From a letter of Col. David Humphreys to Gen. Alexander Hamilton, it appears that the loyalists, from this depressed state of public feeling, borrowed some hopes that the union between the states and the British government, which had been severed by the war, might be restored. It is not strange that the ministers of Connecticut, who had promoted the Revolution, should lose, in this period, something of the high consideration which they once enjoyed in the public mind while this Revolution was in progress.

The party in the state that advocated the new Federal Constitution was called Federal, and the party that opposed it, the Anti-Federal.

The acts of the new or present Federal government when that went into operation likewise laid a foundation for party differences.

The French Revolution, which, to some extent, grew out of the American Revolution, increased and intensified those differences.

The ministers of Connecticut very generally belonged to the federal party, which, it is said, favored England.

It should be remembered that many who returned from the war brought back its vices. "Our army swore dreadfully in Flanders," said Uncle Toby. Some of the Connecticut troops, when they returned, swore dreadfully, to the great disgust of their ministers and kindred.

The great evils and immoralities connected with irredeemable paper currency should likewise be taken into account. After the republican or democratic party was formed in Connecticut, it showed strong dissatisfaction with the Charter of Charles II, as the basis of the government of the state.

In the long contest existing between Connecticut and the government of Great Britain, that government was considered as one source of power, and the people, that is, the people of Connecticut, as another source of power.

By the central doctrine of the Declaration of Independence already mentioned, the people of Connecticut were considered as paramount to the government of Great Britain.

The democrats went on to apply the same principle to the

government of Connecticut, existing at this time, and the people within its boundary. The people, it was said, were the source of all political power, "vox populi, vox Dei."

In the intercourse between the French and the Americans, the former had gained from the latter a knowledge of those political principles which were the basis of revolutionary action against Great Britain. This knowledge they carried back into France, and used it to promote the French Revolution. The Americans, on their part, had learned from the French loose notions of morals and religion, and their sneers against the clergy, and thus it happened that each nation, in the practical use of the lessons taught by the other, became, in some respects, a loser.

Some of the ministers of Connecticut, in their disgust at the repeated attempts and repeated failures of the people of France to form a government satisfactory to themselves, were inclined to think that the central doctrine of the Declaration of Independence was proved to be false by a reductio ad absurdum. Indeed, numbers of the ministers, if they had expressed their feelings, would have been ready to adopt the language of Edmund Burke to Charles James Fox, in their celebrated passage-at-arms in parliament. "This cursed French Revolution envenoms everything."

"All men are created equal,” is a "glittering generality" in the Declaration of Independence, well adapted to the purpose which the writer had in view, but it was adopted by some who wished to destroy all the distinctions among men, taught by the "Assembly of Divines" Catechism; by the Bible and by the common sense of man. The equality of men gradually became a favorite doctrine among a portion of the people of the state and of the country.

Twenty years ago, an Englishman, a Frenchman, and an American, all of them intelligent men, were engaged in a free conversation. The Englishman says: "I have traveled through the United States, and I found that the people of that country do not care much for liberty. What they love is equality. We Englishmen love liberty, but damn the equality." The Frenchman said: "I have traveled through the

United States and through England. The Englishman talks about liberty, and the Americans love equality, but we Frenchmen love fraternity, which is better than either."

The ministers, who had hitherto been considered as superior to the laity in intelligence, virtue, and good manners, found that after this doctrine had gained currency, they had lost something of the respect in the minds of some of the people which had formerly been entertained for them. They could say of them, as Paul said of some whom he taught: "Ye have reigned as kings without us (your teachers)."

In the Revolution the writings of Thomas Paine had been popular among the people generally. Some of them were read at the head of the regiments. For a considerable period after the Revolution other writings of his, of an infidel character, were circulated among the people, which contributed somewhat to lessen the influence of the ministers. About the same time certain religionists attacked the doctrines, the dress, the learning and the manners of the ministers, and gained proselytes.

The ministers were in a dilemma. While under the British crown they had been in the habit, in their preaching, of forming public sentiment on all political subjects important to the colonies. They did this successfully, because there was, in fact, but one side present in the congregation. The people went along with them, because they advocated the rights of their people in opposition to British authority, but, at the time we are speaking of, their congregations were frequently divided into two parties; if they should preach federalism, a portion would be dissatisfied; if they should preach democracy, another portion would be dissatisfied. If they should preach in favor of the French revolution, one portion of their people would be dissatisfied; if they should preach in opposition to the French revolution, another portion would be dissatisfied, and thus they found that they must dismiss politics from the pulpit if they intended to retain both parties in their congregations.

In the period of thirty years between the adoption of the Federal Constitution in Connecticut in 1788, and the adoption

of the State Constitution in 1818, there were party differences of opinion which divided the population of Connecticut. One of the parties was made up of conservative men, including nearly all the Congregational ministers, the largest portion of the members of the Congregational churches, and the substantial, well-to-do people of the Congregational denomination. The graduates of Yale College, the leading lawyers and physicians generally belonged to this party. It embraced a large part of the wealthy men in the State. This party was denominated the Federal party.

The other party was made up of progressive men, and included those who were discontented with the government of Connecticut, and who wanted a new constitution, in place of the charter of Charles II. To this party belonged the dissenters from the Standing Order generally, the Baptists, the Universalists, the Methodists, after they commenced operations in the State, in 1790, and the Episcopalians, in the latter portion of the term mentioned. This party was denominated the Democratic party, and after it was joined by the Episcopalians, the Toleration party.

The democratic party advocated a new State constitution. They professed great love for the people, and felt that they were capable of forming a constitution that would be furnished with checks and guarantees that would prevent men in office from abusing their power. Their language was: We have changed our government once, by throwing off the authority of Great Britain; we have changed it a second time, by adopting the first federal constitution; we have changed it a third time, by adopting the present federal constitution; and now let us change it a fourth time, by adopting a new constitution for the State, just as each of the other states, excepting Rhode Island and Connecticut, has adopted a constitution of its own.

The progressive party complained of the government of Connecticut, first, because it compelled the tax-payers to support religion. The reason given by the conservative party for requiring all to support religion was, that all were benefited by religion, and, therefore, all should support religion,

just as they were required to support roads and bridges and schools, on the ground that all are benefited by roads and bridges and schools.

They complained, secondly, that the members of Congress, and the assistants, were elected by a general ticket, instead of under the district system. To this complaint it was replied that abler representatives could be selected from the whole state by the general ticket, than by the district system.

They complained, thirdly, that the possession of landed estate was made a qualification for exercising the right of suffrage. To this it was replied that a property qualification was required, because only those who pay the taxes should vote the taxes, and, as a general rule, that every one who wished to become a voter, could, by industry and economy, obtain the property necessary to qualify him to be a voter. It could also be said that in other states, such as Virginia and South Carolina, where there was much political wisdom, and honor, and in Massachusetts, where there was so much general intelligence and thrift, a property qualification was deemed necessary and safe, as it was in the mother country, from which their fathers had emigrated.

They complained, fourthly, that offices were held too long, and insisted that rotation in office was preferable. To this it was replied, that by rapid rotation in office the people would be served by apprentices, and not by master-workmen, who had had the benefit of experience.

They complained, fifthly, that the Congregational denomination was a privileged class. To this it was replied, that the Congregationalists had originally laid the foundations of the religious, political, and literary institutions of the state, and that if in consequence of this they enjoyed some privileges, it was not a ground for complaint.

During this period there was much party excitement. In 1801, on the election of Mr. Jefferson to the Presidency, there was a festival held at Wallingford, in commemoration of the event. At this festival ten thousand people were estimated to be present. A sermon was delivered by Rev. Stanley