men had their own consciences to answer to, as well as their ecclesiastical authorities, if they violated pacific principles.

When it came to voting money in lieu of personal service, the legislators had a difficult road to follow. If the government needed aid, it was their duty, in common with the other colonies, to supply it. Even though the need was the direct result of war, as nearly all national taxes are, they were ready to assume their share of the burden. Caesar must have his dues as well as God, and a call for money, except when coupled directly with a proposition to use it for military attack or defense, was generally responded to, after its potency as an agent in procuring a little more liberty was exhausted. They would not vote money for an expedition to Canada or to erect forts, but they would for "the King's use,' using all possible sccurities to have it appropriated to something else than war expenses. The responsibility of expenditure rested on the King. There were legitimate expenses of government, and if these were so inextricably mingled with warlike outlay that the Assembly could not separate them, they would still support the Government.

It is easy to accuse them of inconsistency in the proceedings which follow. It was a most

unpleasant alternative thrust before honest men. The responsibility of government was upon them as the honorable recipients of the popular votes. Great principles, the greatest of all in their minds being freedom of conscience, were at stake. Each call for troops or supplies they fondly hoped would be the last. Their predecessors' actions had secured the blessings of peace and liberty to Pennsylvania for sixty years, and if they were unreasonably stringent, their English enemies held over their heads the threat to drive them from power by the imposition of an oath. Then the persecutions of themselves and their friends, which their forefathers had left England to avoid, might be meted out to them, and the Holy Experiment brought to an end.

ment.

Nor is it necessary to assume that their motives were untirely unselfish. They had ruled the Province well, and were proficients in governTheir leaders doubtless loved the power and influence they legitimately possessed, and they did not care to give it away unnecessarily. They tried to find a middle ground between shutting their eyes to all questions of defense on the one side, and direct participation in war on the other. This they sought by a refusal for themselves and their friends to do any service personally, and a further refusal to vote money except

in a general way for the use of the government. If any one comes to the conclusion that during the latter part of the period of sixteen years now under consideration the evasion was rather a bald one, it is exactly the conclusion the Quakers themselves came to, and they resigned their places as a consequence. The iniquitics of others over whom they had no control brought about a condition where Quaker principles would not work, and they refused to modify them in the vain attempt. For a time rather weakly halting, when the crucial nature of the question became clear, and either place or principle had to we sacrificed, their decision was in favor of the sanctity of principle.

They were on the popular side of the questions of the day, in close association with Benjamin Franklin and others. The fact that these allies in their other battles were unwilling to stand by them on this question made their position especially difficult. They, however, always carried the popular Assembly against all combinations.

In 1739, urged by the Proprietors, the Governor presented to the Assembly the dangers of the defenceless condition of the Province in the approaching war with Spain and asked for the establishment of a militia.

This opened the way to an interchange of long

argumentative papers between Governor and Assembly in which the positions of the two parties were laid down with considerable ability. The Assembly said: "As very many of the inhabitants of this Province are of the people called Quakers, who, though they do not as the world is now circumstanced condemn the use of arms in others, yet are principled against it themselves, and to make any law against their consciences to bear arms would not only be to violate a fundamental in our constitution and be a direct breach of our charter of privileges, but would also in effect be to commence persecution against all that part of the inhabitants of the Province, and should a law be made which should compel others to bear arms and exempt that part of the inhabitants, as the greater number in this Assembly are of like principles, would be an inconsistency with themselves and partial with respect to others, etc."*

To this the Governor replied that no religious opinions would protect the country against an invading force, and as representatives of the whole people, not of a denomination, they must defend the Province from external enemies as they did from criminals within, and that there

* Col. Rec., Vol. IV., p. 366, et seq.

was no intention to force any one's conscience. Their reliance on Providence without doing their whole duty was as futile as if they expected to reap without sowing, or protect their vessels from the waves without seamanship.

The Assembly reminded him that the Province had prospered under Quaker management for a number of years before he had anything to do with it, and would in the future, if his misrepresentations should not prevail in England, even "though some Governors have been as uneasy and as willing and ready to find fault and suggest dangers as himself."

The Governor in despair replies: "If your principles will not allow you to pass a bill for establishing a militia, if they will not allow you to secure the navigation of a river by building a fort, if they will not allow you to provide arms for the defence of the inhabitants, if they will not allow you to raise men for his Majesty's service for distressing an insolent enemy . . .. is it a calumny to say your principles are inconsistent with the ends of government?"

After pages of argument, which the curious reader will find detailed in Colonial Records, Vol. IV., the Assembly refused to do anything.

"I looked over several messages and votes of your

Governor Thomas, under royal instructions, approached the same subject a year later with a similar result. A voluntary company was, however, organized and supplied by private subscriptions. This took away from their masters a number of indentured servants, whose time was thus lost, and in voting £3,000 for the King's use the Assembly made it a condition that such servants such be discharged from the militia and no more enlisted. The Governor refused to accept it, and in wrath wrote a letter to the Board of Trade not intended for home reading, berating the Quakers for disobedience, stating

House of Representatives, and if I may be permitted to give my opinion of the management of your controversy with the Governor, I can scarcely upon the whole forbear to take his side. Your cause is undoubtedly good, but I am afraid you discover a little more warmth than is quite consistent with the moderation we profess. The provocations I confess are great, and more than flesh and blood can well sustain, but there is a rock which many of you know where to seek, but to which he discovers himself to be a perfect stranger. The argument made use of by the assembly are strong and cogent, but he justly accuses you of too much acrimony. Truth never appears more agreeable than when dressed with mildness and temper. And be pleased to remember that a deference is due to a magistrate in some sense, though a wicked one, and in every set of opposition to his measures, plainness and inoffensive simplicity are the principal ones we can man. age."-Dr. Fothergill to Israel Pemberton, Second month 8th, 1742.

...