troduced a degree of luxury;
and luxury had brought ambition and mean longings. Venality had become
possible; and clever and venal men had a motive for enlisting the
selfish and the stupid, and decrying the generous and wise."[203]

These eloquent words of Dr. Palfrey are very suggestive, and deserve to
be carefully pondered by the reader.

I. In the concluding sentences he tacitly admits that the Government of
Massachusetts Bay had become, at the end of fifty-four years, partially
at least, a failure in "public morality" and patriotism; yet during that
period the Government had been exclusively, in both its legislation and
administration, in the hands of one religious denomination, under the
influence of its ministers, who were supported by taxation on the whole
population, controlled the elections, and whose counsels ruled in all
conflicts with the King and Parliament of England. None but a
Congregationalist could be a governor, or assistant, or deputy, or
judge, or magistrate, or juror, or officer of the army, or constable, or
elector, or have liberty of worship. The union of Church and State in
Massachusetts was more intimate and intolerant than it had or ever has
been in England; and their contests with England in claiming absolute
and irresponsible powers under the Charter were at bottom, and in
substance, contests for Congregational supremacy and exclusive and
proscriptive rule in Church and State--facts so overlooked and
misrepresented by New England historians. Yet under this denominational
and virtually hierarchical government, while wealth was largely
accumulated, the "pristine tone of public morality" declined, and
patriotism degenerated into "ambition and venality."

II. It is also worthy of remark, that, according to Dr. Palfrey, had not
the spirit of the first generation of the rulers of Massachusetts Bay
departed, the war of the American Revolution would have been anticipated
by a century, and the sword would have been unsheathed, not to maintain
the right of representation co-extensive with subjection to taxation,
but to maintain a Government which for half a century had taxed
four-fifths of its citizens without allowing them any representation,
supported the ministers of one Church by taxes on the whole population,
and denied liberty of worship to any but the members of that one
denomination.

III. I remark further, that Mr. Palfrey hints at the two real causes why
the disloyal party (calling itsel