The idea fostered by the colony of independence on Great Britain was not, as might be imagined, destroyed by the royal charter, but, on the contrary, was renewed and invigorated by it. Indeed, the charter is as much in favour of Connecticut, and unfavourable to England, as if it had been drawn up in Boston or Newhaven. Had it been granted jointly by the King, Lords, and Commons, and not by the King _solus_, no one could dispute the independence of Connecticut on England, any more than they could that of Holland on Spain. The people at large did not discriminate between an act of the King _solus_ and an act of the King, Lords, and Commons, conjointly; and, to prevent any-one from shewing the difference, the General Assembly made a law that “whoever should attempt to destroy the constitution of this Colony as by charter established, should suffer death.” The power of a British King was held up by them much higher than the constitution allowed. The King had authority, they said, to form palatinate states without consent of Parliament. Accustomed to doctrines of this tendency, the multitude concluded the General Assembly of Connecticut to be equal to the British Parliament. Notions of this kind did not prevail in Connecticut alone; Massachusets-Bay still more abounded with them, and Rhode Island was not uninfected. What was the consequence? Complaints against those governments poured into the British court. A reformation, therefore, became indispensable in New-England, and was begun by a disfranchisement of the Massachusets province. The death of Charles II. put a temporary stop to proceedings against the other colonies; but James II. soon found it expedient to renew them. In July, 1685, the following instances of mal-administration were formally exhibited against the Governor and Company of Connecticut, viz., “They have made laws contrary to the laws of England:--they impose fines upon the inhabitants, and convert them to their own use:--they enforce an oath of fidelity upon the inhabitants without administering the oath of supremacy and allegiance, as in their charter is directed:--they deny to the inhabitants the exercise of the religion of the church of England, arbitrarily fining those who refuse to come to their congregational Assemblies:--his Majesty’s subjects inhabiting there cannot obtain justice in the courts of that colony:--they discourage and exclude the government all gentlemen of known loyalty, and keep it in the hands of the independent party in the colony.” (_New-Eng. Ent. vol._ ii. p. 241.) In consequence of this impeachment, James II. ordered a _Quo Warranto_ to be issued against the Charter of Connecticut. The People perceived the King was in earnest; and their alarm manifested itself in humble sollicitations for favour: but, it being thought adviseable, on several accounts, particularly the extensive progress the French were making in Canada, to appoint one