condition of the College were full of suggestions. One of them, made in 1869, and signed by James Freeman Clarke and James Walker, with five others, was especially remarkable for its recommendations. Thus, though his administration was not distinguished by any specific results, he accomplished a great deal in the way of elevating the tone of the University. His predecessors, Mr. Everett and Mr. Sparks, frequently availed themselves of his practical sagacity, and there was no branch of his own administration that did not show the fruits of his wisdom. He resigned the post in 1860, not because he was tired of the duties, which he performed conscientiously, laboriously, and with the utmost regard to detail, but principally on account of physical infirmity. His later years were spent in industry of a rather exacting nature, in philosophical and literary employments, reading and writing; and though on account of his lameness he led a secluded life, his days were spent in a manner that never reminded one of any loss of mental power.

Time would fail me to speak of his humility and unfeigned modesty, which forbade him to make any display of himself. His distinguishing trait was prudence, the careful avoidance of any public expression of strong personal opinion, the moral aspect of wise foresight. As has been well said:

"No one was more curious or keen than he in watching the tentative stages of the development of the Rationalistic school. He read and tried to digest all its contributions to the press. He was interested in the position and attitude of all our professional men-scholars, thinkers, and writers in this ferment of opinions and notions; with the spirit of progress, in all truth and wisdom, he was in perfect sympathy. With some of the methods pursued, and some of the anticipatory boastings, claimed as reached, he did not accord. Two very significant movements having special import to one of his profession and position, went forward in the circle of which he was at the centre at the period of his most vigorous life, the transcendental movement in the field of speculation, and the antislavery and related reforms on the political field.

He was cautious and reticent about them. Publicly he did not betray himself or set himself on either side; and many on either side would have been glad to have claimed and followed him as leader and champion. Wagers were often proposed as to how his vote or ballot would be cast; but no money was lost in the hazard, as in such critical cases as prompted it he did not vote at all."

divine utterance, the voice of God speaking in and through our moral nature. Disobedience, therefore, becomes not merely an offence against conscience; it is also an offence against God, bringing us under the judgment of God."

His doctrine in regard to the relation of individual conscience and public opinion has been greatly misapprehended. He says:

"Public opinion resting on a direct appeal to common-sense and the moral sentiment is generally right. At any rate, it is more likely to be so, than the private opinion of interested prejudice. Look back on the history of human progress: almost every important step has been taken, not because the few advised it, but because the many demanded it. The history of reform in most centuries is little else than the history of a series of concessions to public opinion... With ordinary men, and in the ordinary course of things, what we call the individual conscience is little else than a reflection of the public conscience, that is to say, of the public opinion of right; in such cases, therefore, the appeal to the public opinion of right is not necessarily an appeal from conscience to some other standard, to that of expediency, for example: it may be, and often is, an appeal from the uninstructed conscience of the individual to what is believed to be the better instructed

-

...

conscience of the community, or public sense of right. . . . Imperfect as public opinion is, there is not one man in ten thousand whom the fear of offending it does not make more circumspect, in many respects, than he otherwise would be; more anxious, not merely to appear, but also to be worthy of public confidence. . . . No sane man ever did, or ever will, live in society and yet be wholly indifferent to the opinion of society. For however much he may be at issue with society on some point, he is never at issue with it in such a sense as to have cast off all regard to appearances. . . . So profound is my reverence for the will of the people, or of even a majority of the people, that could I be sure it has been expressed freely and understandingly, I should hardly hesitate in any respect to obey; but I must have better evidence that the people will it than the reiterated and passionate assertions of zealots or demagogues, assuming to speak in their name. . . . Narrow-minded men may suspect and charge one at least of the parties to any contest with acting against what they see to be right; but it is much more reasonable as well as much more fair and magnanimous to suppose that neither party is in a condition to see what is right in the particular question. . . . Take away what early education has done, and what mere authority has done, and what sympathy and imitation have done, and what party spirit and party drill have done, and what addresses to the feelings and especially to men's fears

...

dencies, one speculative, and of intellectual men, in regard to the principles of good government; the other practical, the substituting of loyalty to party for loyalty to the State. There is not a word of discouragement in the whole discourse. True, he complained of lack in civic virtue, but in this alone. His confidence in the democratic principle is absolute; and the only thing he finds fault with is the abstinence of good men from their duty as citizens. He is not complimentary to the advocates of the Higher Law, but simply because he objects to any identification of the private conscience with the supreme equity. He calls conscience a sensibility, not a judgment. True, at critical times he did not vote himself; but this was because he did not choose to take sides with any party, or commit himself to any form of policy; but he never failed, either in public or in private, to throw his whole personal influence in favor of law, order, and peace.

He was an exceedingly modest man, always listening for others' opinions, and never failing to give reasons for his own. Herein he was a rationalist, pure and simple; not a believer in despotism of any kind, but putting his own mind on a level with that of others, and rendering the contest one of argument, not of personality.

His wisdom was celebrated; his knowledge of human nature, his appreciation of human motives. An able and brilliant lawyer used to say that there was no day of his life when he did not recall some saying of Dr. Walker, and another lawyer, now living, assured me that some years ago when he was intimate with Walker, he could have said the same thing.

His influence on the character of young men was something extraordinary. He formed their lives, and in many instances rescued them from moral dangers, to which they were liable. He had the "loving spirit of wisdom," which always cultivated the seeds of good, in full faith that they would overcome the growth of evil.

He had, too, a very pleasant and incisive wit, of which I will give but one example. An eminent vegetarian was expatiating with him on his own theory of food, and in praise of his system was celebrating its influence in making men innocent and gentle. "To eat flesh," he said, "is to make yourself carnal. They who eat beasts become beastly." "On the same principle," said Walker, "I suppose that one who

lives on vegetables becomes a vegetable, and one who eats nothing but potatoes becomes a potato ; but how if the potatoes are small?" His cheerfulness was invariable, his hopefulness of events. He always took a happy view of every accident or incident. His companionship was delightful. The variety of his expression was very great. He was never subject to moods of depression. He had no sad recollections, except such as are inseparable from private loss.

66

His personal piety was beyond question, and deepened with years. "With all his thinkings and reasonings," says a good judge, he had studied himself into, and not out of, that strong and cheerful religious faith which is the best blessing of life as it passes, and the only welcome and sufficient solace at its close." Another friend bears witness to Dr. Walker's deep sense of nearness and love of the Father, his confidence in His wisdom, trust in His mercy, fidelity to duty, patience under trial, steadfast adherence to the cause of truth, kindness of thought and speech, and his unflinching fortitude and faith." His virtue was not that which comes of subduing passion, for he seemed to have no violent passions to subdue; his cleanness was apparently native and original.

The incidents of his life were few. He never travelled abroad, for the reason that he had no passion for romance; and his journeyings here were neither long nor frequent. Of æsthetic tastes he had absolutely none, no love for music, or painting, or sculpture, or art of any kind. He was a good deal like the man who knew two tunes: one was Old Hundred, and the other was n't. But he was fond of flowers, was moved by all the aspects of Nature, and especially impressed by the magnificence and apparent infinity of the sea. His acquaintance with general literature was limited. He knew important works, Shakespeare, Milton, Bacon, Butler, and the like, but in lighter literature he did not pretend to be at home.

His published writings were numerous. Besides the edition of Thomas Reid and Dugald Stewart, which we have already mentioned, there were a good many printed sermons (some of which in the early Unitarian controversy were printed as tracts); many contributions to the "Christian Examiner "; four or five articles in the "Liberal Preacher," a periodical from 1828 to 1837; three publications in the "Monthly Religious Magazine," a periodical published in Boston from 1844

JUNE MEETING, 1891.

THE stated meeting was held on Thursday, the 11th instant, at three o'clock, P. M., the President, Dr. GEORGE E. ELLIS, in the chair.

The record of the last preceding meeting was read and approved; and the Librarian read the list of donors to the Library since the May meeting.

Mr. WILLIAM S. APPLETON then read the following paper:

The Loyal Petitions of 1666.

Minorities, in religion, in politics, in science, have seldom gained much credit; and as a rule, have with difficulty obtained justice from their opponents at the time, and from historians afterward, unless events have clearly shown them to be right. There is one minority, in which I feel a strong personal interest, and whose case I have long wished to restate. It is that of 1666 in Massachusetts. It consisted of 171 persons, of whom I claim eight as ancestors; and the principal figure in it was John Appleton, a relative but not an ancestor.

In the summer of 1666 the authorities of Massachusetts received a letter from King Charles II. by Secretary Morrice, dated April 10. In it the king acknowledged the receipt of the Report of his Commissioners and the account sent to England by the Governor, and wrote that "it is very evident to his Majesty... that those who govern the collony of the Masachusets doe... beleive that his Majesty hath noe jurisdiction over them," and that therefore there was no right of appeal to his Majesty; he further recalled his Commissioners, and ordered the Governor and Council to send five or four persons to England, of whom Bellingham and Hathorn to be two; he ordered all persons imprisoned for petitioning the Commissioners to be set free, and the question of bounds to be reserved for his Majesty's determination.

The General Court met to consider this on September 11, and by way of preparation devoted the whole of the next fore