structure of the government thus adopted was simple, and suited to the exigencies and equality of their situation.

The civil divisions of the country, which became necessary from time to time, in consequence of their extended growth, and the internal management of their local affairs, corresponded with that of the first settlements, and were adopted not merely because they were democratic, but because they were best suited to their conditions, and in unison with their preconcerted object. One little village and neighbourhood gave rise to another little village and neighbourhood, and one distant settlement to another, until the country became populous, and the people too extended and numerous to meet together in council.

Delegated power then became indispensable, and a legislature arose in imitation of, and analogous to, that of England. Then came the necessity of establishing institutions, suitable not merely for a community but for a number of communities, not for the present generation but for posterity. For this task they were admirably well qualified. They were perfectly acquainted with those of the Parent State, under which they had been early trained, and had tested the modified forms they had temporarily adopted themselves on landing in the country. With this double experience, they were relieved from the difficulty of invention and much

of the danger of innovation. They came to the consideration of these subjects with minds free from all excitement. They had obtained no victory, and were not flushed with triumph. They had no opposition, and were not obstinate. The civil power was in their own hands, they could delegate as little or as much as they thought expedient to an executive. Authority was not demanded, it was conceded. Every individual had a strong personal interest. It depended solely upon himself and his own conduct whether he should administer the law or should silently submit to its operation.

Every measure to be adopted was an act of the whole body and not a party. Is it then to be wondered at, that with this experience they reasoned well, and decided wisely?

When we consider that all this occurred more than two hundred and thirty years ago, before civilization had made such mighty strides as it has in modern times, and that the people who then deliberated on the difficult problems of government and jurisprudence, though men of strong intellect and good parts, nevertheless laboured under the great disadvantage of having their tempers soured, and their understanding clouded by fanaticism and bigotry, we are struck with astonishment at the knowledge and consummate skill they displayed in laying the foundations of their political fabric; and if their system of jurisprudence was imperfect, it

is still infinitely better than could have been expected from persons of their peculiar religious belief.

It is in the annals of these two first Republics of New England that we must trace the origin and history of almost every institution now existing in the United States, the rise and progress of American opinions of federal union with the neighbouring sovereignties, of a separate jurisdiction, and of a central congress. At the period of the Revolution, much doubtless was added by the great statesmen of the day, beyond what existed in the olden time, but those additions were less conspicuous for their novelty and originality (for there was little new in them) than the wonderful skill exhibited in their adaptation to the then existing state of things, so as to preserve harmony and unity of action.

To ascribe to Washington, Franklin, Jefferson or Adams and their contemporaries the whole merit of the invention and creation of that wonderful republic, would be to rob the early planters of Massachusetts of their well-earned laurels. There are enough for both, let us appropriate them to their respective owners; and in so doing let us not forget to mention those circumstances, and they were many and most important, which were purely accidental, the mere offspring of chance, a work of the hand of Providence.

CHAPTER II.

The Reformation-Different conduct of the Protestants and Church of England-Religious differences lead to the settlement of North America-Division of the country into South and North Virginia-The latter explored by Captain Smith, and called New England - Delusive description of it Distinction between the Nonconformists of Leyden who settled New Plymouth, and those who founded Massachusetts-Account of Brown, his principles, and recantations - The Brownists petition for toleration and are refused-Obtain a Charter in South Virginia-Settle at New Plymouth by mistake— Enter into a compact for self-government-First American Democracy-State of it at the end of six years.

Ar the Reformation, the sudden disruption of Papal authority naturally occasioned those who had hitherto been accustomed to travel in one common road to wander, when released, in various directions. What part of Romanism was true, and what false, what was to be retained or rejected, added or substituted, opened a wide field for

speculation and controversy. It is not to be wondered at, if men who had long ceased to think on such matters for themselves, found prejudice easier than reason, and thought their only safety consisted in getting as far away from the creeds, forms, and practices of Popery as possible, and mistook in their flight obstinacy for conscience, and submission to authority for a compromise of principle.

In consequence of the celebrated Germanic protest, all those both on the continent and in Britain, who dissented from Popery (although distinguished from each other by some peculiar name, derived from their teachers or their creeds), assumed the general appellation of Protestants. While they made war on the ceremonies of Rome, they retained her bigotry, and though they denied the power of dispensation to the Pope, they found no difficulty in absolving themselves from the obligation of their oaths of allegiance to their Sovereign. They clamoured, and suffered or fought for the exercise of private judgment and liberty of conscience. This they all united in, demanding to its fullest. extent; and the singular interpretation they gave these terms is a remarkable instance of unanimity among a people who differed on almost every other subject. Each sect claimed exemption from persecution for itself, because it sincerely believed what it professed; but the right to persecute