thee not order me to come down? But thee was willing enough that I
should stay and help to fight the ship when thee thought there
was danger."
My being many years in the Assembly, the majority of which were
constantly Quakers, gave me frequent opportunities of seeing
the embarrassment given them by their principle against war,
whenever application was made to them, by order of the crown,
to grant aids for military purposes. They were unwilling to offend
government, on the one hand, by a direct refusal; and their friends,
the body of the Quakers, on the other, by a compliance contrary
to their principles; hence a variety of evasions to avoid complying,
and modes of disguising the compliance when it became unavoidable.
The common mode at last was, to grant money under the phrase of its
being "for the king's use," and never to inquire how it was applied.
But, if the demand was not directly from the crown, that phrase was
found not so proper, and some other was to be invented. As, when powder
was wanting (I think it was for the garrison at Louisburg), and the
government of New England solicited a grant of some from Pennsilvania,
which was much urg'd on the House by Governor Thomas, they could
not grant money to buy powder, because that was an ingredient of war;
but they voted an aid to New England of three thousand pounds,
to he put into the hands of the governor, and appropriated it
for the purchasing of bread, flour, wheat, or other grain. Some of
the council, desirous of giving the House still further embarrassment,
advis'd the governor not to accept provision, as not being the thing
he had demanded; but be reply'd, "I shall take the money, for I
understand very well their meaning; other grain is gunpowder,"
which he accordingly bought, and they never objected to it.<10>
<10> See the votes.--[Marg. note.]
It was in allusion to this fact that, when in our fire company we
feared the success of our proposal in favour of the lottery, and I
had said to my friend Mr. Syng, one of our members, "If we fail,
let us move the purchase of a fire-engine with the money; the Quakers
can have no objection to that; and then, if you nominate me and I
you as a committee for that purpose, we will buy a great gun,
which is certainly a fire-engine." "I see," says he, "you have
improv'd by being so long in the Assembly; your equivocal project
would be just a match for their wheat or other grain."
These embarrassments that the Quakers suffer'd from having
establish'd and published it as one of their principles that
no kind of war was lawful, and which, being once published,
they could not afterwards, however they might change their minds,
easily get rid of, reminds me of what I think a more prudent
conduct in another sect among us, that of the Dunkers. I was
acquainted with one of its founders, Michael Welfare, soon after it