t now they
represent themselves as "poor exiles," and excuse themselves for not
acknowledging the King because of their Mephiboseth lameness of
distance--as if they were more distant from England than the other
American colonies. Their "lameness" and "ineptness" and "impotence"
plainly arose from disinclination alone. It is amusing to hear them
speak of themselves as "exanimated outcasts," hoping to be animated by
the breath of Royal favour. Their "script" was no doubt "the transcript
of their loyal hearts" when they supplicated the continuance of the
Royal Charter, the first intentions and essential provisions of which
they had violated so many years.

Secondly. But what is most suspicious in this address is their denial of
having taken any part in the civil war in England--professing that their
lot had been the good old nonconformists',[117] "only to act a passive
_part_ throughout these late vicissitudes," and ascribed to the favour
of God their "exemption from the temptations of _either party_." Now,
just ten years before, in their address to the Long Parliament and to
Cromwell, they said:

"And for our carriage and demeanour to the honourable Parliament for
these ten years, since the first beginning of your differences with the
late King, and the war that after ensued, we have constantly adhered to
you, notwithstanding ourselves in your weakest condition and
doubtfullest times, but by our fasting and prayers for your good
success, and our thanksgiving after the same was attained, in days of
solemnity set apart for that purpose, as also by our sending over useful
men (others also going voluntarily from us to help you) who have been of
good use and have done good acceptable service to the army, declaring to
the world hereby that such was the duty and love we bear unto the
Parliament that we were ready to rise and fall with them: for which we
suffered the hatred and threats of other English colonies now in
rebellion against you," etc.[118]

Whether this address to Parliament (a copy of it being enclosed with an
address to Cromwell) had ever at that time been made public, or whether
King Charles the Second had then seen it, does not appear; but it is not
easy to conceive statements and words more opposite than those addressed
by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay to the Parliament in 1651, and
to the King, Charles the Second, in 1661.

On the contrasts of acts themselves, the reader will make his own
remarks a