, as
did the other New England as well as Southern colonies, recognize and
proclaim the King on the announcement of his restoration, but observed a
sullen silence until they saw that the monarchy was firmly established;
yet the King took no offence at this, but addressed them in terms the
most conciliatory, assuring them that he would overlook the past and
secure to them the privileges of their Charter, and the continued
freedom of their worship, upon the conditions of their taking the oath
of allegiance, administer their laws as British subjects, and grant to
all their fellow-colonists equal freedom of worship and of conscience
with themselves. They professed, as well they might, to receive the
King's declaration of oblivion for past offences and irregularities, and
promise of perpetuating their original Charter, with feelings of
inexpressible gratitude and delight; but they did not publish the King's
letter for nearly two years, notwithstanding his command to do so; and
when they did publish it, they appended an order that the conditions
were not to be acted upon until their further order.

The King's proclamation of pardon of the past, and promise of the
future, produced no other effect than a profusion of wordy compliments
and a vague intimation of doing as the King required, _as far as their
Charter and conscience would permit_. Their policy of proscription and
ignoring the Royal authority in their laws and government remaining
unchanged, and the complaints of oppressed colonies and individuals
multiplying, the adoption of further measures became necessary on the
part of the Crown; and it was decided to appoint a Royal Commission,
which should be at once a Court of Inquiry and a Court of Appeal, at
least in the first instance, reporting the results of their inquiries
and their decisions in cases of appeal for the information and final
decision of the highest authority in England, to which any dissatisfied
party could appeal against the report or decision of the Commissioners.
The address or "Petition" to the King, dated 1664, and given above, pp.
153-9, in all its tedious length and verbiage, shows how grossly they
misrepresented the character and objects of the Commission, preparatory
to resisting and rejecting it, while the King's letter in reply, also
given above at length, p. 166, completely refutes their misstatements,
and duly rebukes their unjust and offensive insinuations.

On receiving the report of the C