ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION I5I 
charter and thus be free at once from its restrictions 
and its protection, it was open to them to do so. 
What could have been their motive? The records 
of the time leave us in some doubt, but I suspect that 
they found the minority in Massachusetts too trouble- 
some. There was a very considerable minority which 
disapproved of the theocratic policy, and although it 
had been weakened by the departure of the Connecticut 
men, yet it still remained troublesome and grew more 
so from year to year until after two generations it con- 
tributed to the violent overthrow of the Massachusetts 
charter. In the summer of 1637 the air of Boston was 
dense with complaints of theological and _ political 
strife, and one may believe that the autocratic Daven- 
port preferred to try his fortunes in a new and untried 
direction. Not only was the Old World given over 
to the Man of Sin, but that uncomfortable personage 
had even allowed his claws and tail to make an appear- 
ance among the saints of Boston. 
For such reasons, doubtless, the Davenport party 
came into the Sound and chose for their settlement 
the charming bay of Quinnipiac. They called their 
settlement New Haven, with a double meaning, as 
commemorating old English associations and as an 
earnest of the spiritual rest which they hoped to secure. 
In the course of the years 1638 and 1639 settlements 
were also made at Milford and Guilford and in 1640 
at Stamford. Somewhat later the towns of Bramford 
and Southold on Long Island were added.’ 
1“ Tn the eventful year 1639, Roger Ludlow, of Windsor, led a swarm to 
Fairfield, the settlement of which was soon followed by that of Stratford at 
the mouth of the Housatonic River. This forward movement separated 
Stamford from its sister towns of the New Haven republic. Then in 1644 
Connecticut bought Saybrook from the representatives of the grantees, Lord 
