tious opinion of its sanctity, but because they thought it would indicate a frivolous vanity to change it, unless for some reason of convenience. Except that the men now wear loops to their hats, and that the women have in a great measure given up their black hoods and green aprons, their costume is presumed to be almost exactly the same as it was nearly two hundred years ago. They have a similar rule as to their furniture; which, though sometimes elegant and costly, is uniformly plain, and free from glare or ostentation. In conformity with this principle, they do not decorate their houses with pictures or prints, and in general discourage the practice of taking portraits; for which piece of abstinence Mr Clarkson gives the following simple reason. first Quakers, considering themselves as poor helpless creatures, and as little better than dust and ashes, had but a mean idea of their own images !'

'The

which

One of the most prominent peculiarities in the Quaker customs, relates to their language. They insist, in the first place, upon saying thou instead of you; and this was an innovation upon their founder seems to have valued himself at least as much as upon any other part of his system. 'The use of thou,' says honest George Fox, with visible complacency, was a sore cut to proud flesh; and many beatings, and revilings, and hours of durance in the stocks, did he triumphantly endure for his intrepid adherence to this grammatical propriety. Except that it is (or rather was) grammatically correct, we really can see no merit in this form of speech. The chief Quaker reason for it, however, is, that the use of 'you' to a single person is a heinous piece of flattery, and an instance of the grossest and meanest adulation. It is obvious, however, that what is applied to all men without exception, cannot well be adulation. If princes and patrons alone were called you,' while thou was still used to inferiors or equals, we would understand why the levelling principle of the Quakers should set itself against the distinction; but if you' be invariably and indiscriminately used to the very lowest of mankind,to negroes, felons, and toad-eaters, it is perfectly obvious, that no person's vanity can possibly be puffed up by receiving it, and that the most contemptuous misanthropist may employ it without any scruple. Comparing the said pronouns together, indeed, in this respect, it is notorious, that thou is, with us, by far the most flattering compellation of the two. It is the form in which men address the Deity; and in which all tragical love letters, and verses of solemn adulation, are conceived. "You' belongs unquestionably to familiar and equal conversation. In truth, it is altogether absurd to consider you' as exclusively a plural pronoun in the modern English language. It may be a

matter of history that it was originally used as a plural only; and it may be a matter of theory that it was first applied to individuals on a principle of flattery; but the fact is, that it is now our second person singular. When applied to an individual, it never excites any idea either of plurality or of adulation; but excites precisely and exactly the idea that was excited by the use of thou' in an earlier stage of the language. There is no more impropriety in the use of it, therefore, than in the use of any modern term which has superseded an obselete one; nor any more virtue in reviving the use of thou,' than there would be in reviving any other antiquated word. It would be just as rea'sonable to talk always of our doublets and hose, and eschew all mention of coats or stockings, as a fearful abomination.

The same observations apply to the other Quaker principle of refusing to call any man Mr or Sir, or to subscribe themselves in their letters, any man's humble servant. Their reasons for this refusal, are, 1st, that the common phrases import a falsehood; and, 2dly, that they puff up vain man with conceit. Now, as to the falsehood, we have to observe, that the words objected to, really do not mean any thing about bondage or dominion when used on those occasions; and neither are so understood, nor are in danger of being so understood, by any one who hears them. Words are significant sounds; and it is solely in consequence of the meaning they convey, that men can be responsible for using them. Now, the only meaning which can be inquired after in this respect, is the meaning of the person who speaks, and of the person who hears; but neither the speaker nor the hearer, with us, understand the appellation of Mr, prefixed to a man's name, to import any mastership or dominion in him relatively to the other. It is merely a customary addition, which means nothing but that you wish to speak of the individual with civility. That the word employed to signify this, is the same word, or very near the same word, with one which, on other occasions, signifies a master over servants, does not at all affect its meaning upon this occasion. It does not signify any such thing when prefixed to a man's proper name; and though it might have been used at first out of servility with a view to that relation, it is long since that connexion has been lost; and it now signifies nothing but what is perfectly true and correct. Etymology can point out a multitude of words which have thus come to acquire a variety of significations, and which even the Quakers think it sufficiently lawful to use in them all. A stage signifies a certain distance on the road-or a raised platform-or a carriage that travels periodically -or a certain point in the progress of any affair. It could easily be shewn, too, that all these different meanings spring from each

3

other,

other, and were gradually attributed to what was originally one and the same word. The words, however, are now multiplied to correspond with the meanings; and though they have the same sound and orthography, are never confounded by any one who is acquainted with the language. There is, in fact, the same difference between the word master, implying power and authority over servants, and the word Master or Mister prefixed to a proper name, and implying merely a certain degree of respect and civility. That there is no deception either intended or effected, must be admitted by the Quakers themselves; and it is not easy to conceive how the guilt of falsehood can be incurred without some such intention. Upon the very same principle, they would themselves be guilty of falsehood, if they called a friend by his name of Walker, when he was mounted in his one-horse chaise,or by his name of Smith, if he did not happen to be a worker in metal. The most amusing part of the matter, indeed, is, that in their abhorrence of this etymological falsehood, they have themselves adopted a practice, which is liable, on the same principles, to more serious objections. Though they will not call any body Sir or Master, they call every body Friend;' although it is evident that, to a stranger, this must be mere civility,. like the words they reject, and to an enemy must approach nearly to insincerity. They have rejected an established phraseology, therefore, to adopt one much more proper to fill them with scruples. We have dwelt too long, however, on this paltry casuistry; and must leave our readers to apply these observations to our common epistolary salutations, which are all in the same predicament.

For similar, or rather for more preposterous reasons, the Quakers have changed the names of the months and of the days of the week. Some of them are named, it seems, after the Heathen gods; and therefore the use of them seemed to be expressive of a kind of idolatrous homage.' If such a new kalendar had been devised by the original Christians, when March and June were not only named after Mars and Juno, but distinguished by particular festivals in their honour, we could have comprehended the motive of the innovation; but, now-a-days, when Mars and Juno are no more thought of than Hector or Hecuba, and when men would as soon think of worshipping an ape or a crocodile as either of them, it does appear to us the very acmé of absurdity to suppose that there can be any idolatry in naming their names. In point of fact, whatever the matter may be etymologically or historically, we conceive that Wednesday and Thursday are words in modern English, that have no sort of reference to the gods Woden and Thor. They raise no idea connected with these personages; and are never used with the inten

tion of raising any such idea. As they are used at present, therefore, they do not signify days dedicated to these divinities, but merely the days that come between Tuesday and Friday in our kalendar. Those who think otherwise must maintain also, that the English word expedient, actually signifies untying of feet, and the word consideration, a taking of stars together.

Another of their peculiar customs is, that they will not pull off their hats, or make a bow to any body. This is one of their most ancient and respected canons. 'George Fox,' Mr Clarkson assures us, was greatly grieved about these idle ceremonies. He lamented that men should degrade themselves by the use of them, and that they should encourage habits that were abhorrent of the truth. Honest George! He was accordingly repeatedly beaten and abused for his refractoriness in this particular; and a long story is told in this volume, of a controversy he had with Judge Glynn, whom he posed with a citation from Daniel, purporting, that the three children were cast into the fiery furnace with their hats on. Is it possible however to believe, that any rational being can imagine that there is any sin in lifting off one's hat, or bending the body? It is an easy and sufficiently convenient way of shewing our respect or attention. A good-natured man could do a great deal more to gratify a mere stranger; and if there be one individual who would take the omission amiss, that alone would be a sufficient reason for persisting in the practice.

; un

Mr Clarkson next discusses the private manners of this rigid sect, and admits that they are rather dull, cold, and taciturn. Their principles prohibit them from the use of idle words der which they include every sort of conversation introduced merely for gaiety or amusement. Their deficiency in classical literature cuts off another great topic. Politics are proscribed, as leading to undue warmth; and all sorts of scandal, and allusion to public spectacles or amusements, for a more fundamental reason. Thus, they have little to talk about but their health, their business, or their religion; and all these things they think it a duty to discuss in a concise and sober manner. They say no graces; but when their meal is on the table, they sit silent and in a thoughtful posture for a short time, waiting for an illapse of the spirit. If they are not moved to make any ejaculation, they begin to eat without more ado. They drink no healths, nor toasts; though not so much from the inconvenience of the thing, as because they conceive this to have been a bacchanalian practice borrowed from the heathens of antiquity. They are very sober ; and instead of sitting over their wine after dinner, frequently propose to their guests a walk before tea; the females do not leave the party during this interval. Their marriages are

attended

1

attended with no other ceremony, than that of taking each other by the hand in a public meeting, and declaring their willingness to be united. Notice must be given of this intention at a previous meeting, when the consent of their parents is required, and a deputation appointed to inquire whether they are free from all previous engagements. Quakers marrying out of the society are disowned, though they be again received into membership on expressing their repentance for their marriage; a declaration which cannot be very flattering to the infidel spouse. There are many more women than men disowned for this transgression. The funerals of the Quakers are as free from solemnity as their marriages. They wear no mourning, and do not even cover their coffins with black;-their burying ground receives no consecration-they use no prayers; the body is generally carried to the meeting-house, before it is committed to the earth, and a short pause is made, during which any one who feels himself moved to speak, may address the congregation ;it is set down for a little time, also, at the edge of the grave, for the same opportunity -it is then interred, and the friends and relations walk away. They use no vaults, and erect no monuments, though they sometimes collect and preserve some account of the lives and sayings of their more eminent and pious ministers.

On the subject of trade, there is a good deal of casuistry among the Quakers. They strictly prohibit the slave-trade, and had the merit of passing a severe censure upon it so long ago as 1727. They also prohibit privateering, smuggling, and all traffic in weapons of war. Most other trades they allow; but under certain limitations. A Quaker may be a bookseller; but he must not sell any immoral book. He may be a dealer in spirits'; but he must not sell to those whom he knows to be drunkards. He may even be a silversmith; but he must not deal in splendid ornaments for the person. In no case may he recommend his goods as fashionable. It is much and learnedly disputed in this volume, whether he may make or sell ribands and other fineries of this sort; or whether, as a tailor or hatter, he may furnish any other articles than such as the society patronizes. Mention is also made of a Quaker tailor well known to King James the Second, who was so scrupulous in this respect, that he would not allow his servants to put any corruptive finery upon the clothes which he had been employed to furnish; and of one John Woolman, who found himself sensibly weakened as a Christian, whenever he traded in things that served chiefly to please the vain mind, or people.' Apart from these fopperies, however, the Quaker regulations for trade are excellent. They discourage all hazardous speculations, and all fictitious

VOL. X. NO. 19.

G

paper