The words and statements of Mr.Bancroft involve several things worthy of notice and remembrance: 1.

The Congregational Church rulers of Massachusetts Bay denied being British subjects, admitting no other allegiance to England than the Hanse Towns of Northern Germany to the Empire of Austria, or the Normandy ducal kings of England to the King of France; or, as Mr.Palfrey says, "the relations which Burgundy and Flanders hold to France." 2.

Mr.Bancroft calls the petitioners "disturbers of the public security," and Mr.
Palfrey calls them "conspirators"-- terms applied to the Armenian remonstrants against the persecuting edicts of the Synod of Dort--terms applied to all the complainants of the exclusive and persecuting policy of the Tudor and Stuart kings of England--terms applied to even the first Christians--terms now applied to pleaders of religious and civil freedom by the advocates of a Massachusetts Government as intolerant and persecuting as ever existed in Europe.

The petition of these impugned parties shows that all they asked for was equal religious and civil liberty and protection with their Congregational oppressors.

Opprobrious names are not arguments; and imputations of motives and character are not facts, and are usually resorted to for want of them.3.