these circumstances, with few precedents to 
 guide them, and obliged to act for themselves, their civil like 
 their ecclesiastical government would naturally, almost inevi- 
 tably, assume a republican and independent form. At the out- 
 set, in their solitary condition, they would no more think of 
 proclaiming, in due form, their allegiance to a foreign king, 
 who knew not of their existence, than would a company of 
 cast-away sailors on a lonely island. Sufficient it was that they 
 did not deny it. They doubtless thought with some bitterness 
 of the wrongs they had suffered, but liaving sought obscurity 
 to escape further persecution, they avoided needless display, 
 and deprecated the damaging notoriety which tlieir restless 
 friends " at the Bay" had obtained. They could gain nothing, 
 but might lose much, by ])rematurely invoking the name of a 
 prince who was doing all he could to enforce conformity and 
 crush Puritanism in his kingdom. The formal acknowledge- 
 ment of themselves as subjects, the confession of undying 
 loyalty, would not have given strength, or authority, or purity, 
 or legitimacy, to the government they were about to establish. 
 There was, then, no temptation in that direction. The inde- 
 pendence which, at this time, the planters desired was ecclesi' 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 15 
 
 astical, more tlian political. A few years later, they were very 
 glad to concede tlieir colonial dependence, and accept a royal 
 charter which seemed to promise security from outside dicta- 
 tion in the matter of religion. So much I liave said in expla- 
 nation of a noteworthy omission in the Constitution. 
 
 It is evident that the planters of Connecticut intended prac- 
 tical independence, so long as that was necessary for the safety 
 of tlieir peculiar institutions ; but I do not find that they had 
 more than others far-reaching views, or any settled purpose of 
 founding a great republic. So long as the future was uncer- 
 tain, black clouds hanging portentously over their English 
 homes, steadily they styled themselves or their government a 
 Commonwealth, or when lawful authority was implied, a 
 Jurisdiction ; but when King Charles had been beheaded, and 
 England had itself become a Commonwealth, ruled by Oliver 
 Cromwell, Protector and Puritan, they deemed their religion 
 secure, and afterward, till the Charter was obtained, usually 
 called themselves a Colony. This would seem to show that 
 they sought religious priv^ilege more than independence. 
 
 Those who fled from England to this country were com- 
 pelled to do so, or observe certain rites and ceremonies of the 
 English church which they believed unscriptural and therefore 
 wrong. They objected to the cap and surplice, the ring in 
 marriage, the cross in baptism, the rite of confirmation, kneel- 
 ing at the Lord's supper, etc. The people of Connecticut, liv- 
 ing in the woods, and having unrestricted power to choose, 
 resolved to worship according to their convictions, omitting all 
 not in harmony with their belief. They did not contend for 
 religious liberty as a principle, but practical liberty for them- 
 selves and their children ; libertj^ to serve God, not in the 
 manner of the churches at home, but in the way " now prac- 
 ticed amongst us." They denied the right of coercion in de- 
 fense of religious error, but solemnly afiirmed it when the 
 true faith (meaning their own) was in jeopardy. Their Eng- 
 lish oppressors denied and affirmed the same things. That 
 they might pursue their own liberty as here set forth and 
 defined, protect tlie forms and practices then in use, and sup- 
 
16 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 press whatever should threaten to displace them, all by the 
 civil power, " according to God," they assembled in convention 
 as has been stated. Their purpose and ruling motive are 
 plainly announced in the preamble, thus : We, etc., " do enter 
 into combination and confederation" 'Ho maintain and pre- 
 serve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
 which we now profess, and also [to maintain] the discipline of 
 the churches which, according to the truth of the said gospel, 
 is now pf-acticed amongst us." The object — the primary 
 object — here so conspicuously set forth, so far as good sense 
 and a dependent condition permitted, was faithfully carried 
 out in the legislation which followed. Nothing is said in the 
 preamble of political rights or civil liberty, and nothing special 
 on the ends of civil government ; but the sentence which 
 immediately succeeds the last quotation reads as follows : 
 
 "As also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to 
 such laws, rules, orders and decrees as shall be made, ordered and 
 decreed." 
 
 The work done with so much cruelty by the ecclesiastical or 
 spiritual courts in England, was, in Connecticut, committed to 
 the hands of the civil power, not formally, but by implication. 
 Devoutly, no doubt, those who entered into combination be- 
 lieved that conformity and the discipline of the churches should 
 be rigidly maintained — maintained, not by a high commission 
 court, not by the church or its officers exercising judicial 
 functions, but by the civil authority alone, according to the laws 
 and orders of the General Court, or in the absence of law, accor- 
 ding to the word of God. A government established to control 
 the will in matters of conscience could not be a free govern- 
 ment ; nor could conduct thus controlled have the smallest 
 merit. It is but truth, however, to say that the laws of Connec- 
 ticut and their administration were more merciful and enlight- 
 ened than those of the mother country ; but not much that is 
 good could be expected from either source so long as religious 
 liberty was not recognized as a principle. Its denial was the 
 calamitous mistake, the crowning blunder of the age. 
 
 I am afraid Dr. Trumbull, a very honest man, is responsible 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 17 
 
 for much of the misapprehension which has prevailed relative 
 to the purposes, opinions, institutions, and practices of our pil- 
 grim fathers, in their bearing on the great questions of liberty 
 and conscience. I quote from the iirst (and best) volume of 
 his History of Connecticut, 1797 : 
 
 "The settlement of New England, purely for the purposes of religion, 
 and the propagation of civil and religious liberty, is a event which has 
 no parallel in the history of modern ages." The people of Connecticut 
 "formed one of the most free and happy constitutions of government 
 which mankind have ever adopted." They " provided for the freedom 
 and liberties of themselves and their posterity, guarding against every 
 encroachment on the rights of the subject." " It was the design of the 
 first planters to erect churches, * * and to transmit evangelical purity 
 in doctrine, worship, and discipline, with civil and religious liberty to 
 their posterity." (pp. 1, 2, 97, 292.) 
 
 An eminent modern writer (Dr. Leonard Bacon) presents a 
 different view, but one entirely conformable to the facts : 
 
 " The Puritan's idea was not liberty but right government in church 
 and State — such government as should not only permit him, but also 
 compel other men to walk in the right way. For that he went into 
 exile," etc. 
 
 But this view does not differ from that entertained by other 
 ecclesiastics, each assuming and believing that his and his only 
 is the " right way." In the forum of conscience the right way 
 is that which a man's own conscience approves, not that which 
 meets the approval of other consciences, however respectable. 
 To the Puritan's idea, as above defined, Whitgif t, Bancroft, and 
 the relentless Laud, no doubt would have subscribed heartily. 
 That idea kindled the iires of Smithiield. Wherever those in 
 power have thought it their duty to "compel other men to 
 walk in the right way " in matters of religious faith and disci- 
 pline, there oppressors have abounded. 
 
 Dr. Trumbull makes another statement which should be 
 noticed in this connection. 
 
 " The fathers of Connecticut," he affirms, "rejected with abhorrence 
 the doctrines of the divine right of kings, passive obedience, and non-re- 
 sistance," etc. (Hist, i, 297.) 
 
18 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 I can find no evidence that warrants this strong language. 
 As I understand it, our Puritan ancestors did not object to the 
 divine right of kings, or complain of their government, till the 
 kings began to rule oppressively, using power (which, in one 
 sense, is always divine) unscrupulously and on the wrong side. 
 Like others, they did not believe that any government, whatever 
 its origin, held an authoritative commission to do wrong. They 
 fled from England, not because they abhorred the doctrine of 
 divine right, but that they might have Jiberty to worship in 
 their own way. In the language of Dr. Bacon, they were in 
 search of " right government in church and State — such govern- 
 ment as should not only permit them, but compel other men to 
 walk in the right way." 
 
 The Constitution has eleven Articles. I shall speak of tliem 
 in the order most convenient. As if to fill with terror the hearts 
 of transgressors, each (with one unimportant exception) begins 
 thus : " It is ordered, sentenced, and decreed." The first pro- 
 vided that there should be two general assemblies or courts 
 yearly, one on the second Thursday of April, the other on the 
 second Thursday of September. At the first, called the Court 
 of Election, were to be chosen for one year, by the assembled 
 freemen of the jurisdiction, not less than six magistrates besides 
 the Governor. They were to be freemen, and were elected one at 
 a time, by ballot, the Governor first. All must have been pro- 
 pounded at some previous General Court. Having been sworn, 
 they had " power to administer justice according to the laws 
 here established, and for want thereof according to the rule of 
 the word of God." " The laws established and the word of 
 God" having been declared the rule, there could, of course, be 
 no other law. Thus was set aside all English law, whether stat- 
 utory or common. Except incidentally, nothing is said here or 
 elsewhere about the magistrates exercising other than judicial 
 functions. 
 
 As special qualifications, the Governor was to be " a member 
 of some approved congregation" (not churchy as Dr. Trumbull 
 and Dr. Palfrey have it), and must once have been a magistrate. 
 As a curb to his ambition, and perhaps to give others a chance 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 19 
 
 to attain equal distinction, lie could not hold his office often er 
 than every other year. Thus was prevented possible discon- 
 tent similar to that which Governor Winthrop's prolonged con- 
 tinuance in office occasioned in Massachusetts. The Governor 
 was the honored head of the magistracy, presided at the meet- 
 ings of the Court of Magistrates and of the General Court, but 
 had no power distinct from his associates. Ko special duty 
 was assigned him, except that of warning (through the secre- 
 tary and town constables) the "two standing General Coui-ts ;" 
 and he might, on urgent occasions, with the consent of a ma- 
 jority of the magistrates, call special courts. No deputy-gov- 
 ernor is provided for by the Constitution, but the first magis- 
 trate (after the Governor) is constantly recognized, by the 
 recorders, as holding that office. 
 
 To the aforesaid Court of Election, the towns were required 
 (Order 5) to send their deputies, "and when the election is 
 ended, they [with the magistrates] may proceed in any public 
 service, as at other courts." The General Court of September, 
 also, was " for the making of laws, and any other public occa- 
 sion which concerns the good of the Commonwealth." All 
 the members of both classes sat and voted as one body, the 
 Governor, in case of a tie, having a casting vote. He could 
 not adjourn nor dissolve the Court. 
 
 Each of the towns then in existence might send four depu- 
 ties, twelve in all, and the towns yet to be made " so many as 
 the (yourt shall judge meet, a reasonable proportion to the num- 
 ber of freemen." They must themselves be freemen, and were 
 elected for each of the regular courts, twice in the year, by 
 ballot. The electors were not the freemen, as assumed by Dr. 
 Trumbull, but the "admitted inhabitants" of the several towns. 
 Mere " residents," though recognized as a rightful element of 
 the constituent body, and presumably disposed to take care of 
 themselves, the convention sat down on heavily, no doubt with 
 design, and perhaps by invitation. They had no vote, and 
 thenceforth (politically) were extinguished. It is true they 
 could be made inhabitants and voters if the towns willed it, 
 but I presume the will would have been wanting if the appli- 
 
20 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 cants were " Quakers, Kanters, or such-like notorious heretics," 
 or if they refused to conform to "the discipline of the 
 churches" as " now practiced amongst us," however unexcep- 
 tionable they otherwise may have been. 
 
 The constitution-makers probably felt constrained to allow 
 the towns to elect their deputies by a majority vote of the 
 admitted inhabitants, because the town-officers, and those in 
 the service of the towns, had alw^ays been chosen in that way ; 
 but they evidently intended, as far as possible, to make the 
 freemen who, as a class, haci no voice in the convention, the 
 constituent body, the fountain and ultimate custodians of all 
 power. Hence it was provided that no person should be nom- 
 inated for the magistracy till he had been propounded by the 
 General Court ; that all the members of the Court, Governor, 
 Magistrates, and Deputies, should be freemen, and that they 
 alone should admit freetnen ; that new towns should send 
 deputies in proportion to the number, not of admitted inhab- 
 itants, but of their freemen ; that the deputies, in giving votes 
 and making laws, should have the whole power of the towns, 
 leaving to the latter only the right to elect from a qualified 
 and much favored class among themselves (the class of free- 
 men) their own deputies. 
 
 A mere inhabitant, though a principal actor in the conven- 
 tion, could not become a member of the General Court. He 
 was disqualified. Consequently, he could not, directly, or 
 through another of his own class (politically), have a voice in 
 the legislation by which he was governed. At first, if of good 
 reputation, and afterward if competent in estate, he could be 
 made a freeman, and so regain his rights, if the freemen of the 
 General Court assented ; but it is safe to say they w^ould not 
 assent if the candidate were a heretic, or if in practice he set 
 at naught that discipline of the churches which the Court was 
 bound to maintain. In this manner, doubtless, it was expected 
 that the law-makers, without a provision requiring electors to 
 be church-members, would be able to exclude from their own 
 body unsound and hostile elements, and so to shape legislation 
 as best to attain the ends set forth in the Constitution. In civil 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. ^1 
 
 aifairs, no iiiaii (iu theory) was allowed to enjoy the smallest 
 privilege, or to exercise the least authority, in virtue of his 
 ecclesiastical standing or connection. That connection gave 
 him character, intiuence, moral power, but no right or privilege 
 in law. It was thought, perhaps, that churches had enough to 
 do to train the youth, and iit all classes for their duties, relig- 
 ious and political, without taking a part in civil administration. 
 Except as the wards of the government, they are not so much 
 as named in the instrument promising them protection. The 
 nearest approach to it will be found in the fourth fundamental 
 order, where the Governor w^as required to " be always a mem- 
 ber of some approved congregation." But as, in practice, all 
 the people in each town were legal members of the congrega- 
 tion, this requirement was superfluous. 
 
 The freemen of Connecticut under the Constitution were a 
 kind of popular aristocracy, holding a midway station between 
 the plebeian and patrician classes. Supported, seemingly, by 
 both, they became the trusted pillars of the Commonwealth. 
 Evidently, they were not numerous. What their number was 
 when the Constitution was adopted is unknown ; but in the first 
 ten years which followed, I cannot find that more than twenty- 
 three were admitted. During the whole life of the Constitu- 
 tion, from January, 1639, to October, 1662, nearly twenty-four 
 years, t.wo hundred and twenty-nine admissions are on record ; 
 while the increase of population may have been three thousand, 
 one-quarter of them males of legal age. The facts indicate 
 that only a small proportion, certainly a minority, of those of 
 twenty-one years and over, were freemen, some of them, doubt- 
 less, because they did not desire the honors, if they must also 
 bear the burdens. In Massachusetts, where none but church- 
 members voted, the freemen in 1670, according to Palfrey, 
 were only one in four or five of the male adults, (iii, 41.) 
 In Plymouth Colony the people were so indifferent that it w^as 
 customary " to persuade, sometimes compel them, to be free." 
 (Narrative of the Royal Commissioners, 1666.) 
 
 Dr. Trumbull, who is not often in error, says that the Consti- 
 tution "provided that all persons, who had been received as 
 
^2 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 members of the several towns, bj a majority of the inhabitants, 
 and had taken the oath of fidelity to the Commonwealth, shonld 
 be admitted freemen." He would have written more exactly 
 had he said that all persons thus received might be admitted 
 by the General Court. That instrument did not, in a formal 
 way, authorize the regular courts to make freemen, but they 
 assumed and exercised the power. The business was usually 
 done at the Courts of Election, in April or May, and sometimes 
 by magistrates designated for that service. (Conn. Col. Rec, i, 
 36, 47.) 
 
 Massachusetts and afterward New Haven endeavored to give 
 the highest excellence to their political institutions by requir- 
 ing freemen and voters to be church-members, a rule which 
 excluded a majority of the people, and established a privileged 
 ecclesiastical order ; but the planters of Connecticut, also the 
 friends of good government as well of limited suffrage, assumed 
 that the desired end might be more safely attained in another 
 way, as we have seen. They may have suspected that men 
 elected to office by a church-constituency would represent the 
 churches rather than the Commonwealth, and might, in a pos- 
 sible contingency, be tempted to clothe those they represented 
 with dangerous power, and perhaps to establish spiritual courts, 
 of which even the name caused a shudder. 
 
 In the abstract of a sermon deciphered by Mr. J. H. Trum- 
 bull (Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., i, 20), preached in May, 1638, 
 probably to prepare his hearers to act on the Constitution soon 
 to be offered, Mr. Hooker is made to say that " the privilege of 
 election belongs to the people ;" " that the foundation of au- 
 thority is laid in the people ;" and that they who choose officers 
 and magistrates may " set the bounds and limitations of the 
 power and place unto which they call them." 
 
 The men who framed and adopted the Constitution were doubt- 
 less infiuenced largely by the views announced in these brief 
 sentences. In laying the foundations, they recognized the 
 people as the fountain of all just authority, but in the progress 
 of the work forgot the principle at first conceded. In effect 
 they divided the population into classes, conferred special priv- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 it 
 
 ileges, and gave tlieir sanction to a system of exclusiveness, with 
 disabilities in certain cases, — all of which was seemingly incon- 
 sistent with a government instituted for the equal benefit of 
 the whole people and their successors. 
 
 In the beginning, orthodox opinions, a good reputation, a 
 frightful oath to be faithful, and an affirmative vote of the 
 town or General Court, qualified a person, in one case to be an 
 inhabitant and to vote for deputies, and in the other, to be a 
 freeman and vote for magistrates ; but ere long the standard of 
 qualifications was raised, for good reasons as I surmise. In 
 February, 1657, the General Court declared "that by admitted 
 inhabitants, in the seventh fundamental [law], are meant only 
 householders that are one and twenty years of age, or have 
 borne office, or have thirty pounds estate." Two years later 
 (March, 1659), soon after seventy had been made freemen at 
 one session of the Court, and sixty-five at another, — a number 
 largely more than half of all admitted in twenty-three years 
 under the Constitution — it was ordered that all candidates for 
 that distinction should "have thirty pounds of ^ro^er personal 
 estate, or have borne office," "being men of an honest and 
 peaceable conversation," as evidenced by certificate of the dep- 
 uties. Later still, the towns were required to observe the 
 " honest-conversation " rule in admitting inhabitants (Col. Rec, 
 i, 290, 293, 331, 351). 
 
 Probably the plantations, at this time, as mentioned on a 
 preceding page, were suffering from an irruption of unbidden 
 and disreputable characters, who put in peril the institutions 
 and the morals of the Commonwealth ; so that the Court to 
 avert impending calamity imposed new restrictions, first on the 
 towns, then on itself, when conferring the political franchise. 
 Thus the semblance of the universal suffrage to which the 
 Constitution gave countenance was abruptly removed by an im- 
 portant property qualification. Thirty pounds was a large 
 amount in those times, especially of personal property. Judg- 
 ing from the lists of persons and estates at a little later period, 
 I conclude that the average taxable property belonging to each 
 family did not exceed sixty pounds, nmch or most of it land. 
 
24 EAKLY GOVEKNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 The course pursued in tliis matter seems to show that the Gen- 
 eral Court, after twenty years' experience, was looking with 
 favor on the once discarded views of the elder Governor Win- 
 throp as given in a letter to Mr. Hooker, August, 1638. He 
 " expostulated about the unwarrantableness and unsafeness of 
 referring matters of counsel or judicature to the body of the 
 people, quia the best part is always the least, and of that best 
 part the wiser is always the lesser." (Savage's Winthrop, ii, 428.) 
 
 The thirty-pound qualification required of tliose who would 
 be made freemen, seems to have closed the door to the class 
 which the General Court wished to exclude. I cannot find 
 that more than three were admitted in the next three years and 
 a half, or till the charter went into operation. Though not 
 democratic, I cannot but think that the restriction, under the 
 circumstances, was a Wise one. 
 
 Should the Governor, or the Governor and Magistrates, prove 
 false to their masters, the freemen, and persistently neglect or 
 refuse to summon, as directed, either of the standing General 
 Courts, or any special court which " the occasions of the Com- 
 monwealth required," the freemen might order the constables 
 to give the necessary notice, and w^hen assembled, said court, 
 " consisting of the major part of the freemen then present or 
 their deputies, with a moderator," was declared to be "the 
 supreme power of tlie Commonwealtli." Thus constituted, the 
 General Court had authority to make and repeal laws, levy 
 taxes, "admit freemen, dispose of lands undisposed of, call 
 either court or magistrate or any other person whatsoever into 
 question for misdemeanor, and for just causes displace or deal 
 otherwise" with them, and do anything "that concerned the 
 good of this Commonwealtli," except alter the regulation re- 
 quiring the magistrates to be chosen by the "whole body of 
 the freemen " — provisions which extinguished any • lingering 
 hope, on the part of the delinquent officials, for perpetual office, 
 or hereditary honors. The restriction named is the only limit- 
 ation to the power of "the major part of the freemen then 
 present or their deputies." It seems to have been made under 
 the apprehension that the freemen of the future might, in some 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 25 
 
 terrible crisis, commit political suicide, transferring their power 
 and privilege to unsafe hands — to some heretic, bishop, prince, 
 or the pope, who might use his advantage to destroy the " lib- 
 erty, purity, and discipline of the churches." The decree giv- 
 ing the freemen or their deputies supreme power in effect 
 abolished, in the contingency contemplated, the existing Con- 
 stitution with all its elaborate machinery, removed the remain- 
 ing vestiges of town independence, and crushed beyond recog- 
 nition the class of voters known as admitted inhabitants. 
 
 In the preface to the first volume of Mr. Day's " Connecticut 
 Reports," the reportei-, writing about the General Court insti- 
 tuted in 1639, proceeds thus : " In this body the Constitution 
 vested the supreme jpoioer of the covimonweaWi^ executive, 
 legislative, and judicial." Others take the same view, but as 
 I read it, the document referred to did not, formally, invest 
 with supreme power the ordinary courts convened in the usual 
 way, but declared that the extraordinary court summoned at 
 the instance of the freemen, and consisting of " the major part 
 of the freemen or their deputies" only, was thus invested. At 
 this court of freemen, or of deputies representing none but 
 freemen (which was never convened), the Governor and Magis- 
 trates might be present as culprits on trial for misdemeanor, 
 but not as members. Without reserve, the Constitution gave 
 to the town-deputies, in making laws, etc., "the whole power 
 of the towns ;" but as rarely as possible did it confer power of 
 any kind when the magistrates were to share it. Hence, prob- 
 ably, the General Court as a whole, convened in the approved 
 way, was not pronounced supreme. We should not know, 
 from the wording of that instrument, that the magistracy took 
 any part in the legislative proceedings, were it not for the 
 regulation which required "that every General Court, except 
 such as the freemen themselves do call, shall consist of the 
 Governor, or some one chosen to moderate the Court, and 
 four other magistrates at least, with the major part of the 
 deputies," etc. As I view it this regulation was an after 
 til ought. It is not in harmony with the other parts of the 
 Constitution, and is quite inconsistent with Article iifth, which 
 3 
 
26 EAELY GOVERNMENT .OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 autliorizes the deputies assembled at a Court of Election, after 
 the magistrates had been chosen, to " proceed in every public 
 service as at other courts." The other courts were the Sep- 
 tember Courts and the special courts. To my mind the evi- 
 dence is clear that the authors of the instrument did not 
 intend, till the work was finished, to give the magistrates seats 
 in the General Court, or to invest them with any legislative 
 authority. I may be in error, but this is my conclusion after 
 many perusals and careful comparison. 
 
 Throughout the Constitution there is evidence that its fram- 
 ers regarded the magistrates with jealousy and suspicion. 
 They feared their ambition, and were resojved to restrain it 
 by barriers not easily surmounted. Their apprehensions had 
 been awakened by their experience and the history of the 
 times. They had witnessed the struggle in Massachusetts 
 between the aristocratic and republican members of the gov- 
 ernment, the magistrates claiming, under the charter, more 
 power and privilege and a higher rank than the deputies and 
 freemen were willing to concede. Matters came to a crisis 
 when a "council for life" was instituted and a hereditary 
 nobility proposed. (Mass. Col. Rec, i, 167.) On these ques- 
 tions, the chief men of Connecticut were on the popular side, 
 and took effectual measures to circumscribe patrician ambition. 
 A governor who could not hold office more than one year in 
 two, and who had no power to adjourn or dissolve the Court, 
 could not plot successfully for reelection, and would not be a 
 very dangerous usurper. If he and the magistrates refused to 
 call together the General Court, they could not hope, with 
 profit, to imitate the memorable example of Charles I, who, 
 by a similar device, had ruled England for ten years by his 
 prerogative right alone. Our Puritan ancestors were made of 
 the same sti^ff as their brethren who, ten years later, cut off 
 the head of the infatuated king. Whatever their faults, they 
 were not chicken-hearted, not over-much given to delay in 
 dealing with criminals. In any event, they were determined 
 to have a government of their own — one that would do their 
 will, preserve the Commonwealth, and protect the churches. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 27 
 
 The people honored the magistrates, and especially the Gov- 
 ernor, for they represented, not the people, but the Common- 
 wealth and its dignity. They had faith in their ability, integ- 
 rity, and discretion ; confided to them the administration of 
 justice ; followed their leadership in opinion, and sought their 
 counsel w^hen in doubt and difficulty ; gave them the highest 
 seats in their meeting-houses; exempted them from the poll- 
 tax, and those minor and common-place duties which tend to 
 debase rank ; provided them with honorable titles ; but would 
 not trust them with political power. As members of the 
 General Court, they were in a hopeless minority. The depu- 
 ties outnumbered them, not in the judicially approved propor- 
 tion of '' eight to seven," but of twelve to six, the Governor 
 having only a casting vote. The disparity could be increased 
 at will when new towns were admitted. The deputies, then, 
 without resorting to extreme measures, could direct the whole 
 course of legislation; The General Court which they con- 
 trolled had, practically, no master. 
 
 That they might qualify themselves to discharge intelli- 
 gently their weighty duties, the deputies, as in Massachusetts, 
 had " liberty to appoint a time and place of meeting before 
 any General Court to advise and consult of all such things as 
 may concern the good of the public, and also to examine their 
 own elections," and determine their validity, etc. It was 
 probably intended by this preliminary meeting to give the 
 popular branch of the Assembly opportunity to organize, har- 
 monize, and prepare to take the lead in legislation, and defeat 
 the machinations of self-seekers " born to rule." Their indis- 
 pensable, ever-present duty was to watch the movements of 
 their more dignified but suspected co-workers in the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 A cursory examination of the existing Constitution of Con- 
 necticut — that of 1818 — shows that one of its most important 
 ol)jects is the protection of minorities, or the weaker party, 
 majorities having power to protect themselves. The first 
 Article, with its twenty-one sections, contains the Declaration 
 of Rights — rights which the General Asseml)ly or the consti- 
 
28 EARLY aOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 tilted goveriiinent cannot take away or impair. One of these 
 strikes at the root of an old and sadly notorious evil. It reads 
 thus : " N^o preference shall be ^iven by law to any Christian 
 sect or mode of worship." In the earlier instrument, there is 
 no declaration of rights. There were prohibitions and limita- 
 tions, but these were generally against the weaker party. The 
 magistrates were fenced in, restricted in many ways ; but the 
 deputies, or the General Court directed by them, had almost 
 unbounded power. There was but a single privilege reserved 
 to the chief actors in the convention — the privilege of choosing 
 deputies — and this might be gobbled up by the freemen, in a 
 certain contingency, as already stated. 
 
 The different departments of the government, as now known 
 to us, were, in that of 1639, merged in one. The magistrates 
 were both legislators and judges ; and so were the deputies, to 
 a limited extent, while sitting in Court. The two houses, after- 
 wards so called, were not independent bodies, each with a veto 
 on the legislation of the other. The Governor was compounded 
 of dignity and shadow, scarcely having a separate, substantial 
 existence. A bill on its way to the statute-book had before it 
 the perils of but one scrutiny, one ordeal ; its defects had but 
 a single chance for detection and elimination. The several 
 expedients which are now adopted to secure thoughtful consid- 
 ation and the needful delay were not in use. The government 
 was well enough for those who made it. They constructed it 
 for themselves and were satisfied. Always it served well the 
 majority — those who controlled its administration. For the 
 minority, largely interlopers, it is true, it was indeed a hard 
 one. So long as the people were of one mind, one faith, one 
 practice, its opponents looking on at a safe distance, it was 
 guided with wisdom, intelligence, and the severest impartiality ; 
 and at a later period, when divisions and dissensions arose, was 
 more tolerant and humane than those with which it has been 
 unfavorably compared. 
 
 The Constitution devised a way for practical revolution, if 
 the Governor and magistrates were unfaithful, but made no 
 provision for amendment. If the power to amend could sur- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 29 
 
 vive this omission, it must, I think, liave resided in the whole 
 people — those who framed and adopted that instrument — if 
 indeed they did not jmrt with it irrevocably in convention. 
 But the right to amend was assumed by the freemen, while 
 changes not prohibited, though of great importance, were made 
 at pleasure by the General Court. If I mistake not, the Court 
 considered itself authorized to do anything not distinctly for- 
 bidden by the fundamental law. If this view be correct, it 
 had by right nearly absolute power — power which might be 
 used constitutionally, for the most despotic purposes. The 
 voters could change their representatives at the spring or spring 
 and fall elections, but they could not, perhaps would not if 
 they could, prevent the flagrant abuse of power. Civil, like 
 religious liberty was recognized as belonging, not to all, but 
 to a favored major part of all. 
 
 One brave thing, not to be forgotten, the General Court at 
 length did, which had the efl^ect of limiting its own powers 
 and protecting the minority. The unreasoning, narrow-minded 
 prejudice against the magistrate had abated, partly perhaps be- 
 cause of the increasing weakness of the aristocratic party in 
 England. Following the example of the wearied and recon- 
 ciled factions in Massachusetts, the Court, February 5, 1645, 
 ordered as follows : " No act shall pass or stand for a law 
 which is not confirmed both by the major part of the magis- 
 trates and by the major part of the deputies there present in 
 Court, both magistrates and deputies being allowed, either of 
 them, a negative vote." The act was an important concession 
 on the part of the popular majority, and must have contrib- 
 uted much to prevent unwise and hasty legislation. In the 
 making of laws it placed the two rival classes of members on a 
 footing of equality, and it could not be repealed without the 
 consent of both. As the magistrates, the weaker party, would 
 not, unless idiotically or corruptly, permit that, it had the elf ect 
 of a fundamental law which could not be set aside. 
 
 As I understand it, the Assembly was divided for the pur- 
 pose of taking votes on the passage of laws only, and not for 
 any other business. The members continued to meet as one 
 
30 EAELY GOVEENMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 body in the same chamber, and proceeded with their discussions 
 and all matters of business as before, till a vote was taken 
 (probably by tlie erection of hands), when the votes were clas- 
 sified and counted according to law. It is not probable that 
 they left their seats. They were not numerous, numl)ering at 
 that period from eight to eleven magistrates, and from nine to 
 fifteen deputies. 
 
 The usually vigilant Dr. Trumbull seems to have overlooked 
 the order of March, 1645, giving to the. magistrates a negative 
 vote. 
 
 At the first session after the charter of 1662 went into opera- 
 tion, the General Assembly " declared that all tlie laws and 
 • orders" of the previous government should "stand in full 
 force and virtue, unless any be cross to the Charter," etc. 
 This action, I suppose, continued the practice required by the 
 order of March, 1645, till the session of October, 1698, when 
 the Assembly ordered as follows : 
 
 *' This General Assembly shall consist of two houses; the first shall 
 consist of the Governor, or in his absence, of the Deputy Governor, and 
 assistants, which shall be known by the name of the Upper House ; the 
 other shall consist of such deputies as shall be legally returned from the 
 several towns, .... which shall be known by the name of the Lower 
 House, wherein a speaker chosen by themselves shall preside : which 
 houses so formed shall have a distinct power to appoint all needful offi- 
 cers, and to make such rules as they shall severally judge necessary. 
 .... And no act shall be passed into a law, nor any law already en- 
 acted be repealed, nor any other act proper to the General Assembly, but 
 by the consent of each of the said houses." 
 
 The government established by the Constitution of 1639, 
 acknowledged the validity of both the governments which pre- 
 ceded it. It did so, not formally, so far as appears, but by rec- 
 ognizing the validity, till repealed, of tlie laws previously exist- 
 ing. The town organizations, however, were dissolved. They 
 gave up all they had, and received back only the right of rep- 
 resentation, and that limited. But at the first October Court, 
 all were rehabilitated and richly furnished, though not as inde- 
 pendent bodies. Their sovereignty had evaporated and was 
 lost forever. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 31 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 Laws mold tlie character and life of a people. Laws, too, 
 are called into existence by the circumstances and wants of those 
 w^ho make them. Each represents a quality or fact of human 
 nature which cannot be effaced. From a collection of the 
 whole may be obtained a tnie conception of the political com- 
 munity which acknowledges their authority. Place a bone of 
 an unknown animal in the hands of a comparative anatomist, 
 and he will build up a skeleton, clothe it with flesh, and in a 
 general way depict its mode of existence, habits, and instincts. 
 Much more of the outward actual life may be deduced from the 
 self-imposed laws of an isolated people just beginning political 
 house-keeping. Their intellectual and moral condition, their 
 opinions, customs, vices, virtues, their progress in knowledge, re- 
 ligion, social and political life, may be inferred from their 
 legislation. If men are credulous, superstitious, narrow-minded, 
 intolerant, quarrelsome, or corrupt, their own laws will declare 
 it. These laws, enacted in great variety, are a mirror in which 
 may be traced, by reflected light, the venerated lineaments of 
 the fathers of Connecticut. With a few exceptions at the outset, 
 the crimes and wi-ongs which from time to time they prohibited, 
 the evil practices and sins of every grade they forbade, were 
 those which had appeared among themselves. Their authentic 
 history, not quite complete, 'might, I think, be written from 
 their enactments alone. From among these, a scattered and 
 somewhat tangled mass, I have selected for comment such as 
 would best illustrate certain leading characteristics, some of 
 which have been misunderstood or misrepresented. One of my 
 special aims will be to show, as truthfully as I can, how nmcli 
 liberty, particularly religious liberty, the early planters per- 
 mitted among themselves, and how much they allowed to 
 others. 
 
 One would naturally think tliat a few hundred plain, square- 
 dealing, hard-working farmers, leading a domestic and for the 
 
323 EAKLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 most j)art a quiet, unambitious life — men having little trade and 
 no complicated business relations, and associated chiefly for 
 religious improvement and mutual defense — would not need 
 more than the simplest form of government and a minimum 
 supply of legislation. But the General Court which they insti- 
 tuted, and to which they surrendered all power, temporal and 
 spiritual, thought differently. 
 
 After recovering from the burdens and privations which the 
 Pequot war made necessary ,~thfi-Jcmonists prosecuted with occa- 
 sional interruption the important work which they had 
 undertaken. While setting up churches in accordance with 
 their convictions, and establishing a civil government for their 
 preservation and defense, they w^ere not the men to neglect their 
 practical and material interests. So soon as a fruitful soil, with 
 the aid of imperfect appliances, could be brought under cultiva- 
 tion, industry, frugality, and good management secured compar- 
 ative abundance. So prosperous did they become that extrav- 
 agance and fashion, ridiculous as they may seem, were intro- 
 duced. The General Court was alarmed. Hoping to suppress 
 a dangerous evil, and finding that a previous order (not re- 
 corded), designed to restrain " excess of apparel," was unheeded, 
 " divers persons of several ranks" continuing to offend, it be- 
 stirred itself. As early as April, 1641, the constables of the 
 several towns were directed to take notice of any whom 
 they "judged to exceed their condition and rank," and to 
 present them to the particular court for " censure," a form 
 of punishment more dreaded then than it would be now. 
 Probably the law w^as a failure, for it is not found in the Code 
 of 1650. But some unrepealed laws of prior date appear to 
 have been continued in force, which are not embraced in that 
 collection. 
 
 At a later period, in the beginning of the Indian w^ar of 1675, 
 the General Assembly, hoping to win Divine favor and remove 
 the impediments to success, passed several laws aimed at the more 
 glaring sins of the time. One of them begins thus : "Whereas 
 excess of apparel is unbecoming a wilderness condition and the 
 profession of the gospel," it is therefore ordered that whoever 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 33 
 
 " shall wear gold or silver lace, or gold or silver buttons, silk 
 ribbons, or other superfluous trimmings, or any bone lace above 
 three shillings per yard, or silk scarfs," shall be set in the lists 
 of estates at one hundred and fifty pounds, on which sum they 
 shall pay rates ; but the law was not to extend to magistrates 
 or like public oflScers, nor to their wives and children, nor to 
 commissioned military ofiicers, nor '' to such whose quality or 
 estate have been above the ordinary degree though now decayed." 
 It was " further ordered that all such persons as shall for the 
 future make or wear or buy any apparel exceeding the quality 
 and condition of their persons and estates, or that is apparently 
 beyond the necessary end of apparel for covering or comeliness," 
 should forfeit for each offense ten shillings. 
 
 In connection with a similar law, high-stepping Massachu- 
 setts, by its General Coart, declared its ''utter detestation and 
 dislike that men or women of mean condition should take upon 
 them the garb of gentlemen, by wearing gold or silver lace or 
 buttons, or points at their knees, or to walk in great boots," 
 "leather being so scarce," " or women of the same rank to wear 
 silk hoods or scarfs, which, though allowable to persons of greater 
 estates, or more liberal education, we judge intolerable in per- 
 sons of such like condition," etc. (Mass. Eec, iv. Part I, 60.) 
 
 The Connecticut Assembly further ordered that the prices of 
 provisions should be fixed at each session of that body, " accord- 
 ing to true intelligence from Boston," and to prevent " oppres- 
 sion," merchants and traders were not to take more than two- 
 pence in the shilling for "profit, charge, and venture," for 
 goods bought with " ready money " in Boston, or other like 
 market, the penalty being treble that of the unlawful exaction. 
 (Manuscript copy of the laws in the Library of Yale College.) 
 
 As suggested, several other ref onnatory •acts were passed at 
 the May session, 1676. One, to prevent profaning the Sab- 
 bath, " rooting out the power of godliness," required that any 
 person " found sporting in the streets or fields on Saturday 
 night, or on the Lord's day night, though after sunset," should, 
 on conviction, pay a fine of five shillings, or suffer corporal 
 punishment. Another forbade " profane discourse or talk, or 
 
34 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 rude or irreverent behavior," or servile work, except works of 
 piety, cliarity, or necessity, " on that holy day." Another 
 recommended that the ministers and selectmen should "look 
 into the state of families," and ascertain whether " reading of 
 the Scriptures, catechizing of the children, and daily prayer 
 with the giving of thanks by every Christian family, were 
 conscientiously attended to," " the neglect of which is a great 
 sin, provoking God to pour forth his wrath on such families." 
 If " any heads of families were obstinate or refractory, or 
 would not be reformed, they must be presented by the grand 
 jury to the county court to be fined, or punished, or bound to 
 good behavior," etc. Another required that disorderly " young 
 persons who got from under the government of parents or 
 masters before they were able to govern themselves" should 
 " carefully attend the worship of God in the families in which 
 they were boarders or sojourners, be subject to the family 
 government, and at all times be ready to give an account of 
 their actions, or forfeit five shillings for every breach of the 
 order." Other laws were provided for other classes of 
 offenders. 
 
 It was a critical period in the history of New England, and 
 impending dangers explain these vigorous assaults on notable 
 and prevalent sins. The war with King Philip and his con- 
 federates, now skilled in the use of fire arms, was a desperate 
 one, and threatened the extinction of this branch of the Eng- 
 lish family. So great was the need of help that all male per- 
 sons between the ages of fourteen and seventy were forbidden 
 to leave the Colony without a license. The penalty was one 
 hundred pounds. 
 
 Our fathers were accustomed to think that all public calam- 
 ities — war, pestilence, shipwreck, mildews, blasting of the 
 crops, devastating storms, unseasonable weather, dissension in 
 the churches, etc. — were -chastisements for neglected duty or 
 sinful indulgence, and that the divine wrath nmst be turned 
 aside by repentance, humiliation, fasting, prayer, and an 
 amended life. Hence the reformatory law-making which has 
 been noticed. The Court's endeavors produced little effect, 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 35 
 
 and as " abounding sin jet remained," the elders and ministers, 
 the next year, were again desired " to stir up and awaken their 
 several congregations to the duty of repentance and reforma- 
 tion." 
 
 From tlie beginning, I am grieved to say, our ancestors used 
 tobacco. The farmers raised it, and naturally enough wanted 
 *' protection for home industry." The General Court was 
 beneficently inclined, and as usual looked round for somebody 
 who should be lined. The sufferers were any persons who, 
 without license, should "drink* (that is, inhale or smoke) 
 any other tobacco but such as is or shall be planted within 
 these liberties." The penalty was five shillings for each 
 pound consumed after September, 1641. (Conn. Col. Rec, i, 
 53.) In January, 1647," the order was repealed, and in May 
 following another passed, indicating a change of mind. The last 
 was aimed at an abuse to be cured by other fines. By its terms, 
 no person under twenty years of age was allowed to use the 
 weed, nor were others, not accustomed to it, permitted to take 
 it without a license from the Court and a certificate from 
 some one skilled in physic alleging his need of it ; while those 
 accustomed to it were forbidden to take it in the streets, or 
 fields, or woods, except when traveling or journeying at least 
 ten miles, and then only at " dynner," or at most not more 
 than once a day, and not in the company of another. Nor was 
 any one, in any house in the town in which he lived, allowed 
 to use it " in the company of more than one other who useth 
 and drinketh the same weed at that time." The penalty was 
 sixpence for each offense, to be paid without gainsaying. 
 The constables were charged to look after the guilty, and make 
 presentment. With but little modification, the tobacco law of 
 1647 was continued in the Code of 1650. 
 
 That their institutions might be perpetuated, our fathers 
 began at the beginning, and provided for the training of the 
 children. To circumvent tliat "old deluder, sathan," who 
 would " keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures," the 
 
 *Says Mr. J. H. Trumbull, good authority: "The viler practice of 
 chewing was not yet iutroduced." Blue Laws, p. 135. 
 
36 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Court ordered that every town of fifty householders should 
 employ some one to teach the children to read and write, 
 whose wages should be paid by parents and masters, or by the 
 town, as the selectmen should determine. Towns of one hun- 
 dred families were directed each to set up a grammar school 
 where youth might be fitted for the university (at Cambridge). 
 Another order required that "all masters of families should 
 once a week at least catechize their children and servants in 
 the grounds and principles of religion," or if unable to do 
 that, cause them to learn some short orthodox catechism so as 
 to answer questions propounded, etc. That the law might not 
 fail, the selectmen were commanded to " have a vigilant eye 
 over their brethren and neighbors," and to see that the law 
 was obeyed. The penalty for neglect on their part was 
 twenty shillings. (Conn. Col. Rec, i, 520, 654.) 
 
 Naturally enough, young men, the hope of the church and 
 commonwealth, and too often a vexation to their friends, were 
 regarded with solicitude and even susj^icion. Like their suc- 
 cessors, they were often irreverent, wayward, and unruly. 
 They escaped from parental control, were indecently tardy in 
 choosing their mates (marrying), and sometimes contracted vi- 
 cious habits. Assuming the vacated office of parent, guardian, 
 and master, the government (for their edification and as a re- 
 minder of neglected duty) passed a stringent law, first in Feb., 
 1637, which. Dr. Stiles says, was executed in Windsor. Appar- 
 ently, it was designed for youth without rank or position in 
 society, and therefore without right to special privileges. It 
 forbade any unmarried " yonge man," having no servant and 
 holding no office, to " keep house by himself, without the con- 
 sent of the town where he lived, under pain of twenty shillings 
 per week." The like penalty was incurred by the master of any 
 family who took him in and entertained him as a sojourner. 
 In 1702 (see the revision of that date), the master was not 
 fined, but the erring youth whom he sheltered was required to 
 attend the family worship, and submit to family government, 
 or forfeit five shillings for each offense. 
 
 In addition to this hard treatment, to help suppress his 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 87 
 
 exuberance, he was compelled, at sixteen, to take the oath of 
 iidelity, perform military duty, pay a burdensome poll-tax, and 
 forego the privileges of a freeman till twenty-one years of age. 
 Not till 1821 was the luckless bachelor set at liberty, and 
 allowed to do as others might. 
 
 The idea embodied in the foregoing law seetns to have been 
 taken from a Massachusetts order passed in 1636. 
 
 The detestation with wliich our fathers regarded the sin of 
 gaming was naturally enough extended to its symbols. Desir- 
 ous that the people should know what games were " altogether 
 unlawful, in the very nature of them," the General Court, 
 February, 1657, "ordered that if any person or persons, of 
 what rank or quality soever in this jurisdiction, shall, after the 
 publishing of this order, play at cards, dice, tables [backgam- 
 mon], or any other game wherein that great and solenm 
 ordinance of a Lot is expressly and directly abused and pro- 
 phaned, the persons playing, or that shall play, more or less, at 
 any of the aforesaid games, shall pay for every offense twenty 
 shillings apiece to the public treasury, and the head of that 
 family where any such game shall be used or played (if he or 
 she know of or allow any such playing in their house or houses) 
 shall pay in like manner twenty shillings for each time any 
 such game is played in part or whole." If the playing were 
 witliout the knowledge of the head of the family, the " games- 
 ters or players" were to pay both the fines, or forty shillings, 
 for each game, one-third to go to the informer. 
 
 This law, without important change, is found in the Revision 
 of 1808. A penalty of seven dollars had been added in 1784 
 for every pack of cards sold or kept for sale. The boys, not- 
 withstanding, got hold of them and played " old sledge" with 
 zest, in the greatest possible privacy. The act did not survive 
 the Revision of 1821. 
 
 Lying was jnstly considered a "fowle and gross sin, .... 
 some sorts not only sinful, but pernicious." According to the 
 record, it was beginning ''to be practiced by many persons in 
 the commonwealth" as early as February, 1641. I fear it 
 began earlier, but at that date a committee was appointed " to 
 
38 EAHLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 consult witli the elders of both plantations to prepare instruc- 
 tions," etc. A temporary order against the sin was passed in 
 September, 1641. It authorized the particular court to punish 
 by fine or corporally, at discretion. In the code of 1650 the 
 Massachusetts act of 1645 was copied. It provided that any 
 person of fourteen years of age and over who should wittingly 
 lie to the injury of another should pay a tine of ten shillings, 
 or, if he could not pay, be set in the stocks, in some public 
 place, not exceeding three hours. For the second offense, the 
 penalty was twenty shillings, or whipping not more than 
 twenty stripes ; for the third offense, forty shillings, or more 
 stripes, not exceeding thirty. Thereafter, if the lying were 
 repeated, the offender, man or woman, must, on each convic- 
 tion, pay an additional tine of ten shillings, or receive " five or 
 six more stripes than formerly, not over forty at any one time." 
 If children under fourteen sinned in the same way, they were 
 to be duly corrected by their parents or masters, in the presence 
 of some public officer (if the magistrate so decided), who would 
 see that the work was j)roperly done. (Conn. Col. Hec, i, 538.) 
 The sort of work, in another direction, which the General 
 Court thought itself called on to do, without questioning its 
 own competency, may be illustrated by an example. In Feb- 
 ruary, 1641, the law-makers, finding the soil would produce 
 hemp and flax, much needed for their own uses, ordered 
 "every particular family to procure and plant this present 
 year at least one spoonful of English hemp seed, in some 
 fruitful soil, at least one foot distant betwixt every seed, the 
 same to be preserved and kept for supply of seed for another 
 year." It also ordered that "every family that kept a team 
 should sow the second year at least one rood of hemp or flax ; 
 and every person that kept cows, heifers, or steers was to sow 
 twenty perches; and every family without cattle to sow ten 
 perches." When the planting season arrived, it was found 
 that there was not enough hemp seed to go round; so the 
 Court ordered that those who had more tlian a spoonful, and 
 would not sell at a reasonable rate, should themselves plant 
 their surplus spoonfuls. Those who disobeyed were to "un- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 39 
 
 derfi^o the censure of tlie Court." An offender under this 
 hemp seed law, standing with bowed head and trembHng 
 limbs before the waiting dignitaries of the Court, and receiving 
 stinging censure from the lips of the " worshipful Governor," 
 would be a good subject for a painter. 
 
 Any form of good or evil, which was in any way dependent 
 on human conduct, oiir ancestors thought a proper subject for 
 legislation. If the wages of labor or the prices of commodi- 
 ties w^ere, in their opinion, too high, it was assumed that they 
 could and should be reduced by law. Like many of our day, 
 the people had little faith in free-trade, and would not wait for 
 the equahzing effects of competition. They did not believe 
 that a good could be attained or an evil eliminated by the 
 natural and free working of self-interest. To get out of him 
 the best results, a man must' be goaded on by the fear of 
 punishment. If he claimed the right to do as he would with 
 his own — to dispose of his goods or services for more than 
 public opinion considered them worth, he was the enemy of 
 the people, and must submit to the dictation of the General 
 Court. The law-makers seemed not to know that the course 
 pursued tended to reduce the supply of the things desired 
 when greater abundance alone could secure the coveted cheap- 
 ness. We may think them ignorant, but they were not more 
 so than their contemporaries, and were quite as wise as the Con- 
 gress of the United States which, a few years ago, attempted 
 to check the rising premium on gold by legislative penalties. 
 
 Then, as now, there were extortioners and oppressors — men 
 of sordid natures who took an unfair advantage of their more 
 needy brethren. IS^owhere is there honesty, religion, or con- 
 science enough to prevent those w^ho have a monopoly from 
 using it selfishly, in some cases wickedly. At an early period, 
 there were but few skilled workmen in the colony. When 
 there was more work than they could well perform — a greater 
 demand than supply — they would not sell their indispensable 
 services except at high rates. It is not probable there were 
 combinations or strikes ; these are modern inventions. The 
 General Court, fixing its attention on the swollen wage-rate, 
 
40 EARLY GOVERI^MENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 undertook to apply the legislative panacea. At an early 
 period, having the example of Massachusetts, it passed an act 
 regulating the work and wages of laborers and artificers, which, 
 in June, 1640, was continued " during the pleasure of the 
 Court." In February following the order was '' dissolved," as 
 the record says, perhaps because it was not needed in the win- 
 ter season. (Conn. Col. Rec, i, 52, 61.) • 
 
 Four months later, June, 1641, the Court, having waited for 
 reformation, " hoping men would have been a law to them- 
 selves," again interfered. The act passed shows how the 
 planters were engaged, and what classes of workmen were in 
 most request. They were building houses and bams for 
 shelter, making and repairing implements of wood and iron 
 for agriculture and war, providing casks for pork, beef, home- 
 brewed ale, and tar, and pipe 'staves for exportation. It will 
 be observed that there w^ere as yet no tailors (or none named) ; 
 no hatters, barbers, dressmakers, or milliners of either sex. 
 The act provided that " sufficient and able carpenters, plow- 
 wrights, w^heel-wrights, masons, joiners, smiths, and coopers 
 should not take above twenty pence for a day's work from the 
 tenth of March to the tenth of October, nor above eighteen 
 pence for the other part of the year, they to work eleven hours 
 in summer, and nine hours in winter." Mowers might receive 
 twenty pence a day ; other artificers, handicraftsmen, and 
 chief laborers, not more than eighteen pence a day in summer, 
 and fourteen in winter. For " f ower of the better sorte of 
 oxen or horses, with the tacklin," four shillings and ten pence 
 a day might be taken from March to October, and four shil- 
 lings for the rest of the year. Six hours were to be reckoned 
 a day's work from March to May, eight from May to October, 
 and six from October to March. Any person giving or taking 
 greater wages for men or cattle than here allowed was to 
 " abyde the censure of the Court." 
 
 In March, 1650, these regulations, and also those establishing 
 the prices of corn, were repealed ; but when no agreement was 
 made, a former order which valued wheat at four shillings, 
 rye and pease each at three shillings, and Indian corn at two 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 41 
 
 shillings and sixpence, per busliel, continued in force. At 
 about these rates — which were, say, one-third higher than the 
 specie rates — the articles named were used as the common cur- 
 rency. They were also received for taxes, pla(3ed in store- 
 houses, and paid out again to the public creditors. 
 
 If we examine the above figures carefully in order to com- 
 pare old times with the new, we shall find that a skilled work- 
 man, in 1641 and afterward, could earn wages enough in one 
 day of ten hours to buy one-third of a bushel of wheat, one- 
 half a bushel of rye or pease, six-tenths of a bushel of Indian 
 corn. To-day a skilled laborer working ten hours for two dol- 
 lars will receive sufficient to purchase at present prices, in 
 'New York, one bushel and two-fifths of wheat, two and a half 
 of rye, and three and a half of Indian corn. These, the last men- 
 tioned ranking iirst and the first last, with the products of the 
 dairy, were the most important articles of food two hundred 
 and forty years ago, and long afterward. They afforded 
 abundant nutriment for a laborious, hardy, prosperous, and 
 ])rolific people, among whom poverty was rare, and begging 
 unknown ; and yet their successors, getting from four to six 
 times as nmch, often complain that the times are hard, and 
 they can scarcely live. A day's work at one dollar w^ill now 
 procure nearly two-thirds of a bushel of wheat, a busliel and 
 one-eighth of rye, and a bushel and three-quarters of corn. If 
 we measure the wages at the two periods by the clothing they 
 would purchase, the contrast will be still more striking. 
 
 Figures scarcely less instructive may be obtained by compar- 
 ing the maximum salaries paid to ministers, soon after the 
 settlement of Connecticut, with the maximum paid now. At 
 the former period the highest was about one hundred pounds 
 in sterling money, or four hundred and forty-four dollars, and 
 the lowest fifty pounds, sterling. It should be observed, how- 
 ever, that the minister had the use of lands set apart in the be- 
 ginning for his improvement, and a share in the common lands. 
 A house, too, was usually built for him on his settlement. 
 
 In 1662 Massachusetts, without the shadow of authority, set 
 np a mint. Thence came the famous Bay or pine-tree shilling, 
 
42 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 short ill weight to the extent of twenty-five per cent. This at 
 length filled the channels of circulation, driving away other 
 and better coin. It obtained a currency in Connecticut, and 
 about 1680 became the standard of value. As a measure it took 
 the place of the English shilling. Twenty of them made the 
 New England pound, worth three dollars and thirty-three 
 cents, instead of four forty-four. . Thus, the hundred pounds 
 salary became equal to three hundred and thirty-three dollars 
 and thirty-three cents, and the dollar equal to six shillings 
 instead of four and sixpence as previously. When the still 
 greater swindle of irredeemable paper money was introduced 
 by Massachusetts, in 1690 (Connecticut following the example 
 in 1710), the pound was further depreciated, as the paper 
 issues increased, till it had a value in 1754 of not more than 
 one and sixpence. Those who write or read 'New England 
 history should remember the uncertain character of the money 
 in use. Dr. Trumbull forgets it, and so does Dr. Palfrey. The 
 latter's ancestor, William Palfrey, in 1745, bought a pound of tea, 
 paying thirty shillings. The price seemed extravagant, and as the 
 purchaser was frugal in his habits. Dr. Palfrey, for the most part 
 a careful historian, thoroughly equipped for his work, concludes 
 that the tea was obtained for sickness ! (History, ii, 66.) Thirty 
 shillings was then worth a little over a dollar in our money. 
 
 The increased reward which the laborer of to-day receives 
 represents the conveniences and luxuries which he can com- 
 mand in excess of those enjoyed by his predecessors. All this 
 excess is due to accumulated capital employed productively, 
 and the discoveries and improvements which capital makes 
 possible. Trade, science, literature, art, invention, and trained 
 skill are called into existence by capital, and would soon perish 
 without it. Those who spend it in riotous living, sink it in 
 unprofitable enterprises, or waste it in other ways, are the 
 enemies of those who have none of their own, and live on wages. 
 The want of capital, in early times, made it needful that all of 
 suitable age, men, women, and children, should be manual 
 laborers, and all producers of what are called the necessaries 
 of life. On no other condition could a family be supported. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT 01" CONNECTICUT. 43 
 
 Tlie specimens given are not unfair examples of a part of the 
 legislation whicli was common in Connecticut and elsewhere 
 in the seventeenth century. Naturally the people modeled 
 their laws somewhat after the fonns which had been approved 
 and adopted in Massachusetts — forms which, to some extent, 
 were probably the result of their own deliberations before re- 
 moval. Haynes, Ludlow, and Hooker, the ruling spirits in the 
 new settlements, were among the leaders in the older Colony. 
 They reproduced in one place what they and others had pro- 
 duced in another, making such changes as observation and the 
 altered circumstances required. Their Constitution proves that 
 they were not slavish imitators. It is true that twelve out of 
 their fourteen capital laws were copied, verbatim, from the 
 (yode of Massachusetts, but the law-givers of Massachusetts, with- 
 out fault or discrimination, themselves copied from the books 
 of Moses. As a borrower, Connecticut usually acted with 
 judgment and discretion, taking not all that was offered, but 
 selecting whatever seemed, under the circumstances, fittest and 
 best. It made mistakes, however, some bad ones, as it still 
 does. 
 
 Conformably to the custom of the times, Connecticut legisla- 
 tion was minute, often trivial, capricious, and most of it of the 
 kind called special. It was crude, confused, in many cases ill- 
 adapted to the end sought, and too rarely governed by any 
 well-settled principles. Inquisitive, often inquisitorial and op- 
 pressive, it invaded personal rights, and pushed its way into 
 private business and the family circle, pursuing and annoying 
 where it could not overtake. Impotently, it strived to control 
 conduct which could never be known, which was beyond its 
 proper jurisdiction, and with which interference was unwar- 
 ranted intrusion. It did much that was unwise, and vainly 
 attempted to do more. In all directions and at every turn the 
 hapless individual was opj^osed by vexatious laws. If heeded, 
 they were enough to worry the life out of him. With less 
 than the usual exaggeration, it may be said that the people had 
 no rights which their rulers felt bound to respect. The blind 
 led not the blind, but those who saw — saw clearly, perhaps. 
 
44 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 when their guides stumbled and blundered. Tf by a free gov- 
 ernment is meant one which permits and guarantees as much 
 liberty as is consistent with order and the equal liberty of all, 
 that of early Connecticut, though democratic, was not free. 
 Yet it probably secured as large a share of that vaunted and 
 exhilarating element as any then in existence. Perhaps I 
 should except Rhode Island, but my impression is that Roger 
 Williams and his associates had more liberty than they could 
 appropriate or utilize, and more than was compatible with an 
 orderly and efficient government. Connecticut did not lack 
 efficiency; but, to alarm and deter offenders, it sometimes made 
 laws which it did not intend or attempt to execute — an unwar- 
 rantable proceeding. At a later period, in a time of peril and 
 apprehension, when impending judgments must be looked for, 
 the ministers and pious people pointed to "neglect in putting 
 into execution good laws against immoral offenders,'' as one of 
 the " crying sins " of the day. To cure the evil, the Assembly, 
 May, 1704, in the midst of a French and Indian war, ordered 
 that "in every county a sober, discreet, and religious person 
 should be appointed by the County Court to be attorney for 
 the Queen, to prosecute and implead in the law all criminal 
 offenders," while the ministers were directed to stir up the 
 people to endeavor a reformation. 
 
 When it was found that the law of Moses was better fitted 
 for the ancient Jews than for the English planters in the wilds 
 of Connecticut, some improvement took place ; but the courts 
 of justice, floundering in the dark, always exercised a large dis- 
 cretion. In most cases, no doubt, substantial justice was done, 
 but not in a very scientific way. Setting aside the common 
 law of England, and ignoring precedents, the law-givers, in 
 their novel situation and lack of experience, had no guides but 
 common sense in limited sup23ly, and the dim, divine light 
 from above. The deputies who controlled or might control 
 legislation, were, for the most part, plain, hard-working farm- 
 ers of good natural endowments, whose special training and 
 course of thought had not fitted them for legislative duties. 
 Their whole time, not needed for Bible reading and religious 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 45 
 
 exercises, was required for the tilling of their farms and the 
 support of their wives and children. With these disadvantages 
 they became members of the General Court, and for the first 
 time, perhaps, were clothed with political power. Usually 
 they did not hold ofiice long enough to become familiar with 
 its duties. With their new responsibilities they must often 
 have felt embarrassed; but they did not hesitate on that 
 account to do business, and to xio it with a purpose. Like 
 others, seemingly, they found pleasure in the exercise of un- 
 limited authority, and at the same time had unbounded confi- 
 dence in the sufficiency of law. IS^or did they believe in the 
 captivating dogma that the world is governed too much. Their 
 own liberty, so much prized, they hoped to preserve by illiberal 
 restriction and coercion. Having the views and qualifications 
 mentioned, it is not strange that their enactments were marked 
 by the characteristics named. 
 
 Though given to law-making and fond of laws, the early 
 planters were suspicious of lawyers. The G-eneral Court 
 would not allow them to plead as attorneys in behalf of those 
 accused of delinquency. The order was disregarded, and in 
 May, 1667, the Court enacted that any person who should have 
 the boldness " to plead or speak in behalf of one on trial for 
 delinquency (except with leave and on a matter of law), should 
 pay ten shillings, or sit in the stocks one hour for each offense." 
 If good lawyers had been .encouraged, I think the laws would 
 have been fewer and vastly better. 
 
 Medical men were licensed by the General Court. Several 
 of the clergy were distinguished surgeons and physicians, 
 among them Gershom Bulkley of Wethersfield, and Israel 
 Chauncy of Stratford. 
 
 As is well known, the first settlers of Connecticut were rigid 
 Calvinists, and their lives were in harmony with their convic- 
 tions. In their view, man, by nature, was wholly depraved. 
 There was no goodness in his heathen heart. The flesh and 
 the devil were his daily attendants and deadly enemies. His 
 affections were perverted, his conscience seared, his will rebell- 
 ious, his soul all over incrusted with sin. So broken down 
 
46 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 was lie by Adam's wickedness and the fall tliat, even in liis 
 renewed state, lie could scarcely pursue his own interest in trade 
 and on the farm without continuous prodding. Unceasingly 
 he must be watched, warned, chastised, and by the ear led 
 back to the path, of duty. Those who thought thus naturally 
 believed in future j)unishment, and not unreasonably supposed 
 that a beginning might proj^erly be made here. 
 
 The government stood to the whole people in the same rela- 
 tion as the head of a family to the household of servants and 
 children. It dealt with grown persons much in the way the 
 model school-master did with his pupils when the writer was a 
 boy, but more sternly. The Court's censure was a cautionary 
 box on the ear ; the prison was the dark closet ; the stocks, the 
 seat under the table-; the j)illory, the standing on one leg. The 
 cart's tail was any place where the whipping was done. The 
 heavier penalties, reserved for more hardened offenders, of 
 course found no counterpart in the schools for children. 
 
 Ten years' experience having shown that the Mosaic law, as 
 interpreted and administered by uninspired courts, did not se- 
 cure uniform and certain justice, and that purblind juries, 
 without supplemental and more definite rules for their guidance, 
 were a precarious dej)endence (see Conn. Col. Kec, i, 84, 118), 
 the General Court, in April, 1646, desired Mr. Ludlow, the 
 trusted lawyer of the Colony, to " draw forth a body of laws for 
 the government of the Commonwealth." The work seems 
 not to have been prosecuted with much vigor, but in May, 
 1650, it was finished and the Code established. Dr. Palfrey 
 thinks Mr. Ludlow had not mu(ili to do with the compilation, 
 for the insufficient reason that the record does not show that he 
 was paid for the service, while Mr. Cullick, the secretary, was 
 allowed " six pounds in part payment for his great pains in 
 drawing forth and transcribing," etc. (Conn. Col. Rec, i, 216.) 
 Obviously the work was done by some one who had other quali- 
 ties than those of a scribe. The Code is introduced by a short 
 preamble and bill of rights, both copied from the Massachu- 
 setts " Body of Liberties," or code of laws, prepared by the 
 famous JNathaniel Ward. The bill of rights prohibited the 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 47 
 
 taking away of a man's wife or children, or his goods or estate, 
 or his lionor or good name, or liis liberty, " unless by the virtue 
 or equity of some express law warranting the same," " or in case 
 of the defect of a law in any particular case, by the word of 
 God ;" but wicked and oppressive laws were not prohibited, nor 
 the law-making power in the least curtailed. !N"or could the 
 General Court, having by the Constitution the exclusive right 
 to legislate, bind itself to do or not to do, at another time, any- 
 thing within the limits of its just authority. It could command 
 the magistrates, its own officers, and the people, but not itself, 
 or not in a way to secure obedience. Sadly the Court needed 
 for its government and guidance a rigorous master ; a superior 
 power competent to prohibit, impose restrictions, and define 
 limits which would be respected. The power w^hich was suf- 
 ficient for this important work, was in the Constitutional 
 Convention of 1639. Unfortunately it was not exercised. 
 
 The laws which follow, arranged alphabetically under eighty 
 distinct headings, cover fifty-three printed octavo pages. Large- 
 ly, those of a frivolous or extravagant character, or of temporary 
 interest, are omitted. In many cases the penalties attached to 
 crime are named, and the power of the magistrates imposing 
 them limited. Often they are quaint, sometimes arbitrary and 
 indefensible, but as a whole are not as severe or absurd as 
 represented. Mr. J. H. Trumbull has done well to make com- 
 parisons and state in detail the results. Too long have the 
 wretched inventions of Peters, and the careless statements of 
 more reputable writers, been allowed a place in popular history. 
 (See TrumbulFs Blue Laws, 1876.) ^- 
 
 The corporal punishments inflicted by the laws of 1650 were 
 not harsh as compared with those authorized by other govern- 
 ments, and in vogue at that date. Whipping was the most 
 common. Oftenest it was prescribed for the poorer, more de 
 graded and thick-skinned classes — those unable to pay fines — 
 and was the penalty for theft. Gentlemen and all bearing the 
 title of Mr. were exempt by custom from this and other forms 
 of corporal punishment. (TrumbulFs Blue Laws, 335.) As 
 a class they were much favored in legislation. Fines, floggings. 
 
48 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 and the stocks were the lot of swearers, liars, tipplers, inebriates, 
 pound-breakers, etc. For forgery the offender was condemned 
 '^ to stand on the pillory three several lecture days, and be dis- 
 abled to give evidence or verdict in any court." Among 
 criminals, those convicted of capital oifenses excepted, the bur- 
 glar and highway robber fared the hardest. For the first 
 oifense he was branded on the forehead with the letter B (bur- 
 glar) ; for the second, branded and whipped ; for the third, put 
 to death. If tlie crime were committed on the Lord's day, he 
 was to suffer as before mentioned, and in addition lose one ear 
 on the first conviction, and the other on the second. The 
 Indians, too, were used sometimes roughly. They became 
 "bold and insolent," entering the houses of the English unin- 
 vited, handling swords and guns carelessly, and endangering 
 limbs and lives. For so doing each was required to pay half a 
 fathom of wampum, and if any injury resulted from his acts, 
 though accidental, he was to forfeit "life for life, limb for limb, 
 wound for wound, and pay for the healing and for other dam- 
 ages." But as a set-off, so to say, against this severity, " one of 
 the teaching-elders was desired, with the help of Thomas Stan- 
 ton (interpreter), to go among them, at least twice a year, and 
 make known to them the counsels of the Lord," the Governor 
 and magistrates to see the work attended to, and be present if 
 convenient. At a later period. May, 1667, they were forbidden 
 to work or play on the Sabbath within the English limits, the 
 transgressor to pay five shillings or sit in the stocks one hour. 
 
 Punishment by im2)risonment was not known till 1640, when 
 a house of correction was ordered built. 
 
 Leaving out of consideration the capital laws, the worst has 
 been said of the Code of 1650. Collectively, the acts were not 
 barbarous for the times, but it must be allowed that heresy and 
 the division of churches had not yet alarmed the Court. 
 
 Hitherto I have been looking for an opportunity to take 
 formal notice of the Charter of Connecticut. The little I 
 have to say may as well be said here. It bears date April 23, 
 1662, and was granted in a fit of heedless generosity by Charles 
 II, chiefly through the influence of the accomplished Governor 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 49 
 
 of Connecticut, John Winthrop (the younger). It took the 
 place of the Constitution as the supreme law, giving to the 
 colonists the same government which they had framed for 
 themselves twenty-three years before. By its terms the free- 
 men were authorized to elect a " General Assembly" and all 
 their own officers; "to ordain and establish all manner of 
 wholesome laws not contrary to the laws of England ;"- and to 
 do a hundred things which men ought not to do, or have the 
 authority to do. Of course the people were delighted with it, 
 as they well might be. By its means their territory was 
 greatly enlarged, and the New Haven Jurisdiction, which, for 
 intelligible reasons, was not in favor at the English court, was 
 put under their government. Thus were political importance 
 and coveted dominion secured without cost or sacrifice to the 
 favored colony. Thus were the men who protected the regi- 
 cides, and allowed none but church-members to participate in 
 the government, bereaved of their peculiar and nmch cherished 
 institutions. Not unnaturally the people of Connecticut were 
 lifted up by visions of greatness — greatness thrust upon them, 
 as it were. Surely they had much cause for self-gloriiication. 
 In the midst of the excitement, October 9, 1662, the General 
 Assembly, or Court of Election, met, its members feeling, 
 doubtless, like a company of boys round a new velocipede 
 owned in common. The Patent or Charter was read, and then 
 the precious document was placed in charge of three trusty 
 persons who were sworn to keep it sacredly. Without delay 
 the Assembly proceeded to weiglity business, keeping in mind 
 the enhanced dignity of the older and dominating colony. It 
 enacted that Hartford should be the " settled place for the 
 convocation of the General Assembly ;" that " Hartford train- 
 band should have the preeminence of all the companies in 
 the Colony" — Windsor to rank second, Wetherslield tliird, and 
 *' then Farmington ;" that the laws and orders then in existence 
 should continue in force ; that " a solemn day of thanksgiving" 
 should be observed for the Charter, for the late rain, for the 
 abatement of sickness, " for the hopes w^e have of a settle- 
 ment in the ways of peace and righteousness," etc. At the 
 
50 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 same time a committee was appointed to go to New Haven 
 " to treat with onr loving friends there," while persistent at- 
 tempts had already been made to divide the strength of the 
 doomed colony by soliciting and accepting in detail the alle- 
 giance of portions of its people. In this whole business, with- 
 out heeding tlie j^ledge of Governor Winthrop and the advice 
 of mutual friends, Connecticut bore herself haughtily and dis- 
 creditably. 'New Haven and its supporters, though exceed- 
 ingly humiliated and harassed, behaved with dignity and 
 honor ; but after two years of stout resistance, remonstrance, 
 and forbearance, felt constrained to submit. Poor Mr. Daven- 
 port, seeing his hopes dashed to the ground, would not be 
 comforted, and soon removed to Boston. The union of the 
 two colonies early in 1665, proved a profitable and happy one ; 
 but it might have been effected without a breach of good faith, 
 or any sacrifice of common courtesy. The New Haven settlers 
 were a proud, aristocratic people, sick at the outset, and could 
 not well brook rough usage. 
 
 To the union with New Haven, or rather to the accession to 
 the chief magistracy of the last governor of that defunct 
 colony, William Leete, Dr. Palfrey attributes the introduction 
 into Connecticut of " something of the New Haven element 
 of extreme Puritan rigor — an innovation to which his chief 
 associate in the magistracy [Lt.-Governor Robert Treat] was by 
 no means averse. From the beginning of Leete's administra- 
 tion 'the great unreformedness' of the people excited more 
 anxiety ; .' provoking evils' and ' crying sins' seemed to multi- 
 ply ; rebukes and threat enings were more remarked ; and 
 divine judgments appeared to be more deserved and more cer- 
 tainly impending." But it should be remembered that when 
 Leete became Governor (May, 1676) the New England colo- 
 nies were in the mid«t of a terrible war w^ith Philip and his 
 confederates, and that prostration, repentance, and reformation 
 were acknowledged to be the indispensable conditions of suc- 
 cessful warfare. I have already spoken of the laws which 
 Palfrey cites as proofs. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 51 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 The people of Newtown, when about to leave the Bay, 
 urged as a reason for removal that they could not maintain 
 their minister without more land for their cattle. The reason 
 assigned was scarcely sufficient, but it shows the thought that 
 was uppermost in their minds. In pursuit of the object set 
 forth they plunged into the wilderness, and sought the reputed 
 " El Dorado of the West." All found land enough, of excel- 
 lent quality, but in the beginning many of them suffered ter- 
 ribly from cold, famine, sickness, and war. Still they perse- 
 vered, purchased and cleared their lands, vanquished the 
 savage foe, and made heroic sacrifices that they might have an 
 asylum for their religion. To make secure their acquisitions 
 and privileges, they framed a Constitution and enacted laws, 
 swearing rulers and the ruled '' by the great and fearful name 
 of the ever-living God" to maintain them inviolate. "All 
 male persons above sixteen years of age," including slaves, I 
 suppose, were required to take the oath. The planters were a 
 distinct community, at the outset a voluntary association, har- 
 monious in opinion, faith, and practice, and owners by right of 
 the territory they governed. Could they not properly organ- 
 ize as they did, and bind themselves to one another and the 
 Commonwealth? If their government and legislation were 
 adapted to their condition, and suited those who were affected 
 by them, who should complain or interfere ? Having formed 
 themselves into a political society for their private ends, could 
 they not rightfully exclude from their company meddling 
 intruders whose views and teaching were hostile to their own, 
 and destructive to their institutions, using force when per- 
 suasion was not sufficient ? A few years ago it was said, with 
 telling effect, that the government had a right to life, and to 
 employ any means, whether constitutional or otherwise, to 
 preserve it. Without emendation, I would not subscribe to 
 that, but there can be no doubt that the (so-called) Common- 
 wealth under Ilaynes, Hopkins, Winthrop, and others, was 
 
52 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 worthy to live, certainly while those who were ruled by it,' 
 and who alone could suffer, were in favor of it. 
 
 But in this connection other questions press for answers. 
 Can a man control his convictions, fix permanently his belief, 
 and evermore bind himself to it ? If he can do this for him- 
 self, can he for his children and successors ? Could a part of 
 those who instituted the government and made the laws right- 
 fully change the substance or forms of their religion, and on 
 that ground claim a release from their oaths to preserve it as it 
 was ? Again, when a people solemnly and devoutly pledge 
 themselves to do certain things, will that pledge justify the 
 doing when more light proves that the truth is sacrificed ? 
 These questions, when fully comprehended, are better calcu- 
 lated to spread consternation among the faculties, than call 
 forth satisfactory answers. 
 
 Everywhere the practice has been not to permit a few zeal- 
 ots, however conscientious, to undermine the established faith, 
 introduce discord into churches, disturb the public j)eace, and 
 destroy the beneficent work of generations. I am not prepared 
 to say that the practice, humanely carried out, is wrong. Surely 
 reformers, to attain a supposed greater good, should themselves 
 be willing to sacrifice something — their ambition, their love of 
 notoriety, their temporal welfare — and remove as our fathers 
 did from England. Have not the majority, as well as the other 
 side, the right to enjoy undisturbed their convictions ? When 
 conscienises are at war, when reconciliation is impossible, and 
 universal toleration unknown, might will at last solve the dif- 
 ficulty, and the weaker party, yielding nothing when it could, 
 must go to the wall. 
 
 Not having come to Connecticut to establish religious liberty 
 — liberty as a princij)le — the early planters could not be ex- 
 pected to attempt anything in that direction. Nor should they 
 be singled out for censure because their opinions and practice 
 were not in advance of the communities from which they came. 
 In this regard, it is enough that they did not fall below the 
 wisest and best men of that age. When, however, their theory 
 of government — a theory which their needs compelled them to 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 53 
 
 adopt, and which Mr. Hooker, in the sermon already referred 
 to, distinctly announced — when, I say, their theory of govern- 
 ment recognized the people as tlie rightful source of all politi- 
 cal power, and the majority as the true exponent of the people's 
 will, liberty in its better sense was made possible — made so in- 
 advertently, as I judge. It is on the originality and supposed 
 soundness of their theory that the constitution-makers must 
 base their renown. In acknowledging the people as the foun- 
 tain of all just authority, they committed themselves to a prin- 
 ciple of which, seemingly, they did not know the full significance 
 — one which might, and in the end did, lead to the overthrow 
 of their cherished exclusiveness in religion. The latter they 
 endeavored to perpetuate by " appropriate legislation," and for 
 a long period they succeeded without important disaster ; but 
 at length the Revolution came ; politicians learned their own 
 power ; the minority clamored for recognition ; the caucus was 
 instituted; the "people" proved unstable, the constitution- 
 makers again assembled ; and after a memorable career of one 
 hundred and eighty years, the "standing order" succumbed. 
 
 Religious liberty in Connecticut, as elsewhere, grew out of 
 dissent and the divisions of dissenters. When the latter class 
 became numerous enough to encourage the hope of ousting 
 those in authority, and were so divided among themselves that 
 no sect could obtain power without the help of the others, lib- 
 erty became vastly popular — became so because its advocacy 
 was the indispensable condition of political success. It was 
 not conceded as a right by those who governed, but wrung 
 from them by political necessity and the force of numbers. I 
 can think of no instance in which those adopting restrictive 
 measures have volunteered a liberal policy at the request of a 
 minority. It is possible, or at least credible, that either of the 
 classes that united to overthrow the Congregational dynasty in 
 1818, and took control of the government, would have pre- 
 ferred the exclusive privileges which preceding rulers possessed 
 to the universal toleration it was pledged to support — would 
 have preferred it because of the opportunity which would be 
 offered to establish, by union with the State, its own particular 
 faith. 
 
54 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Political power, for most minds, has an irresistible charm. 
 It controls the honors, the services, and the revenues of the 
 people. All are struggling for it, and no one yields to another 
 till forced to do so. The greatest patriot in the land, repub- 
 lican, democrat, national, or whatever he may call himself — 
 holds on to it as with a death-grip. 'Not only the ambitious 
 and mercenary desire it, but the philanthropist sees, or thinks 
 he sees, a hundred ways in which he may use it for the benefit 
 of humanity, and procure money without stint for his pet 
 schemes. Men in power who represent diverse interests, and 
 best know how damaging in many ways would be the con- 
 tinued ascendancy of any particular sect, party, order, or class; 
 however good it may seem, will be least likely to abuse their 
 opportunities. So long as the ruling majority is too much di- 
 vided to allow of dangerous combinations, and a dissenting and 
 opposing minority, numerous, vigilant, and courageous, is 
 prompt to expose and denounce oppressive and wicked legisla- 
 tion, and stands ready, when called, to occupy the places of the 
 oppressors — so long will liberty, religious and political, have a 
 reasonable chance for preservation. 
 
 The framers of the Constitution in 1639 took good care that 
 the Church should be given no power to be called its own. 
 To its tender mercies when force might be used they would 
 trust nothing. Their own sufferings in England had doubtless 
 destroyed their conlidence in its reasonableness or justice, when 
 inflamed by zeal or provoked by opposition. So jealous were 
 they of the influence of church-members, acting as sucli, that, 
 rejecting the example and practice of " Massachusetts, they 
 refused to give them the smallest advantage in their political 
 system. The nearest approach to partiality in this regard was 
 made when they required the Governor to be a member of 
 some approved or lawful congregation. In this way they 
 hoped to curb ecclesiastical ambition, and keep church-ofiicials 
 within reach of the civil power. So long as the churches (at 
 flrst they were not so united as to constitute a church) pro- 
 ceeded in accordance with the rules established and the views 
 entertained by the General Court, no interference was attempt- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 55 
 
 ed ; but if they chose to wander in forbidden paths, either 
 in doctrine or discipline, authority which none dared to dispute 
 was interposed. A hiw in the collection of 1650 declared that 
 the civil authority had power to preserve the peace and main- 
 tain the " ordinancies and rules of Christ in every church, and 
 to deal with any church-nieniber in the way of civil justice, 
 notwithstanding any church relation, office, or interest, pro- 
 vided it be done in a civil and not ecclesiastical way," nor 
 could " any church censure, degrade, or depose any man from 
 any civil dignity, office, or authority ;" nor could excommuni- 
 cation prevent him from making a will, or alienating his lands 
 or estate. (Conn. Col. Rec, i, 510, 525.) 
 
 As I understand it, the General Court was the head of the 
 church, or rather of the churches. It was more than pope, or 
 pope and college of cardinals, for it exercised all authority, 
 civil and ecclesiastical. In matters of discipline, faith, and 
 practice, there was no appeal from its decisions. Except the 
 right to be protected in their orthodoxy, the churches had no 
 privileges which the Court did not confer and could not take 
 away. When, at length, in obedience to a command ef the 
 General Assembly, their delegates met at Saybrook, in Sep- 
 tember, 1708, selected and approved a confession of faith, and 
 assented to certain heads of agreement and regulations regard- 
 ing church discipline, the Assembly was called on to ratify 
 and legalize the proceeding. Thus the Saybrook Platform 
 was established, and became the law of the land. It gave to 
 the churches, individual and consociated, certain powers and 
 privileges, as if by charter, and prescribed certain rules of 
 proceeding, but did not authorize the use of other than moral 
 means for correction. The extreme penalty was non-comnmn- 
 ion. Dr. Trumbull calls it the religious constitution of the 
 Colony. 
 
 When the Saybrook Platform was adopted. State and Church 
 in Connecticut were formally united ; but. there was no trans- 
 fer of power from the civil to the ecclesiastical side, or none 
 which could not at any time be recalled. This formal union, 
 as defined in the Saybrook Platform, was continued till 1784, 
 
56 EAKLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 when all laws not found in the revised Code of that date, includ- 
 ing the "Act in Approbation of the Agreement at Sayhrook," 
 were repealed. Thenceforth the famous Platform had no 
 binding force in law, but was generally adhered to as a satis- 
 factory voluntary arrangement. 
 
 In the beginning, and till 1708, while the churches were 
 voluntary organizations, committed by the Constitution of 
 1639 to the immediate care of the government, with no 
 dependence on each other, nearly all the legislation relating to 
 them was reserved for emergencies. It was advisory, admoni- 
 tory, sometimes mandatory or prohibitory. The Assembly was 
 bound to protect and preserve them as originally constituted, 
 but seemed reluctant to use its undoubted authority. It acted 
 the part of the armed and faithful but humane sentinel, watch- 
 ing, warning, forbearing, deprecating, but refusing to fire till 
 the danger was imminent and necessity impei-ative. In case, 
 however, good advice was unheeded, and a Avayward, rebellious 
 spirit manifest, it was perem2)tory, issuing its decrees, and 
 enforcing obedience by summary processes. 
 
 Thougli the churches were helpless as to any distinct author- 
 ity of their own, they exerted a powerful influence. As the 
 government was instituted for their special benefit, they could 
 rightfully claim a large share of its attention. 
 
 The elders or ministers, though not accustomed to hold 
 political office, had much to do with public affairs, and were 
 formally consulted on important occasions. By their influence, 
 says Hutchinson, the best, if not " the greatest of the historians 
 of Massachusetts," magistrates were elected or displaced. In 
 the devising and perfecting of laws relating to religion, moral- 
 ity, and the safety of the churches, they seem to have taken 
 the lead. At the call of duty, themselves being judges, they 
 did not hesitate " to preach politics," to hold up the law and 
 point out the right, giving chapter and verse. They did this 
 on the Sabbath, on the weekly lecture-days, on thanksgiving- 
 days, and especially on fast-days — a custom not yet forgotten. 
 In their annual election-sermons (one was ordered printed as 
 early as 16T4), they remembered the purpose of their appoint- 
 
EARLV government of CONNECTICUT. 57 
 
 ment, and lectured the law-makers on their political as well as 
 religious duties, speaking as with authority. As if this were 
 not enough, the Court, in May, 1708, "recommended [when 
 addressing the clergy it did not often cmnmand'] that the 
 ministers in their respecti\ e plantations preach annually to the 
 freemen, on the day of election, a sermon for direction in the 
 choice of civil rulers," etc. Many years before, the great spir- 
 itual leader of Massachusetts, John Cotton, had said " that the 
 rulers of the people should consult with the ministers of the 
 churches upon occasion of any war to be undertaken, and any 
 other weighty business, though the case should seem ever so 
 clear, as David in the case of Ziglag," etc. (Savage's Win- 
 throp, i, 283.) The divine blessing, it was contended, could 
 not be expected were their advice neglected. If they had not 
 more influence at the court of heaven than other men, they 
 were more familiar with the Bible, as a general rule more 
 intelligent, sagacious, and often wiser than those who sought 
 their assistance and direction. Some of them were men of 
 rare intellectual gifts, eloquent as preachers, skilled in disputa- 
 tion, and proficients in all the learning of the time. Several 
 were also distinguished as surgeons and physicians. The Rev. 
 Gershom Bulkley, of Wethersfield, received the "hearty 
 thanks'^ of the council, and thirty pounds for his eminent 
 service as surgeon in the war with King Philip, in 1675. 
 (Conn. Col. Eec, ii, 483.) The Eev. Jared Eliot, of Killing- 
 worth, at a later day, was tlie most noted physician in the 
 Colony. 
 
 The ministers perpetuated and extended their influence by 
 becoming the instructors of the youth. They fitted boys for 
 college, were their tutors after admission, and superintended 
 or supervised the whole business of education. 
 
 Writing of their position in the social and political system, 
 Dr. Trumbull remarks : 
 
 "The most perfect harmony subsisted between the legislature and 
 the clergy. Like Moses and Aaron, they walked together in the most 
 endeared friendship. The governors, magistrates, and leading men 
 were their spiritual children, and esteemed and venerated them as their 
 
 6 
 
58 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 fathers in Christ. As they had loved and followed them into the wil- 
 derness, they zealously supported their influence. The elergy had the 
 highest veneration for them, and spared no pains to maintain their 
 authority and government. Thus they grew in each other's esteem and 
 brotherly affection, and mutually supported and increased each other's 
 influence and usefulness." 
 
 In another place the Doctor says : "In no government have 
 the clergy had more influence, or been treated with more gen- 
 erosity and respect by the civil rulers and people in general, 
 than in Connecticut." (Hist. Conn., i, 301.) Here is an 
 illustration of the distinguished consideration with which they 
 were treated on occasions not uncommon : Early in 165Y there 
 was appointed a general council or synod, to be held in Boston, 
 in which the churches of Connecticut were to be represented. 
 That the ministers might be sure of treatment suited to their 
 dignity and mission, the General Court " ordered that the 
 deputies, with the deacons of the church in each town, take 
 care that their said elders be comely and honorably attended 
 and suited with necessaries in their journey to the Bay and 
 home again ; and that the same, with their proportion of 
 charge in the Bay, during their abode there upon this service, 
 be discharged by the [Colony] treasurer ; and also the deputies 
 are empowered to press horses* (if need be) for the end afore- 
 said." 
 
 At ^n early period the ministers of the Colony held their 
 annual meetings in Hartford at the time of the general elec- 
 tion. On these occasions " a genteel entertainment " was given 
 
 * The power to press men and to seize horses, oxen, boats, and other 
 property for the public convenience, was given on slight occasion, and 
 apparently without much regard for private rights. Soldiers were^ 
 raised by impressment. In 1669 a town-meeting of New Haven, when 
 building a meeting-house, gave ' ' liberty to press such men as is neces- 
 sary for that end." (Bacon's Hist, Discourses, p. 178.) To provide 
 against the panic which the small pox, then a terrible scourge, excited, 
 the Assembly, in May, 1711, authorized any two justices of the peace to 
 issue warrants to impress nurses, and to take, forcibly, lodging-houses 
 or any thing needed for the sick. If any person did not heed the sum- 
 mons, he incurred a penalty not exceeding five pounds. By a later law 
 (1728), the offender was to be committed to the common jail till he (or 
 she) "will better conform, or the occasion of the impressing be over." 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 59 
 
 to them and the elders from the neighboring colonies who were 
 present, at the public expense. This custom, said Dr. Trum- 
 bull in 1797, "has been continued to the present time " (i, 505). 
 If a minister were not paid his salary promptly, the treasurer 
 of the Colony was required, at the request of the injured party, 
 to levy and by his warrant collect the tax, and pay the amount 
 due (Conn. Col. Rec, v, 50). The clergy were also exempt 
 from taxation in the towns in which they lived, though often 
 rich. 
 
 Did the early ministers of Connecticut, venerated, trusted, 
 and caressed, never abuse their unparalleled opportunities? 
 Did they never use their great influence for ambitious, selfish, or 
 other unhallowed purposes? That they, more than others, 
 were responsible for the ecclesiastical legislation of the Colony, 
 and particularly for the acts designed to enforce conformity, 
 cannot be denied. If these laws were milder, more enlight- 
 ened than those of Massachusetts, of the colonies further south, 
 and of England, let them have credit for that. 'No doubt they 
 were generally conscientious, but this fact did not wipe out the 
 wrong done, nor make more acceptable the penalties exacted. I 
 believe that Dr. Trumbull's statement that " they were men of 
 the strictest morals," is quite true. Certain I am that the 
 scandalous charges of which we have heard much in our day 
 were not made against them. 
 
 In the beginning the churches, appear to have been main- 
 tained by voluntary contributions, but this method doubtless 
 proved to be unequal and insufficient. That a better might be 
 provided, the Commissioners of the " United Colonies of New 
 England," representing Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, 
 and New Haven, which first met in Boston in September, 1643, 
 took the matter in hand. They proposed a law to the several 
 colonies, which was adopted by Connecticut in October, 1644. 
 (See Hazard, ii, 17.) The preamble of the Act as printed in the 
 Code of 1650, reads thus : " And whereas, amongst many other 
 precious mercies, the ordinances have been and are dispensed 
 with much purity and power," this Court, "fortlie encour- 
 agement of the ministers who labor therein, do order that tho86 
 
60 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 who are taught in the word, in tlie several plantations, be called 
 together, that every man voluntarily set down what he is willing 
 to allow to that end and use : And if any man refuse to pay a 
 meet proportion, that then he be rated by authority in some 
 just and equal way ; and if after this any man withhold or 
 delay due payment, the civil power to be exercised as in other 
 just debts." 
 
 By another law embraced in the same Code, entitled " Rates," 
 it was " ordered that every inhabitant shall henceforth contrib- 
 ute to all charges, both in church and commonwealth, whereof 
 he doth or may receive benefit, proportionably to his ability," 
 etc., he having, as before, the option of doing it voluntarily or 
 by compulsion. " And the lands and estates of all men, where- 
 ever they dwell, shall be rated for all town charges, both civil 
 and ecclesiastical, where the lands and estates shall lye, and 
 their persons where they dwell." Every male person of sixteen 
 years of age and upwards (except magistrates, elders of churclies, 
 and those disabled by sickness, lameness, etc.) was "to be 
 assessed and rated at two shillings sixpence by the head, and 
 all estates, both real and personal, at one penny for every 
 twenty shillings." In the lists, cattle, including horses, sheep, 
 goats, and swine, were to be entered at specified rates, and all 
 other personal and real estate at "a true estimation." The 
 rates were payable in the several varieties of corn, wheat, pease, 
 rye, Indian com, and sometimes in wampum, all at prices fixed 
 by the General Court. If any person neglected to pay, his 
 goods were distrained, and if need be, his body imprisoned. 
 If the town constables, who collected the Colony taxes, were 
 negligent, their goods were distrained, and if payment was not 
 then forthcoming, the public treasurer was authorized to col- 
 lect " all arrearages of levies " from any man or men of tlie 
 delinquent town by the same process, he or they thus despoiled 
 having a rightful claim on the town for the amount taken, with 
 damages. 
 
 By a later law (Revision of 1702) assistants (magistrates), 
 justices of the peace, ministers of the gospel, allowed physi- 
 cians, and school-masters were exempted from the poll tax. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 61 
 
 By another, passed in October, 1706, the estates of all the set- 
 tled ministers of the Colony, lying in the towns in which they 
 dwelt, and the polls of their families were similarly exempted. 
 This last act, making no distinction between the standing order 
 and dissenters, continued in force till the political revolution of 
 1818 ; but it is worthy of remembrance that at the time of its 
 enactment all the settled ministers in Connecticut were Con- 
 gregationalists. I am mistaken — Mr. Valentine Wightman, in 
 1705, became the pastor of a Baptist Church in Groton, the 
 first in this Colony, gathered in violation of law. He was much 
 persecuted. (Sprague's Annals, vi, 27.) 
 
 In October, 1651, lists of the estates of the six towns in the 
 Colony (Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield, Farmington, Fair- 
 field, and Stratford) were, for the first time, presented to the 
 Court. They amounted to £75,492-10-6. At the same time 
 the treasurer was directed to issue warrants for the collection of 
 a tax equal to " a whole rate " (or one penny in the pound, as I 
 suppose), persons or polls to be rated at eighteen pence instead 
 of two and sixpence, as required by the previous law. After- 
 ward (October, 1657), polls were put in the lists at the fixed 
 sum of eighteen pounds each, as I gather from the figures ; so 
 that each person of sixteen years and over paid as much on his 
 head as the owner of eighteen pounds estate. 
 
 Our fathers did not make laws till they were wanted for use ; 
 did not enact penalties till there was neglected duty to be en- 
 forced or crime punished. During the first few years all prob- 
 ably went to meeting. Had any been disinclined they would 
 not have followed their ministers, at so much cost, through the 
 wilderness. But in 1650, when loose practices had crept in, a 
 legislative act and a -forfeit were required as incentives. ISTo 
 doubt the faithful preacher would spend his breath without 
 result if there were not ears to hear ; so in the code room was 
 found an order which reads thus : " Wheresoever the ministry 
 of the word is established according to the order of the gospel 
 throughout this jurisdiction, every person shall duly resort and 
 attend thereunto upon the Lord's day, and upon such public 
 fast days and days of thanksgiving as are to be generally kept 
 
62 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 by authority," or pay a fine of 'B.yq shillings for each neglect. 
 The act assumed, as the much harsher law of England did, that 
 it was the duty of every person to attend divine service, and 
 the proper business of the government to enforce whatever 
 duty enjoined. 
 
 Two other acts, passed in March, 1658, should be noticed in 
 this connection. The first required " that henceforth no per- 
 sons in this jurisdiction s'hall in any way embody themselves 
 into church estate without consent of the General Court, and 
 approbation of neighbor churches." The second declared as 
 follows : " There shall be no ministry or church administration 
 entertained or attended by the inhabitants of any plantation in 
 this Colony, distinct and separate from and in opposition to 
 that which is openly and publicly observed and dispensed by 
 the settled and approved minister of the place, except it be by 
 approbation of the Cieneral Court and neighbor churches," 
 provided private meetings of godly persons for religious pur- 
 poses be not hindered, etc. 
 
 The acts of March, 1658, seem to have had a special refer- 
 ence to the controversy then raging, and the division threatened, 
 in the church of Hartford. They had the effect intended, and 
 for the time prevented the proposed disruption. 
 
 These four or five laws constitute the famous ecclesiastical 
 laws of Connecticut, so much criticised and denounced. They 
 commanded several things: 1, The churches must be sup- 
 ported like the State by a general tax levied on the polls and 
 estates of the whole people ; 2, All must go to meeting, or 
 attend the stated religious exercises, under a penalty ; 3, 'No 
 persons must " embody themselves in church estate," or set up 
 a church, without the consent of the General Court and the 
 neighboring churches; 4, No ministry or church administra- 
 .tion must be allowed in opposition to the lawful and approved 
 minister of the place, except with the consent of the Court 
 and the neighboring churches. They were enacted by Congre- 
 gationalists for the benefit of themselves, and the support of 
 the established faith ; were designed to preserve " the purity 
 of the gospel," and " the discipline of the churches" as then 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 63 
 
 understood ; were submitted to by all as the most effectual 
 means known to secure peace, order, harmony, and the peculiar 
 privileges which a buffeted people hoped to enjoy and per- 
 petuate. They were severely restrictive and coercive, but, 
 unlike the acts of Parliament, were not apparently intended 
 for men whose conscientious scruples might be violated. 
 There w^as then no class whose religious belief was in conflict 
 with that of the dominant party-^none therefore to make 
 unecpial the operation of the laws. The people who enacted 
 them were, for a long period, almost the only sufferers, though 
 their faith had not changed. Apart from the brief Quaker 
 alarm (and the acts recited w^ere not prompted by that), there 
 is no evidence that unfriendly sects were expected in the 
 Colony, or that the legislation complained of had any reference 
 to their possible coming. When the disturbers did appear, 
 half a century later, existing enactments designed to secure 
 peace, unity, and prosperity within were found sufficient for 
 external defense, and the preservation of the ruling order. 
 For a season they were relied on to prevent or repel sectarian 
 invasion, but erelong, when outside pressure threatened mis- 
 cliief, their rigor by degrees was relaxed — relaxed for the 
 benefit wholly of other and hostile denominations, without 
 affording the smallest relief or advantage to the dissentients or 
 disorganizers inside, for whose discipline, reformation, or sup- 
 pression they were originally intended. 
 
 Many years afterward other restrictive laws were enacted, 
 usually on emergent occasions and for a temporary purpose. 
 Like the ecclesiastical laws already noticed they were intended 
 not to embarrass dissenters without, but to control irregularities 
 and dissensions w^ithin the churches. Though anticipating 
 somewhat the current of events, convenience and logical 
 method induce me to consider them here. 
 
 The irregularities referred to occurred in connection with 
 the Great Awakening so-called, which appeared in 1740 and 
 1741. It swept over the Colony like a whirlwind, '' extending 
 to old and young, to gray headed sinners, and even to little 
 children." (Trumbull, ii, 143.) Of course it was attended 
 
64 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 by extravagances, confusion, and error. The clergy and the 
 people took sides, the young, more impulsive and enthusiastic, 
 urging it on, the older, more considerate and suspicious, shak- 
 ing their heads and holding back. The former were called 
 l^ew Lights, the latter Old Lights. As both sides agreed, the 
 devil was very busy, w^orking fiercely for the other side. The 
 consequences were animosities, passionate and bitter strife, and 
 the division of churches. The General Assembly, backed by 
 men of greatest influence and the college, was as usual cautious 
 and conservative, the magistrates taking the lead. For a season 
 it looked on and forbore, but at length, to prevent fanatical 
 preachers, irritated by lay exhorters, from roving about the Col- 
 ony, neglecting their own duties, and interfering with those of 
 others, on the plea that the settled ministers were asleep or 
 scandalously unfaithful, it enacted, in May, 1742, that any 
 minister who left his own congregation to preach to anotlier, 
 without the '' express invitation" of the minister and church 
 of the latter, should be denied the benefit of any law for the 
 support of the ministry — that is, of any law enforcing the pay- 
 ment of his salary. It inflicted the same penalty on all the 
 attending members of any Association (of ministers) which 
 should invade the rights of any other Association in granting 
 licenses to preach, etc. If any person, "not a settled and 
 ordained minister," presumed to preach or exhort publicly 
 where not invited, he was required for each offense to give a 
 bond for " one hundred pounds lawful money" (specie) " not 
 again to oflend." If a foreigner or stranger, whatever his 
 ecclesiastical character or relations, did the same thing, he was 
 to be sent away as a vagrant — conveyed by warrant in charge 
 of the constables, from town to town, out of the Colony. The 
 Rev. Samuel Finley, afterward President of the College of 
 New Jersey, who received a call from an association of Sepa- 
 rates, so termed, in Milford, was served in this way. After 
 the indignity, with the spirit of a martyr, he returned and 
 preached in New Haven. He was again arrested and treated 
 as before. To meet cases of this kind an act was passed, in 
 October, 1743, requiring that any one who returned, after hav- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 65 
 
 ing been forcibly removed, should be apprehended, and, if 
 found guilty, " bound in the penal sum of one hundred 
 pounds, lawful money, to his good and peaceable behavior till 
 the next county court," while the County Court was author- 
 ized to further bind him during its pleasure. 
 
 In New London, a company of Separates or JS'ew Lights, 
 established an academy, or institution called the " Shepherd's 
 Tent," in charge of Eev. Timothy Allen, previously the minis- 
 ter of West Haven. It was designed to qualify young men as 
 exhorters, teachers, and ministers. (Caulkins' !N^ew London, 
 •i53.) Fearing it might " train up youth in ill principles and 
 practices," the General Assembly, in October, 1Y42, forbade 
 the setting up or maintaining any school not already provided 
 for by law^, and imposing a penalty of five pounds per month 
 on the school-master. The scholars and those harboring or 
 boarding them were to be proceeded against '' according to the 
 laws respecting transient persons." A transient person was 
 then treated as a vagrant, who might become a pauper. He 
 was not allowed to abide in any town without the permission 
 of the town authorities. If he did so after having been warned 
 to depart, he was doomed to pay twenty (afterward ten) 
 shillings per week. If he could not pay, and did not leave in 
 ten days after sentence, he (or she) was to be whipped on the 
 naked body not exceeding ten stripes. If he came back after 
 having been forcibly sent away, he (or she) was to be whipped 
 ten stripes for returning, the operation to be repeated " as often 
 as there shall be occasion." This was the "tramp law" of 
 that day. 
 
 It is probable that the " Shepherd " felt constrained to hang 
 up his crook and let loose his flock, perhaps abruptly, when the 
 news of the new law reached the " Tent." 
 
 Many of the New Lights, complaining of the apathy, or 
 " deadness," of the established churches and tlieir ministers, 
 seceded from them and set up new ones, organizing under the 
 law of 1Y08 made for " the ease of such as soberly dissent." 
 They thus secured the privilege of having worship and a min- 
 ister of their own, but were not excused from taxation for the 
 
66 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 support of the churches thej had left. The second society of 
 Milford was formed in this way. The old society, the town, 
 the county association, and General Assembly, all frowned on 
 them, and opposed their plans ; so " they put themselves under 
 the presbytery of 'New Brunswick," hoping doubtless to escape 
 what is now called " home rule." For about twelve years, till 
 May, 1750, in addition to their own heavy burdens, they were 
 compelled to pay the usual taxes for the benefit of the first 
 society. (Trumbull, ii, 338.) The same hard fate awaited 
 those who seceded from the old society of New Haven, over 
 which the Rev. Joseph Noyes, a conservative of very decided 
 views, was settled. Dr. Bacon in his " Historical Discourses," 
 and Dr. Dutton, in his " History of the JS'orth Church," give 
 interesting accounts of the separation, and the events connected 
 with it. All this was done long after dissenting Churchmen, 
 Quakers, and Baptists had been, successively, released from the 
 liability to support or give encouragement to any societies but 
 their own. 
 
 To put an end, as far as possible, to further division of the 
 churches and congregations by innovators proposing dissent, 
 the Assembly, in May, 1743, repealed the law of 1708, which 
 law had been construed to authorize and legalize their proceed- 
 ings. At the same time it enacted that sober dissenters, being 
 Protestants, '' and such persons as having any distinguishing 
 character by which they may be known from the Presbyterians 
 and Congregationalists, and from the consociated churches 
 established by the laws of this colony, may expect the . indul- 
 gence of this Assembly," after having qualified themselves 
 according to law. As I understand it, this curious and absurd 
 act promised indulgence to Protestant dissenters who might 
 formally apply, with full permission to worship in their own 
 way, provided their faith, forms, and practice differed essen- 
 tially from the Congregational — provided, in other words, their 
 religion was of the kind which the Assembly had always dis- 
 couraged and opposed. Members of the established churches 
 must renounce tlieir orthodoxy and embrace other opinions, 
 before they could hopefully petition for the privileges of the 
 Act of 1743. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 67 
 
 In October, 1749, tlie Assembly directed that the law of 
 1708 " for the ease of such as soberly dissent " should be printed 
 with the revised laws of 1750. Thus was that reasonable act 
 revived. None of the enactments designed to suppress the 
 errors and follies of the New Lights, and to punish the authors, 
 were continued in the revision. The excitement had run its 
 appointed course, and there was no longer a pretense for extra- 
 ordinary laws. They were shamefully severe, but of a kind 
 not uncommon at that day. After all, it is difficult to say 
 whether the disease or the remedy prescribed for it was the 
 worse. 
 
 The fair-minded, conscientious Dr. Trumbull denounces 
 tliese laws in good set terms. They were " an outrage to every 
 principle of justice, and to the most valuable rights of the sub- 
 ject — a palpable contradiction and gross violation of the Con- 
 necticut bill of rights." They " dishonored the servant of 
 God, vstained his good name, and deprived him of all the tem- 
 poral emoluments of his profession, without judge or jury, 
 without hearing him, or knowing what evil he had done." 
 They were the result of " a concerted plan of the Old Lights, or 
 Arminians, both among the clergy and civilians, to suppress, 
 as far as possible, all the zealous and Calvinistic preachers ; to 
 confine them entirely to their own pulpits ; and at the same 
 time to put all the public odium and reproach possible upon 
 them, as wicked and disorderly men, unlit to enjoy the com- 
 mon rights of citizens." 
 
 These laws were bad enough, certainly, but no worse than 
 others which the doctor does not condemn with half the fer- 
 vency. It was wrong, grossly so, to deprive the minister of 
 that which was his due, but it was not less so to compel men 
 to hear him preach, and to pay for a service which they did not 
 desire, and to whicli they were conscientiously opposed. 
 
 Dr. Trumbull published the second volume of his History of 
 Connecticut when he was eighty-two years of age, say in 1818. 
 More than four-ninths of it (he says '' about a third ") are de- 
 voted to ecclesiastical history, the most difficult of all to write. 
 The author's syinpathies and prejudices did not often get the 
 
68 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 better of liis judgment, but evidently tlie events he describes 
 occurred too near his own time, as he himself suggests. He 
 seems to have taken a prof essional and personal interest in them. 
 His feelings became enlisted, as shown by the liberal way in 
 which he mingles preaching with history. Having made up 
 his mind who, in the main, was right, he buckled on his armor, 
 and thenceforth had a cause to maintain and a side to defend, 
 ^o one can write history faithfully and well, who, at the outset, 
 has somebody, some sect, or party, or policy, to vindicate — or if 
 he can, he conscientiously won't. A weakness common to us 
 all will not permit it. The persons whom Dr. Trumbull cen- 
 sures were not bad men, but quite the contrary. As a class 
 they were eminent for wisdom, virtue, and religion. They were 
 misguided, it is true, as good men frequently are. Not as well as 
 we do did they know how to deal with excitement in its epidemic 
 form. Their opponents were disorderly, often provokingly so. 
 No doubt l)oth sides were sincere, as men heated by religious 
 zeal usually are. Sincerity does not always exclude unsanctified 
 passion. 
 
 For many years after the settlement of Connecticut, internal 
 peace and harmony prevailed in church and commonwealth. 
 The people were contented with their government, religion, 
 liberty, and the guarantees j)rovided for each. Generally they 
 were church-members, men of rigid morals, intrepid and cour- 
 ageous, who left comfortable homes for a wilderness because 
 willing to make sacrifices and endure hardships for their con- 
 victions. But soon it was observed that an important change 
 was going on. As usual in new settlements, death was very 
 busy. Some returned to England to fight the battles of Parlia- 
 ment against the King. There were a few new arrivals, and a 
 new generation, faster than the old, was coming on the stage. 
 The additions and substitutions, on the whole, lowered the stan- 
 dards of morality and religion. Sadly it was observed that the 
 proportion of church-meml)ers was diminishing. Young parents 
 neglected to have their children baptized. The congregation, 
 in some cases, claimed the right to choose the pastor, and to 
 
EAKLY GOVERNMENT OJ^ CONNECTICUT. 69 
 
 share with tlie cliurch other privileges which had previously 
 been denied. Great plainness gave place to comparative luxury 
 and ostentatious display. Young women, and perhaps their 
 mothers, studied the fashions and dressed more than their qual- 
 ity or means justified. Too often the young men, after having 
 defied the school-master, got wild and ungovernable, sowing the 
 undomesticated oat when they should have been thinking of 
 the solemn realities of matrimony and the life beyond. Some 
 of the more fiery rode furiously through the towns, " endanger- 
 ing the lives of themselves and others," so that, at a later period, 
 the court imposed a fine of five shillings for riding (no driving 
 then) faster than " an ordinary and easy hand gallop." (Conn. 
 Col. Rec, ii, 110.) Others (a little older probably), tiring of 
 civilization, took up their abode with the Indians, leading " a 
 profane course of life," for which heathenish practice the As- 
 sembly, October, 1 642, ordered that the offenders should " suffer 
 three years' imprisomnent at least," and submit to whatever fine 
 or corporal punishment the particular Court might impose. 
 The youth of both sexes thouglit their fathers austere, their 
 religion too self-denying and laborious. They probably consid- 
 ered a Sunday service too long which lasted " full three hours " 
 — the time allowed by the Assembly to Mr. Walker, of Strat- 
 ford. (Conn. Col. Rec, ii. 111.) In connection with these 
 evidences of loose thinking and practice, idleness, vagabondism, 
 licentiousness. Sabbath-breaking, tavern-haunting, drunkenness, 
 tol)acco-taking, profanity, "casting out pernicious speeches" 
 against the Commonwealth, reviling of ministers and magis- 
 trates, contemptuous behavior towards tiie word preached, lying, 
 extortion, defrauding of creditors, card-playing, gaming, and 
 other vices and immoralities, against each of which there was a 
 stringent law, became common. As early as 1640, so numerous 
 were offenders, and so " stubborn and refractory " were they 
 when held for trial and punisliment, tliat a house of correction 
 or prison, twenty-four feet by sixteen or eighteen, with a cellar, 
 was ordered and soon tenanted. It is presumed to have been 
 erected in Hartford. In May, 1664, " an addition to the prison- 
 house " became necessary. Tliree years later othei*s were 
 
YO EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 wanted, and the three destitute counties, Kew Haven, New 
 London, and Fairiield, were ordered eacli to provide one. I do 
 not find tliat the prisons were ever occupied, more than now, by 
 those charged with " profuse and extravagant spending " of 
 the public money, as the record hath it. (ii, 242.) 
 
 In the early period of which I have been speaking, appear- 
 ances indicate that the law-makers, courts, constables, and select- 
 men all had their hands full, their fussy activity, as now, leaving 
 but feeble traces of a reformatory influence. Human nature 
 and its infirmities were the same two hundred and thirty or 
 forty years ago as in our time, nor can we ex23ect a change so 
 long as the controlling law of heredity is ignored or despised. 
 Did I know when a wiser and better use would be made of that 
 familiar law, I could tell when (without a miracle) the millen- 
 nium would begin. As the case now stands, the civilized 
 human animal is tlie one which derives least benefit from it. 
 Largely we expend our energies to secure the survival and per- 
 petuity, not of the fittest, but of the basest. 
 
 With sorrow it must be said that intemperance existed early 
 in Connecticut. Of English parentage, it came, doubtless, with 
 the immigrants, took root, and found a congenial soil. Historians 
 forget to mention it. At the outset, the farmers planted their 
 apple orchards. For present use they made home-brewed or 
 " household beer." So soon as a little trade sprang up, they 
 obtained (at first probably by the way of Boston) rum from the 
 West Indies, wine from Madeira and Fayal, and strong beer 
 from England. As a part of their military outfit, the little 
 band of Pequot warriors, in 1637, was provided with " one 
 hogshead of good beer for the captain and Mr. [minister] and 
 sick men, three or four gallons of strong water, two gallons of 
 sack." To meet a growing demand, tippling houses and dram 
 shops were opened. In these places young men gathered, 
 drinking deep and staying late. As now, doubtless, drunkards 
 reeled through the streets, or fell by the wayside. As early as 
 August, 1639, five men were censured and fined from ten to 
 thirty shillings each, for " unseasonable and immoderate drink- 
 ing." To correct a great abuse, the license system was adopted 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 71 
 
 in February, 1644. To still further limit the evil, the Court 
 ordered, May, 1647, that no person should remain in any vict- 
 ualing house, drinking wine, beer, or hot water, longer than 
 half an hour ; nor might any one draw more than one pint of 
 sack for three persons, or deliver wine to be taken away without 
 an order from the master of a family. Except in cases of neces- 
 sity, and in small quantities, inn-keepers were forbidden to sell 
 hot water ; and as bell-punches had not then been invented, 
 they were required to give an account of their doings on de- 
 mand. For any delinquency they received the censure of the 
 Court. This law was made more severe in 1650, and fines 
 attached to disobedience. Getting drunk after that cost the 
 offender ten shillings ; excessive drinking, three shillings and 
 fourpence ; tippling more than half an hour, two and six- 
 pence ; tippling after nine o'clock at night, five shillings. If 
 payment were not forthcoming the guilty party was sent to 
 prison, " or set in the stocks one hour or more, in some open 
 place, as the weather will permit." For the second offense the 
 fine was doubled, for the third trebled. If the forfeit could 
 not be paid, the man found drunk was whipped ten stripes, and 
 the hard drinker kept in the stocks for three hours, weather 
 permitting. If reformation did not follow, imprisonment did, 
 till a sufficient bond was furnished for good behavior. (Conn. 
 Col. Kec, i, 533-4.) 
 
 In October, 1654, tlie orchards had come into bearing, and 
 cider was produced cheaply and abundantly. The thirsty 
 farmers made it a common drink. In the mean time " the 
 great and crying sin of drunkenness" had extended to the 
 Indians. In an important sense, the whites were the authors 
 of their misery. They sold them cider and strong beer, so the 
 Court imposed a fine on the seller of five pounds for every 
 pint of any kind of intoxicating drink, except ordinary house- 
 hold beer, sold or given to the Indians, one-third to go to the 
 infonner. So much of the prohibition as related to cider was 
 repealed in March, 1659, and reonacted in October, 1660. At 
 about the same time an import duty of twenty shillings a butt 
 w^as imposed on wine, and of five shillings an anchor (about 
 
72 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ten gallons) on liquors. An order was also passed that no 
 corn or malt should be distilled, the fact indicating that corn- 
 whiskej of domestic manufacture had been or was about to be 
 added to the list of intoxicating drinks. 
 
 To restrain the greed of venders the Assembly ordered, in 
 October, 1674, that no inn-holder or ale-house keeper should 
 sell cider at more than fourpence a quart, or liquors at over 
 fourpence a gill, but there was no penalty. In May, 1699, 
 vintners, ordinary keepers, and retailers were forbidden to take 
 above eight pence in money for a pint of Madeira wine, six- 
 pence a pint for Fayal wine, twopence a gill for rum, and two- 
 pence a quart for cider or strong beer. The forfeit was ten 
 shillings, one-half to go to the informer. Were a law which 
 aimed to secure cheap " drinks" proposed now, we should 
 think it the work of demagogues baiting their murderous 
 hooks for rabble votes. 
 
 To the besetting sin of intemperance, our fathers, as I have 
 shown, gave much anxious thought. Like their successors, 
 they regarded it as a frightful evil, a dangerous and degrading 
 vice, and wrestled with it perse veringly. But they did not 
 practice total abstinence, or believe in universal prohibition as 
 a duty. Honestly, no doubt, they thought stimulating drinks 
 a blessing, a solace and relief when properly used, and a curse 
 only when abused. With this conviction they endeavored per- 
 sistently to separate the good from the evil, the beneficial from 
 the pernicious, and to facilitate the work adopted the license 
 system. Limitations, restrictions, and severe penalties were 
 imposed, but the laws were violated, and the system as it then 
 stood lost credit. In May, 1695, the General Assembly, find- 
 ing " that excessive drinking was increasing, and that the mul- 
 tiplying of licensed houses is the occasion of disorders," called 
 in all licenses except those held by inn-keepers, and turned 
 over the business to the towns and county courts, they to re- 
 quire a bond from those receiving licenses of ten pounds each, 
 the same to be forfeited if they did not "keep good order 
 according to law." 
 
iEARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Chapter IY. 
 
 Ill July, 1647, died the Rev. Thomas Hooker, " the father 
 and pillar of the American churches" — " than wliom no more 
 ilhistrions mind came from the mother country to New Eng- 
 land." (Centennial Papers, p. 157.) During his lifetime, 
 owing perhaps to his personal influence and commanding 
 abilities, there was nothing to disturb the concord and mutual 
 confidence which prevailed in the meeting-houses and among 
 the faithful. But erelong the peace was rudely broken, and 
 bitter strife took its place. It began in the church at Hartford, 
 one of the most enlightened and exemplary in New England, 
 then in charge of Rev. Samuel Stone. Elder Goodwin com- 
 plained that a "member had been admitted, or baptism admin- 
 istered" in a way " inconsistent with the rights of the brother- 
 hood, and the strict principles of the Congregational churches." 
 Dr. Trumbull, a man of charity, thinks he may have imagined 
 himself not properly consulted (i, 311). The controversy 
 inflamed and divided the church, and soon spread to the 
 neighboring churches. The Avliole people were maddened by 
 the conflict, as if their religious institutions were in instant 
 peril. Prejudice, passion, the pride of opinion, and the desire 
 to vancpiish, as usual, mingled in the strife, and hindered rec- 
 onciliation. In 1654 and 1655, or about that time, several 
 councils of the neighboring elders and churches were called, 
 without effect. In this emergency, certain elders of the Bay 
 volunteered assistance, and at a later date they or others came 
 to Hartford, but accomplished nothing. " The parties became 
 more alienated and embittered than before." Governor Web- 
 ster, Mr. Whiting, Captain Cullick, Mr. Steele, Andrew Bacon, 
 and other influential gentlemen of Hartford took the side of 
 Mr. Goodwin. The latter and his aggrieved associates esteem- 
 ing themselves the defenders of true Congregationalism, as 
 they were refused dismission, withdrew from the church. Mr. 
 Stone is said to have had Presbyterian proclivities. 
 6 
 
74 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 All along, tlie Assembly had viewed the controversy with 
 intense interest, and on several occasions, in a sorrowful spirit, 
 had suggested measures which, it was hoped, would lead to a 
 settlement. But when the " withdrawers" proposed to unite 
 with the Wethersfield church, the Court set up its authority, 
 and forbade further proceedings in that direction. It also 
 ordered a cessation of hostilities, understood to be of a disci- 
 plinary character, on the part of the Hartford church, " till 
 the matters in dispute could be brought to an issue in the way 
 the Court might determine." This was in March, 1658. As 
 if a permanent separation and a second church were appre- 
 hended, certain acts already referred to {ante, p. 354) were 
 passed, forbidding the setting up or entertaining and attending 
 any church or church administration without the approbation 
 of the General Court and neighboring churches. 
 
 At the next session, a few days later, Mr. Stone and the 
 church on one side, and the opposition on the other, were de- 
 sired to meet in private conference, in company with the 
 Governor and Deputy Governor (Winthrop and Wells), and 
 endeavor to adjust their unhappy differences. If they could 
 not agree, letters were to be sent to the elders at the Bay and 
 others, asking their advice as to " what the Court should do in 
 the premises." At about the same time, Mr. Stone presented 
 a petition with a request that certain questions, which were 
 named, might " be reasoned syllogistically before the honored 
 Court," he and the dissatisHed brethren to argue "face to 
 face." He affirmed that the malcontents were still members 
 of his church ; that their " sin was exceeding scandalous and 
 dreadful," and that the controversy was " not in the hands of 
 the churches to be determined by them ;" meaning, I suppose, 
 that his church would not willingly submit to outside inter- 
 ference. (Conn. Col. Eec, i, 317.) 
 
 Though foiled, hitherto, in every attempt to secure peace, 
 the General Court was not discouraged, nor seemingly annoyed 
 that its advice was unheeded. It was probably too much 
 grieved to be provoked by the refractory spirit exhibited. 
 Preferring persuasion to authority, but using whichever prom- 
 

 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 75 
 
 ised most, it went on with its endea^vors. In August, 1658, a 
 vote was passed requiring '^ each party to choose three elders, 
 as able and indifferent as the times will afford, before whom 
 (the questions having been beforehand plainly stated) the case 
 shall be publicly disputed, to the issuing of the controversy 
 according to Clod." The elders were to give what light they 
 could, and both parties to submit to their decision. If either 
 refused to choose, the Court was to act for it. Tlie withdrawers 
 named Mr. Davenport, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Fitch. The 
 church refusing to choose, the Court named Mr. Cobbet, Mr. 
 Mitchell, and Mr. Danforth. The council was to meet in 
 Hartford on the seventeenth of September following. At the 
 same session, the eighth of September was appointed as a day 
 of '* humiliation to implore the favor of God " on account " of 
 the intemperate season, thin harvest, sore visitation by sick- 
 ness in several plantations,* and the sad, prolonged differences 
 that yet remain unreconciled in the churches and plantations ; 
 and that (-rod would succeed the means appointed for the heal- 
 ing of the aforesaid differences." 
 
 This council, says Dr. Trumbull, never convened, owing 
 apparently to the contumacy of the parties interested ; so the 
 baffled Court, after further fruitless endeavors to secure acqui- 
 escence in its plans, concluded, in March, 1659, to act independ- 
 ently. Without heeding opposition, it proceeded to call a 
 council in its own name, asking the churches to send "their 
 ablest instruments." The questions at issue were to be publicly 
 disputed, while those opposed to the movement could be repre- 
 sented or not, as they chose. In either event, the parties were, 
 as on previous and subsequent occasions, to share the expense 
 between them. 
 
 Elders and messengers from several of the more prominent 
 churches of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Haven, assem- 
 
 * During the summer of 1658 much sickness prevailed. Governor 
 Winthrop and his wife were "very ill" in Hartford. In New Haven, 
 where the disease was of an intermittent character, Mrs. Davenport was 
 among the afflicted. The distemper also raged in Norwalk, Fairfield, 
 Mashpeag, among the Dutch in Manhadoes, and on Long Island, where 
 the Indians suffered greatly. (See Bacon's Hist. Discourses, 373-5.) 
 
Y6 EARLY GOVERNMENT OP CONNECTICUT. 
 
 bled in Hartford in June. Tliej " were abundant in their 
 labors," and successful, not in healing the breach, but in 
 softening prejudices, soothing excited feelings, and bringing 
 friends long estranged nearer together than they had been for 
 years. The Assembly was so much pleased with the result 
 that, at its session in June, another meeting of the council was 
 requested in August (1659), "to whose decisive power" the 
 withdrawers were required to submit, the church " freely en- 
 gaging" to do so. In the way of preparation, a day of '' sol- 
 emn humiliation, partly for England [Richard Cromwell had 
 abdicated], partly for our own selves, partly for the season," and 
 in part for '^ the council, that God would bless their labors," was 
 appointed. That reverend body met in due season, and was 
 again, to a certain extent, successful ; but in the mean time 
 Grovenior Webster and fifty-nine others, weary of the quarrel, 
 had signed an agreement, dated April 18, 1659, binding them- 
 selves "to remove into the jurisdiction of Massachusetts." 
 About two-thirds or more of the number, including Webster 
 and Goodwin, a,nd a dissatisfied company from Wethersfield, 
 did finally (in 1659, says Chapin) remove, settling Hadley in 
 Massachusetts (see Hinman's First Puritan Settlers, pp. 
 92, 158) ; but a separation, owning to the improved temper of 
 the combatants, and perhaps to the apprehended effects of the 
 removals on the temporal welfare of the churcli, was for the 
 time prevented. Full of gratitude for the success of the coun- 
 cil and for other blessings, the Court at its session in IN^ovem- 
 ber, designated the last day of the month (Wednesday) as a 
 day of public thanksgiving. 
 
 The controversy in the Hartford church was continued under 
 Whiting and Haynes, the successors of Mr. Stone, Whiting sym- 
 pathizing with the rigid Webster, Goodwin, and others ; Haynes 
 and a majority of the church with the more liberal views of 
 the innovating Stone. The final result was the division of the 
 church in October, 1669, Mr. Whiting, on petition, being 
 allowed by the Court " to walk distinct," and " practice in the 
 Congregational way without disturbance." Four out of nine 
 assistants, and fourteen out of thirty -three deputies (if all were 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 77 
 
 present), voted against this act of indulgence. (Conn. Col. 
 Rec, ii, 120.) An act bad previously (May, 1669) given liberty 
 to all persons '^ approved according to law as ortbodox and 
 sound in tbe fundamentals of tbe Cbristian religion to bave 
 allowance of tbeir persuasion and profession in cburcb ways or 
 assemblies witbout disturbance." (Conn. Col. Rec, ii, 109.) 
 Tbis act, designed apparently to prepare tbe way for divisions 
 of tbe cburcbes of Hartford and Windsor (wbicb were formally 
 autborized at tbe October session), seems to bave been misun- 
 derstood by Mr. Hollister in bis History. He regards it as a 
 general act of toleration, giving dissatisfied persons liberty to 
 dissent " from tbe Congregational or establisbed religion," pro- 
 vided " tbey sbould conduct tbemselves peaceably, and sbould 
 be Cbristians." Tbey (tbe colonists), be continues, "were will- 
 ing to tolerate peaceable Cbristians, and passed an act to em- 
 brace tbem all." Under tbis law, be repeats, " all denomina- 
 tions were allowed to worsbip God in tbeir own way, provided 
 tbey did not commit a breacb of tbe peace." (Hist. Conn., ii, 
 528-9.) Tbe facts are widely different. 
 
 Tbe Hartford controversy, if measured by its duration and 
 tbe wide-spread commotion it occasioned, or by tbe perverse- 
 ness, embittered feeling, and eminent respectability of those 
 who took part in it, was tbe most memorable of its time. It 
 introduced contention and disorder into all the churches, and 
 entered into tbe aifairs of tbe towns and of the whole people. 
 Nobody, not even the renowned Cotton Mather, or those who 
 were living at the time, have told us exactly what it was about, 
 or bow it began, except that in some way it related to " tbe 
 qualifications for baptism and church -membership, and the 
 rights of the brotherhood." (Trumbull, i, 322.) According 
 to the imaginative, often quoted Mather, " from tbe fire of the 
 altar there issued thunderings, and lightnings,, and earthquakes 
 throughout the Colony." It is not necessary to call in ques- 
 tion the honesty of either side in the controversy. Zeal, as all 
 admit, was superfiuously abundant. (For interesting papers 
 relating to the Hartford C^ontroversy, edited by Mr. Trumbull, 
 see Coll. Conn. Hist. Society, vol. ii.) 
 
 / 
 
78 EARLY GOVEENMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 The clmrch at Wethersfield took a deep interest in the Hart- 
 ford dispute. Only four miles away, it could not well hold 
 itself aloof. It became "divided and contentious." John 
 Ilollister and others made complaint to the General Court in 
 March, 1658, that their minister, Mr. Russell, had brought 
 great scandal on the church, and that they were " affraid to 
 venture their souls under his ministry." They asked liberty to 
 procure another minister. The Court thought Mr. Russell 
 censurable, but not as bad as represented. It therefore denied 
 the request, and advised the hostile parties to "" walk lovingly 
 together," which they were careful not to do. In March fol- 
 lowing, Lt. Hollister had been excommunicated without receiv- 
 ing a copy of the charges against him. After reproving Mr. 
 Russell for disregarding the practices of the churches, the Court 
 ordered a committee " to desire, and if need be, require of him 
 and his church the particular charges or offenses for which Mr. 
 Ilollister was censured." In March, 1661, when "a large 
 majority of tlfe members of the church had removed to Hadley " 
 (see Chapin's Glastenbury, p. 36), certain persons claimed that 
 the church had become extinct, but the General Court settled 
 this matter by declaring " that the said church is the true and 
 undoubted church of Wethersfield, and so to be accounted and 
 esteemed." 
 
 The people of Middletown were dissatisfied with Mr. Samuel 
 Stow, their minister. The Court, discovering " the unsuitable- 
 ness of their spirits," in October, 1660, gave them " free liberty 
 to provide for themselves another able, orthodox, and pious 
 minister, as soon as they could, he to be approved by Mr. 
 Warham, Mr. Stone, and Mr. Whiting, taking in the help of 
 the worshipful Governor (Winthrop), and Mr. Willis." When 
 this had been done, Mr. Stow was directed " to lay down his 
 preaching there ;" but till a substitute was obtained, the town 
 was ordered to pay his salary, he continuing his ministry. In 
 March following, Mr. Stow's people were declared to be " free 
 from him as their engaged minister," l)ut they were ordered to 
 give him " letters testimonial," and forty pounds for his labor 
 the year previous. Meanwhile he had liberty to preach to 
 those who would hear him till another minister was obtained. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 79 
 
 Having reached an advanced age, Mr. Warhani, of Windsor, 
 desired a colleague. Many candidates were invited to preach, 
 but tlie people could not agree. There were always two par- 
 ties, an^l none could please both. If one approved, the other 
 violently opposed. Heated controversy and ill-temper followed. 
 (Trumbull, i, 485.) Apparently there was only sufficient relig- 
 ion in the quarrel to rouse the feelings and give edge to the 
 temper, not enough to inspire with the grace of charity. As 
 they refused advice, the General Assembly felt constrained to 
 interfere. In October, 1667, when Mr. Nathaniel Chauncy 
 occupied tlie pulpit, it " desired and required " that the free- 
 men and householders of the town should meet and bring in 
 their votes to Mr. Henry Wolcott for a minister, the " written 
 papers" to be counted for Mr. Chauncy, the blanks against 
 him, all present to forbear discourse which " may provoke and 
 disturb each others spirits." Out of one hundred and thirty- 
 eight votes, Mr. Chauncy had eigiity-six. Immediately the 
 minority petitioned for liberty to have a minister of their own. 
 It was granted on condition that they procured an able, ortho- 
 dox one whom the Assembly should approve. The other side 
 had permission to settle Mr. Chauncy. As the result a second 
 society was formed. 
 
 Soon after, Mr Benjamin Woodbridge appeared in Windsor, 
 and in October, 1668, had " liberty to keep a lecture there once 
 a fortnight, on the fourth day of the week .... and not on 
 the Sabbath without liberty from the Rev. Mr. Warham." At 
 the same time a committee of four eminent elders was appointed 
 to hear both sides, and at the conclusion " to settle an accommo- 
 dation between the church and the dissenting brethren," if this 
 were possible. Nothing was accomplished. Both ministers 
 continued to preach, and the battle raged for twelve yeare 
 more. In October, 1680, the Court, considering the "sorrow- 
 ful condition " and " bleeding state " of the people of Windsor, 
 concluded " to exert its authority .... and put a stop to the 
 troubles there." It ordered that the two societies should unite, 
 that both the ministei*8 be released from fui'ther service, that a 
 new one, orthodox and al)le, should be procured, and that who- 
 
80 EAKLY GOVEKNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ever hindered or opposed would do so at his peril. This exer- 
 cise of undisputed power closed the war. Mr. Samuel Mather 
 was called, and after two years ordained as the minister of the 
 town. The Assembly gave some directions about admissions to 
 the church, and then told the people that it " expected that no 
 trouble would be given by any person or persons, and that all 
 would quietly attend Mr. Mather's ministry," contribute to his 
 maintenance, and give him encouragement. (Conn. Col. Rec, 
 iii, 104.) They obeyed, and "harmony and brotlierly affec- 
 tion " returned. (Trumbull, i, 497.) 
 
 In October, 1669, the Assembly having heard that the people 
 of E-ye, then included within the limits of Connecticut, had 
 no orthodox minister, and took no care to obtain one to " in- 
 struct them in the ways and will of God," seeming content " in 
 the improvement of John Coe and Marmaduke Smith, persons 
 unsound and heterodox in their judgments, if not scandalous in 
 their lives," authorized Nathan Gold and three others to call 
 before them the persons named, or any other in the town, and, 
 if the facts were as represented, to take effectual measures to 
 prevent the sowing of the seeds of error there. They were 
 also to inform the settlei'S that if they did not take counsel of 
 prudence, and make provision for a suitable minister, " sound, 
 orthodox, and apt to teach " — a man approved by Mr. Bishop, 
 Mr. Handf ord, and Mr. Eliphalet Jones — the Court was resolved 
 itself to procure and settle one, and at the next session order 
 his maintenance by them. A year later the threat had not been 
 executed, and the County Court of Fairfield was authorized to 
 settle the right man, to order his support, and coerce the pay- 
 ment of his salary. Still later, Captain Nathan Gold and others 
 were desired to do the same work, and " endeavor a comforta- 
 ble composure and issue of such differences as are among the peo- 
 ple." They were to allow the preacher forty pounds per annum. 
 Notwithstanding the efforts made, the pulpit of Rye seems to 
 have continued vacant, and in May, 1674, the Court desired 
 Mr. Eliphalet Jones '' to dispense the word of God once a fort- 
 night on the Lord's day," and in October of the same year 
 Captain John Allen and others were to endeavor to obtain a 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 81 
 
 minister for Rye. In May of tlie next year, Major Nathan 
 Gold, Major Robert Treat, and Mr. John Burr were " to treat 
 with the inhabitants of Rye, and labor to accommodate mat- 
 ters so that Mr. Prudden might be settled there." In 1677, 
 Mr. Thomas Denham, recommended by the ministers of Fair- 
 tield and Stamford, was " likely to settle." At a later date, the 
 last was to be paid the thirty pounds per annum due him for 
 his service, and Mr. Prudden ten pounds for his preaching. 
 
 It should l)e noticed that the Assembly, in dealing with the 
 churches addressed itself directly to the towns, or the people 
 of the towns, there being at first no ecclesiastical societies dis- 
 tinct from the latter. All the inhabitants and legal residents 
 of the towns were members of the congregation, and under 
 the supervision of the minister and church officers. The 
 meeting-h<>use was built and the preacher paid by the town. 
 
 For several reasons I have given this brief account of the 
 earlier controversies in the churches of Connecticut. Having 
 undertaken to govern themselves on the congregational or 
 independent plan, I wished to show the measure of their suc- 
 cess. More especially I desired to set forth, in detail, the pro- 
 ceedings of the law-makers when discharging their constitu- 
 tional duty "to preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel, 
 and the discipline of the churches." It will be observed that 
 the Assembly, though capricious, was not often arbitrary, and 
 did not use more than a fraction of the power with which it 
 was invested. Seemingly, without taking sides, or yielding to 
 the influence of prejudice or passion, it acted the part of 
 pacificator, endeavoring always to secure moderation, peace, 
 union, and the good of all. Clearly, it did not desire to run 
 the churches ; did not in an officious or meddlesome way inter- 
 fere with their internal management ; but was ever ready to 
 arrest by its authority any revolutionary or erratic movement — 
 any which in its judgment was destructive of the purity of the 
 gospel and the permanent welfare of the churches. It was 
 tolerant, sorrowful, dejected, when those of the same faith quar- 
 relled, but fiercely intolerant when religious error — "heter- 
 odoxy and unsoundness" — appeared, or separation was pro- 
 
82 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 posed. Ill several cases its wisdom, discretion, and decision 
 apparently averted grave disaster. On the whole, I cannot 
 but think that the restraints it imposed, and the coercive 
 measures it occasionally and reluctantly adopted, at an early 
 and critical period of Congregational history, were conserva- 
 tive, salutary, needful. Without the exercise of some kind of 
 authority which all respected, there was danger of ecclesiasti- 
 cal anarchy, ending possibly in ecclesiastical despotism. Had 
 the churches and the eager disputants who were rending them 
 been as wise and forbearing, peace, no doubt, would have been 
 restored at an earlier date and at smaller sacrifice. 
 
 During the pendency of the absorbing question relative to 
 the Union under the Charter of 1062, the Connecticut Court 
 discontinued its efforts to secure harmony in the churches. It 
 did so, as I infer, that it might give no unnecessary offense to 
 Mr. Davenpoi-t and his friends, who strenuously resisted the 
 proposed innovations, and the measures which were leading to 
 them. The New Haven divine (autocrat, I was about to say) 
 was a powerful antagonist, and prudence dictated that per- 
 turbing church questions should be kept in the background till 
 the more pressing one which related to the Union had been 
 settled. 
 
 In the mean time, however, the Assembly ventured to make 
 an experiment, hoping thereby, probably, to draw out the views 
 of the clergy on the proposed change in the practice of the 
 churches. In answer to a " writing" or petition presented at 
 the October session, 1664, it invited " the ministers and churches 
 to consider whether it be not their duty to entertain [or re- 
 ceive] all persons of an honest and godly conversation, [etc.] in 
 church fellowship, and that they have their children baptized," 
 the latter when grown up and duly qualified to be admitted to 
 full communion. It also desired that the churches " would be 
 pleased to consider whether it be not the duty of the Court to 
 order the churches to practice according to the premises, if 
 they do not practice without such an order." If any dissented, 
 or in other words were opposed to the " half-way covenant" 
 privileges, so-called, they were requested to help the Assembly 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 83 
 
 witli siicli light as was in them. Tliey did dissent, and the 
 law-makers, liaving made known their '{)reference8, with ex- 
 emplary modesty subsided. They had no thought of crowd- 
 ing or crossing their spiritual leaders, or in any way pressing 
 their own views. 
 
 The Union having been made secure, the Court again gave 
 its particular attention to the distracted condition of the 
 churches. It resolved, if possible, to put an end to contro- 
 versy, and in October, 1666, with more spirit than usual, 
 ordered that a synod should be called, and when met that " the 
 questions presented should be publicly debated to an issue." 
 It further ordered that " all the preaching elders and ministers" 
 of i\\Q Colony should be sent as members. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. 
 Brown, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Glover, of Massachusetts, who 
 were expected to favor the wishes of the Assembly, were desired 
 to be present and give assistance. The questions to be disputed 
 were stated by the Court, but no attempt was made to inter- 
 fere with the freedom of discussion ; no hint given as to the 
 decision which was wanted and would be accepted. Not quite 
 accurate is the statement by a distinguished author that the 
 convention was designed to be used as a means " to farce the 
 new system into operation." (Contributions to the Ecclesiasti- 
 cal History of Connecticut, p. 27.) 
 
 The ministers were ready to obey the order to convene, but 
 were not willing that their meeting should be called a synod, 
 or be invested with sy nodical powers, on the ground appar- 
 ently that the independence of the churches was threatened. 
 (Trumbull, i, 481.) The Court, convinced of its mistake, saw 
 " cause to vary the title," and named the proposed synod " an 
 assembly of the ministers of the Colony." The change, no 
 doubt, was acceptable to the clergy, but not as much so to the 
 government. If anywhere there was coercion, the law-makers 
 were the coerced party. The reverend body with its new^ 
 name met in May, 1667, voted not to debate the questions pro- 
 posed as required, and adjourned till autumn. The majority 
 of the members would not adopt or approve the inno^'ating 
 practices which the civil authority wished introduced. 
 
84 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 *' The churches continued in their former strict method of 
 admitting members to their communion, and maintained their 
 right to choose their ministers, witliout any control from the 
 towns or parishes. ... It was insisted, as necessary to the bap- 
 tism of children, that one of the parents at least should be a 
 member in full communion with the church." " Owning the 
 covenant," so-called, gave the applicant no privilege. (Trum- 
 bull, i, 482.) 
 
 As no change of opinion was expeeted at the adjourned 
 meeting, and as a profitless conflict might be the result, the 
 Assembly was afraid of it, and seemingly hedged to prevent it. 
 It had the exclusive right to make all the laws, civil and eccle- 
 siastical, but for suflicient reasons refused to use its power in 
 opposition to the orthodox ministers. The indulgence which 
 it extended to that class was in striking contrast with its treat- 
 ment of other classes, especially when religious error was 
 charged. Conscience outside of the established faith had no 
 rightful authority, and imposed no limit on legislation. 
 
 After having made another half-hearted and futile attempt 
 to convene a general council to settle " matters of faith and 
 order," in accordance with a recommendation of the Commis- 
 sioners of the United Colonies, the General Court was at length 
 convinced that the clergy would yield nothing willingly. They 
 would not give up their matured opinions, nor change their 
 ancient practice at the dictation of councils, synods, ecclesi- 
 astical assemblies, or any outside authority. Conceding for 
 the moment the independence of the churches individually, the 
 Court, weary of dissension and disorder, tried another plan. In 
 May, 1668, it " desired Rev. James Fitcli, of l^orwich, Mr. 
 Gershom Bulkley, of Wethersfield, Mr. Joseph Eliot, of Guil- 
 ford, and Mr. Samuel Wakeman, of Fairfield, to meet at Say- 
 brook" in June following, "to consider some expedient for 
 peace, and how the churches and people may walk together 
 within themselves and one with another in the fellowship and 
 order of the gospel, notwithstanding some apprehensions among 
 them in matters of discipline respecting membership and bap- 
 tism," etc. Apparently, it longed for peace at almost any 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 85 
 
 price ; was anxious that tlie churches should, among them- 
 selves, consider and adopt some scheme to secure it, and was 
 quite willing to sacrifice its own preferences if hy so doing that 
 happy end could l)e attained. The committee reported in 
 May, 1669 (report on file), and at the same session the Assem- 
 bly passed the remarkable vote (elsewhere qiloted in full), 
 allowing certain persons of worth and piety, "orthodox and 
 sound according to law, to have allowance of their persuasion 
 and profession in church ways," etc. This enactment. Dr. 
 Bacon says, " appears to have been intended as a compromise." 
 (Contributions to tlie Eccles. Hist, of Conn., p. 27.) It seems 
 to me to be a general act of indulgence, permitting all, on cer- 
 tain conditions and within the prescribed limits, whatever their 
 views, to enjoy their opinions " without disturbance." Presum- 
 ably, its authors had in mind the impending or threatened dis- 
 ruptions of the Hartford and Windsor churches, which were 
 authorized at the October session of the same year. Consid- 
 ered in this light, the act has special significance and does 
 hojior to the heads and hearts of those who framed and passed it. 
 
 Though a majority of the clergy for a long time opposed the 
 lower standard of qualifications for baptism and church fellow- 
 ship, they at length, when left wholly to themselves (the Gen- 
 eral Court having abandoned its attempts to unite them in some 
 plan for self-government), began to think better of the " new 
 way," and at the close of the century had adopted the practices 
 they previously condemned. Under the old dispensation, " the 
 number of chiirch-members in full comnmnion was generally 
 small, and where owning of tlie covenant was not practiced, 
 great numbers of children were not baptized." A revolution, 
 in these particulars, followed the change — a revolution with dis- 
 astrous results, as many contend. 
 
 It has l)een claimed that the civil government was " meddle- 
 some" in its dealings with the churches, and " constantl}' per- 
 nicious " in its influence. I have read the record to little pur- 
 pose if the facts do not warrant a different conclusion. As an 
 illustration of its treatment of individual churches, take the 
 case of the Hartford controversy. It began in the church, and 
 
86 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 with no outside interference raged tiercely, till it became evi- 
 dent that there was no power inside to control excesses or 
 limit the mischief. When the General Court was appealed to, 
 in May, 1656, for a redress of grievances, it did nothing but 
 appoint a committee of the highest officers of the government 
 "to advise with the elders" of the Colony, and "to crave their 
 help and assistance " in the emergency. It took no step, ap23ar- 
 ently, without consultation with the ministers, and was always 
 anxious to devise some way by which the churches could, 
 among themselves, settle their disputes. Seeking to attain the 
 desired end in this way, it called council after council, and at 
 length required the warring factions to submit to the decision 
 or advice of mutual friends. It did not endeavor to enforce its 
 own judgments, and forbore to use its constitutional right till 
 the " withdrawers" were about to take a step which was deemed 
 revolutionary, if not fatal. Promptly, it interposed, and by 
 its authority stopped the movement, without harming anybody. 
 No doubt the Court was annoyed by the frequent appeals' 
 made to it as the final tribunal by the parties involved in 
 church quarrels, and to escape a difficult duty was quite willing 
 to transfer its jurisdiction and responsibility to some other 
 body better fitted to discharge the function of ecclesiastical 
 government. At length, when the voluntary system had 
 broken down ; when associations of ministers, councils, and 
 conferences had proved impotent, and tlie churches had run 
 into great confusion and disorder, the Assembly, with the sup- 
 port or general acquiescence of the clergy and people, again 
 interposed. In May, 1708, it appointed a synod, ratified the 
 Saybrook Platform which was the result of its deliberations, 
 and transferred to the " General Association^of Connecticut " 
 so much of its authority as was deemed needful for the interna] 
 government and discipline of the churches, and the prompt and 
 peaceful settlement of dangerous controversies and contentions. 
 Thenceforth the General Court was relieved of many perplex- 
 ing duties and annoyances, but it still considered itself at the 
 head of the ecclesiastical system, and did not lose sight of its 
 obligation to protect the churches and preserve the faith. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 87 
 
 Chapter Y. 
 
 For a long period after its settlement Connecticut was not 
 harassed l)y dissenters from the established religion. Its re- 
 mote and secluded situation, away from the seaports, the inlets 
 of mischief, doubtless saved it from some of the annoyances 
 which tried the temper and more than once nearly wrecked 
 the reputation of Massachusetts. Tor the first twenty years it 
 had no law against that class of disturbers, the fact proving 
 that there was no occasion for any. But in July, 1656, two 
 Quakers (women), and soon after two others (man and woman), 
 were landed at the Bay. They appeared (not unexpectedly) 
 soon after a public fast had been held there, partly on account 
 of the alarming errors which that ^'accursed and pernicious 
 sect" was propagating in England. That Colony was pro- 
 foundly agitated. The new-comers were turbulent and fanat- 
 ical, insulting magistrates and reviling ministers and churches. 
 Official dignity was offended, religious sentiment shocked, and 
 decency scandalized. Instead of treating the offenders as 
 lunatics, the government, led by the zealots. Governor Endi- 
 cott, Lieut. Governor Bellingham, and ^oi'ton, the minister of 
 Boston, resolved to drive them away, as it had done the Bap- 
 tists, by savage laws — laws which it was hoped, perhaps, it 
 would not be necessary to execute. Blind zeal and obstinacy 
 on one side were matched by infatuated perverseness on the 
 other. The Quakers w^ould not go, and if banished came back 
 at the cost of their lives. They courted the penalty, and got it 
 in full measure. 
 
 In the beginning of the frenzy, at the instigation of Endi- 
 cott and the magistrates of Massachusetts, the Commissioners 
 of the United Colonies proposed to the several General Courts 
 that they should prohibit Quakers and Ranters coming into 
 their respective jurisdictions, and secure and remove them if 
 they came. (Hazard, ii, 347, 349.) In compliance with the 
 request, the General Court of Connecticut, in October, 1656, 
 
88 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ordered that no town should " entertain any Quakers, Kanters, 
 Adamites, or such like notorious heretics" '^ above the space of 
 fourteen days, on penalty of five pounds per week." Two 
 magistrates were authorized to commit the intruders to prison 
 till they could be sent out of the Colony. Masters of vessels 
 landing any were required to take them away on the first 
 opportunity, or pay a fine of twenty pounds. In August, 
 1657, this law was amended, and a penalty of iive pounds 
 imposed on every person for each heretic he should entertain, 
 and five pounds per week on any town for. each heretic it 
 should permit to be entertained, and the like penalty on every 
 person (except magistrates, assistants, elders, or constables) 
 wdio should unnecessarily speak, more or less, with any heretic. 
 In October of the same year, the keeping (except by elders) of 
 Quaker books or manuscripts containing Quaker errors was 
 made a finable offense, ten shillings to be paid for each trans- 
 gression. 
 
 In September, 1658, the Commissioners of the United Colo- 
 nies, then in session in Boston, " propounded and commended 
 to the several general courts to make a law that all Quakers 
 once convicted and punished as such, shall, if they again offend, 
 be imprisoned, and forthwith banished under pain of death, 
 and afterward if they come again he put to death as presumpt- 
 uously incorrigible, unless they publicly renounce their cursed 
 opinions and devilish tenets." This recommendation is signed 
 by all the commissioners except one, Josiah Winslow, of 
 Plymouth, wdio was probably absent. John Winthrop, of 
 Connecticut, then Deputy Governor, has appended to his name 
 these words : " looking at the last as a query and not as an act, I 
 subscribe," meaning, I suppose, that he approved all except 
 the death penalty. Massachusetts ^lone was unwise enough to 
 pass the act, and carry it into effect. It is probable that that 
 much bewildered Colony, desirous of pursuing a more rigorous 
 policy, and wanting the moral support of the other members of 
 the Confederacy, was at the bottom of this impolitic and inde- 
 fensible movement on the part of the Commissioners. But 
 whoever prompted the legislation referred to, Connecticut was 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 89 
 
 not misled. It prudently followed the conservative course 
 suggested by the qualified approval of its favorite representa- 
 tive, Governor Wintlirop. All that the General Coui*t did 
 was to authorize, in October, 1658, the magistrates or assist- 
 ants to punish " Quakers and such like heretics found foment- 
 ing their wicked tenets, and disturbing the public peace, bj 
 fine, banishment, or corporal punishment, as they judge meet, 
 the same to be inflicted on any person instrumental in bringing 
 heretics into the Colony, provided the fine for a particular 
 default exceed not the sum of ten pounds." 
 
 The more tolerant legislation of Connecticut, as compared 
 with that of Ma^ssachusetts and the New Haven Colony, would 
 be inferred from the milder epithets it applies to the Quakers. 
 In one instance they are called " loathsome heretics," but 
 never does the Court pronounce them or their opinions 
 " accursed." 
 
 During the prevalence of the Quaker frenzy in New Eng- 
 land, chiefly in Massachusetts, a contemporary authority quoted 
 by Palfrey (ii, 484), says : Three were martyred or hung, one 
 a woman ; three had their i-iglit ears cut off ; one was branded 
 in the hand with the letter H (heretic); thirty-one persons 
 received six hundred and flfty stripes, several " with pitched 
 ropes ;" one was beaten till his body was like a jelly ; one is 
 now lying in fetters condemned to die. All these cases oc- 
 curred in Massachusetts. Her laws were no more severe than 
 those of Episcopal Virginia. 
 
 It does not appear, says Di-. Trumbull (i, 442), that the laws 
 of Connecticut against the Quakers were ever executed. I can 
 And nothing which contradicts the statement, but Bishop, 
 (juoted by Palfrey, says that two women " were imprisoned 
 several days, and some of their clothes sold to pay their fees." 
 (ii, 484.) Much harsher laws of the New Haven Jurisdiction* 
 
 * The law of May, 1658, required that any of that "cursed sect of 
 heretics, called Quakers," coming into the Colony, should at once attend 
 to their lawful business and depart. They were forbidden to " use any 
 means by words, writings, books, or any other way go about to corrupt 
 or seduce others, nor revile or reproach, or any other way make disturb- 
 ance or offend, and shall (for the prevention of hurt to the people) have 
 7 
 
90 EARLY GOVERKMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 were not a dead letter. The truth is the river settlements 
 were not harassed and tempted like Massachusetts, or even 
 IN^ew Haven and the adjacent towns. The former, in particu- 
 lar, was regarded bj aspiring and fanatical propagandists in 
 search of opposition and persecution as a conspicuous iield for 
 missionary work, where the laborer would have the largest 
 opportunities and the surest success. Very few of the new 
 sect seem to have crossed the borders of Connecticut, while 
 those that did so behaved better than others who were more 
 violently resisted. When persecution abated, and martyrdom 
 was no longer attainable, they soon became orderly and peacea- 
 ble, and finally obtained a reputation in contrast with their 
 early ravings. 
 
 In July, 1675, the General Court " saw cause at present to 
 suspend the penalty for absence from our public assemblies 
 [religious meetings], or imprisonment of those of that' [Quaker] 
 persuasion, provided they do not gather into assemblies nor 
 make any disturbance," though they were still liable to pay taxes 
 for the support of the orthodox religion. 
 
 The extraordinary lenity which characterizes this law was 
 probably in some way connected with the great Indian war, 
 called King Philip's war, which had suddenly broken out, and 
 created consternation throughout the Colony, and especially in 
 
 one or more to attend u\.on them." Should they transgress they were 
 to "be committed to prison, severely whipped, kept at work, and none 
 suffered to converse with them," till they could be sent out of the Juris- 
 diction. If they returned, they were to be branded in the hand with 
 the letter H, imprisoned, and again sent away. For the third offense 
 they were to be branded in the other hand, and otherwise treated as 
 before. If they again returned, whether men or women, the act 
 required that they should ' ' have their tongues bored through with a 
 hot iron." Fifty pounds was the penalty for bringing into the Jurisdic- 
 tion any Quaker; twenty shillings per hour for entertaining him; forty 
 shillings for defending Quaker opinions the first time, eighty the second 
 time, and imprisonment and banishment the third. He who brought 
 Quaker books into the Colony must pay five pounds, and for concealing 
 them five pounds more. By the magistrates and others into whose 
 hands they came, with the advice and approbation of the ministers, 
 they were to be kept safely, ' ' that none may see and read them, and so 
 receive hurt," etc. (N. H. Col. Rec, ii, 240.) 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 91 
 
 New London County, near the seat of war. The Assembly 
 made strenuous efforts for the defense of the exposed towns, 
 and at the close of the session in July, passed the act referred 
 to. By its means the government probably intended to concil- 
 iate and invite the good will and kindly offices of the Quakers, 
 chiefly of Rhode Island, whose friendly relations with the In- 
 dians qualified them for important service in this sad emergency. 
 How long the law was suspended I know not, but the time 
 seems to have been short. 
 
 While Connecticut, for the moment, was inclined to greater 
 indulgence, Massachusetts pursued the opposite course. Con- 
 ceiving that the war was a chastisement for the sins of the 
 Commonwealth, and that the milder legislation wliicli had been 
 adopted towards the Quakers was one of the offenses which 
 had called down the wrath of heaven,^ the General Court, hop- 
 ing to make amends for this particular wickedness, passed an 
 act designed to break up Quaker meetings. It required that 
 every person found in attendance should be committed to the 
 house of correction, and kept at work for three days on bread 
 and water, or pay a fine of five pounds in money — which law, 
 at that late day, " lost the Colony many friends," says Hutchin- 
 son, (i, 289.) ^ ■ 
 
 In his answer to certain queries addressed to him by the 
 English Lords of Trade, Governor Leete, in July, 1680, re- 
 ported that there were in Connecticut " four or ^ve Seven-day 
 men and about as many Quakers," not enough of either to be 
 dangerous, nor to require any special legislation. This, of course, 
 was long after the union (in 1665) with the New Haven Colony. 
 Of the other denominations, (irovernor Leete says : " some are 
 strict Congregational men, others are more large Congregational 
 men, and some moderate Presbyterians. The Congregational 
 men of both sorts are the greatest part of the people." (Conn. 
 Col. Rec, iii, 290.) 
 
 *When their great enemy, John Norton, the minister of Boston, died 
 suddenly in a fit, April 5, 1663, the Quakers represented his death as a 
 divine judgment. " By the immediate power of the Lord he was smit- 
 ten and died." 
 
92 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 In the revision of 1702, the laws of October, 1658, and July, 
 1675, do not appear, but those previously enacted are continued 
 as one act, with little change. The Quakers of England, in a 
 petition to the Queen (Anne), complained of its severity, and 
 in October, 1705, it was annulled. At the next session, in May, 
 1706, the General Court moved in the matter (as if this were 
 necessary), and repealed the law '' so far as it respects Quakers," 
 leaving other " heretics " as much exposed to its penalties as 
 they ever were. Yery clearly, the Queen's proceeding made 
 void the whole act. (See Col. Rec, iv, 546.) 
 
 The conduct of the colonists in the Quaker alarm shows how 
 little confidence they had in religious liberty, and how much in 
 restriction and coercion. They were terror-stricken ; their re- 
 'ligion was supposed to be in danger, and the civil power nmst 
 bestir itself. They were under the influence of epidemic frenzy, 
 and while the panic was on, could not be expected to behave 
 with decency. It is true the intruders were unruly and slan- 
 derous ; the enemies of order, good morals, and the institutions 
 of the country. Though tlie victims of persecution, in speech 
 they were themselves ferociously intolerant. As violators of 
 wholesome laws and disturbers of the peace, they deserved pun- 
 ishment, or at least restraint. An organized political community 
 has a right to protect itself from the evils of vagrant emissaries 
 and mischief-makers, to remove them from the society and 
 the privileges they abuse, and to prevent their return, using as 
 much force as may be needful; but it has no right to impose 
 excessive or disproportionate penalties. Properly, in some cases, 
 they might have been whipped for vagrancy, or imprisoned if 
 they returned after banishment, but they were guilty of no 
 crime which deserved death. They were hung because they 
 were Quakers and heretics, maintaining '^ cursed opinions and 
 devilish tenets," not for vilifying magistrates, ministers, and 
 churches ; not because their women made indecent exhibitions 
 of themselves, walking the streets in a nude state. Of heresy 
 the colonial governments (Rhode Island excepted) had a mortal 
 fear — fear betraying lack of confidence in the steadfastness and 
 intelligence of the people. The Quakers proved not to be dan- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 93 
 
 gerous propagandists, perhaps because their manifest extrava- 
 gance destroyed tlie propagating or infections principle. 
 
 It is customary, in history, to defend a sect or party accused 
 of wrong by pleading that others, perhaps the accusers them- 
 selves, were equally or more guilty, and that the offense 
 charged must be judged, not by the standard and practice of 
 our time, but by those of the period in w^hich the actions 
 criticised were performed. I admit that allowance should be 
 made for education, example, custom, and existing standards, 
 and that our judgments, at all times, should be tempered with 
 charity ; but I still think that virtue, justice, and right are 
 independent realities, having qualities which are unchangeable. 
 The fact should be noted that when New^ England was settled, 
 and long afterward, religious persecution was universal, or 
 nearly so. In England, as elsewhere, each denomination 
 persecuted every other when it got the power. To ascertain 
 which w^as the oppressor, it w^as necessary only to know which 
 was the strongest. From that quarter in this matter came 
 laws and practices which none can justify. In this regard, 
 Connecticut has, perhaps, a cleaner (or, say, a less begrimed) 
 record than any other well-governed community. But it* 
 should be remembered that we all live in glazed houses and 
 that promiscuous stone-slinging is not a profitable game for 
 any to begin, nor an easy one to end. 
 
 The iirst settlers of Connecticut, unlike their brethren at the 
 Bay, were not annoyed "by the Baptists. In 1680, however, 
 there were (" probably all in New London, and nearly all in 
 the Rogers family") " four or five Seven-day men and about so 
 many more Quakers." The Eogerenes, so called, did not 
 wholly agree with either Baptists or Quakers, but were a sect 
 by themselves. Passionate, denunciatory, and defiant, they 
 took delight in doing whatsoever would shock the opinions or 
 prejudices of the orthodox and ruling party. They upbraided 
 the judges and courts, labored on the Sabbath, disturbed 
 religious meetings, railed at the ministers as hirelings, and 
 would not help support the churches. Having a rare talent 
 ior invective, they cultivated it assiduously. For a long 
 
94 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 period, beginning about 1680, the local authorities, reinforced 
 by the General Assembly, made strenuous endeavors to con- 
 trol excesses and suppress the sect, using the copious legisla- 
 tion devised for other purposes, all without effect. The offend- 
 ers laughed at the confusion and vexation their turbulence 
 occasioned, and would not be quieted. As law-breakers, they 
 were set in the stocks, whipped, fined, fettered, and impris- 
 oned. Their leader, John Rogers, a man of extraordinary 
 energy and endurance, spent nearly one-third of the active 
 part of a long life in jail. "Attempts w^ere made to weary 
 them out and break them up by repeated fines. Their estates 
 melted under the seizures of the constable," and the njagis- 
 trates could scarcely find officers willing to distrain. The 
 minister's rate was particularly obnoxious. To satisfy it were 
 taken " now a cow, then a few sheep, the oxen at the plow, the 
 standing corn, the stack of hay, the threshed wheat, piece after 
 piece of land, all to uphold a system they denounced" and 
 abhorred. As transgressors they ostentatiously volunteered the 
 information necessary for their own conviction, and gloried in 
 the sacrifices they were forced to make. 
 
 John Rogers, mainly, no doubt, an honest, but naturally a 
 perverse man, was finally declared to be insane, and fled to 
 New York, chased by the officers of the law. He sought 
 to avoid the threatened medical treatment — the only punish- 
 ment from which he ever ran. He returned in three months, 
 and renewed his assaults on the institutions and laws of the 
 colony. Had he lived half a century earlier, he would proba- 
 bly have been banished, and on his return hung, if the Bay 
 had been his home. He was certainly an offender qualified to 
 try the patience of a long-suffering people. There is not much 
 doubt that he was a monomaniac, whose infirmity had been 
 aggravated and made fast by opposition and persecution. A 
 prolific writer, he died in 1Y21, aged seventy-three. (See 
 Caulkins' History of New London, 1860, p. 201 and onward.) 
 
 Though prohibitions and punishments had failed to reduce 
 to obedience a handful of disorderly, pertinacious, and pugna- 
 cious non-conformists, the statute-makers, after nearly half a 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 96 
 
 century of trial and disappointment, seem to have learned 
 nothing. In May, 1723, a law entitled an "Act for preventing 
 Disordci-s in the worship of God " was enacted, which, seem- 
 ingly, was designed to break up some well-known practices of 
 the Rogerenes. It was a faint imitation, or greatly mitigated 
 form, of one of the worst laws in English history, known as 
 the Conventicle act. Its fii"st section required "that whatso- 
 ever persons should neglect public worship in some lawful 
 congregation on the Lord's day, and form themselves into 
 separate companies in private houses" (for religious services) 
 should each for every offense forfeit twenty shillings. As the 
 fine for not worshiping publicly w^as only five shillings, the 
 other fifteen shillings must have been considered a punishment 
 for worshiping privately. The remaining section imposed a 
 penalty of ten pounds, and whipping, not exceeding thirty 
 stripes, for each offense, on any one not an allowed or lawful 
 minister who should profane the holy sacraments by adminis- 
 tering baptism. In the revision of 1750 the last section was 
 omitted, and the forfeit mentioned in the first reduced to ten 
 shillings. 
 
 For nearly seventy years from its settlement, the only evi- 
 dence of the existence in Connecticut of any calling themselves 
 members of the Church of England, is found in a petition to 
 the General Court, dated October 1-7, 1664. The subscribers, 
 "professors of the Protestant Christian religion, members of 
 the Church of England, and subjects of our sovereign lord, 
 Cliarles the second," " having seriously pondered our past and 
 present want of those ordinances which to us and our children 
 as members of Christ's visible church ought to be administered," 
 " declare our aggrievances, and petition for redress." " Our 
 aggrievance is [they continued] that we and ours are not under 
 the due care of an orthodox ministry that will in due manner 
 administer to us those ordinances that we stand capable of, as 
 the baptizing of our children, our being admitted (as we accord- 
 ing to Christ's order may be found meet) to the Lord's table, 
 and a careful watch over us in our ways," etc. In their desti- 
 tution, they humbly requested " some wholesome law by virtue 
 
96 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 wliereof we may both claim and receive of sncli officers as are 
 or shall be by law set over us in the church or churches where 
 we have our abode and residence those fore-mentioned privi- 
 leges or advantages." They requested, too, " that, for the 
 future, no law may be in force to make us pay or contribute to 
 the maintenance of any minister or officer in the church that 
 will neglect or refuse to baptize our children, and to take care 
 of us as of such members of the church as are under his or their 
 charge and care." 
 
 This document, printed in the Church Review, vol. x, 
 p. 106, is signed by William Pitkin and six others. Mr. Pitkin, 
 of Hartford, was a prominent man, attorney for the Colony, 
 a deputy in 1675, and public treasurer in 1677. 
 
 In introducing this paper the Bevieio sets forth the signers 
 as (among others) the early churchmen of Connecticut, '' con- 
 tending with disabilities and annoyances." My persuasion is 
 that they were not churchmen at all, or were not more than 
 many others who did not join in the Petition. I can iind no 
 evidence that there were, at that time, or for many years after- 
 ward, any of that denomination in the Colony. Apparently, 
 tliey were persons who had become involved in the bitter con- 
 troversies of that period. They considered themselves entitled 
 to certain church privileges which were denied them, and for 
 a temporary purpose, perhaps to give dignity to opposition, 
 declared themselves members of the Church of England, as they 
 may have been before leaving the mother country. The docu- 
 ment itself proves that the petitioners were half-way covenant 
 men, so called, who claimed admission to the Lord's supper and 
 baptism for their children — rites which, in the opinion of every 
 true churchman, the Congregationalists of New England were 
 not authorized to administer, and which, coming from such a 
 source, could have no saving efficacy. Their grievance was that 
 their ministers, having the requisite authority, refused, wrong- 
 fully, to exercise it in their favor, leaving them "as sheep 
 scattered, having no shepherd." Eor this reason they claimed 
 that they should not be compelled to maintain them. 
 
 Clearly, the signers had the sympathy of the General Court, 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 97 
 
 Perhaps the latter wanted an excuse for action. In harmony 
 with this view, the Court desired the ministers and churches to 
 consider whetlier it were not their duty to receive into church 
 fellowship, " all persons who are of an honest and godly conver- 
 sation, having a competency of knowledge in the principles of 
 religion, and shall desire to join them in church fellowship, by 
 an explicit covenant, and that they have their children baptized, 
 and that all the children of the church be accepted and 
 accounted real members, and that the church exercise a due 
 Cliristian care and watch over them," etc. The Court also de- 
 sired to kmnv whether it w^ere not its "duty to order the 
 churches to practice according to the premises." The ministers 
 dissented, and the order was not made. 
 
 When the Quaker spasm was over, the churches and people 
 were able, without annoyance from heretics, to give their atten- 
 tion more exclusively to internal dissensions. We have seen 
 how poorly they acquitted themselves in that direction. When 
 all were wearied with theological wrangling, the more prac- 
 tical controversy with the ISTew Haven Colony awakened new 
 emotions. After the union of the two colonies, in 1665, under 
 the charter, there came to New England the king's commission- 
 ers to investigate and report. They visited Connecticut, and 
 submitted " propositions " to the Court. Among other things, 
 they required " that all persons of civil lives may freely enjoy 
 the liberty of their consciences, and the worship of God in that 
 way which they think best, provided that this liberty, tend not 
 to the disturbance of the public, nor to the hindrance of the 
 maintenance of ministers regularly chosen." They demanded 
 something similar of the other colonial governments, alw\iys, 
 (loul)tle8s, in obedience to instructions. In 1660, before his 
 accession to the throne, the king (CJharleS II), to secure popular 
 favor, promised liberty of conscience, and afterward, for a time 
 at least, seemed willing to keep his word. He did several things 
 w^iich give countenance to that idea. The charter of Connecti- 
 cut was certainly jin example of singular liberality. Ilhode 
 Island's charter, granted in July, 1663, expressly declared that no 
 person should* be molested for " opinion in matters of religion." 
 
98 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 In a conciliatory letter addressed to the Governor of Mas- 
 sachusetts, in June, 1662, the king commanded "that all free- 
 holders of competent estates, not vicious in conversation and 
 orthodox in religion, though of different persuasions concerning 
 church government, should have their votes in the election of 
 all officers, both civil and military.""^ The command was un- 
 heeded, and two years later commissioners were sent over to 
 look after this and other matters, without important result. To 
 his immediate subjects in England, in December, 1662, the 
 king publicly proposed to ask Parliament to concur with him 
 in an act for the relief of " tender and misguided consciences." 
 
 Several years later he issued a Declaration of Indulgence, 
 suspending all penal laws against dissenters, but was soon com- 
 pelled to retract. Parliament, having then but iif ty-six Presby- 
 terian members, was unalterably opposed to him. The Protestant 
 non-Conformists were the avowed enemies of universal tolera- 
 tion. They would not accept liberty if the Pomish church 
 must share it. In this regard, Charles, it was said, was a hypo- 
 crite, and secretly a Papist, plotting for Catholic emancipation. 
 It may be so, but in New England there were no Catholics — 
 none to l)e benefited by a successful plot. In this matter I 
 find no difficulty in thinking he may have been sincere, moment- 
 arily, at least, — as sincere as his thoughtless nature permitted. 
 Nor do I regard the fact that near the close of his last sickness 
 he received the sacrament from the Pomish priests as proof of 
 the contrary. When in health and the full possession of his 
 faculties, my suspicion is that he had not religion enough of 
 any kind to influence much his conduct. Though Charles had 
 some good qualities, the bad predominated. He was profligate, 
 faithless, irresolute, indolent, and always needy. Naturally he 
 was not cruel ; but notwithstanding his professed regard for 
 liberty, some of the most flagitious laws in English history 
 received his assent — the Corporation act and the Act of Uni- 
 formity in 1662, the Conventicle act in 1663, the Five Mile 
 act in 1665, and the Test act in 1673. 
 
 But what answer did the General Court give to the king's 
 * Hazard, ii, 605. 
 
EARLY GOVP]RNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 99 
 
 commissioners who required liberty of conscience in Connecti- 
 cut ? This is the reply : " We know not of any one that hath 
 been troubled by us for attending his conscience, provided he 
 hath not disturbed the public " (Conn. Col. Rec, i, 439) — an 
 adroit answer. Though evasive, it was literally correct — cor- 
 rect because there were then none (seemingly) who desired to 
 worship in other than the legal and approved way. There- 
 fore, no man's liberty could be infringed. In his " Narrative " 
 of the Commissioners' proceedings, the writer states that 
 '* they [the colonists] will not hinder any from enjoying^ the 
 sacraments, and in using the common prayer-book, provided 
 that they hinder not the maintenance of the public minister." 
 Had the narrator said that none were kept from the sacraments 
 whom the churches approved, and that all might be freemen 
 who complied with the laws, his statement would have agreed 
 with the facts. As for the prayer-book, I believe the early 
 planters never objected to its use, but would doubtless have 
 done so had they been asked to make it the basis of their pub- 
 lic worship. Ti^vidently they made a great effort to please their 
 royal visitors, and furnish satisfactoiy ariswers to all questions, 
 some of them knotty ones. They succeeded, as the king after- 
 ward signified. 
 
 Says Douglass, in his Summary (ii, 135), ''I never heard of 
 any persecuting spirit in Connecticut ; in this they are egre- 
 giously aspersed." The second volume of his work was printed 
 in 1753, only ten years after the notorious New Light legisla- 
 tion, which Dr. Trumbull and Dr. Dutton condemn so ve- 
 hemently. The same writer characterizes the revised laws of 
 1750 as "the most natural, e(iuitable, plain and concise laws for 
 Plantations hitherto extant." I believe this commendation, at 
 the time it was bestowed, was well deserved. Comparatively 
 speaking, Connecticut shows to advantage in the Code of 1750. 
 The winnowing process had been intrcjduced, and great im- 
 provements made. But the laws still enjoined conformity, and 
 imposed penalties for non-conformity. They did not permit 
 liberty of conscience, for lil)erty allows one to choose his relig- 
 ion, to select the church he would attend or not attend, to 
 
100 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 worship when and where he pleases, and in all cases to follow 
 his conviction in peace. Men who desired to give outward 
 form to their belief, or proposed to set up a church or church 
 administration, were constrained to ask the consent of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, and adopt some approved or regulation pattern. 
 The Conventicle act of 1723 was still in force. 
 
 The eight or ten unassorted Quakers, Baptists, and Roger- 
 enes, of New London, whom Governor Leete reported to the 
 king's commissioners, had not yet become notorious, and when 
 they, did were at first too few to create general disturbance. 
 
 About 1706, the Episcopal form of worship was introduced 
 into Fairfield County, and in a few years made important prog- 
 ress. On account of the power and patronage which stood 
 behind it, it was a form which took Connecticut at a disadvan- 
 tage — one with which it was least able to contend. The Colony 
 was, in truth, under a heavy bond to behave with decency ; had 
 a charter which it valued above all things temporal. By discreet 
 management hitherto, this had been preserved in times of peril, 
 and should not now be lost by persistence in imprudent legis- 
 lation. Nor was it probable that the English government, 
 having by the '' Toleration act " of 1689 granted important 
 relief to the dissenters in England, would permit the national 
 church and its supporters to be rouglily treated or forcibly 
 suppressed in the colonies. The act referred to repealed no 
 part of the tyrannical legislation which drove the Puritans from 
 their native country, but removed, on certain conditions and to 
 a limited extent, the penalties attached to disobedience. There 
 was in it no recognition of religious liberty as a right, but on the 
 contrary a denial. Restriction was still the rule, liberty the ex- 
 ception. "A very scanty measure " of justice (Hallam), which 
 repealed nothing, it was a forced concession on the part of the 
 established church to the dissenters who had helped to overturn 
 the Stuart dynasty — a reluctant reward for indispensable- services 
 rendered. Eoman Catholics and those who denied the Trinity 
 were expressly excluded from its benefits. Great care was 
 taken that the act should be no broader tlian was necessary, 
 nor confer privileges which could with safety be withheld. Col- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. lOl 
 
 oiiial legislation, so far as it prescribed penalties for certain 
 kinds of non-conformity, was in conflict with it, if not with the 
 charter of 1662. The continued allowance of these conflicting 
 laws was probably due to the fact that they were not com- 
 plained of, or were not brought to the notice of Parliament. 
 By their operation churchmen, and others not of the Congre- 
 gational order, were exposed to penalties which were not inflicted 
 on the dissenters of England. They did not " enjoy the liberty 
 of their consciences, and the worship of God in the way they 
 thought best,'' about which the royal commissioners inquired 
 to little purpose in 16Q6. Bancroft's glowing account of liberty 
 in early Connecticut (History, ii) is inspiring, or would be were 
 there no exaggeration or embellishment. His detonating sen- 
 tences remind one of a running fire of Chinese crackers on the 
 morning of the "glorious fourth." He writes eulogy better 
 than history. 
 
 Under the circumstances, Connecticut could scarcely do 
 otherwise than pursue the respectful .and ccmciliating course 
 which had distinguished its policy since the restoration of 
 Charles II, in 1660. By the force of this policy the charter 
 was secured, and a good reputation maintained at the English 
 court. King Charles himself complimented the Governor and 
 council on their " dutifulness and obedience," and contrasted 
 their conduct with the "refractoriness" of the Massachusetts 
 Colony. (Conn. Coh Rec, ii, 514.) Civility costs nothing, 
 and not infrequently pays a round profit. The same is some- 
 times true of timely concession. Undoubtedly Connecticut 
 thought so, and in May, 1708, passed the famous "Act for the ease 
 of such as soberly dissent," etc. It provided that sober dissenters, 
 who were prepared to take certain " iron-clad oaths," to " qualify 
 themselves before the County Court, according to an. act made 
 in the first year of William and Mary [1689], granting liberty 
 of worsliiping God in a way separate from that which is estab- 
 lished by law," should " enjoy the same liberty and privilege in 
 this Colony, without molestation." It assumed that Congrega- 
 tionalism in Connecticut was the e(piivalent of Prelacy in 
 England, having equal rank and authority, and a rightful pre- 
 
102 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 eminence among denominations. It gave to churchmen and 
 other dissenters in the Colony certain privileges which for nine- 
 teen years non-Conformists (Papists and Unitarians excepted) 
 had enjoyed in the mother country. If, as its terms imply, it 
 followed the English law, it compelled all who sought its beneiits 
 to take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe to 
 the declaration against transubstantiation. The clergy were to 
 sign all but three, and parts of two others, of the thirty-nine 
 articles. The appearance before the County Court, in obedience 
 to a Puritan law, of churchmen pledging solemnly for the sec- 
 ond time their belief in their own articles, would have been an 
 unusual spectacle, and it is probable that the humiliation was 
 not required, though the colonial law seemed to demand it. 
 Those who took the benefit of the act were still liable to taxation 
 for the support of the established ministry, as they were and 
 continued to be in England till the passage of the Compulsory 
 Church Kates Abolition Act, in 1868. (31 and 32, Yict., 
 Ch. 109.) 
 
 The privileges granted by the law of 1708 were important, 
 but, of course, did not satisfy the dissenters of Connecticut. 
 As their number increased and their influence was extended, 
 they became bolder, and more importunate for concessions. The 
 friends of the Episcopal church, though at this time (172Y) "a 
 weak and slender body," having but a single minister in the 
 Colony (Beardsley's Hist, of the Episc. Chh. in Conn., i, 73), 
 were zealous, active, and successful in winning converts. Backed 
 as they were by the great influence of the English Society for 
 the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts — a society 
 which lipped to supply the alleged lack of " religious instruc- 
 tion " in the New England colonies — they felt confidence 
 enough to resist the collection of the tax for the support of the 
 standing order. For their refusal ten were imprisoned in Fair- 
 field, where they were numerous. The church-wardens and 
 others, of Fairfield, then memorialized the General Assembly, 
 praying for relief. At the May session, 1727, the prayer was 
 granted. The act provided that all should be taxed as before, 
 but in places wliere there was an English church having a set- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 103 
 
 tied minister " in orders," that portion of the tax collected from 
 churchmen residing sufficiently near to attend the service, and 
 attending it, should be delivered to the minister of said church. 
 If the sum thus delivered was inade(|uate, the society was 
 authorized to make up the deficiency by a levy on its own 
 members. Churchmen were also relieved from the burden of 
 helping to build meeting-houses. 
 
 In towns containing two ministers, one of the church of 
 England, the purpose of the act seems to have been to distrib- 
 ute equitably the parish taxes, without unnecessary encourage- 
 ment to the missionaries of the Society for Propagating the 
 Grospel, wlio were making earnest efforts, as yet in a small 
 way, to bring back the colonists to their primitive faith. These 
 missionaries were supported mainly by the Society " at home," 
 receiving usually, says Dr. Beardsley, sixty pounds sterling per 
 annum, a sum fully equal to that paid to the Congregational 
 minister. Thus they were enabled to labor without much cost 
 to their followers — a great advantage among a poor people. 
 Johnson and Caner were then stationed at Stratford and Fair- 
 field. Active, zealous, sincere, they visited the neighboring 
 villages, preaching, baptizing, and making converts, wherever 
 they w^ent. The curiosity which so novel a spectacle must 
 have excited was naturally followed, when the danger became 
 apparent, by jealousy and sometimes open opposition. The 
 lamblike element in the temper of the jjeople may have suffered 
 by the representation in England that they were, " to a great 
 extent, destitute of religious instruction" — the very thing with 
 which they supposed themsi'lves most bountifully supplied. It 
 is easy to believe that the benevolent men, who, pitying their 
 benighted condition, had come among them as instructors and 
 much needed guides to heaven, were not very cordially received. 
 Too often, ])erliap8, they were regarded as presumptuous intru- 
 ders, whose services were more needed "at home," as they 
 designated the mother country, than among themselves. 
 
 To the missionaries and their adherents the General Court 
 did not intend to give or allow unusual advantages. Evidently, 
 it meant that they should gain as little as possible from the 
 
l04 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ecouoiny of their worship caused by the contributions of the 
 Propagation Society. Nor was it disposed to favor those of 
 the Congregational faith wlio miglit cliange their religion to se- 
 cure reduced taxation. " Some few persons," said Governor 
 Talcott, in a letter to the Bishop of London, quoted by Dr. 
 Beardsley (i, 72), in order " to appear singular, or to be freed 
 from a small tax, declared themselves of the Church of England, 
 some of them living thirty or forty miles from the Church of 
 England's minister." Others took the same course when a new 
 meeting-house was to be built. These things annoyed the Con- 
 gregationalists, as they well might. Seemingly, they had 
 foreseen the difficulty, and endeavored to provide for it. If a 
 man became a churchman, the law did not exempt him from the 
 customary parish tax for the support of tlie ministry, but the sum 
 paid by him was to be given to his chosen minister, provided 
 the latter lived in the same parish or conveniently near, but in 
 no case to the itinerant missionary, whose visits were only occa- 
 sional, w^hose home, if he had any, was many miles away, and 
 whose salary was paid by others. A different course could not 
 properly have been pursued. A law directing a town to pay 
 over to the minister or church of another town any part of a 
 tax levied for the benefit of the ministry within its own limits 
 would have been an extraordinary one. I see not how the well 
 grounded complaint against the working of the Act of 1727 
 could have been removed except by allowing to each denomi- 
 nation the exclusive privilege of taxing its ow^n members — its 
 voluntary members — for its own purposes. This was denied — 
 denied, perhaps, because there would then be persons who would 
 not join themselves to any society. Doubtless it was thought 
 better that men should be compelled to support some English 
 church than to have the option of maintaining none, and of 
 living without religion. 
 
 Our fathers on botli sides of the water, when in power, claimed 
 it as a right and esteemed it a duty to make all contribute to 
 the support of the established religion, on the ground, of course, 
 that the established was the true religion. Nor do I think the 
 principle involved is yet renounced, though its assertion may be 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 105 
 
 deferred till circumstances favor success. How many in Con- 
 necticut would to-day vote for a State religion, if their own 
 could be invested with that distinction, and their denominational 
 friends he permanently installed in the government ? E-eligious 
 toleration is not natural to the human heart, even in its re- 
 newed state. It is an exotic whose roots rarely strike deep. 
 
 There were important (and doubtless honest) differences of 
 opinion as to the meaning of the Act of 1727, growing out of 
 the itinerant character of the English missionaries, and the wide 
 dispersion of their followers — differences which the courts de- 
 cided in favor of the dominant party. (See Beardsley's Hist., 
 vol. i, chap. V.) The losing side, finding no remedy, continued 
 to suffer damage, when the minister did not " abide " sufficiently 
 near his people to claim their parish rates. But notwithstanding 
 this, the law, under the circumstances, was a generous one, and 
 creditable to tlie good sense of the government. It was passed, 
 be it remembered, one hundred and forty-one years in advance of 
 a Parliamentary Act relieving dissenters in England from com- 
 pulsory parish rates, levied for the support of the established 
 church. Considering that it was asked for by a small, almost 
 insignificant minority, and was wanted to help build up a grow- 
 ing sect which sought (though from conscientious motives) to 
 undermine the religious institutions of the colony, the General 
 Court deserved the gratitude of the petitioners, at least. If the 
 latter did not obtain all they desired^ they got as much as they 
 had reason to expect. Had the English government shown an 
 ecpially liberal and tolerant spirit in 1620 and afterward, the 
 Pilgrims would never have left their native land, nor New Eng- 
 land been peopled at the time it was. The act was nothing 
 more than justice and expediency required, but men deserve 
 words of encouragement for doing that, especially in times of 
 unlimited wrong-head edness. If it be claimed, in the way of 
 disparagement, that the law-makers were under the influence 
 of political necessity, the same claim may be urged with equal 
 or greater force against the authors of the renowned Toleration 
 Act of 1689. That the imperfections of the Act did not much 
 embairass the Anglican (yhurch is, perhaps, shown by the ra])id 
 8 
 
106 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 increase of the latter, growing from " a weak and slender body," 
 in 1728, with two missionaries, to a male membership, in 1738, 
 of six hundred and thirty-six, with nine parishes and seven 
 missionaries. (Church Review, x, 112.) 
 
 It may be truly said that the law, if aiming at emancipation, 
 did not go far enough. Individuals were still denied the privi- 
 lege of choosing their religion without conditions — conditions 
 which they could not with honesty accept. They were forbid- 
 den " to neglect public worship in some lawful congregation, 
 and assemble in separate companies in ju'ivate houses." They 
 were forced to hear preaching which they did not believe, and 
 then compelled to pay for it. Their consciences were in the 
 keeping of the government, and the exercise of private judg- 
 ment was threatened with penalties. 
 
 Those who were active in procuring the legislation of 1708 
 and 1727 were very properly alive to their own wrongs, but 
 did not feel as keenly for the equal wrongs of others. They 
 sought a selfish end, giving no heed to the principle involved. 
 Like the constitution-makers of 1639, they wanted liberty for 
 themselves, not for all. Nobody just then seems to have 
 thought of the "soberly dissenting" Quakers and Baptists, a 
 very few of whom were living near the Rhode Island bound- 
 ary, in New London County. But in May and October, 1729, 
 on petition, persons belonging to these denominations " who 
 do attend the worship of God," were " excused from contrib- 
 uting to the support of the established ministry," and from 
 helping to build meeting-houses, without any reference to 
 residence or the abiding place of their ministers. 
 
 In all these cases the General Assembly proceeded on the 
 principle of conceding nothing that it could with safety or 
 decency withhold, justifying itself perhaps by the still more 
 illiberal legislation of England. Liberty was doled out in 
 fractional doses, at long intervals, as if it were a dangerous 
 element, and too costly for popular use. The right of a man 
 to his religious opinions, and the wrong of forcing him to 
 practice what his soul abhorred, were not yet acknowledged. 
 Restriction was the rule, freedom the exception, and govern- 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 107 
 
 ment tlie absolute and irresponsible dispenser of both. If one 
 did not agree with any of the tolerated sects, but was at heart 
 a Methodist, Unitarian, or Universalist, too honest to play the 
 hypocrite, too conscientious to subscribe to a faith which in 
 his judgment was unsound, he was exposed to all the severities 
 of the laws. But a change was at hand in the minds of the 
 people, and erelong came a change in legislation. 
 
 By the act of 1702, modified by others in 1721, 1750, and 
 1770, every person was required "on the Lord's day carefully 
 to apply himself to the duties of religion and piety, publicly 
 and privately, .... and dnly attend the public worship of 
 God on the Lord's day in some congregation allowed by law, 
 provided there be any he can conscientiously and conveniently 
 attend, .... or pay a fine of fifty cents," the person accused 
 to prove his innocence. (See Kevision of 1 808, p. 578.) The 
 proviso introduced in 1770 is of a kind that was unusual, if not 
 unprecedented in Connecticut legislation. It recognized con- 
 science in the world outside, and in men of different persua- 
 sions — recognized it as having rightful authority over conduct 
 opposed to the established or allowed belief. Evidently the 
 act was not intended to release any, on the ground of consci- 
 entious scruples, from attending public worship somewhere. 
 
 In 1783 closed the war of the Revolution, waged in defense 
 of political rights. Connecticut took part in it, not on account 
 of substantial grievances of its own, but out of sympathy for 
 defenseless Massachusetts. During the conflict the doctrine of 
 human rights was scrutinized, and its foundati(ms critically 
 examined. Traditicmary beliefs and whatever in philosophy or 
 religion rested on authority alone were investigated anew. It 
 was a time of upheaval, and changes would be looked for in 
 legislation ; but Connecticut, now a sovereign State, was, as of 
 old, cautious and conservative. Something, however, it was 
 constrained to do in the way of increased liberality. In the 
 revision of 1784 I find an "Act for securing the Rights of 
 Conscience." It enacted that no persons professing the 
 Christian religion, who soberly and conscientiously dissented 
 from the worship and ministry established by law, and attended 
 
108 EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 public worship bj themselves, should incur a penalty for 
 absence from the established or orthodox worship on the 
 Lord's day, or for worshiping in a separate way on said day. 
 It also declared that Christians of every denomination. Separ- 
 ates, Churchmen, Baptists, Quakers, etc., who attended and 
 helped maintain public worship agreeably to their consciences 
 and professions, should not be taxed for the suj)port of any 
 societies but their own. Those who did not belong to any 
 other society were taxed by the Congregationalists. Another 
 section of the same act decreed that all Protestant dissenters, 
 maintaining and attending j^^blic worship by themselves, 
 should have liberty to use and exercise the same powers and 
 privileges for maintaining their respective ministers, and for 
 building and repairing their meeting-houses, as had the eccle- 
 siastical societies constituted by law. 
 
 Another law in the revision of 1784, relating to '' Societies," 
 provided that all persons on reaching twenty-one years of age 
 should have liberty to choose the society to which they would 
 belong. If they did not elect in twelve months, they were to 
 be considered as legal members of the society in which they 
 were brought up, etc. New-comers could choose at leisure, 
 but, till they did so, they were required to pay taxes to the 
 society lowest in the list, this requirement showing that the 
 standing order was willing to surrender its preferred claim to 
 taxes not intended for its special benefit. When an individual 
 had once joined a society, he could not be released excej^t to 
 join another. 
 
 The revised laws referred to above seem to have taken the 
 place of the Toleration act of 1708, the anti-Rogerene act of 
 1723, the acts of 1727 and 1729, favoring Churchmen, Quakers, 
 and Baptists, certain acts against the Separates, etc. It is 
 presumed they were satisfactory to all Christian or Protestant 
 denominations, not the less so because they compelled all to 
 pay taxes for the support of the churches, and all to be church- 
 goers, willing or unwilling. Churchmen in particular ought 
 to have been satisfied, as they were generally tories during the 
 war, and gave great offense. 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 109 
 
 In May, 1816, tliat part of the Act which exacted a penalty 
 for absence from pul)lic worsliip was repealed. In appearance 
 this was done to satisfy the demands of an enterprising but bois- 
 terous party, which threatened to revolutionize the government. 
 The repealing Act, as I understand it, in effect put an end to 
 compulsory attendance on religious services of any kind. 
 The law had been in force since 1650, and was an essential part 
 of a system of constraint which was soon to crumble away. At 
 first the offense to be punished must be proved in the usual 
 way ; but in May, 1721, the rule of law was reversed, and the 
 accused required to prove innocence, or be judged guilty. The 
 virtual abolition of the compulsory go-to-meeting Act was a very 
 important concession, but it came too late to save the party in 
 power. The Assembly's action, of course, gave great grief to 
 the good men of 1816, and was a cause of gratulation to 
 fair-weather worshipers — and the heathen. But the churches, 
 notwithstanding, were, not deserted, nor in -any way weakened. 
 Religious belief is too deeply implanted to be swept away by 
 adverse legislation, or to ])erisli because not encouraged by 
 fines. 
 
 In 1817, by a coalition of all the dissatisfied elements, eccle- 
 siastical and political, the ruling dynasty was overthrown. 
 Congregationalism, considered as the dominant or State religion, 
 was compelled, not to take a back seat, but to relinquish its 
 preferred claim, and sit undistinguished with the congregation. 
 Its faithful ally. Federalism, under the leadership of some of 
 the ablest and best men of the State, was constrained to share 
 the humiliation. It was a time of wrath, billingsgate, and up- 
 roar. Ribald pamphleteers, demagogues, and the caucus, flour- 
 ished as never before or since in Connecticut. The victorious 
 party, then called the Republican or Toleration party, now the 
 Democratic party, proved not to be the monster which many 
 had supposed. Having obtained office, power, and plunder, 
 the latter not large, its savage instincts were mollified, and its 
 patriotic impulses quickened. However, it was necessary to do 
 something to redeem its promises of reform ; and fortunately 
 for its continued ascendency there was yet something to be 
 
110 EAKLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. 
 
 done. It began work immediately. At tlie first session of tlie 
 General Assembly after its accession to power, in May, 1817 
 (Oliver Wolcott, a disaffected Federalist, governor), the melior- 
 ated bnt unsatisfactory law of 1791, purporting to " secure equal 
 rights and privileges," was repealed, and a more liberal and 
 explicit one enacted. The latter declared that any person of 
 any Christian denomination had full liberty to join himself to 
 any other denomination, while to every society of Christians 
 was given the power to tax its own members — its own members 
 only. The privileges conferred on individuals by this Act 
 were not dependent, as those of the previous and all similar 
 acts were, on the church-going habits of the recipients. 
 
 Up to this time, and till tlie Constitution was adopted in 1818, 
 there was one law, fundamental in the ecclesiastical system of 
 legislation, which had always been denounced as nnjust and 
 oppressive by dissenting sects — always till they were allowed 
 to share its benefits, and not afterward — which had not been 
 disturbed. It had its origin in an order passed in October, 1644, 
 and appeared at length in the Code of 1650. I have already 
 given it. It declared that every inhabitant should contribute 
 to all charges both in chnrch and commonwealth, and if need- 
 ful be compelled thereto by assessment and distress. It is found 
 in the Revision of 1808, and aj^pears to have l)een in force till 
 the Constitution knocked away its foundation. Of course it was 
 not included in the Revision of 1821. A remnant of the belief 
 that the State should contribute of its revenues to the support 
 of religion and religious institutions is still visible in the man- 
 agement of our public schools, and in the votes of the freemen 
 when an appeal is taken. The facts prove tliat the principle 
 which at first determined the union of State and Church has not 
 yet been given up. Nor will it be, probably, so long as sects 
 can agree as to the forms to be observed. 
 
 To make fast the advantages in favor of religious rights 
 which had been secured, and to prevent the recurrence of evils 
 which had been with difficulty uprooted, a constitutional con- 
 vention was called. It met in August, 1818, and framed our 
 present Constitution. This was ratified by the freemen in 
 
EARLY GOVERNMENT OF CONNECTICUT. Ill 
 
 October, and took the place of King Charles' Charter as the 
 fundamental law of the State. Its more distinctive character- 
 istic is the Bill of Eights, limiting the power of the General 
 Assembly. The third section declares that *' The exercise and 
 enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrim- 
 ination, shall forever be free to all persons in this State ; pro- 
 vided that the right hereby declared and established sliall not 
 be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify 
 practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State." 
 The fourth section reads thus : " No preference shall be given by 
 law to any (christian sect or mode of worship.'" In the body of 
 the Constitution, Article Y, is found the following : " No person 
 shall by law be com])elled to join or suj)port, nor be classed 
 with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious 
 association." "And each and every society or denomination of 
 Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal 
 powers, rights, and privileges ;" and shall have power to main- 
 tain " the ministers of their respective denominations, and to 
 build and repair houses for public worship, by a tax on the 
 members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote." 
 Provided good morals and the public peace are preserved, 
 there seems now to be no constitutional difficulty in the way of 
 setting up any kind of religious worship in Connecticut, Chris- 
 tian or Pagan ; l)ut only Christian denominations are authorized 
 to tax their own (voluntary) members for the support of minis- 
 ters and churches. At first Jewish societies had no such 
 authority, but more recently the Assembly has invested them 
 with the same rights and privileges as were given to Christian 
 denominations. As the Assembly may do any thing not dis- 
 tinctly forbidden by the Constitution, it must have been qualified 
 to grant this indulgence. It would be lawful, I suppose, to en- 
 courage Mohammedanism or any form of idolatry in the same 
 way, or to a much greater extent. Laws regulating anti- 
 Christian sects need not be equal. 
 
'^^T THE LAST DATE 
 
« 
 
Lh