The Quaker impulse to reform and regulate both their meetings and wider society according to their religious experience of “the light within” lay at the heart of the movement's missionary zeal from its earliest days. Yet for both the social and political historian, the question of how a spontaneous, individualist, experiential, and dissenting religious tradition in revolutionary England evolved into a structured, bureaucratic system that was firstly turned inward upon its members to preserve a unity amongst themselves and later outward toward civil society and government has generated much discussion. Within an American context, in particular the Pennsylvania experiment, this development raises further questions about how this process amongst Friends was to feed and inform the evolution of federal ideas across the other colonies.

In a clearly argued and well researched thesis, Professor Calvert contributes greatly to this discussion by compiling a synthesis of previous research and her own unique findings. The conclusions, though clearly developed, are not always without controversy, but any future discussion will have to address many of the issues she has clearly articulated and for that we can only be grateful. The book is divided into two sections; the first explores the evolution of Quaker Constitutionalism and practice across both sides of the Atlantic between the years 1652 and 1763, whilst the second picks up the influence of this development in the life and writings of John Dickinson, one of America's Founding Fathers.

The first two chapters of Professor Calvert's book seek to argue how a theologico-political system based on apparently irreconciliable tenets of unity and dissent, bureaucracy and liberty actually arrived at the place where they could settle the vexed issue of ultimate authority amongst themselves. She begins by outlining the way in which an order of government for local meetings began as early as the late 1650s though the creation of a central authority, in particular the Meeting for Sufferings, that took precedence over the individualistic and local tendencies was not really consolidated until the 1670s. As the author clearly demonstrates, it was initially the organisational requirements for charity and worship that drove the need for a formal constituted meeting structure. To those familiar with the early history of the Friends much of this debate will not be unfamiliar, though it is presented here with a degree of clarity that is extremely helpful. An examination of the significance of George Fox's longevity, as against the early death of so many of its first ministers, as a possible contributory factor to this development would have been useful in this discussion.

During the late 1660s and early 1670s the development of an ecclesiastical government, coupled with its complete adoption of George Fox's Peace Testimony, tempered and shaped the direction, though not the intensity of Quaker dissent. The earlier models of confrontation, dissent, and coercion within the life of the meeting were superseded by a new approach of peaceful persuasion. These same principles came to be applied to Quaker dissent in civil polity supported by the movement's theological commitment to the acceptance of change and the need to constantly revisit “first principals.” Professor Calvert clearly portrays this process in the latter part of the first section of her book, devoting over two chapters to explore both the “holy experiment of Pennsylvania” and the impact of the experience upon subsequent thought and practice. In a clearly developed argument, the reader is shown how in Pennsylvania, Quaker religious practices and principals were the very foundations of the political experiment. Developing some of the issues initially identified by Alan Tully in his book Forming American Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), the author presents a commendable comprehensive overview of both the colony's experiences and the intellectual and theological issues they raised in subsequent Quaker thinking. Here the book is at its most piercingly perceptive.

John Dickinson, according to Professor Calvert, has never enjoyed the high profile in the historiography of the American Revolution that has been accorded to the other Founding Fathers. This in spite of the fact that he was influential in the Stamp Act Congress, fought in the War of Independence, and at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 helped to draft legislation relating to the election of and powers for the president. Part of the reason for this may be the complexities and ambiguities of Dickinson's political thoughts and writings, which in the second part of her book she clearly demonstrates reflect his immersion into the Quaker political culture of 1760s Pennsylvania. Though he was born into a practicing Quaker family, and his wife and daughters were committed Friends, Dickinson himself rejected formal affiliation with any religious group. In his public life, however, he adopted plainness of speech and used the Quaker practice of naming days and months by numbers, and on his death he was buried in the Friend's cemetery at Wilmington. The great contribution of this whole volume is that it enables the reader to revisit Dickinson's political contribution with a broader understanding and sympathy toward its origins, thus bringing him again to the renewed interest of historians.

The volume is well organized, leading the reader progressively through sections on Quakerism in general, the Pennsylvania Experiment, and finally into the “political Quakerism” of John Dickinson. Though it covers a range of topics, Professor Calvert's lively narrative style makes for enjoyable reading. Her enthusiasm for her subject, though, does lead her to make some sweeping statements. Were Quakers really the only radicals to survive the interregnum (94) or just the ones that survived longest after it? And was the 1689 Toleration Act largely instigated by Quakers (54) who were noticeably absent from the political machinations of the climatic last few months of the reign of James II? These, though, are minor complaints that in no way detract from a very valuable contribution to this important debate.