(Articles 1, 2, 7, 9.) All the details of the elections of governor, magistrates, and town deputies, come from Massachusetts' practice in the years 1635-1638, as did also the provision for preliminary caucusing by the deputies with control over their separate meetings.
Articles 5 and 10 may be compared with the democratic legislation of Massachusetts in 1634 (No. 67 b (2), above).
Many minor resemblances will occur to the advanced student familiar with Massachusetts history.
b. Provisions which the democrats had wanted, but failed to secure, in Massachusetts: ineligibility of the governor for immediate reëlection (Article 4), and the method of nomination (Article 3; adopted also in Massachusetts two years later).
c. Democratic innovations: (1) making the sessions of the legislature independent of the will of the executive (Articles 6 and 10). Massachusetts had made the General Court master of its own adjournment but not of its meetings. Both the provisions were adopted by the Long Parliament in England two years later. (2) Leaving the franchise to be determined practically by the towns.
2.—Connecticut did not reject theocracy. Cf. the preamble and the eligibility provision for the governorship. In practice, too, the colony maintained a close union of Church and State. The restriction of the franchise to church members was rejected, not because it was theocratic, but because it was undemocratic.]