1. See Wilson, Roger, “The Road to Manchester, 1895,” in Seeking the Light, ed. Frost, J. William and Moore, John M. (Wallingford, Pa., 1986), pp. 145–162.Google Scholar

2. The three Friends were Francis Frith (1822–1898), William Pollard (1828–1893), and William Edward Turner (1836–1911).

3. William Edward Turner to Rufus M. Jones, 5 September 1901, Rufus M. Jones Collection, Haverford College Library, Haverford, Pennsylvania.

4. While various historians wrote about changes which began in London Yearly Meeting both before and after 1860, they tended to emphasize the new foreign mission program, the Adult School Movement, the Home Mission work, and the increased emphasis on the Bible, all to make Quakers more like other nonconformist denominations. Emmott, Elizabeth Braithwaite, The Story of Quakerism (London, 1908), pp. 212–240;Google ScholarJones, Rufus M., The Later Periods of Quakerism, vol. 2 (London, 1921), pp. 946–962;Google ScholarIsichei, Elizabeth, Victorian Quakers (London, 1970), pp. 158–165.Google Scholar Two recent authors, John Sykes and John Punshon, suggested that the changes were precursors of the reform at the end of the century, but neither one elaborated on the matter; Sykes, , The Quakers, A New Look at Their Place in Society (London, 1958), pp. 240, 241;Google ScholarPunshon, , Portrait in Grey: A Short History of Quakers (London, 1984), p. 191.Google Scholar

5. Isichei, , Victorian Quakers, pp. 158–165.Google Scholar

6. The full title was Extracts from the Minutes and Epistles of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, held in London, from its First Institution to the Present Time, Relating to Christian Doctrine, Practice, and Discipline (London, 1861).Google Scholar It was usually called the Book of Discipline.

7. In the United States the evangelical wing of American Quakerism was often called “Gurneyite”, and Braithwaite was a leading supporter of American evangelicals, especially when some British Friends began to question what were regarded as excesses by the revivalist group; see Hamm, Thomas D., The Transformation of American Quakerism: Orthodox Friends, 1800–1907 (Bloomington, 1988)Google Scholar, passim.

8. Bronner, Edwin B., “The Other Branch”: London Yearly Meeting and the Hicksites, 1827–1912 (London, 1975), p. 15;Google ScholarIsichei, , Victorian Quakers, p. 161.Google Scholar

9. As early as 1851 Bright wrote in his journal, “Dissatisfied as usual at the determination of the leading Friends to resist any changes or any fair consideration of the ‘State of Society.’” Two years later he spoke Out against the “minor testimonies and peculiarities, feeling that they materially retarded the spread of our great principles”; Mills, J. Travis, John Bright and the Quakers, vol. 2 (London, 1935), pp. 7, 8.Google Scholar

10. The Friend 16 (1858): 80.Google Scholar It also contained an editorial about the contest on pages 70 to 71. The editor of The British Friend reprinted the notice but rejected the idea that the Society was in decline and needed to be reformed (16 [1858]: 96–98). (All references to The Friend refer to the one printed in London, not the older journal with the same name published in Philadelphia.)

11. Jones, , Later Periods, pp. 945–950.Google Scholar Much of the first half of Isichei's Victorian Quakers deals with the condition of the Society before the mid-1850s.

12. Punshon, , Portrait in Grey, p. 191.Google Scholar Since The British Friend opposed all changes, one questions this suggestion. Punshon also mentioned the founding of the Friends' Quarterly Examiner in 1859 as an influence; however, it did not appear until 1867.

13. Isichei, , Victorian Quakers, p. 158.Google Scholar

14. Bronner, , Other Branch, pp. 17, 18.Google Scholar A schism took place in Philadelphia in 1827 between the so-called “Orthodox” Friends and those called “Hicksites”, named for a Long Island farmer and minister, Elias Hicks (1748–1830). The Hicksites challenged the authority of the Orthodox, and they in turn were denounced for doctrinal unsoundness. This schism, which spread to much of American Quakerism, lasted well into the twentieth century.

15. London Yearly Meeting, 1857; The British Friend 15 (1857): 147–156;Google ScholarThe Friend 15 (1857): 99–105;Google ScholarProceedings (1858), pp. 14, 15.Google Scholar British Friends gathered in London for a week in May of each year to conduct the business of the organization, hence the name “yearly meeting.” The Extracts or Proceedings contained a record of the sessions, reports of committees, and various other information. The Meeting for Sufferings was an executive committee which met regularly between the annual sessions to conduct the business of the yearly meeting. Originally, the Meeting for Sufferings gathered to plan ways to assist those Friends suffering persecution; see Doncaster, L. Hugh, Quaker Organization and Business Meetings (London, 1958), p. 19.Google Scholar

16. The British Friend 16 (1858): 146–159;Google ScholarThe Friend 16 (1858): 97–101;Google ScholarProceedings (1858), London Yearly Meeting, pp. 11–18.Google Scholar Instead of requiring members to subscribe to a prescribed list of regulations, Friends devised the system of writing questions or “Queries” for members and local worshipping groups to consider and answer. Thus there were Queries about marriage practices and about the peculiar dress of Quakers and forms of speech; see Doncaster, Quaker Organization, pp. 25, 34, 48.Google Scholar

17. The British Friend 16 (1858): 126–128, 167, 168;Google ScholarThe Friend 16 (1858): 106.Google Scholar

18. The British Friend 16 (1858):319, 320;Google ScholarThe Friend 16 (1858): 215, 222, 223.Google Scholar Some of these men had opposed changes earlier but came around during the conference. Joseph Rowntree (1836–1925), Yearly Meeting notes, 1857, 1858, Ms. S, 127, 128, Friends House Library, London.

19. Additional supporters were Henry Ashworth (1794–1880), Thomas Clark (1793–1864), John Fowler (1792–1861), Dr. Thomas Hodgkin (1798–1866), and William Thistlethewaite. The British Friend 17 (1859): 144–156;Google ScholarThe Friend 17 (1859): 99–105;Google ScholarProceedings (1859), pp. 16–20.Google Scholar John Stephenson Rowntree kept a journal during the 1859 yearly meeting; Ms. S, 368, Friends House Library.

20. An editorial in The British Friend said Peculium was so short of the mark that it deserved no prize (18 [1860]: 19–21).

21. Fothergill, Samuel, Essay on the Society of Friends (London, 1859).Google Scholar Apparently, he was not related to eighteenth-century Quaker Fothergills.

22. (Gloucester, n.d.), p. 113. The other essay was by an unnamed author, The Principles of Ancient Quakerism Considered (London, [1859]).Google Scholar

23. (Philadelphia and London, 1860) He had already published his biographies of William Penn and George Fox. His essay was published anonymously.

24. The British Friend 18 (1860): 37;Google ScholarThe Friend 17 (1859): 211, 226, 227.Google Scholar

25. “Nehushtan” means worthless fragments, shattered pieces of brass.

26. (London, n.d.).

27. (London, 1860). The British Friend 18 (1860): 178;Google ScholarThe Friend 18 (1860): 97, 98.Google Scholar

28. Doncaster, Phebe, John Stephenson Rowntree: His Life and Work (London, 1908), p. 10.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., pp. 11, 12; Jones, , Later Periods, pp. 947–950;Google ScholarIsichei, , Victorian Quakers, p. 69.Google Scholar Like others, she points out that Rowntree changed his mind about birthright membership later in his life.

30. Doncaster, , Rowntree, pp. 12–15;Google ScholarThe Friend 18 (1860): 1–3.Google ScholarThe British Friend published numerous attacks on the book all through 1860 beginning with the review (18 [1860]: 34–37).

31. “Advices,” like the Queries, were designed to make Friends review their actions in response to advice contained in that section of the Discipline. See Doncaster, , Quaker Organization, pp. 34, 48;Google ScholarThe British Friend 18 (1860): 134–149;Google ScholarThe Friend 18 (1860): 105–109;Google ScholarProceedings (1860), pp. 11–34.Google Scholar Among the persons who supported these changes were Thomas Binns (1798–1872), Rickman Godlee (1804–1871), John T. Grace (1827–1891), and Benjamin Seebohm (1798–1871).

32. The Friend 18 (1860): 132–133;Google ScholarThe British Friend 18 (1860): 113, 140–142, 147, 154.Google Scholar

33. The British Friend 19 (1861): 129–142;Google ScholarThe Friend, n.s., 1 (1861): 137–147;Google ScholarProceedings (1861), pp. 8–30.Google Scholar In a Friends meeting for business a person called the Clerk or Presiding Clerk conducts the business session and actually writes the Minutes, which record decisions made; see Doncaster, , Quaker Organization, p. 69.Google Scholar

34. First-Day Schools in Britain were primarily adult education sessions for working class persons, with Bible study added to more secular lessons.

35. The British Friend 20 (1862): 135–144;Google ScholarThe Friend, n.s., 2 (1862): 127–137;Google ScholarProceedings (1862), pp. 9–19;Google Scholar J. S. Rowntree, journal at 1862 yearly meeting, Ms. S, 369, Friends House Library.

36. While working on this paper I began to suspect there were also some women who fall into this group, but time and space do not permit exploration of the subject. Women such as Caroline Fox (1819–1871), Matilda Sturge (1829–1903), Jane Budge (1833–1907), and Helen Priestman Bright Clark (1840–1927) should be studied.

37. Frith, Francis, “‘Evangelicalism’ from the Stand-point of the Society of Friends,” (London, 1877).Google Scholar

38. Several of the younger men wrote about the need to maintain the balance. Backhouse, James Jr (1825–1890), “Revelation and Inspiration,” The Friend, n.s. 7 (1867): 116, 117;Google ScholarHodgkin, Thomas, Thoughts on the Inspiration of the Scriptures (London, 1865);Google ScholarRowntree, Joseph, On the Necessity for Simplicity and Breadth in the Interpretation of Scripture (London, 1875);Google Scholar and Thorp, Fielden, “Considerations on the Genuineness, Authenticity, and Divine Authority of Holy Scriptures,” Friends' Quarterly Examiner 2 (1868): 71–104.Google Scholar

39. Strachey, Barbara, Remarkable Relations: The Story of the Pearsall Smith Family (London, 1980), pp. 31, 38–49.Google Scholar

40. These men repeatedly opposed all changes. Eventually, some of the ultraconservatives broke away under the leadership of John Grant Sargent in 1863 and founded the Fritchley Friends Meeting; see Lowndes, Walter, The Quakers of Fritchley, 1863–1980 (Fritchley, 1980).Google Scholar

41. Edward T. Bennett (1831–1908) was disowned by Dorking, Horsham, and Guildford Monthly Meeting for espousing unsound doctrines. He appealed the decision to London Yearly Meeting, which held a day's discussion of the matter and upheld the decision. He was the last person to be disowned for unsound doctrines. Francis Frith was on the committee appointed so investigate his belief. Williams, Beryl, “Francis Frith (1822–1898),” Friends Quarterly 23 (1984): 364–370.Google Scholar Charles Thompson (1819–1903) supported David Duncan in the Manchester Controversy but did not resign from Friends.

42. John Henry Douglas (1832–1919), who preached in England in 1866 and 1867, later became a leading revival preacher and ultra-evangelical. Sarah Smiley (1830–1917) came from Baltimore Yearly Meeting in 1869 to hold general meetings. She was baptized shortly after she returned to America and left Friends. Dougan Clark (1828–1896) went to England in 1877, where he aroused a good deal of opposition by his preaching and teaching. He claimed one could partake of the sacraments and remain a good Quaker.

43. In his new book, The Transformation of American Quakerism, Thomas D. Hamm has described what he calls “The Renewal Movement, 1850–1870” in America. There are similarities between the moderates and the men and women in the American Renewal Movement, but there are also a number of differences (pp. 36–73).

44. Most of the biographical information is from the “Dictionary of Quaker Biography” in typescript, found in the Friends House Library in London and the Quaker Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.

45. Memorials of Samuel Bowly (Gloucester, 1884), p. 36.Google ScholarTyrell, Alex, Joseph Sturge and the Moral Radical Party in Early Victorian Britain (London, 1987), p. 233.Google Scholar

46. Westlake, William C. in the Friends' Quarterly Examiner 3 (1869): 560.Google Scholar

47. Manchester Friend 2 (1873): 20.Google Scholar William Bennett was the father of both Alfred W. and Edward T. Bennett.

48. Proceedings (1875), p. xiii.Google Scholar

49. Bryant, G. E. and Baker, G. P., eds., A Quaker Journal … William Lucas, vol. 2 (London, 1934), pp. 497, 498.Google Scholar

50. Friends' Quarterly Examiner 1 (1867): 6.Google Scholar

51. Friends' Quarterly, 15 (1967): 397Google Scholar, in “A Backward Glance over a Hundred Years.”

52. lsichei, , Victonan Quakers, PP. 61–64;Google ScholarScott, Richenda, “Authority or Experience,” The Journal of the Friends Historical Society 49 (1960): 76–81.Google Scholar

53. The British Friend 27 (1869): 135, 136.Google Scholar

54. The Friend, n.s., 10 (1870): 132, 133;Google ScholarMrsMinutes, , London Yearly Meeting, vol. 28, 05. 23, 1870, 243,Google Scholar Friends House Library. Two other moderates served on the Epistle Committee: Samuel Fox and William S. Lean, both “active” moderates.

55. After David Duncan died in August 1871 a separate group was formed by Friends who resigned from the main body. It lasted until 1874, and later the members joined the Unitarian Church; see Isichei, , Victorian Quakers, pp. 62–64.Google Scholar

56. The Friend, n.s., 13 (1873): 289–320;Google ScholarThe British Friend 31 (1873): 279–303;Google ScholarFriends' Quarterly Examiner 8 (1874): 13–24, 302–313.Google Scholar

57. The Friend, n.s., 14 (1874): 135.Google Scholar

58. The Friend, n.s., 13 (1873): 203.Google Scholar

59. Ibid., pp. 226–228, 253, 254.

60. Ibid., p. 320.

61. Creighton, Louise, Thomas Hodgkin: Life and Letters (London, 1917), p. 71.Google Scholar