things we will not discuss at length. We only state briefly and plainly, that we believe it to lie in the defective operation of the American Bible Society. What measures ought to be taken to remedy the evil, may be more appropriately considered in the next chapter."

Such are the results of investigation in the state of Connecticut. We do not set them before our readers, scattered over the breadth of the land, and demand that they should be received as giving an exact exhibition of the state of things everywhere. Many, doubtless, especially in the older states of the Union, will claim that the religious condition of their own states does not correspond with that of Connecticut, so painfully set forth in the Report before us. We agree that it does not. Nay, we stoutly claim that if Connecticut, with her noble history, and the fame of her churches and schools,-Connecticut, the fountain of Christian missions and Christian colonies, and the center of Christian education--if Connecticut shows such a record, a like investigation in other states would give even worse results. The Committee have not left this question to mere conjecture, but have showed, by such indications as the last census affords, a strong probability that the religious condition of Connecticut is better than that of any other state in the union. We give a brief extract:

"The only indication of religious condition, in the seventh census of the United States, is the return of church-edifices, accommodations, and values. This of course is not an infallible indication, but may stand for what it is worth.

"By Table CXLI of the Compendium of the Seventh Census,' it appears that the ratio of church accommodation to the population, is larger in Connecticut than in any other state in the union; larger by ten per cent. than in any state except Vermont and New Hampshire; there being in Connecticut, sittings for eight hundred and thirty-four in every one thousand of the people, while the fourth state on the list, Ohio, (the daughter of Connecticut,) has sittings for seven hundred and thirty-six in every one thousand.

It appears that the ratio of church property to the population, is higher in this state than in any other, except Massachusetts."

In further vindication of the character of their state, the Committee make the following significant extract from an Historical Address before the General Association at Norwich, in 1859, by Rev. Dr. Bacon:

"Is there no meaning in the fact, that not one of our churches, and only one of our parishes, fell in the Unitarian defection? To my thought there is a similar

meaning in the fact, that while Congregationalism still remains stronger in Connecticut than in any other state, the Episcopalians of Connecticut are, in proportion to our aggregate population, one of the strongest dioceses in the Union; and the Baptist and Methodist churches among us, are also almost as strong in numbers, and quite as strong in the elements of Christian character and influence, if I mistake not, as the average of those two numerous and powerful bodies of Christian churches in all the states and territories in the Union. To my thought, there is a meaning of the same sort, in the fact, that of all the religious organizations commonly regarded as anti-evangelical, or anti-orthodox, not one has ever flourished among the native population."

In view of these facts, it is reasonable to believe that even in our best and oldest states, not less than one-fourth of the FAMILIES of the people live in acknowledged neglect of public religious worship.

At this result, which is given cautiously, and which we believe to fall far within the truth, we pause for the present. To have fairly set forth the facts is enough to have accomplished in one Article. We have found the answer to the first of the two practical questions which we had propounded to ourselves at the outset, namely, "What is to be done?” The other and broader question still remains, "How to do it?" and to the discussion of this, we may perhaps make some contribution in a future number of the New Englander.

ART. IX.-PALFREY'S HISTORY OF NEW ENGLAND.

The History of New England. By JOHN GORHAM PALFREY. Vol. I. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1858. Vol. II. 1860.

Two volumes of Dr. Palfrey's History are now before the public. It is a pleasure to commend such a work. In the first volume, the author, already widely known as a scholar of exact and various learning, achieved a position among the foremost of living historians. All the range of his former studies and employments seemed, to have fitted him for the great work which he announced as that which was to occupy the remainder of his life. In his second volume, there is no falling off of enthusiasm on the part of the writer; while the power with which he holds and charms his readers is the greater as the narrative proceeds, and the unity of its subject becomes more evident. The chief peculiarity of his style, if not more conspicuous in the second volume than in the first, seems more effective; we mean the freedom and skill with which he studiously incorporates into his narrative the language of contemporary documents. It is more and more a satisfaction to find the actors in the story speaking so often for themselves, not, after the fashion of ancient historians, in orations and dialogues purely imaginary, but in their own words recorded at the time. The conviction of the author's indefatigable thoroughness in tracing everything back to the original sources of information, and in distinguishing between the authentic and the merely traditionary or conjectural, grows upon the reader in all the progress of the work.

Dr. Palfrey professes, in the preface to his first volume, that his religious sympathies are not with the heroes of his story. He intimates that, with the belief which he entertains, he "could not have been admitted into any church established by the Fathers," and that an attempt to propagate his inter

pretations of the Gospel would have made him "an exile from their society." Yet he writes with the undissembled feeling of a New England man who is not ashamed of his ancestry, or of these old Puritan commonwealths. In his case "blood is thicker than water;" and the history which he gives us is the better for the partial feeling which gives it warmth and color. He does not pretend to have divested himself of all patriotic sympathies, and for that reason we have the more confidence in him. He writes not with serene and absolute indifference, still less with cynical disparagement of character and motives after the manner of Mr. Hildreth, but with a healthy glow of natural affection toward his natal soil, and toward the men whose heroic labors redeemed it from the wildness of nature.

Inasmuch, then, as we make no objection to the fact that this history of New England is written with New England sympathies, we will not complain too loudly if we find the learned author sometimes biased by his sympathies as a Massachusetts man in his account of questions that arose of old between Massachusetts and the neighboring colonies. Those questions have long since ceased to be of any practical consequence, or to have any other than an antiquarian interest. What if the men of Massachusetts, two hundred years ago, were sometimes overbearing toward the weaker colonies in the little Puritan confederation? What if they were not? The question concerns no living person's rights or welfare. Anything like a controversy over it would be almost as preposterous as the disputes between Mr. Jonathan Oldbuck and Sir Arthur Wardour, in the Antiquary. We can therefore afford to be charitable towards any errors into which our author may have fallen under the bias of his special sympathy with his own state. To antiquaries and the active members of State Historical Societies, certain questions in New England history are as fresh to-day, and as far from being settled, as when they were first debated among the fathers of these Puritan colonies. Some of these questions Dr. Palfrey has occasion to discuss in the progress of his second volume; and uniformly, if we mistake not, it happens that his

decision is for Massachusetts against the other colonies. A friend of ours, who is eminently learned in all those questions, and familiar with the documents pertaining to them, and whose sensitiveness to the honor of his own state has been a little roused by the perusal of the work before us, assures us that though the first volume was so far impartial as to produce some discontent in certain circles, the second volume is less successful in that respect. While agreeing with us in our admiration of the work, he refers us to several instances of what seems to him partiality in judgment-and particnlarly to the matter of the "Saybrook impost," and to the controversies about a war with the Dutch at the Manhadoes. Without committing ourselves very zealously on either side, we may venture to examine Dr. Palfrey's account of the part taken by Massachusetts in those two affairs now so far bygone.

As to the "Saybrook impost," the acknowledged facts on which the controversy rests, are these:

In 1643, the four New England colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, entered into "a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity, for offense and defense, mutual advice, and succor upon all just occasions, both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel, and for their own mutual safety and welfare." "For the managing and concluding of all affairs, proper to and concerning the whole confederation," they instituted a yearly congress of two "Commissioners" from each of the four colonies, who were to be invested with "full power, from their several General Courts respectively, to hear, examine, weigh and determine all affairs of war or peace"-" and all things of like nature which are the proper concomitants or consequences of such a confederation for amity, offense, and defense." And in the eighth of the twelve "Articles of Confederation" it was distinctly "agreed that the Commissioners for this confederation, hereafter at their meetings, whether ordinary or extraordinary, do endeavor to frame and establish agreements and orders in general cases of a civil nature, wherein all the plantations are interested, for preserving peace