read distinctly and audibly in the hearing of all the people, what was propounded and accorded on, that it might appear, that all confented to matters propounded, according to words written by him.

Query I. WHETHER the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to GOD and men, as well in families and commonwealth, as in matters of the church? This was affented unto by all, no man diffenting, as was expreffed by holding up of hands. Afterwards it was read over to them, that they might fee in what words their vote was expreffed. They again expreffed their confent by holding up their hands, no man diffenting.

Query II. WHEREAS there was a covenant folemnly made by the whole affembly of free planters of this plantation, the first day of extraordinary humiliation, which we had after we came together, that as in matters that concern the gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magiftrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we would all of us be ordered by those rules which the fcripture holds forth to us; this covenant was called a plantation covenant, to diftinguish it from a church covenant, which could not at that time be made, a church not being then gathered, but was deferred till a church might be gathered, according to GOD: It was demanded whether all the free planters do hold themselves bound by that covenant, in all bufineffes of that nature which are expressed in the covenant, to submit themselves to be ordered by the rules held forth in the scripture?

THIS alfo was affented unto by all, and no man gainfayed it; and they did teftify the fame by holding up their hands, both when it was firft propounded, and confirmed the fame by holding up their hands when it was read unto them in public John Clark being absent, when the covenant was made, doth now manifeft his confent to it. Alfo Richard Beach, Andrew Law, Goodman Banifter, Arthur Halbridge, John Potter, Rob ert Hill, John Brocket, and John Johnson, these persons, being not admitted planters when the covenant was made, do now express their consent to it.

Query III. THOSE who have defired to be received as free planters, and are fettled in the plantation, with a purpose, refolution and defire, that they may be admitted into church fellowship, according to CHRIST, as foon as GOD fhall fit them

thereunto, were defired to exprefs it by holding up hands. According all did express this to be their defire and purpose by holding up their hands twice (viz.) at the propofal of it, and after when these written words were read unto them.

Query IV. ALL the free planters were called upon to exprefs, whether they held themselves bound to establish such civil order as might beft conduce to the fecuring of the purity and peace of the ordinance to themselves and their pofterity according to GOD? In answer hereunto they expreffed by holding up their hands twice as before, that they held themfelves bound to establish such civil order as might best conduce to the ends aforesaid.

THEN Mr. Davenport declared unto them, by the scripture, what kind of perfons might best be trusted with matters of government; and by fundry arguments from fcripture proved that such men as were described in Exod. xviii. 2, Deut. 1. 13, with Deut. xvii. 15, and 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6, 7, ought to be intrusted by them, seeing they were free to caft themselves into that mould and form of commonwealth which appeared beft for them in reference to the fecuring the peace and peaceable improvement of all CHRIST his ordinances in the church according to GOD, whereunto they have bound themselves, as hath been acknowledged.

HAVING thus faid he fat down praying the company freely to confider, whether they would have it voted at this time or not. After some space of filence, Mr. Theophilus Eaton answered, it might be voted, and fome others also spake to the fame purpose, none at all oppofing it. Then it was propounded

to vote.

Query V. WHETHER free burgeffes fhall be chofen out of the church members, they that are in the foundation work of the church being actually free burgeffes, and to choose to themselves out of the like estate of church fellowship, and the power of choofing magiftrates and officers from among themfelves, and the power of making and repealing laws, according to the word, and the dividing of inheritances, and deciding of differences that may arise, and all the businesses of like nature are to be transacted by those free burgeffes? This was put to vote and agreed unto by lifting up of hands twice, as in the former it was done. Then one man stood up and expreffed his diffenting from the reft in part; yet granting, 1. That magiftrates fhould be men fearing GOD. 2. That the church is the company where, ordinarily, fuch men may be expected. 3. That they that choose them ought to be men fearing GOD; only

at this he stuck, that free planters ought not to give this power out of their hands. Another stood up and answered, that nothing was done, but with their confent. The former answered, that all the free planters ought to resume this power into their own hands again, if things were not orderly carried. Mr. Theophilus Eaton anfwered, that in all places they choose committees in like manner. The companies in London choose the liveries by whom the public magistrates are chofen. In this the reft are not wronged, because they expect, in time, to be of the livery themselves, and to have the same power. Some others intreated the former to give his arguments and reasons whereupon he diffented. He refused to do it, and faid, they might not rationally demand it, feeing he let the vote pass on freely and did not speak till after it was past, because he would not hinder what they agreed upon. Then Mr. Davenport, after a short relation of fome former paffages between them two about this question, prayed the company that nothing might be concluded by them on this weighty queftion, but what themfelves were perfuaded to be agreeing with the mind of GOD, and they had heard what had been faid fince the voting; he intreated them again to confider of it, and put it again to vote as before. Again all of them, by holding up their hands, did show their confent as before. And fome of them confessed that, whereas they did waver before they came to the affembly, they were now fully convinced, that it is the mind of God. One of them said that in the morning before he came reading Deut. xvii. 15, he was convinced at home. Another faid, that he came doubting to the affembly, but he blessed GOD, by what had been faid, he was now fully satisfied, that the choice of burgeffes out of church members, and to intrust those with the power before spoken of is according to the mind of GOD revealed in the fcriptures. All having spoken their apprehenfions it was agreed upon, and Mr. Robert Newman was defired to write it as an order whereunto every one, that hereafter should be admitted here as planters, should submit, and testify the fame by subscribing their names to the order: Namely, that church members only fhall be free burgeffes, and that they only shall choose magiftrates and officers among themselves, to have power of tranfacting all the public civil affairs of this plantation; of making and repealing laws, dividing of inheritances, deciding of differences that may arise, and doing all things and businesses of like nature.

THIS being thus fettled, as a fundamental agreement concerning civil government, Mr. Davenport proceeded to pro

pound fomething to confideration about the gathering of a church, and to prevent the blemishing of the first beginnings of the church work, Mr. Davenport advised, that the names of fuch as were to be admitted might be publicly propounded, to the end that they who were most approved might be chosen ; for the town being caft into several private meetings, wherein they that lived nearest together gave their accounts one to another of GOD's gracious work upon them, and prayed together and conferred to their mutual edification, fundry of them had knowledge one of another; and in every meeting fome one was more approved of all than any other; for this reafon and to prevent fcandals, the whole company was intreated to confider whom they found fittest to nominate for this work.

Query VI. WHETHER are you all willing and do agree in this, that twelve men be chosen, that their fitnefs for the foundation work may be tried; however there may be more named yet it may be in their power who are chofen to reduce them to twelve, and that it be in the power of those twelve to choose out of themselves feven, that shall be most approved of by the major part, to begin the church?

THIS was agreed upon by confent of all, as was expreffed by holding up of hands, and that so many as should be thought fit for the foundation work of the church, fhall be propounded by the plantation, and written down and pass without exception, unless they had given public fcandal or offence. Yet fo as in cafe of public fcandal or offence, every one should have liberty to propound their exception, at that time, publicly against any man, that should be nominated, when all their names fhould be writ down. But if the offence were private, that mens names might be tendered, so many as were offended were intreated to deal with the offender privately, and if he gave not fatisfaction to bring the matter to the twelve, that they might confider of it impartially and in the fear of GOD.

The "Fundamental Orders" of Connecticut, adopted at Hartford, January 14, 1638 (9), by a general convention of the planters of the three towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, form the first written constitution known in history. See in connection the notes to Vane's "Healing Question," Old South Leaflets, No. 6. The principles which controlled Hooker and his associates in framing this first constitution of Connecticut mark a notable advance in the spirit of democracy in New England, and *icipate in important respects the principles of our national constitution. the volume on Connecticut, by Alexander Johnston, in the American

Commonwealths Series, chap. vi. In chap. vii of the same work, the early history of the New Haven colony is considered and Davenport's six Queries, which together formed the "Fundamental Agreement or original constitution of New Haven, are discussed. This New Haven agreement is included in the present leaflet, for comparison with the earlier Hartford constitution. For a fuller treatment of the political development of New Haven, the student is referred to the admirable work by Professor Charles H. Levermore, on "The Republic of New Haven," published in the Johns Hopkins Historical Series; note the comparative estimate of Hooker and Davenport and of the two Connecticut colonies, p. 26. See also the valuable chapters on the founding of the Hartford colony and its early political organization, by Rev. Increase N. Tarbox, in the new Memorial History of Hartford County. Johnston's work contains a careful bibliography, for the use of the more thorough student of general Connecticut history.

66

The first constitution of Connecticut - the first written constitution, in the modern sense of the term, as a permanent limitation on governmental power, known in history, and certainly the first American constitution of government to embody the democratic idea - was adopted by a general assembly, or popular convention, of the planters of the three towns, held at Hartford, January 14, 1638 (9). The common opinion is that democracy came into the American system through the compact made in the cabin of the Mayflower, though that instrument was based on no political principle whatever, and began with a formal acknowledgment of the king as the source of all authority. It was the power of the crown "by virtue" of

which " equal laws were to be enacted, and the "covenant was merely a

make-shift to meet a temporary emergency; it had not a particle of political significance, nor was democracy an impelling force in it. It must be admitted that the Plymouth system was accidentally democratic, but it was from the absence of any great need for government, or for care to preserve homogeneity in religion, not from political purpose, as in Connecticut.

It is on the banks of the Connecticut, under the mighty preaching of Thomas Hooker and in the constitution to which he gave life, if not form, that we draw the first breath of that atmosphere which is now so familiar to The birthplace of American democracy is Hartford.

us.

It is necessary to notice the peculiar exactness with which the relations of Connecticut towns to the commonwealth are proportioned to the relations of the commonwealth to the United States. In other States, power runs from the State upwards and from the State downwards; in Connecticut, the towns have always been to the commonwealth as the commonwealth to the Union. It was to be the privilege of Connecticut to keep the notion of this federal relation alive until it could be made the fundamental law of all the commonwealths in 1787-89. In this respect, the life principle of the American Union may be traced straight back to the primitive union of the three little settlements on the bank of the Connecticut River.

In the preamble, the inhabitants and residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, desiring to establish an orderly and decent government according to God, associated and conjoined themselves to be as one public state or commonwealth, for the purposes of maintaining and preserving the liberty and purity of the gospel, the discipline of the churches, and the orderly conduct of civil affairs according to law. There is no mention or hint of royal, parliamentary, or proprietary authority in any part of the constitution, or in the forms of oaths for governor, magistrates and constables