have great weight, addressed a letter request-most serious of them refers. This is, indeed, ing a friendly explanation, and received an the only one that can be said materially to immediate reply; the question and response affect the character of Penn as an upright, do honor to both parties. Their intimacy, moral, and religious man; the minor charges, which had been interrupted by the suspicion, scattered through a hundred pages, showing was renewed ; and Tillotson, at Penn's re- that he preached at an execution ; that he quest, furnished the latter with a second was employed by a Roman Catholic monarch; letter, in which he declared, “with great that he said Sir," &c., &c., have just such joy,” that he was “fully satisfied there was no bearing on the sectarian controversies and just ground for the suspicion :" this letter opinions of the time as would allow partisans with Dr. Tillotson's permission, was shown on either side to exaggerate or palliate, praise wherever he had been quoted as either be- or condemn, according to the views which lieving or promoting the report of the Jesu- they themselves entertained. But the first itical prapensities of William Penn.

real crime charged to the account of the Soon after this, William Penn published a great Quaker leader is one that no sectarian work which appears to have led to some im- views, however peculiar, can defend—no poportant results. It was his Persuasive to litical opinions, however extreme, can justify. Moderation," and was addressed to the king The author evidently treats it as his pet acand his council. In this book he success- cusation ; works it up with the greatest care fully combats the position, that a state can and gusto, and recurs to it again and again, be endangered by religious toleration ; ad- with the most self-satisfied complacency; as ducing numerous examples to the contrary much as to say—“ There I had the Quaker from the history of many nations, ancient on the hip!" and modern. His arguments appear to have The history of Monmouth's rebellion in had considerable weight, for soon after the the reign of James II. is tolerably familiar publication of the book, the king issued a to all : it was a hopeless project, awkwardly proclamation for a general pardon to all who conducted and miserably ended : the ringwere imprisoned on account of their con- leaders were beheaded, the subordinates science; and this was accompanied by in- hanged, and all who had shown the least structions of the judges of assize, to liberate sympathy with the cause were condemned, all persons of this description. Not fewer the sentence of death being subsequently than twelve hundred Quakers alone, many of commuted to such a fine as could be wrung whom had been in confinement for years, from their terrified relatives. These fines were thus restored to their families and were given to court favorites, or court authorfriends. There is no doubt that this result ities; the queen herself took in hand several was due as much to the personal solicitations of the culprits whose wealthy connections of Penn, as to the work we have mentioned ; were ascertained, and made a fine harvest of though the latter no doubt contributed to it their fears. The story of the Maids of Taunnot a little, by setting the subject in a proper ton is matter of history; banners were emlight before the community at large. broidered, processions formed, and the un

William Penn being about to visit the con- lucky prince was welcomed with every mark tinental churches in order to diffuse the prin- of sympathy. Of course, the wrath of the ciples of his society, be received from the monarch was excited against all parties conking a commission to confer with the Prince cerned : some were burned, some died in of Orange at the Hague, “and endeavor to prison, but gain his consent to a general religious toleration in England, together with the removal of “ Most of the young ladies who had walked in all tests." He had several interviews with the procession were still alive. Some of them the prince, but was opposed by Burnet, der the orders of their schoolmistress, without

were under ten years of age. All had acted unwhom he met there, and who, though favor, knowing that they were committing a crime. able to toleration, was opposed to the removal The Queen's maids of honor asked the royal perof tests. Penn would not relax in his views; mission to wring money out of the parents of the and the consequence was a coolness between poor children; and the permission was granted. him and Burnet, who afterwards spoke of An order was sent down to Taunton that all these him sneeringly in his “ History of His Own little girls should be seized and imprisoned. Sir Times.”

Francis Warre, of Hestercombe, the Tory memIt is now time to revert to Mr. Macaulay's the office of exacting the ransom.

ber for Bridgewater, was requested to undertake

He was charges, it being about this period that the charged to declare in strong language that the circumstances occurred to which the first and ) maids of honor would not endure delay, that they

[ocr errors]

were determined to prosecute to outlawry, unless | name, and the fact of employment on a somea reasonable sum were forthcoming, and that by what similar service, and on the other side, a reasonable sum was meant seven thousand the unbending scrupulosity of the Quaker, pounds. Warre excused himself from taking any would have pointed out George Penne, as part in a transaction so scandalous. The maids of honor then requested William Penn to act for

the likelier man of the two for such a serthem, and Penn accepted the commission.”— vice. Macaulay, vol. i. p. 655.

2. By whom is the appeal to Mr. Penne “ The Maids of Honor requested William

made? Penn to act for them, and Penn accepted the Our readers will see, on perusing Sundercommission.” Mr. Macaulay might reason- land's letter attentively, that it admits of two ably expect that some of Penn's fellow-pro- constructions ; first, that Mr. Penne was fessors would demur to such an assertion as employed at the “ request” of the Maids this, and he has therefore cited all the proof of Honor, or secondly, at the “ request” of within his reach, and that is confined to a the Maids of Taunton ; in the latter case, solitary letter from the Earl of Sunderland, the Mr. Penne would be appealed to as a then Home Secretary, which is still preserved mediator, and the somewhat similar case in the State Paper Office, and of which the of Mr. Pinney again points to Mr. George following is a verbatim copy.

Penne. “Whitehall, Febry. 13th, 1685-6.

3. By whom was the iniquitous negotiation “MR. PENNE.—Her Majestie's Maids of Hon. actually conducted ? our having acquainted me, that they designe to History is very clear on this point ; Oldemploy you and Mr. Walden in making a com- mixon, a contemporary historian and an eyeposition with the Relations of the Maids of Taun- witness, gives the following graphic account ton for the high Misdemeanor they have been guilty of, I do at their request hereby let you

of the affair : The Court was so unmerciknow that her Majesty has been pleased to give ful, that they excepted the poor girls of their Fines to the said Maids of Honour, and Taunton, who gave Monmouth colors, out of therefore recommend it to Mr. Walden and you their pretended pardon, and every one of to make the most advantageous composition you them was forced to pay as much money as can in their behalfe.

would have been a good portion to each, for “ I am, Sir, your humble Servant, “ SUNDERLAND P.”

particular pardons. This money, and a great - Macaulay, vol i. p. 655.

deal more, was said to be for the maids of

honor, whose agent, Brett, the Popish lawyer, Now admitting the authenticity of Sun- had an under agent, one Crane, of Bridgederland's letter, and taking it for granted water, and 'tis supposed that both of them that Mr. Macaulay has quoted it VERBATIM, paid themselves very bountifully out of the there are three points worthy of especial money which was raised by this means, some notice:

instances of which are within my knowledge." 1. To whom was the said leller addressed?

Oldmixon, vol. ii. p. 708. At the period in question, there were two Mr. Macaulay quotes. Oldmixon whenever gentlemen at court to whom such a docu- it serves his purpose ; he even quotes him on ment might have been addressed ; first, Wil. this very matter of the Monmouth rebellion ; liam, the son of Admiral Penn, a gentleman and yet this passage, which removes all doubts of high standing, great influence, and consi- as to the actual negotiator, is carefully kept derable wealth, whose probity and honor, up back, and we are gravely told that William to the publication of this history, have never Penn“ accepted the commission.” Out been doubted; and of whose name, Mr. Ma- upon such perversion of history ! caulay 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, near ing in the city of London, was pressed by Crewkerne, in Somersetshire, whose sen- the king to accept the alderman's gown, and 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 man whose aim was to mollify the exaspedecline the honor. Macaulay charges Penn rated monarch on the one side, and to inwith being employed by the king to per- duce the University to make some concessuade Kiffin into compliance, and he cites sions on the other. The circumstances conKiffin's “ Memoirs" as evidence of the fact; nected with this affair, appear to be the folthe passages are very brief, and we give lowing :- In the April of 1687, we are told them both together :

that “the king, influenced in part by his representations, issued a declaration of liberty

of conscience for England, and for suspend" Penn was employed in the work of seduction, ing the execution of all penal laws in matbut to no purpose,"— Macaulay, ii. 230.

ters ecclesiastical.” By this declaration Protestant dissenters enjoyed their meetings

peaceably; the Quakers especially, who had "I used all the means I could to be excused, the most severely suffered from the penal both by some lords near the king, and also by Sir laws, were truly grateful for the relief thus Nicholas Butler and Mr. Penn.”— Kijin's Me- afforded them. They accordingly prepared moirs, p. 84.

an address to the king, expressive of their

gratitude for this seasonable relief; and This brief sentence is all that is pre- | William Penn and others were, by the yearserved, and no writer but Kiffin (prior to Mr. ly meeting, appointed to present the address, Macaulay) makes any allusion to the sub- which was well received, and graciously ject. Here the exact converse of the truth responded to. The summer then coming on, is set forth as truth : Mr. Macaulay makes William Penn traveled into several of the the king employ Penn to seduce Kiffin ; Kif- English counties, and held many large meetfin states that he employed Penn to plead ings. While at Chester, the king also with the king. Then what does the phrase, arrived there, and went to the Quakers' “to no purpose,” mean? The obvious mean- meeting-house to hear Penn preach; a ing would be, that Kiffin refused the honor mark of respect he showed bim at two or in tolo: but this was not so; for, although three other places, where they fell in with evidently reluctant, Kiffin accepted and wore each other in the course of their respective the alderman's gown.

tours. At Oxford they came in together ; Another, and much more labored accusa- and here, Mr. Clarkson observes, tion, is partly based on a letter, said, by some “William Penn had an opportunity of of William Penn's enemies, to have been showing not only his courage but his written by him. This letter is still preserved consistency in those principles of religious in the archives of Magdalen College, Oxford ; liberty which he had defended during his and Mr. Forster, with a perseverance worthy whole life.” The election of Dr. Hough the cause he is defending, has found that it to the presidency of Magdalen College, is strictly anonymous, and that it bears the Oxford, having been illegally declared null following memorandum on the back, “Mr. and void, the King recommended Parker, Penn disowned this." This letter abounds Bishop of Oxford, to the presidentship. with those terms which the Friends have al. Parker having been an Independent, and ways held as merely complimentary, and being at this time suspected of Popish printherefore objectionable; such as, “Sir," ciples, the fellows would not agree to the re“Majesty," &c.: and this intrinsic proof of commendation ; they even respectfully but its not being written by Penn, is, with a cu- firmly refused to comply with the king's exrious pertinacity in perversion, turned by press commands to elect the Bishop. WilMr. Macaulay to that gentleman's disad- liam Penn, when on horseback the next vantage:"Titles and phrases, against morning, and about to quit Oxford, having which he had borne his testimony, dropped been made acquainted with what had ococcasionally from his lips and his pen.” | curred, rode up to the Magdalen College This anonymous letter is the only proof. and conversed with the fellows on the sub

The celebrated struggle between James ject. Before he took his departure he wrote and the University of Oxford is familiar to a letter, which he desired the fellows to premost of our readers: with this, Penn's sent to the king, wherein he expressed his name is certainly connected, but history has disapprobation of his Majesty's conduct. Dr. regarded him as a moderator, or mediator | Sykes and Mr. Creech agree in speaking of between the University and the Crown; a this letter as intimating to the king the hard


ness of the fellows' case, and as stating that I 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 man could have been ; informing them that mandate being a force on conscience, and not he feared they had come too late, the king very agreeable to the king's other grarious in- expecting that the measures he had taken dulgences: and Sewel, in his “ History of the would prove effectual ; that he would, notRise and Progress of the Quakers," speaks withstanding, make another effort; that he of it in similar terms. This letter seems to would read their papers to the king, unless have produced no good effect, "for the felperemptorily commanded to forbear," but that lows remained resolute, and the king angry;" | if he failed, they must attribute his want of and soon after the departure of James from success not to his want of will, but to his Oxford, it was reported that he “ had issued want of power.” And that he did make this an order to proceed against the college by further trial to serve the college, there can be writ of quo warranto.” At this juncture, Dr. no doubt ; for, as Mr. Clarkson observes, Bailey, one of the senior fellows, received no instance can be adduced wherein he ever the anonymous letter we have before men- forfeited his word, or broke his promise.” tioned, and which is given verbatim by Mr. But if made, the effort was ineffectual, for Foster, as printed in the “ State Trials.” In commissioners were sent to Oxford, to carry ternal evidence in abundance is afforded by out the King's designs; Dr. Hough, and the letter itself against the supposition of its nearly all the fellows of Magdalen, were dishaving been written by, Penn. It commences placed, after a noble resistance, but were af“Sir,” and, though addressed personally to terwards restored, when the king began to Dr. Bailey, the plural pronoun "you" is used see the impolicy of his unjust proceedings. throughout; it moreover concludes with the

These seem to be the plain facts of the usual formula, “ Your affectionate servant.' proceedings upon which Mr. Macaulay These are all modes of expression directly grounds his charge against Penn, of not contrary to William Penn's practice; and the scrupling “to become a broker in simony of only reason for Dr. Bailey's supposing it to a peculiarly discreditable kind,” namely, that have emanated from Penn, is its “charitable of using a bishopric as a bait to tempt a dipurpose,” since, as he says, in writing to vine to commit perjury." This is an allusion Penn on the subject of the letter, "you to a remark made by Penn, to which we have been already so kind as to appear in our shall presently refer. 'Into the discussion of behalf, and are reported by all who know this difficult and now obscure Oxford busiyou, to employ much of your time in doing ness, Mr. Forster enters fully and fairly ; good to mankind, and using your credit with and we are sure our readers will bear with his Majesty to undeceive him in any wrong us if we quote that portion of his preface impressions given him of his conscientious sub- which relates to it. jects, and, where his justice and goodness have been thereby abused, to reconcile the “ First,” he observes, “ as regards Penn's earpersons injured to his Majesty's favor, and liest share in the business, viz., his conference secure them by it from oppression and pre

with the fellows at Oxford, Mr. Macaulay says, judice. In this confidence, I presume to make Penn's agency was employed.? None of W1lthis application to you,” &c.* The letter mot's authorities, neither Anthony A. Wood,

nor Sykes' and Creech's letters, mention any emthus attributed to Penn, was, as we have ployment : they merely state, that after the king seen, " disowned” by him.

had met the fellows, Penn went to Magdalen It is not known whether William Penn re- College, but whether at the instigation of the turned any reply to Dr. Bailey's letter; it is, court, or of his own feelings, they do not add. however, certain that the college, still in His object may, as has been well stated, have alarm at the report of the writ, thought it been, either to save the king from his dilemma, worth while to try Penn's influence with the

or the college from its peril.' The imputation of king, and accordingly sent a deputation of lay's positive assertion that he was employed, is

either motive is an assumption, but Mr. Macaufive persons to Windsor, where he then was-

certainly unwarranted. the court being there at the same time—to “But Mr. Macaulay assumes much more than bespeak his interference in their behalf. An the fact of agency; he asserts not only that Penn account of two interviews with Penn is given was employed, but employed in order to‘terrify; by Dr. Hough, one of the deputation, in a

caress, or bribe the college into submission. If

this was the task imposed on him, he certainly * This entirely confirms the testimony both of did not fulfil it, nor even attempt to fulfil it; for Clarkson and Croese, as to William Penn's benevo- though, says Wilmot, ‘he at first hoped to per

suade the fellows to comply with the king's wishes,


yet, when he heard the statement of the case,' \ credit with his majesty to undeceive him in any that is, when he ascertained the true facts, he wrong impression.' was satisfied that they could not comply without “ Ii is a pity Mr. Macaulay has not quoted this a breach of their oaths, and wrote a letter to the reply of Bailey; his readers could then have judged king on their behalf.'

how far the impression he gives of Penn's conduct “Again, when Mr. Macaulay says that Penn, was that felt by the parties most interested. having too much good feeling to approve of the " Lastly, comes the final interview at Windsor, violent and unjust proceedings of the government in Mr. Macaulay's account of which the incorrect --(wonderful admission !)— even ventured to ex- notion given by his disregard of time and place is press part of what he thought, it would have been plain enough. well to have stated what part of his thoughts he * Any one of his readers would suppose that can have concealed. The fellows allege their this interview was sought by Penn, in performance oath as their excuse for disobedience; this excuse of his office of seduction. He did not succeed in they represent to Penn, who boldly and plainly re- frightening the Magdalen men,' so he tried a peats it to the king. Their case,' he says, was gentler tone,' and accordingly had an interview hard;' they could not yield obedience without a with Hough,' &c. and · began to hint at a comprobreach of their oaths, such mandates were a mise.' Who would imagine, after reading such force on conscience.' What more could he or any sentences as these, that this conference took one have said ?--and what other of James's couri- place, not at the college, but at Windsor; a depuiers, who vied in his desertion and in fawning on tation of the fellows going forty miles to see the his successor, when the courtly Quaker had Quaker, more than a month after the interview at courage to declare that the fallen monarch “had Oxford, and six days after the date of Bailey's been his friend and his father's friend,' would letter, in consequence of whose entreaty for his have dared to say as much ?

intercession it was probably held ?”—Preface, p. “ Next, as to the letter addressed to Bailey, and xxxvii. attributed to Penn: in the first place there is no proof, or rather no probability, that this letter was In addition, Mr. Forster quotes from the his writing. It bears no signature, he never ac- “ Tablet” of March 10, 1849, the masterly knowledged any share in it, it is not alluded to as exposition of the discrepancies between the his by Hough in his account of the Windsor conference; and though Wilmot seems to suppose he

two accounts of the Windsor interview, as never denied it, there is good reason to believe he given by Mr. Macaulay and Dr. Hough, but did, inasmuch as the cotemporary copy of the pro

we need quote no more than the following ceedings in this case, preserved in the archives of paragraph relative to the bait of the bishopMagdalen College, bears on the margin of this ric:letter a manuscript memorandum—'Mr. Penn disowned this. Moreover, its very wording, the “ It is true," says the writer, “ that when someterms 'Sir' and · Majesty,' are contrary to his no- body mentioned the Bishop of Oxford's indispositorious scruples and style of writing. Mr. Macau- tion, Penn, smiling,' asked the fellows how they lay does indeed state, either on the authority of would like Hough to be made a bishop? This this anonymous epistle or his own imagination, remark, made as a joke, answered by Mr. Cradock that' titles and phrases against which he had borne

as a joke, and—even by Dr. Hough, who answerhis tesimony dropped occasionally from his lipsed it more seriously, not taken as an offer at any and his pen;' and possibly the fact that such proposal by way of accommodation—this casual phrases were inconsistent with his profession, and piece of jocositý, picked out of a three hours' contherefore with his sincerity, may be in Mr. versation, reported by one interlocutor without the Macaulay's mind reason why he should ascribe privity of the other; and, if taken seriously, at them to Penn; but as no other occasion is record- variance with every other part of the conversation, ed in which they fell from him, and as no motive and unconnected with its general tenor, is gravely can be imagined for him to have thus belied the brought forward as a proof that a man otherwise scruples of a life, for which he had so often suf- honest, deliberately intended to use simony, as a fered (nor, indeed, for him to conceal his name at bait to tempt a divine to what both parties knew all,) their use in this case would appear to be to be perjury." "-Preface, p. xl. strong internal evidence against his authorship.

" But even supposing that it is fair to charge him with the contents of this document, which

We must now, however, draw our remarks plainly it is not, they by no means justify Mr. to a close ; but before we notice another of Macaulay's insinuations of intimidation,' attempts Mr. Macaulay's extraordinary perversions of to seduce the college from the path of right,"to facts, we must be allowed to call attention to frighten the Magdalen men,' &c.

one of the most noble actions of William " So far from the letter having given such ideas Penn's career—an action strictly in accorto Dr. Bailey, he grounds his guess that it was dance with the Scripture precept, “ Thine Penn's on its charitable purpose' making it seem to have been written by one who had been already

own friend, and thy father's friend, forsake so kind as to appear on their behalf,' and was re

not." ported by all who knew him to employ much of In the month of April of the memorable his time in doing good to mankind, and using his year 1688, the king

[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »