from the
town. In fact, in order to be perfectly intelligible I must first devote
a few pages to a consideration of previous conditions.

"Any one," wrote George E. Ellis in the "Memorial History of Boston,"[2]
"who attempts to trace the springs, the occasions, and the directing
forces of the revolt ... cannot find his clew a year short of the date
when the former self-governed Colony of Massachusetts Bay became a Royal
Province." He is right in pointing out that in 1692 the struggle took
open form. Yet even then the controversy was not new. In other form it
had been carried on for more than half a century previous. Its ultimate
origin lay in the fact that the very charter under which the colony was
planted differed from all other documents granted by any English king.

This difference lay in the omission of the condition, usual in such
charters, that its governing board should meet in London practically for
the purpose of supervision by the king. That the omission of this
condition was the result of wisdom on the part of the founders, and
stupidity on the part of the officers of the king, seems undeniable. The
founders, unhappy and alarmed at the political and religious situation
in England under Charles the First, were seeking to provide for
themselves and their families a refuge from his oppressions. Secure in
their charter, they presently left England for good. When they sailed
for America they did all that could be done to cut themselves off from
interference by the crown.

At intervals, extremely valuable for the future of America, the
Massachusetts colony certainly was free of all restraint. Charles's
benediction seems to have been "Good riddance!" From the crown the
colonists received no assistance whatever, and it was long both their
boast and their plea that they had planted the colony "at their own
expense." They were left to work out their own salvation.[3] As a
result, their passionate desire for freedom from interference by the
king grew into the feeling that they had earned it as a right.
Englishmen they were still, and subjects of the king; but to the
privileges of Englishmen they had added the right to manage their own
affairs. The English king and the English law were to help them in their
difficulties and to settle cases of appeal. In return they would grant
money and fight for the king when necessary; but in the meantime they
would live by themselves.

Taking advantage of the clause in their cha