The members of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, as they were more commonly called, were sorely handicapped by reason of their refusal to take an oath under any circumstances. By their strict adherence to this article in their creed they were debarred from holding any public office, or giving evidence in any court of law. That this was a great hardship, from which no relief could be obtained except by legislative enactment, goes without saying. One of their number was regularly elected to the first Parliament and trudged through the forest to the seat of government at the assembling of the members. From purely conscientious scruples he refused to take the prescribed oath, so his seat was declared vacant, and he trudged back home again.
It is not to the credit of the other denominations of Christians, that no steps were taken to relieve the Quakers from the disability under which they were placed, until after twenty-five years of patient endurance. It is true the disability was self-imposed; but they were actuated by the purest of motives, and their exemplary lives and standing in the community entitled them to more consideration from their fellow citizens. The relief first extended to them, after the lapse of a quarter of a century, was only partial, and allowed them to give evidence in civil courts by a simple affirmation instead of an oath. The Legislature having to that extent admitted the principle of affirming instead of taking an oath, could find very little to justify its course in postponing for another twenty years the admission of the Quakers to their full rights, by accepting their affirmation in criminal courts and in all other matters in which an oath was required.
The Quakers took a most decided stand against the law of primogeniture, whereby the eldest son of a man who died intestate inherited all the real estate of his father to the exclusion of all the other sons and daughters. In this respect they were in advance of their age and insisted upon an equitable distribution among all the children of the deceased. Many a young Friend was given the alternative of dividing among his brothers and sisters the real estate thus inherited according to law, or of submitting to the humiliation of being expelled from the Society. To their credit it can be said that very rarely was there any occasion to enforce the latter alternative. The statute abolishing primogeniture came into force on January 1st, 1852.