have great weight, addressed a letter requesting a friendly explanation, and received an immediate reply; the question and response do honor to both parties. Their intimacy, which had been interrupted by the suspicion, was renewed; and Tillotson, at Penn's request, furnished the latter with a second letter, in which he declared, "with great joy," that he was "fully satisfied there was no just ground for the suspicion:" this letter with Dr. Tillotson's permission, was shown wherever he had been quoted as either believing or promoting the report of the Jesuitical propensities of William Penn. Soon after this, William Penn published a work which appears to have led to some important results. It was his "Persuasive to Moderation," and was addressed to the king and his council. In this book he successfully combats the position, that a state can be endangered by religious toleration; adducing numerous examples to the contrary from the history of many nations, ancient and modern. His arguments appear to have had considerable weight, for soon after the publication of the book, the king issued a proclamation for a general pardon to all who were imprisoned on account of their conscience; and this was accompanied by instructions of the judges of assize, to liberate all persons of this description. Not fewer than twelve hundred Quakers alone, many of whom had been in confinement for years, were thus restored to their families and friends. There is no doubt that this result was due as much to the personal solicitations of Penn, as to the work we have mentioned; though the latter no doubt contributed to it not a little, by setting the subject in a proper light before the community at large. William Penn being about to visit the continental churches in order to diffuse the principles of his society, he received from the king a commission to confer with the Prince of Orange at the Hague, "and endeavor to gain his consent to a general religious toleration in England, together with the removal of all tests." He had several interviews with the prince, but was opposed by Burnet, whom he met there, and who, though favor able to toleration, was opposed to the removal of tests. Penn would not relax in his views; and the consequence was a coolness between him and Burnet, who afterwards spoke of him sneeringly in his "History of His Own Times." It is now time to revert to Mr. Macaulay's charges, it being about this period that the circumstances occurred to which the first and most serious of them refers. This is, indeed, the only one that can be said materially to affect the character of Penn as an upright, moral, and religious man; the minor charges, scattered through a hundred pages, showing that he preached at an execution; that he was employed by a Roman Catholic monarch; that he said "Sir," &c., &c., have just such bearing on the sectarian controversies and opinions of the time as would allow partisans on either side to exaggerate or palliate, praise or condemn, according to the views which they themselves entertained. But the first real crime charged to the account of the great Quaker leader is one that no sectarian views, however peculiar, can defend—no political opinions, however extreme, can justify. The author evidently treats it as his pet accusation; works it up with the greatest care and gusto, and recurs to it again and again, with the most self-satisfied complacency; as much as to say-"There I had the Quaker on the hip!" The history of Monmouth's rebellion in the reign of James II. is tolerably familiar to all: it was a hopeless project, awkwardly conducted and miserably ended: the ringleaders were beheaded, the subordinates hanged, and all who had shown the least sympathy with the cause were condemned, the sentence of death being subsequently commuted to such a fine as could be wrung from their terrified relatives. These fines were given to court favorites, or court authorities; the queen herself took in hand several of the culprits whose wealthy connections were ascertained, and made a fine harvest of their fears. The story of the Maids of Taunton is matter of history; banners were embroidered, processions formed, and the unlucky prince was welcomed with every mark of sympathy. Of course, the wrath of the monarch was excited against all parties concerned some were burned, some died in prison, but "Most of the young ladies who had walked in the procession were still alive. Some of them were under ten years of age. All had acted under the orders of their schoolmistress, without knowing that they were committing a crime. The Queen's maids of honor asked the royal permission to wring money out of the parents of the poor children; and the permission was granted. An order was sent down to Taunton that all these little girls should be seized and imprisoned. Sir Francis Warre, of Hestercombe, the Tory memthe office of exacting the ransom. ber for Bridgewater, was requested to undertake He was charged to declare in strong language that the maids of honor would not endure delay, that they were determined to prosecute to outlawry, unless "The Maids of Honor requested William "Whitehall, Febry. 13th, 1685-6. "I am, Sir, your humble Servant, -Macaulay, vol i. p. 655. Now admitting the authenticity of Sunderland's letter, and taking it for granted that Mr. Macaulay has quoted it VERBATIM, there are three points worthy of especial notice: 3. By whom was the iniquitous negotiation actually conducted? History is very clear on this point; Oldmixon, a contemporary historian and an eyewitness, gives the following graphic account of the affair: "The Court was so unmerci ful, that they excepted the poor girls of Taunton, who gave Monmouth colors, out of their pretended pardon, and every one of them was forced to pay as much money as would have been a good portion to each, for particular pardons. This money, and a great deal more, was said to be for the maids of honor, whose agent, Brett, the Popish lawyer, had an under agent, one Crane, of Bridgewater, and 'tis supposed that both of them paid themselves very bountifully out of the money which was raised by this means, some instances of which are within my knowledge." -Oldmixon, vol. ii. p. 708. Mr. Macaulay quotes. Oldmixon whenever it serves his purpose; he even quotes him on this very matter of the Monmouth rebellion; and yet this passage, which removes all doubts as to the actual negotiator, is carefully kept back, and we are gravely told that William Out Penn "accepted the commission." upon such perversion of history! 1. To whom was the said letter addressed? At the period in question, there were two gentlemen at court to whom such a document might have been addressed; first, William, the son of Admiral Penn, a gentleman of high standing, great influence, and considerable wealth, whose probity and honor, up to the publication of this history, have never been doubted; and of whose name, Mr. Macaulay truly says England is proud; and se- The next charge we shall notice is posicondly, Mr. George Penne, mentioned in tively and clearly disproved by the authoPepy's Diary, and who is known to have been rity to which Mr. Macaulay himself refers: instrumental at this very period in effecting this is, perhaps, more gross than the other. the release from slavery of a Mr. Azariah Kiffin, a Baptist, and a man of good standPinney, a gentleman of Bettiscombe, nearing in the city of London, was pressed by Crewkerne, in Somersetshire, whose senand the king to accept the alderman's gown, tence of death had been commuted to trans- this, doubtless, with a view of gratifying portation. To the historian solicitous only the body of dissenters; but Kiffin, two of for the discovery of truth, the spelling of the whose grandsons had previously fallen vic tims to the "bloody assizes," wished to decline the honor. Macaulay charges Penn with being employed by the king to persuade Kiffin into compliance, and he cites Kiffin's" Memoirs as evidence of the fact; the passages are very brief, and we give them both together: MACAULAY. "Penn was employed in the work of seduction, but to no purpose,”—Macaulay, ii. 230. KIFFIN. "I used all the means I could to be excused, both by some lords near the king, and also by Sir Nicholas Butler and Mr. Peun."-Kiffin's Memoirs, p. 84. This brief sentence is all that is preserved, and no writer but Kiffin (prior to Mr. Macaulay) makes any allusion to the subject. Here the exact converse of the truth is set forth as truth: Mr. Macaulay makes the king employ Penn to seduce Kiffin; Kiffin states that he employed Penn to plead with the king. Then what does the phrase, "to no purpose," mean? The obvious meaning would be, that Kiffin refused the honor in toto: but this was not so; for, although evidently reluctant, Kiffin accepted and wore the alderman's gown. Another, and much more labored accusation, is partly based on a letter, said, by some of William Penn's enemies, to have been written by him. This letter is still preserved in the archives of Magdalen College, Oxford; and Mr. Forster, with a perseverance worthy the cause he is defending, has found that it is strictly anonymous, and that it bears the following memorandum on the back, "Mr. Penn disowned this." This letter abounds with those terms which the Friends have always held as merely complimentary, and therefore objectionable; such as, "Sir," "Majesty," &c. and this intrinsic proof of its not being written by Penn, is, with a curious pertinacity in perversion, turned by Mr. Macaulay to that gentleman's disadvantage:"Titles and phrases, against which he had borne his testimony, dropped occasionally from his lips and his pen." This anonymous letter is the only proof. The celebrated struggle between James and the University of Oxford is familiar to most of our readers: with this, Penn's name is certainly connected, but history has regarded him as a moderator, or mediator between the University and the Crown; a 66 man whose aim was to mollify the exasperated monarch on the one side, and to induce the University to make some concessions on the other. The circumstances connected with this affair, appear to be the following:-In the April of 1687, we are told that the king, influenced in part by his representations, issued a declaration of liberty of conscience for England, and for suspending the execution of all penal laws in matters ecclesiastical." By this declaration Protestant dissenters enjoyed their meetings peaceably; the Quakers especially, who had the most severely suffered from the penal laws, were truly grateful for the relief thus afforded them. They accordingly prepared an address to the king, expressive of their gratitude for this seasonable relief; and William Penn and others were, by the yearly meeting, appointed to present the address, which was well received, and graciously responded to. The summer then coming on, William Penn traveled into several of the English counties, and held many large meetings. While at Chester, the king also arrived there, and went to the Quakers' meeting-house to hear Penn preach; a mark of respect he showed him at two or three other places, where they fell in with each other in the course of their respective tours. At Oxford they came in together; and here, as Mr. Clarkson observes, "William Penn had an opportunity of showing not only his courage but his consistency in those principles of religious liberty which he had defended during his whole life." The election of Dr. Hough to the presidency of Magdalen College, Oxford, having been illegally declared null and void, the King recommended Parker, Bishop of Oxford, to the presidentship. Parker having been an Independent, and being at this time suspected of Popish principles, the fellows would not agree to the recommendation; they even respectfully but firmly refused to comply with the king's express commands to elect the Bishop. William Penn, when on horseback the next morning, and about to quit Oxford, having been made acquainted with what had occurred, rode up to the Magdalen College and conversed with the fellows on the subject. Before he took his departure he wrote a letter, which he desired the fellows to present to the king, wherein he expressed his disapprobation of his Majesty's conduct. Dr. Sykes and Mr. Creech agree in speaking of this letter as intimating to the king the hard man could have been; informing them that he feared they had come too late, the king expecting that the measures he had taken would prove effectual; that he would, notwithstanding, make another effort; that he would read their papers to the king, unless peremptorily commanded to forbear," but that if he failed, they must attribute his want of success not to his want of will, but to his want of power." And that he did make this further trial to serve the college, there can be no doubt; for, as Mr. Clarkson observes, "no instance can be adduced wherein he ever forfeited his word, or broke his promise." But if made, the effort was ineffectual, for commissioners were sent to Oxford, to carry out the King's designs; Dr. Hough, and nearly all the fellows of Magdalen, were displaced, after a noble resistance, but were afterwards restored, when the king began to see the impolicy of his unjust proceedings. ness of the fellows' case, and as stating that | letter to a relation. In the course of converthey could not yield obedience to the man-sation, Penn seems to have been as explicit as date without a breach of their oaths, such a mandate being a force on conscience, and not very agreeable to the king's other gracious indulgences and Sewel, in his "History of the Rise and Progress of the Quakers," speaks of it in similar terms. This letter seems to have produced no good effect, "for the fellows remained resolute, and the king angry;" and soon after the departure of James from Oxford, it was reported that he "had issued an order to proceed against the college by writ of quo warranto." At this juncture, Dr. Bailey, one of the senior fellows, received the anonymous letter we have before mentioned, and which is given verbatim by Mr. Foster, as printed in the "State Trials." Internal evidence in abundance is afforded by the letter itself against the supposition of its having been written by Penn. It commences "Sir," and, though addressed personally to Dr. Bailey, the plural pronoun "you" is used throughout; it moreover concludes with the usual formula, "Your affectionate servant." These are all modes of expression directly contrary to William Penn's practice; and the only reason for Dr. Bailey's supposing it to have emanated from Penn, is its "charitable purpose," since, as he says, in writing to Penn on the subject of the letter, "you have been already so kind as to appear in our behalf, and are reported by all who know you, to employ much of your time in doing good to mankind, and using your credit with his Majesty to undeceive him in any wrong impressions given him of his conscientious subjects, and, where his justice and goodness have been thereby abused, to reconcile the persons injured to his Majesty's favor, and secure them by it from oppression and prejudice. In this confidence, I presume to make this application to you," &c.* The letter thus attributed to Penn, was, as we have seen, "disowned" by him. It is not known whether William Penn returned any reply to Dr. Bailey's letter; it is, however, certain that the college, still in alarm at the report of the writ, thought it worth while to try Penn's influence with the king, and accordingly sent a deputation of five persons to Windsor, where he then was the court being there at the same time-to bespeak his interference in their behalf. An account of two interviews with Penn is given by Dr. Hough, one of the deputation, in a This entirely confirms the testimony both of Clarkson and Croese, as to William Penn's benevoA ence. These seem to be the plain facts of the proceedings upon which Mr. Macaulay grounds his charge against Penn, of not scrupling "to become a broker in simony of a peculiarly discreditable kind," namely, that of using a bishopric as a bait to tempt a divine to commit perjury." This is an allusion to a remark made by Penn, to which we shall presently refer. Into the discussion of this difficult and now obscure Oxford business, Mr. Forster enters fully and fairly; and we are sure our readers will bear with us if we quote that portion of his preface which relates to it. "First," he observes," as regards Penn's earliest share in the business, viz., his conference with the fellows at Oxford, Mr. Macaulay says, Penn's agency was employed.' None of Wilmot's authorities, neither Anthony A. Wood, nor Sykes' and Creech's letters, mention any employment: they merely state, that after the king had met the fellows, Penn went to Magdalen College, but whether at the instigation of the court, or of his own feelings, they do not add. His object may, as has been well stated, have been, either to save the king from his dilemma, or the college from its peril.' The imputation of either motive is an assumption, but Mr. Macau lay's positive assertion that he was employed, is certainly unwarranted. "But Mr. Macaulay assumes much more than the fact of agency; he asserts not only that Penn was employed, but employed in order to 'terrify, caress, or bribe the college into submission.' If this was the task imposed on him, he certainly did not fulfil it, nor even attempt to fulfil it; for though, says Wilmot, 'he at first hoped to persuade the fellows to comply with the king's wishes, yet, when he heard the statement of the case,' that is, when he ascertained the true facts, 'he was satisfied that they could not comply without a breach of their oaths, and wrote a letter to the king on their behalf.' credit with his majesty to undeceive him in any wrong impression.' "It is a pity Mr. Macaulay has not quoted this reply of Bailey; his readers could then have judged how far the impression he gives of Penn's conduct was that felt by the parties most interested. "Lastly, comes the final interview at Windsor, in Mr. Macaulay's account of which the incorrect notion given by his disregard of time and place is plain enough. "Any one of his readers would suppose that this interview was sought by Penn, in performance of his office of seduction. He did not succeed in frightening the Magdalen men,' so he tried a gentler tone,' and accordingly had an interview with Hough,' &c. and began to hint at a compromise.' Who would imagine, after reading such sentences as these, that this conference took "Again, when Mr. Macaulay says that Penn, having too much good feeling to approve of the violent and unjust proceedings of the government' --(wonderful admission!)——even ventured to express part of what he thought,' it would have been well to have stated what part of his thoughts he can have concealed. The fellows allege their oath as their excuse for disobedience; this excuse they represent to Penn, who boldly and plainly repeats it to the king. Their case,' he says, was hard; they could not yield obedience without a breach of their oaths,' such mandates were a force on conscience.' What more could he or any one have said ?--and what other of James's court-place, not at the college, but at Windsor; a depuiers, who vied in his desertion and in fawning on his successor, when the courtly Quaker had courage to declare that the fallen monarch had been his friend and his father's friend,' would have dared to say as much? "Next, as to the letter addressed to Bailey, and attributed to Penn: in the first place there is no proof, or rather no probability, that this letter was his writing. It bears no signature, he never acknowledged any share in it, it is not alluded to as his by Hough in his account of the Windsor conference; and though Wilmot seems to suppose he never denied it, there is good reason to believe he did, inasmuch as the cotemporary copy of the proceedings in this case, preserved in the archives of Magdalen College, bears on the margin of this letter a manuscript memorandum- Mr. Penn disowned this.' Moreover, its very wording, the terms Sir' and Majesty,' are contrary to his notorious scruples and style of writing. Mr. Macaulay does indeed state, either on the authority of this anonymous epistle or his own imagination, that titles and phrases against which he had borne his tesimony dropped occasionally from his lips and his pen and possibly the fact that such phrases were inconsistent with his profession, and therefore with his sincerity, may be in Mr. Macaulay's mind reason why he should ascribe them to Penn; but as no other occasion is recorded in which they fell from him, and as no motive can be imagined for him to have thus belied the scruples of a life, for which he had so often suffered (nor, indeed, for him to conceal his name at all,) their use in this case would appear to be strong internal evidence against his authorship. "But even supposing that it is fair to charge him with the contents of this document, which plainly it is not, they by no means justify Mr. Macaulay's insinuations of intimidation,' attempts to seduce the college from the path of right,' to 'frighten the Magdalen men,' &c. "So far from the letter having given such ideas to Dr. Bailey, he grounds his guess that it was Penn's on its charitable purpose' making it seem to have been written by one who had been already so kind as to appear on their behalf,' and was' reported by all who knew him to employ much of his time in doing good to mankind, and using his tation of the fellows going forty miles to see the Quaker, more than a month after the interview at Oxford, and six days after the date of Bailey's letter, in consequence of whose entreaty for his intercession it was probably held ?"-Preface, p. xxxvii. In addition, Mr. Forster quotes from the "Tablet" of March 10, 1849, the masterly exposition of the discrepancies between the two accounts of the Windsor interview, as given by Mr. Macaulay and Dr. Hough, but we need quote no more than the following paragraph relative to the bait of the bishopric: It is true," says the writer, "that when somebody mentioned the Bishop of Oxford's indisposition, Penn, smiling,' asked the fellows how they would like Hough to be made a bishop? This remark, made as a joke, answered by Mr. Cradock as a joke, and-even by Dr. Hough, who answered it more seriously, not taken as an offer at any proposal by way of accommodation'-this casual piece of jocosity, picked out of a three hours' conversation, reported by one interlocutor without the privity of the other; and, if taken seriously, at variance with every other part of the conversation, and unconnected with its general tenor, is gravely brought forward as a proof that a man otherwise honest, deliberately intended to use simony,' as a bait to tempt a divine to what both parties knew to be 'perjury.'"-Preface, p. xl. We must now, however, draw our remarks to a close; but before we notice another of Mr. Macaulay's extraordinary perversions of facts, we must be allowed to call attention to one of the most noble actions of William Penn's career-an action strictly in accordance with the Scripture precept, "Thine own friend, and thy father's friend, forsake not." In the month of April of the memorable year 1688, the king |