ns, expressed the same views
with Lord Clarendon, and there is not a shadow of proof that Lord
Clarendon ever entertained any other policy in regard to New England
than that which he expressed in his letter to Governor Endicot in 1664.

Dr. Palfrey and other New England historians occupy four-fifths of their
pages with accounts of the continental proceedings of the Governments of
the Stuarts, and their oppressions and persecutions of Nonconformists in
England, and then _assume_ that their policy was the same in regard to
the New England Colonies, and that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was
therefore the champion defender of colonial liberties, in denying
responsibility to the Imperial Government for its acts, and refusing the
usual oaths, and acts of allegiance to the Throne; whereas their
_assumptions_ (for they are nothing else) are unsupported by a single
fact, and are contradicted, without exception, by the declarations and
acts of the Government of Charles the Second, as well as by those of his
royal father. Language can hardly exaggerate or reprobate in too strong
terms the cruel persecutions of dissenters from the Established
Episcopal Church in England, by both Charles the First and Charles the
Second; but the Congregational Government of Massachusetts Bay exceeded
that of the Charleses in proscribing and persecuting dissenters from
their Established Congregational Churches in that colony; and as well
might Messrs. Palfrey, Bancroft, and other New England historians
maintain that, because Congregationalists contended for liberty of
worship for themselves in England, they practised it in regard to those
who did not agree with them in worship in Massachusetts Bay. The
proscription and persecution of Congregationalists and Baptists by
Episcopalian rulers in England were outrivalled by the Congregational
rulers in their proscriptions and persecutions of Episcopalians and
Baptists in Massachusetts.

It is also assumed by the New England historians referred to that the
King's advisers had intimated the intention of appointing a
Governor-General over the Colonies of New England to see to the
observance of their Charters and of the Navigation Laws; but wherein did
this infringe the rights or privileges of any Colonial Charter? Wherein
did it involve any more than rightful attention to Imperial authority
and interests? Wherein has the appointment or office of a
Governor-General of British North America, in addition to the