QUAKER-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 2010-04 > 1271075151


From: Chris Pitt Lewis <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Quaker Petition of 1783 -- Signing "per order"
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:39:39 +0100
References: <963979772.94441271074521183.JavaMail.root@zmmbox1.swarthmore.edu><267582803.94791271074758650.JavaMail.root@zmmbox1.swarthmore.edu>
In-Reply-To: <267582803.94791271074758650.JavaMail.root@zmmbox1.swarthmore.edu>


In message
<>,
Christopher Densmore <> writes
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>To:
>
>
>> Two signatories - Jacob Worley on the second page and Benjamin Humphreys
>> on the fourth page - added the words "per order" after their name.
>>
>> Why did they do this? Literally it means "by order", and so implies that
>> they were acting on the instructions of a meeting, presumably one that
>> they represented at Yearly Meeting. But they cannot have been the only
>> such representatives who signed it. Does it imply some personal
>> reservation about the contents?
>> --
>> Chris Pitt Lewis
>>
>-------------
>
>"Per order" in this case probably means that those two individuals were
>unable to sign by their own hands. Possibly they had to leave before
>they had the opportunity to sign and left instructions for someone else
>to add their name, or were physically unable to sign their names
>because of illness or injury. Far from suggesting a reservation, it
>implies that these individuals went out of their way to be sure that
>their names were included.
>
>At the 1783 yearly meeting, there were about 160 representatives sent
>by the quarterly meetings (we're counting the men's meeting only as the
>petition was signed by men only). Far more people attended the sessions
>of the yearly meeting than were formally named as representatives.
>
>
>
Thank you. That makes much more sense. I thought there must be a simple
explanation that I was missing.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis

This thread: