which the imperfect state of human affairs can afford.

66

Finally, for themselves, they did certainly, without the consciousness of much arrogance, conceive, that opinions, which the parties had invited, and called upon them solemnly to declare upon oath, according to the best of their judgment, were, when so declared, to be received by those parties with respect, while they determined, by their conduct, and a fair disclosure of their principles, to disprove the surmise (which, if just, would have suggested a simple mode, for a dissatisfied party, to suspend, or invalidate, the decisions of every set of arbitrators, who could be chosen,) that because they had been unjustly reproached, and were therefore displeased, they could no longer be considered as capable of impartial deliberation.

"The last proceeding of the Board was the motion, which has been reported, in the case of Robert Williams, on the 17th of July. ·

"The Commissioners of his Britannic Majesty and the fifth Commissioner, attended, as usual, on the next day of sitting, when the Secretary delivered to them a letter from the two American Commissioners, dated the 19th of July, and addressed to the three other members of the Board, in which the American Commissioners declared a determination, "under the existing circumstances, "not to give their further attendance" in the Board, and promised to explain their motives in a future communication.

"And by another letter, dated the 22d of July, they assured the three other Commissioners, that they would," without any avoidable delay," communicate the explanation they had promised.

"About six weeks after, viz. on the 3d of September, the three other Commissioners did accordingly

G 4

cordingly receive a communication from the two American Commissioners, in a letter of fifty-five pages, dated on the preceding day, every line of which proved the great difficulty of the subject, even in the hands of men of ability. It referred to, and professed correctly to state, all the differences of opinion, which from first to last had occurred in the Board; ascribing the hardy measure they adopted, not to one, or a few of those differences, but equally to all. It was an argument of many words, which terminated at every period in this simple and conclusive point, that, under the sixth article of the treaty, no opinion in favour of a British subject was good, without the concurrence of the American Commissioners;-or, that by an unfortunate fatality (for no corrupt intention was ascribed to them) all the opinions which had been declared by the three other Commissioners, or any of them, in favour of claimants, were radically erroneous and bad; while those which they had declared in favour of the United States, were perfectly well founded.

"The three members of the Commission, who were thus, at once, deprived of all power of performing their functions, on grounds as now declared, and in a manner which admitted of litte prospect of satisfactory adjustment, did not (as may perhaps have been expected) take their leave. They had no concern with national considerations: but many individuals were, in consequence of the rules and orders of the Board, either in attendance, or ready to appear, from very distant parts; and as the business was now, notwithsanding the various interruptions which had occurred, so far, in essențial matters, advanced, it was desirable to preserve, at least, the possibility of meeting such a change of measures, as might enable them to bring it to a conclusion.

❝ One

"One of his Britannic Majesty's Commissioners, and the fifth Commissioner therefore remained; ready as by their attendance, they officially announced, at all times, to assist in the formation of a Board, for the dispatch of business. But they have never since been met by any Commissioner on the part of America."

The British Commissioners have returned to England, and the dispute, of which I shall say something at the close of this Volume, remains still unsettled, in May 1801.

DEFENCE OF THE QUAKERS OF PENN

SYLVANIA.

THE following Letter to the Editor of the AntiJacobin Review, was written at New-York, in the month of May, 1800, though it was not delivered to the Editor till April, 1801.

SIR,

I TAKE up my pen to discharge a duty, which I ought to have discharged a long time ago.

Your Review for August 1798, page 137, contains a very serious charge against the Quakers in general, and those of Pennsylvania in particular. In your censure of the English Quakers, for refusing to contribute towards a fund, the avowed object of which was the defence of the kingdom against invasion, I heartily concur. 1 perfectly agree with you, that their alleged objection was a" pitiful subterfuge;" and the tenderness and generosity, which they voluntarily and eagerly displayed towards the French and Dutch prisoners of war (a circumstance that I wonder you never noticed),

ticed), but too clearly indicate the bias of their political inclinations and affections.

But, Sir, while I object to all the particular tenets of the Quakers, more especially those on which they ground their refusal to contribute towards the defence of the State and the maintenance of the Church; while I decidedly disapprove of the conduct of some, at least, of the English Quakers, during the present contest, and strongly suspect them of partiality for the levelling, the bloody, and blasphemous French, that justice, for which you have ever been a zealous and able advocate, calls upon me to defend the character of the Quakers of Pennsylvania, particularly with regard to the transaction to which your charge against them more immediately refers.

In speaking of that tenet (a ridiculous one I allow) which requires Quakers to bear testimony against every species of fighting, you ask, "whether they have uniformly adhered to the pacific tenor of their faith, by refraining, on all occasions, from the use of arms in open war?" And hereupon you state, that, "during the contest between

Great Britain and the Colonies, the Quakers of Pennsylvania actually bore arms against their "mother country; and one of them, named Mifflin, attained the rank of General."

Give me leave, Sir, to communicate to you that information on this subject, which, had you been in possession of it in the year 1798, would, I am certain, have prevented the above statement from appearing in your valuable work.

Soon after the breaking out of the rebellion, (on the 20th of November, 1776,) the Quakers of Pennsylvania put forth a declaration of their principles, entitled, "The ancient Testimony of the People called QUAKERS renewed, with respect to the King and Government, and touching the Commotions

now

now prevailing in these and other Parts of America; addressed to the People in general." In this declation, which was signed by John Pemberton, in the name of the whole Society, and published in the city of Philadelphia, the Quakers made the following unequivocal avowal of their attachment to the King and his Government :

"It hath been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down of Kings and Government is God's peculiar prerogative, for causes best known to himself: and that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn any of them, but to pray for the King, and safety of the nation, and good of all men; that we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty, under the King and Government which it hath pleased God to set over us."-After disapproving of the inflammatory and seditious publications of the day, the declaration concludes by calling on the people of America, "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings and measures, as evince a desire and design to break off the happy connexion we have hitherto enjoyed with the kingdom of Great Britain, and our just and necessary. subordination to the King, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him."

Such, Sir, were the principles, openly professed and promulgated by the Quakers of Pennsylvania; how exactly they correspond with those of the Church of England need not be pointed out to you. Nor did the Quakers of Pennsylvania, like too many other societies that we have seen in the world, content themselves with a mere profession

of